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: 11/30/2018

 

 

The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney. 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.

 

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).

 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES

• Failure to Function Refusal
• Goods in Trade Refusal
• Mark Drawing and Description Require Amendment
• Identification of Goods Requires Amendment

 

FAILURE TO FUNCTION REFUSAL

 

Registration is refused because the applied-for mark consists of a nondistinctive 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).

 

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).

 

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.

 

GOODS IN TRADE REFUSAL

 

Registration is refused because the following goods in International Class 16 in the application do not appear to be “goods in trade”:  floral packaging.  Trademark Act Sections 1, 2, and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051-1052, 1127; TMEP §1202.06(b).

 

“Goods in trade” are items that an applicant sells or transports in commerce for use by others.  See Lens.com, Inc. v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc., 686 F.3d 1376, 1379-80, 103 USPQ2d 1672, 1675 (Fed. Cir. 2012); TMEP §1202.06.  Incidental items that an applicant uses to conduct its business, such as letterhead, invoices, and business forms, are generally not “goods in trade,” because these items are only useful to the applicant and are not separately sold or distributed to consumers.  TMEP §1202.06; see, e.g., Lens.com, Inc. v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc., 686 F.3d at 1380, 1382, 103 USPQ2d at 1675-76 (holding computer software used for ordering contact lenses not goods in trade where applicant solely provided online retail stores for eyewear products, and software was not sold separately and had no independent value apart from applicant’s primary service); In re S’holders Data Corp., 495 F.2d 1360, 1361, 181 USPQ 722, 723 (C.C.P.A. 1974) (holding reports on subscribers’ securities portfolios not goods in trade where applicant solely provided financial reporting services, and reports were not sold separately and had no independent value apart from applicant’s primary service).

 

Although determining whether an applicant’s goods are independent goods in trade, or merely incidental, is made on a case-by-case basis, factors to consider include whether:

 

(1)       The goods are simply the conduit or necessary tool useful only to obtain applicant’s goods and/or services;

 

(2)       The goods are so inextricably tied to and associated with applicant’s goods and/or services as to have no viable existence apart from them; and

 

(3)       The goods are neither sold separately from nor have any independent value apart from applicant’s goods and/or services.

 

In re Thomas White Int’l, Ltd., 106 USPQ2d 1158, 1161-62 (TTAB 2013) (citing Lens.com, Inc. v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc., 686 F.3d at 1382, 103 USPQ2d at 1676); TMEP §1202.06.  None of these factors is necessarily dispositive.  Lens.com, Inc. v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc., 686 F.3d at 1382, 103 USPQ2d at 1676; TMEP §1202.06.

 

“Goods in trade” must have utility to others as the goods named in the application; in other words, the goods must function in a way that a consumer would normally expect them to function.  See Paramount Pictures Corp. v. White, 31 USPQ2d 1768, 1772-73 (TTAB 1994) (holding games not goods in trade where the games had no real function or entertainment value as games but functioned only as advertising flyers for applicant’s musical group); TMEP §1202.06(a); see also Gay Toys v. McDonald’s Corp., 199 USPQ 722, 723 (C.C.P.A. 1978). While a formal sale is not always necessary, items sold or transported in commerce are not "goods in trade" unless they have utility to others as the type of product named in the trademark application. For example, greeting cards sent by a law firm to its clients are not “goods,” where applicant is merely sending its own cards through the mail as a holiday greeting, and the cards are not suitable for use by the recipients as a greeting card.

 

In this case, applicant’s floral packaging goods are not independent goods in trade but rather are merely incidental to applicant’s services.

 

First, consumers would not be purchasing Applicant’s goods at issue for the floral packaging, but for the flowers associated with them. The goods are simply the conduit for obtaining the flowers and the floral packaging at issue are so inextricably tied to and associated with applicant’s goods and/or services as to have no viable existence apart from them. The goods are neither sold separately from nor have any independent value apart from applicant’s goods and/or services.

 

Second, the floral packaging shown in the specimen do not have utility to others as the goods named in the application, namely, the floral packaging shown is not suitable for use as floral packaging by consumers who purchase Applicant’s goods.

 

Applicant cannot overcome this refusal by submitting a claim of acquired distinctiveness under Trademark Act Section 2(f) or amending the application to the Supplemental Register.  TMEP §1202.06(b).

 

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

 

MARK DRAWING AND DESCRIPTION REQUIRE AMENDMENT

 

The drawing of applicant’s applied-for three-dimensional mark is not acceptable because it includes functional elements depicted in solid lines rather than broken or dotted lines. See TMEP §1202.02(c)(i)(A). Elements of a mark that are functional are required to be shown in broken or dotted lines. See 37 C.F.R. §2.52(b)(4); In re Water Gremlin Co., 635 F.2d 841, 844, 208 USPQ 89, 91 (C.C.P.A. 1980); In re Heatcon, Inc., 116 USPQ2d 1366, 1379-80 (TTAB 2015); TMEP §1202.02(c)(i)(A).

 

“Functional matter cannot be protected as a trademark.” TMEP §1202.02(a)(iii)(A); see 15 U.S.C. §§1052(e)(5), (f), 1091(c), 1064(3), 1115(b)(8). A feature is functional as a matter of law 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); TMEP §1202.02(a)(iii)(A).

 

In the present case, the following elements are functional: the arrangement of the flowers within the packaging. These elements are functional because floral packaging is by definition for flowers, and thus, flowers are required to be used with floral packaging and there are no other alternatives in the floral packaging industry. See 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).

 

Therefore, applicant must provide (1) a new drawing of the mark showing the functional element(s) in broken or dotted lines, and (2) an amended mark description that references the matter in broken or dotted lines and indicates such matter is not claimed as part of the mark. See TMEP §1202.02(c)(i)(A), (c)(ii). Applicant must provide the amended drawing regardless of whether the remaining portions of the mark are determined to be registrable. TMEP §1202.02(c)(i)(A).

 

The following mark description format is suggested, if accurate:

 

The mark consists of a three-dimensional configuration of floral packaging comprising a cube-shaped box having a lid on the bottom and with flower blossoms extending from the top of the packaging. The broken lines depicting strap ends on each side of the package and floral blossoms sticking out of the box indicate placement of the mark on the goods and are not part of the mark.

 

See TMEP §1202.02(c)(ii).

 

IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS REQUIRES AMENDMENT

 

The wording “Floral packaging” in the identification of goods for International Class 16 must be clarified because it is indefinite and requires further definition of the shape or material. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03.

 

Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate:

 

Class 16: {specify material, e.g., cardboard} Floral packaging; Floral packaging {specify shape, e.g., bags, boxes}

 

Applicant’s goods may be clarified or limited, but may not be expanded beyond those originally itemized in the 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 or add goods not found or encompassed by those in the original application or as acceptably amended. See TMEP §1402.06(a)-(b). The scope of the goods 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 will further limit scope, and once goods are deleted, they are not permitted to be reinserted. TMEP §1402.07(e).

 

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.

 

RESPONSE GUIDELINES

 

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.

 

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.

 

/Rachael Dickson/

Rachael Dickson

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 125

Phone: 571-272-5353

E-mail: rachael.dickson@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 11/30/2018 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 88082888

 

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 11/30/2018 (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.