To: | Blount, Inc. (chiipmail@gtlaw.com) |
Subject: | U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 87129281 - OREGON - 135133.01050 |
Sent: | 5/19/2017 4:54:57 PM |
Sent As: | ECOM122@USPTO.GOV |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 |
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 87129281
MARK: OREGON
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
CLICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER: http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp
|
APPLICANT: Blount, Inc.
|
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: CORRESPONDENT E-MAIL ADDRESS: |
|
OFFICE ACTION
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: 5/19/2017
This Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on May 2, 2017.
In a previous action dated November 22, 2016, the examining attorney refused registration of the applied-for mark as primarily merely geographically descriptive of applicant’s goods pursuant to Trademark Act Section 2(e)(2). Additionally, the examining attorney required applicant to acceptably amend the identification of goods.
Based on applicant’s response, the examining attorney notes that the requirement that applicant amend the identification of goods is satisfied.
The refusal to register under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(2) is MAINTAINED and CONTINUED.
Additionally, upon further review of applicant’s response, the examining attorney has determined that applicant’s claims of acquired distinctiveness under Trademark Act Section 2(f) are not acceptable for the reasons set forth below.
Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issue(s) below. 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(a), 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.
SUMMARY OF ISSUES:
· Section 2(f) Acquired Distinctiveness Claims Not Acceptable
SECTION 2(f) ACQUIRED DISTINCTIVENESS CLAIMS NOT ACCEPTABLE
Applicant claims that the applied-for mark has acquired distinctiveness as to the word “OREGON” under Trademark Act Section 2(f) based on applicant’s prior registrations for marks containing the relevant portion of the applied-for mark. However, 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).
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, by submitting evidence such as ownership of an active prior registration for the same mark for sufficiently similar or related goods, a prima facie showing of acquired distinctiveness based on five years’ use of the same mark with related goods, or actual evidence of acquired distinctiveness for the same mark with respect to the other goods; and
(2) Applicant must show sufficient relatedness of the goods 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 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 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).
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 registration(s) 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 registration(s) 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).
Moreover, applicant bases its claim of Section 2(f) acquired distinctiveness in part on its ownership of Reg. No. 3850871. However, the claimed registration was cancelled on May 1, 2017. See attached registration. A claim of acquired distinctiveness under Trademark Act Section 2(f) may not be based on a registration that is cancelled or expired. 37 C.F.R. §2.41(a)(1); In re Koninklijke Philips Elecs. N.V., 112 USPQ2d 1177, 1186 (TTAB 2014) (citing In re BankAmerica Corp., 229 USPQ 852, 853 (TTAB 1986)); TMEP §1212.04(d).
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).
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. 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.
/Kyle D. Simcox/
Trademark Examining Attorney
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Law Office 122
(571) 272-7851
Kyle.Simcox@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.