UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)

OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION

 

 

 

OFFICE ACTION

 

STRICT DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER

TO AVOID ABANDONMENT OF APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION, THE USPTO MUST RECEIVE APPLICANT’S COMPLETE RESPONSE TO THIS LETTER WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF THE ISSUE/MAILING DATE BELOW.  A RESPONSE TRANSMITTED THROUGH THE TRADEMARK ELECTRONIC APPLICATION SYSTEM (TEAS) MUST BE RECEIVED BEFORE MIDNIGHT EASTERN TIME OF THE LAST DAY OF THE RESPONSE PERIOD.

 

 

ISSUE/MAILING DATE: 5/25/2017

 

 

 

This Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on May 2, 2017.

 

In the Response, the applicant presented arguments against the Section 2(e)(2) refusal, asserting that the applied-for mark has acquired distinction under Trademark Act Section 2(f) based on prior registrations and based on five years of use.  The applicant’s assertions of acquired distinction are not accepted as 1) the applied-for mark is based on an intent to use the mark in commerce and applicant has not shown a nexus between the goods in the claimed prior registrations and 2) the dates of use in the instant application do not support five year’s use.  Additionally, the applicant has asserted acquired distinctiveness in part as to the wording OREGON, however, the claim of acquired distinctiveness should be as to the whole.  These issues are addressed below.

 

The Section 2(e)(2) refusal is MAINTAINED AND CONTINUED.

 

ACQUIRED DISTINCTIVENESS BASED ON PRIOR REGISTRATIONS – RELATEDNESS OF GOODS NOT SELF EVIDENT

 

Applicant claims that a portion of the applied-for mark has acquired distinctiveness under Trademark Act Section 2(f) based on applicant’s prior registrations for the same mark.  First, the applicant references one registration – 3850871 which has been cancelled in the Office’s database of marks and is thus not an adequate basis to assert acquired distinction.  See TMEP §1212.04(d) (stating that a claim of acquired distinctiveness may not be based on a registration that is cancelled or expired).  Second, the similarity or relatedness of the goods in the prior registrations and the instant application is not self-evident and therefore applicant’s Section 2(f) claim is not acceptable without additional information.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b); TMEP §1212.04(c). 

 

Although an applicant’s ownership of one or more active prior registrations of the same mark may be sufficient for a prima facie showing of acquired distinctiveness, the prior registrations must be for sufficiently similar or related goods such that distinctiveness will transfer to the goods in the application.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.41(a)(1); In re Rogers, 53 USPQ2d 1741, 1744 (TTAB 1999) (citing Levi Strauss & Co. v. Genesco, Inc., 742 F.2d 1401, 1405, 222 USPQ 939, 942 (Fed. Cir. 1984)); TMEP §§1212.04, 1212.04(c).

 

Therefore, applicant must submit evidence and an explanation as to how the goods in the claimed active prior registrations are similar or related to the goods in the application such that distinctiveness will transfer to the goods in the application.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b); Bausch & Lomb, Inc. v. Leupold & Stevens, Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1475, 1477-78 (TTAB 1988); TMEP §1212.04(c).

 

In this case, the applicant has applied-for goods identified as “Metal hardware, namely, bolts, nuts, springs, washers, clips, keys, rods, shafts, shaft collars, fittings, pins, linkages, handles, knobs, gears, rivets; metal containers for liquid fuel; metal ramps; signs, non-luminous and non-mechanical, of metal.”  None of the goods in the prior registrations upon which the applicant relies to assert acquired distinctiveness pertain to these types of metal hardware goods.  Rather, the prior registrations pertain to agricultural machinery, parts for motors and engines, and parts of outdoor power equipment, chains for saw chains and chain saw guide bars, outdoor power equipment in the nature of chain saws, hedge trimmers, line trimmers, edgers and structural fittings for these goods, chain saw hand tools, and other chain saw parts.  Thus it is not readily apparent that the applied-for goods in the current application are sufficiently related to the goods in the prior registrations such that distinctiveness will transfer to the goods in this application. 

