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: 9/24/2018

 

The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney.  Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issues below.  15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(a), 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.

 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES:

 

• Search Of Office’s Database Of Marks
• Sections 2(E)(5) Refusal – Mark Is Overall Functional
• Failure To Function As A Trademark – Sections 1, 2, And 45 Refusal – Nondistinctive Product Design
• Requirement Of Information Regarding The Functionality Of The Applied-For Mark
• Multiple Renditions Of A Configuration Mark

 

SEARCH OF OFFICE’S DATABASE OF MARKS

 

The trademark examining attorney has searched the Office’s database of registered and pending marks and has found no conflicting marks that would bar registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d).  TMEP §704.02; see 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).

 

SECTIONS 2(e)(5) REFUSAL – MARK IS OVERALL FUNCTIONAL

 

 

Registration is refused because the applied-for mark, which consists of a three-dimensional configuration of the goods, appears to be a functional design for such goods.  Trademark Act Section 2(e)(5), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(5); see TMEP §1202.02(a)-(a)(ii).  A feature is functional if it is “‘essential to the use or purpose of the [product]’” or “‘it affects the cost or quality of the [product].’”  TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Mktg. Displays, Inc., 532 U.S. 23, 33, 58 USPQ2d 1001, 1006 (2001) (quoting Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Prods. Co., 514 U.S. 159, 165, 34 USPQ2d 1161, 1163-64 (1995)); Inwood Labs., Inc., v. Ives Labs., Inc., 456 U.S. 844, 850 n.10, 214 USPQ 1, 4 n.10 (1982); TMEP §1202.02(a)(iii)(A).

 

A mark that consists of a three-dimensional configuration of a product or its packaging is functional, and thus unregistrable, when the evidence shows that the design provides identifiable utilitarian advantages to the user; i.e., the product or container “has a particular shape because it works better in [that] shape.”  Valu Eng’g, Inc. v. Rexnord Corp., 278 F.3d 1268, 1274, 61 USPQ2d 1422, 1425 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (internal punctuation and citation omitted); see TMEP §1202.02(a)(iii)(A).

 

In the present case, it appears that all of the elements of the chair are functional.  The chair consists of four legs, which is the same number of legs in the applicant’s mark.  See evidence at http://www.amazon.com/Mid-Century-Modern-Eames-Chairs/dp/B01MQQMZU6 (showing a chair with 4 legs) and http://www.visualdictionaryonline.com/house/house-furniture/side-chair/parts.php  (showing 4 legs on a chair when pointing out the parts of a chair and indicating they function as support for the chair and person using the chair).  As the legs in the evidence and applicant’s mark support the chair and the person using the chair, the legs are functional.     Moreover, the applicant’s mark also contains a seat and back/back support portion of the chair, which are also purely functional as the seat supports the bottom of the user and the back support or rest supports the back.  See multiple chairs with both seats and back supports at http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GNW1TTA/ref=sspa_dk_detail_2?psc=1&pd_rd_i=B00GNW1TTA&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_p=f52e26da-1287-4616-824b-efc564ff75a4&pf_rd_r=KXBHPKDDFQH3DM1N72T9&pd_rd_wg=bEOX3&pf_rd_s=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_t=40701&pd_rd_w=4EodI&pf_rd_i=desktop-dp-sims&pd_rd_r=fd23a00e-bfe0-11e8-83e7-0baf9bd39183 (showing a chair with both a seat and back support portion of the chair), http://www.roveconcepts.com/rove-classics_norman-side-chair.html?aid%5B3%5D=75&locale=en_US&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIvNXftbfT3QIViJ6fCh3JmQMbEAQYBCABEgJdkfD_BwE (showing a chair with a seat portion and back rest portion), http://www.visualdictionaryonline.com/house/house-furniture/side-chair/parts.php (indicating the seat portion of the chair is for sitting on and the back portion of the chair is for back support), and http://www.props.eric-hart.com/resources/parts-of-a-chair/ (describing the functions of the back and the seat of a chair).  Additionally, the portion of the chair connecting the seat to the back rest is purely functional as the back rest must be supported in some way and that part of the chair is the only part supporting it, showing its function.  Lastly, the applied-for mark appears to have been the subject of a patent, indicating the functionality of the whole chair as shown.  See http://patents.google.com/patent/US2554490.  Therefore, the entire applied-for mark appears to be functional and thus unregistrable. 

