To: | Steve Blakley (mjordan@bracepointlaw.com) |
Subject: | U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 87334923 - FURY - N/A |
Sent: | 2/10/2018 5:40:29 PM |
Sent As: | ECOM122@USPTO.GOV |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 |
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 87334923
MARK: FURY
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
CLICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER: http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp
|
APPLICANT: Steve Blakley
|
|
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: 2/10/2018
This Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on December 13, 2017.
In a previous Office action dated May 17, 2017, applicant was required to respond to a Name of Living Individual Inquiry. Applicant responded by specifying that the name or portrait shown in the mark does not identify a particular living individual.
Based upon applicant’s response, the trademark examining attorney notes that the following requirement has been satisfied:
See TMEP §713.02.
However, based on information in applicant’s response, the trademark examining attorney now issues the following new refusal:
See TMEP §§706, 711.02.
SECTION 2(c) REFUSAL – CONSENT TO REGISTER MARK IS NOT OF RECORD
A determination that a person is publicly connected with the business in which the mark is being used may be based on evidence that the named individual is well known in the relevant field of goods or services, is associated in some manner with the applicant (e.g., the named individual is a corporate officer or partner of the applicant), and/or is actually connected to the goods or services at issue (e.g., the named individual invented the identified goods in the application), and, as a result, the relevant public will recognize or perceive the name as identifying that particular individual. See Krause v. Krause Publ’ns Inc., 76 USPQ2d 1904, 1909-10 (TTAB 2005); In re Sauer, 27 USPQ2d 1073, 1075 (TTAB 1993); TMEP §1206.02.
Furthermore, Section 2(c) applies not only to the full name of an individual, but also to any first name, surname, shortened name, pseudonym, stage name, title, or nickname that identifies a particular living individual. In re Nieves & Nieves LLC, 113 USPQ2d 1629, 1639 (TTAB 2015) (holding registration of the mark PRINCESS KATE barred under Section 2(c) in the absence of consent to register, because the mark “points uniquely and unmistakably to Kate Middleton,” the Duchess of Cambridge, whose identity is renowned); In re Hoefflin, 97 USPQ2d 1174, 1177-78 (TTAB 2010) (holding registration of the marks OBAMA PAJAMA, OBAMA BAHAMA PAJAMAS, and BARACK’S JOCKS DRESS TO THE LEFT barred under Section 2(c) in the absence of consent to register, because the marks create a direct association with President Barack Obama); In re Sauer, 27 USPQ2d 1073, 1074-75 (TTAB 1993) (holding registration of a mark containing BO, used in connection with a sports ball, barred under Section 2(c) in the absence of consent to register, because BO is the nickname of the well-known athlete BO JACKSON and thus use of the mark would lead to the assumption that he was associated with the goods), aff’d per curiam, 26 F.3d 140 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Here, the evidence of record establishes that the individual named in the mark is publicly connected with applicant. Particularly, in the application dated February 14, 2017, applicant specified that Steve Blakely is the owner of the mark doing business as “FURY”. Moreover, the attached evidence from Insomniac, Westword, V2presents.com, and Wikipedia demonstrates that the applied-for mark FURY is the disc jockey stage name of Steve Blakely, the owner of the mark. However, the written consent of Steve Blakely to register the applied-for mark has not been made of record.
Based upon the foregoing, registration is refused because pursuant to Trademark Act Section 2(c) because the applied-for mark consists of or comprises a name, portrait, or signature identifying a particular living individual whose written consent to register the mark is not of record.
The refusal under Section 2(c) will be withdrawn if applicant provides both of the following:
(1) A statement that the name shown in the mark identifies Steve Blakely, a living individual whose consent is of record. If the name represents that of a pseudonym, stage name, title and name combination, or nickname, applicant must include a statement that FURY identifies the stage name of Steve Blakely, a living individual whose consent is of record.
(2) A written consent, personally signed by the individual whose name, signature, or portrait appears in the mark, authorizing applicant to register the identifying matter as a trademark and/or service mark with the USPTO; for example, an applicant may use, if applicable, the following: “I, Steven Blakely, consent to the use and registration of my name as a trademark and/or service mark with the USPTO.”
See TMEP §§813, 813.01(a), 1206.04(a).
Applicant is advised that the written consent must include a statement of the party’s consent to applicant’s registration, and not just the use, of the identifying matter as a trademark. See Krause v. Krause Publ’ns, Inc., 76 USPQ2d 1904, 1912-13 (TTAB 2005); In re New John Nissen Mannequins, 227 USPQ 569, 571 (TTAB 1985); TMEP §1206.04(a).
Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.
RESPONSE GUIDELINES
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 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 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.
/Obieze Mmeje/
Examining Attorney
Law Office 122
(571) 272-7694
Obieze.Mmeje@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.