 

APPLICATION BASED ON SECTION 1(b) – DATES OF USE DO NOT SUPPORT FIVE YEARS

 

This application is currently based on an intent to use the mark in commerce, Section 1(b) basis.  However, the applicant has asserted that the applied-for mark has acquired distinction in part as to the wording OREGON based on five years use of the term OREGON.  The record does not support the applicant’s contention that the applied-for mark has become distinctive of the goods identified in this application based on the applicant’s substantially exclusive use of the mark in U.S. commerce for at least the five years immediately before the date of the statement because the application is currently based on an intent to use the mark in commerce.  Applicant’s Trademark Act Section 2(f) claim based on five years’ use is insufficient to show acquired distinctiveness because applicant’s dates of use of the mark indicate that applicant has not actually used the mark in commerce for the requisite time period.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(f). 

 

An intent-to-use applicant who has used the same mark on related goods may assert a claim of acquired distinctiveness under Trademark Act Section 2(f) before filing an allegation of use, if applicant can establish that, as a result of applicant’s use of the same mark on other goods and/or services, the mark has become distinctive of the goods and/or services in the intent-to-use application, and that this previously created distinctiveness will transfer to the goods and/or services in the intent-to-use application when use in commerce begins.  In re Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp., 240 F.3d 1341, 1347, 57 USPQ2d 1807, 1812 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re Binion, 93 USPQ2d 1531, 1538 (TTAB 2009); TMEP §1212.09(a).

 

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has set forth the following two requirements for showing that a mark in an intent-to-use application has acquired distinctiveness:

 

(1)       Applicant must establish that the same mark has acquired distinctiveness as to the other goods and/or services, by submitting evidence such as ownership of an active prior registration for the same mark for sufficiently similar or related goods and/or services, a prima facie showing of acquired distinctiveness based on five years’ use of the same mark with related goods and/or services, or actual evidence of acquired distinctiveness for the same mark with respect to the other goods and/or services; and

 

(2)       Applicant must show sufficient relatedness of the goods and/or services in the intent-to-use application and those for which the mark has acquired distinctiveness to warrant the conclusion that the previously created distinctiveness will transfer to the goods and/or services in the application upon use.  The showing necessary to establish relatedness will be decided on a case-by-case basis and will depend upon the nature of the goods and/or services involved and the language used to identify them in the application.

 

TMEP §1212.09(a); see Kellogg Co. v. Gen. Mills Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1766, 1770-71 (TTAB 2007); In re Rogers, 53 USPQ2d 1741, 1744-45 (TTAB 1999).

 

RESPONSE GUIDELINES

 

For this application to proceed further, applicant must explicitly address each refusal and/or requirement raised in this Office action.  If the action includes a refusal, applicant may provide arguments and/or evidence as to why the refusal should be withdrawn and the mark should register.  Applicant may also have other options specified in this Office action for responding to a refusal and should consider those options carefully.  To respond to requirements and certain refusal response options, applicant should set forth in writing the required changes or statements.  For more information and general tips on responding to USPTO Office actions, response options, and how to file a response online, see “Responding to Office Actions” on the USPTO’s website.

 

If applicant does not respond to this Office action within six months of the issue/mailing date, or responds by expressly abandoning the application, the application process will end and the trademark will fail to register.  See 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.65(a), 2.68(a); TMEP §§718.01, 718.02.  Additionally, the USPTO will not refund the application filing fee, which is a required processing fee.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(1)(i)-(iv), 2.209(a); TMEP §405.04.

 

When an application has abandoned for failure to respond to an Office action, an applicant may timely file a petition to revive the application, which, if granted, would allow the application to return to active status.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.66; TMEP §1714.  The petition must be filed within two months of the date of issuance of the notice of abandonment and may be filed online via the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) with a $100 fee.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(15)(ii), 2.66(b)(1).

 

If applicant has questions regarding this Office action, please telephone or e-mail the assigned trademark examining attorney.  All relevant e-mail communications will be placed in the official application record; however, an e-mail communication will not be accepted as a response to this Office action and will not extend the deadline for filing a proper response.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(c), 2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05.  Further, although the trademark examining attorney may provide additional explanation pertaining to the refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) in this Office action, the trademark examining attorney may not provide legal advice or statements about applicant’s rights.  See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06.