 

The evidence need not establish that the configuration at issue is the very best design for the particular product or product packaging.  A configuration can be held functional when the evidence shows that it provides a specific utilitarian advantage that makes it one of a few superior designs available.  See In re Bose Corp., 772 F.2d 866, 227 USPQ 1 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (holding shape of a loudspeaker system enclosure functional because it conforms to the shape of the sound matrix and is thereby an efficient and superior design); In re Dietrich, 91 USPQ2d 1622 (TTAB 2009) (holding particular spoke arrangement of a bicycle wheel functional because it is more stable and provides better performance than wheels with other spoke arrangements featuring the same or greater number of spokes); In re Am. Nat’l Can Co., 41 USPQ2d 1841 (TTAB 1997) (holding metal beverage containers with vertical fluting functional because vertical fluting is one of a limited number of ways to strengthen can sidewalls and it allows for an easier way to grip and hold the can); TMEP §1202.02(a)(v), (a)(v)(C).

 

On the other hand, where the evidence shows that the specific product or container configuration at issue provides no real utilitarian advantages to the user, but is one of many equally feasible, efficient and competitive designs, then it may be registrable.  See In re Morton-Norwich Prods., Inc., 671 F.2d 1332, 213 USPQ 9 (C.C.P.A. 1982).  However, a product configuration cannot be registered on the Principal Register without a showing of acquired distinctiveness.  See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Bros., Inc., 529 U.S. 205, 54 USPQ2d 1065 (2000); TMEP §1202.02(b)-(b)(i).

 

Responding to the Section 2(e)(5) Refusal

 

Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.

 

Applicant should note the following additional ground for refusal.

 

FAILURE TO FUNCTION AS A TRADEMARK – SECTIONS 1, 2, AND 45 REFUSAL – NONDISTINCTIVE PRODUCT DESIGN

 

Registration is refused because the applied-for mark consists of a nondistinctive product design or nondistinctive features of a product design that is not registrable on the Principal Register without sufficient proof of acquired distinctiveness.  Trademark Act Sections 1, 2, and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051-1052, 1127; Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Bros., Inc., 529 U.S. 205, 210, 213-14, 54 USPQ2d 1065, 1068-69 (2000); In re Slokevage, 441 F.3d 957, 961, 78 USPQ2d 1395, 1398 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see TMEP §1202.02(b)(i).

 

Specifically, the chair design in the applied-for mark does not identify or point to one source as many similar chair designs, with a dipped chair spine connecting a seat to a back support, are available from a variety of different sources.  See evidence at   http://www.chicicat.com.au/eames-lcw-lounge-chair-wood-platinum-replica.html, http://stores.advancedinteriordesigns.com/molded-plywood-lounge-chair-w-metal-legs-natural/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMImYvyo-DM3QIVAkOGCh1WoAlkEAYYCCABEgL6I_D_BwE, http://www.1stdibs.com/furniture/seating/chairs/vintage-eames-dcw-molded-plywood-chair-circa-1970/id-f_7881533/?utm_content=control&gclid=EAIaIQobChMImYvyo-DM3QIVAkOGCh1WoAlkEAYYByABEgIk-PD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds, http://www.1stdibs.com/furniture/seating/chairs/eames-evans-dcw-chair/id-f_4045953/, http://www.1stdibs.com/furniture/seating/chairs/plywood-chair-dcw-charles-ray-eames-vitra/id-f_3783802/, http://www.amazon.com/Modway-EEI-510-NAT-Mid-Century-Plywood-Natural/dp/B004K8PLS4, and http://www.decorpad.com/bookmark.htm?bookmarkId=4102. 

 

A product design can never be inherently distinctive as a matter of law; consumers are aware that such designs are intended to render the goods more useful or appealing rather than identify their source.  See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Bros., 529 U.S. at 212-13, 54 USPQ2d at 1068-69; In re Slokevage, 441 F.3d at 962, 78 USPQ2d at 1399.  Thus, consumer predisposition to equate a product design with its source does not exist.  Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Bros., 529 U.S. at 213, 54 USPQ2d at 1069.

 

In response to this refusal, applicant may assert a claim that the applied-for mark has acquired distinctiveness under Trademark Act Section 2(f).  To support this claim of acquired distinctiveness, applicant may submit evidence of “advertising expenditures, sales success, length and exclusivity of use, unsolicited media coverage, and consumer studies (linking the name to a source).”  In re Change Wind Corp., 123 USPQ2d 1453, 1467 (TTAB 2017) (quoting In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293, 1300, 75 USPQ2d 1420, 1424 (Fed. Cir. 2005)).  A showing of acquired distinctiveness need not consider all of these types of evidence; no single factor is determinative.  In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d at 1300, 75 USPQ2d at 1424; see TMEP §§1212.06 et seq.  However, “[t]he evidence must relate to the promotion and recognition of the specific configuration embodied in the applied-for mark and not to the goods in general.”  In re Change Wind Corp., 123 USPQ2d at 1467 (citing Inwood Labs., Inc. v. Ives Labs., Inc., 456 U.S. 844, 851 n.11, 214 USPQ 1, 4 n.11 (1982)). 

