Offc Action Outgoing

BANSHEE

Rolls-Royce Corporation

Offc Action Outgoing

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application

 

U.S. Application Serial No. 88077927

 

Mark:  BANSHEE

 

 

 

 

Correspondence Address: 

D. JOSEPH ENGLISH

DUANE MORRIS LLP

505 9TH STREET, N.W.

SUITE 1000

WASHINGTON, D.C., DC 20004

 

 

Applicant:  Rolls-Royce Corporation

 

 

 

Reference/Docket No. N/A

 

Correspondence Email Address: 

 

 

 

 

FINAL OFFICE ACTION

 

The USPTO must receive applicant’s response to this letter within six months of the issue date below or the application will be abandoned.  Respond using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) and/or Electronic System for Trademark Trials and Appeals (ESTTA).  A link to the appropriate TEAS response form and/or to ESTTA for an appeal appears at the end of this Office action. 

 

 

Issue date: 

 

 

 

This Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on June 7, 2019.

 

The trademark examining attorney notes that the following refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) have been withdrawn:  Section 2(d) refusal.  See TMEP §§713.02, 714.04.

 

The requirement for an amended identification of goods is now made FINAL for the reasons set forth below.  37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01;  37 C.F.R. §2.63(b).

 

IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS

 

In the initial office action, applicant was required to amend the identification of goods.  While it has been amended, the identification remains indefinite and therefore the requirement is maintained and made FINAL.

 

The identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified because it does not identify specific goods.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01. 

 

The amended identification is “a class of unmanned waterborne vessels.” This wording is not acceptable because it identifies on a general “class” of goods.  Applicant must amend this wording to identify the goods by the common commercial names, or by describing the goods with specificity.

 

Applicant’s goods and/or services may be clarified or limited, but may not be expanded beyond those originally itemized in the U.S. application or as acceptably amended.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06.  Applicant may clarify or limit the identification by inserting qualifying language or deleting items to result in a more specific identification; however, applicant may not substitute different goods and/or services or add goods and/or services not found in or encompassed by those in the original U.S. application or as acceptably amended.  See TMEP §1402.06(a)-(b).  The scope of the goods and/or services sets the outer limit for any changes to the identification and is generally determined by the ordinary meaning of the wording in the identification.  TMEP §§1402.06(b), 1402.07(a)-(b).  Any acceptable changes to the goods and/or services will further limit scope, and once goods and/or services are deleted, they are not permitted to be reinserted.  TMEP §1402.07(e).  Additionally, for U.S. applications filed under Trademark Act Section 44(e), the scope of the identification for purposes of permissible amendments may not exceed the scope of the goods and/or services identified in the foreign registration.  37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); Marmark, Ltd. v. Nutrexpa, S.A., 12 USPQ2d 1843, 1845 (TTAB 1989) (citing In re Löwenbräu München, 175 USPQ 178, 181 (TTAB 1972)); TMEP §§1012, 1402.01(b).

 

For assistance with identifying and classifying goods and services in trademark applications, please see the USPTO’s online searchable U.S. Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual.  See TMEP §1402.04.

 

Applicant may adopt the following identification, if accurate: 

 

International Class 12:  unmanned waterborne vehicles, namely, (identify the goods by the common commercial names).

 

OPTIONS FOR RESPONDING TO FINAL ACTION

 

Applicant must respond within six months of the date of issuance of this final Office action or the application will be abandoned.  15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §2.65(a).  Applicant may respond by providing one or both of the following:

 

(1)        a response filed using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) that fully satisfies all outstanding requirements and/or resolves all outstanding refusals; and/or

 

(2)        an appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board filed using the Electronic System for Trademark Trials and Appeals (ESTTA) with the required filing fee of $200 per class.

 

37 C.F.R. §2.63(b)(1)-(2); TMEP §714.04; see 37 C.F.R. §2.6(a)(18); TBMP ch. 1200.

 

In certain rare circumstances, an applicant may respond by filing a petition to the Director pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b)(2) to review procedural issues.  TMEP §714.04; see 37 C.F.R. §2.146(b); TBMP §1201.05; TMEP §1704 (explaining petitionable matters).  There is a fee required for filing a petition.  37 C.F.R. §2.6(a)(15).

 

Please call or email the assigned trademark examining attorney with questions about this Office action.  Although the trademark examining attorney cannot provide legal advice or statements about applicant’s rights, the trademark examining attorney can provide applicant with additional explanation about the refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) in this Office action.  See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06.  Although the USPTO does not accept emails as responses to Office actions, emails can be used for informal communications and will be included in the application record.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(c), 2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05. 

 

 

 

 

 

How to respond.  Click to file a response to this final Office action and/or appeal it to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB).

 

 

/Eugenia K. Martin/

Eugenia K. Martin

Examining Attorney

Law Office 114

571-272-9458

eugenia.martin@uspto.gov

 

 

RESPONSE GUIDANCE

  • Missing the response deadline to this letter will cause the application to abandon.  A response or notice of appeal must be received by the USPTO before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period.  TEAS and ESTTA maintenance or unforeseen circumstances could affect an applicant’s ability to timely respond.  

 

 

 


uspto.report is an independent third-party trademark research tool that is not affiliated, endorsed, or sponsored by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) or any other governmental organization. The information provided by uspto.report is based on publicly available data at the time of writing and is intended for informational purposes only.

While we strive to provide accurate and up-to-date information, we do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, reliability, or suitability of the information displayed on this site. The use of this site is at your own risk. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.

All official trademark data, including owner information, should be verified by visiting the official USPTO website at www.uspto.gov. This site is not intended to replace professional legal advice and should not be used as a substitute for consulting with a legal professional who is knowledgeable about trademark law.

© 2024 USPTO.report | Privacy Policy | Resources | RSS Feed of Trademarks | Trademark Filings Twitter Feed