 

TEAS PLUS OR TEAS REDUCED FEE (TEAS RF) APPLICANTS – TO MAINTAIN LOWER FEE, ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS MUST BE MET, INCLUDING SUBMITTING DOCUMENTS ONLINE:  Applicants who filed their application online using the lower-fee TEAS Plus or TEAS RF application form must (1) file certain documents online using TEAS, including responses to Office actions (see TMEP §§819.02(b), 820.02(b) for a complete list of these documents); (2) maintain a valid e-mail correspondence address; and (3) agree to receive correspondence from the USPTO by e-mail throughout the prosecution of the application.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.22(b), 2.23(b); TMEP §§819, 820.  TEAS Plus or TEAS RF applicants who do not meet these requirements must submit an additional processing fee of $125 per class of goods and/or services.  37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(1)(v), 2.22(c), 2.23(c); TMEP §§819.04, 820.04.  However, in certain situations, TEAS Plus or TEAS RF applicants may respond to an Office action by authorizing an examiner’s amendment by telephone or e-mail without incurring this additional fee.  

 

 

 

 

/Natalie L. Kenealy/

Examing Attorney

Law Office 104

571-272-7817

Natalie.Kenealy@uspto.gov

 

TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER:  Go to http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp.  Please wait 48-72 hours from the issue/mailing date before using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), to allow for necessary system updates of the application.  For technical assistance with online forms, e-mail TEAS@uspto.gov.  For questions about the Office action itself, please contact the assigned trademark examining attorney.  E-mail communications will not be accepted as responses to Office actions; therefore, do not respond to this Office action by e-mail.

 

All informal e-mail communications relevant to this application will be placed in the official application record.

 

WHO MUST SIGN THE RESPONSE:  It must be personally signed by an individual applicant or someone with legal authority to bind an applicant (i.e., a corporate officer, a general partner, all joint applicants).  If an applicant is represented by an attorney, the attorney must sign the response. 

 

PERIODICALLY CHECK THE STATUS OF THE APPLICATION:  To ensure that applicant does not miss crucial deadlines or official notices, check the status of the application every three to four months using the Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) system at http://tsdr.gov.uspto.report/.  Please keep a copy of the TSDR status screen.  If the status shows no change for more than six months, contact the Trademark Assistance Center by e-mail at TrademarkAssistanceCenter@uspto.gov or call 1-800-786-9199.  For more information on checking status, see http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/process/status/.

 

TO UPDATE CORRESPONDENCE/E-MAIL ADDRESS:  Use the TEAS form at http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/correspondence.jsp.

 

 

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)

 

 

IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING YOUR

U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION

 

USPTO OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) HAS ISSUED

ON 5/25/2017 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 87129268

 

Please follow the instructions below:

 

(1)  TO READ THE LETTER:  Click on this link or go to http://tsdr.uspto.gov,enter the U.S. application serial number, and click on “Documents.”

 

The Office action may not be immediately viewable, to allow for necessary system updates of the application, but will be available within 24 hours of this e-mail notification.

 

(2)  TIMELY RESPONSE IS REQUIRED:  Please carefully review the Office action to determine (1) how to respond, and (2) the applicable response time period.  Your response deadline will be calculated from 5/25/2017 (or sooner if specified in the Office action).  A response transmitted through the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) must be received before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period.  For information regarding response time periods, see http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/process/status/responsetime.jsp.

 

Do NOT hit “Reply” to this e-mail notification, or otherwise e-mail your response because the USPTO does NOT accept e-mails as responses to Office actions.  Instead, the USPTO recommends that you respond online using the TEAS response form located at http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp.

 

(3)  QUESTIONS:  For questions about the contents of the Office action itself, please contact the assigned trademark examining attorney.  For technical assistance in accessing or viewing the Office action in the Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) system, please e-mail TSDR@uspto.gov.

 

WARNING

 

Failure to file the required response by the applicable response deadline will result in the ABANDONMENT of your application.  For more information regarding abandonment, see http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/basics/abandon.jsp.

 

PRIVATE COMPANY SOLICITATIONS REGARDING YOUR APPLICATION:  Private companies not associated with the USPTO are using information provided in trademark applications to mail or e-mail trademark-related solicitations.  These companies often use names that closely resemble the USPTO and their solicitations may look like an official government document.  Many solicitations require that you pay “fees.” 

 

Please carefully review all correspondence you receive regarding this application to make sure that you are responding to an official document from the USPTO rather than a private company solicitation.  All official USPTO correspondence will be mailed only from the “United States Patent and Trademark Office” in Alexandria, VA; or sent by e-mail from the domain “@uspto.gov.”  For more information on how to handle private company solicitations, see http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/solicitation_warnings.jsp.