 

To establish acquired distinctiveness, an applicant may rely only on use in commerce that may be regulated by the U.S. Congress.  See 15 U.S.C. §§1052(f), 1127.  Use solely in a foreign country or between two foreign countries is not evidence of acquired distinctiveness in the United States.  TMEP §§1010, 1212.08; see In re Rogers, 53 USPQ2d 1741, 1746-47 (TTAB 1999).

 

As an alternative to submitting evidence of acquired distinctiveness, applicant may amend the application to the Supplemental Register.  Trademark Act Section 23, 15 U.S.C. §1091; see 37 C.F.R. §§2.47, 2.75(a); TMEP §§816, 1202.02(b)(i).

 

Responding to the Sections 1, 2, and 45 Refusal

 

Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.  However, if applicant responds to the refusal, applicant must also respond to the requirements set forth below.

 

REQUIREMENT OF INFORMATION REGARDING THE FUNCTIONALITY OF THE APPLIED-FOR MARK

 

Applicant must provide the following information and documentation regarding the applied-for three-dimensional configuration mark:

 

(1)       A written statement as to whether the applied-for mark, or any feature(s) thereof, is or has been the subject of a design or utility patent or patent application, including expired patents and abandoned patent applications.  Applicant must also provide copies of the patent and/or patent application documentation.

 

(2)       Advertising, promotional, and/or explanatory materials concerning the applied-for configuration mark, particularly materials specifically related to the design feature(s) embodied in the applied-for mark.

 

(3)       A written explanation and any evidence as to whether there are alternative designs available for the feature(s) embodied in the applied-for mark, and whether such alternative designs are equally efficient and/or competitive.  Applicant must also provide a written explanation and any documentation concerning similar designs used by competitors.

 

(4)       A written statement as to whether the product design or packaging design at issue results from a comparatively simple or inexpensive method of manufacture in relation to alternative designs for the product/container.  Applicant must also provide information regarding the method and/or cost of manufacture relating to applicant’s goods.

 

(5)       Any other evidence that applicant considers relevant to the registrability of the applied-for configuration mark.

 

See 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b); In re Morton-Norwich Prods., Inc., 671 F.2d 1332, 1340-41, 213 USPQ 9, 15-16 (C.C.P.A. 1982); TMEP §§1202.02(a)(v) et seq.

 

Any document filed with the USPTO becomes part of the official public application record and will not be returned or removed.  TMEP §§404, 814.  If any of the information requested above is confidential or applicant does not want such information to become part of the public record for a valid reason, applicant should submit an explanation of those circumstances or redact confidential portions prior to submission.  See TMEP §814.  Applicants are not required to submit confidential information into the record; a written explanation or summary of that information may suffice.  Id.

 

Regarding the requirement for this information, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board and its appeals court have recognized that the necessary technical information for ex parte determinations as to functionality is usually more readily available to an applicant, and thus an applicant is normally the source of most of the evidence in these cases.  In re Teledyne Indus. Inc., 696 F.2d 968, 971, 217 USPQ 9, 11 (Fed. Cir. 1982); see In re Babies Beat Inc., 13 USPQ2d 1729, 1731 (TTAB 1990) (holding registration was properly refused where applicant failed to comply with trademark examining attorney’s request for copies of patent applications and other patent information); TMEP §1202.02(a)(v).

 

Failure to comply with a request for information can be grounds for refusing registration.  In re AOP LLC, 107 USPQ2d 1644, 1651 (TTAB 2013); In re DTI P’ship LLP, 67 USPQ2d 1699, 1701-02 (TTAB 2003); TMEP §814.

 

MULTIPLE RENDITIONS OF A CONFIGURATION MARK

 

The drawing shows more than one rendition of a three-dimensional mark; however, drawings for such marks are required to depict a single rendition only.  37 C.F.R. §2.52(b)(2); TMEP §§807.01, 807.10; see In re Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co., 335 F.2d 836, 839, 142 USPQ 366, 368-69 (C.C.P.A. 1964).  Therefore, applicant must submit a new drawing showing the mark in a single rendition of the mark in three-dimensions.

 

If the mark cannot be adequately depicted in a single rendition, applicant must file a petition to the Director requesting that the requirement to provide a single rendition of the mark be waived.  TMEP §§807.10, 1202.02(c)(iv).

 

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(a)(1), (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 refusals and/or requirements 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.  

 

 

 

/Mark S. Tratos/

Mark S. Tratos

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 113

(571) 270-3575

Mark.Tratos@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 9/24/2018 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 88027008

 

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 9/24/2018 (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.