| To: | BISSELL Homecare, Inc. (trademarks@mcgarrybair.com) |
| Subject: | U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 88113717 - BISSELL - 71189-4800 |
| Sent: | 5/10/2019 3:27:54 PM |
| Sent As: | ECOM113@USPTO.GOV |
| Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 Attachment - 6 Attachment - 7 Attachment - 8 Attachment - 9 Attachment - 10 Attachment - 11 Attachment - 12 Attachment - 13 Attachment - 14 Attachment - 15 Attachment - 16 Attachment - 17 Attachment - 18 Attachment - 19 Attachment - 20 Attachment - 21 Attachment - 22 Attachment - 23 Attachment - 24 Attachment - 25 Attachment - 26 Attachment - 27 Attachment - 28 Attachment - 29 Attachment - 30 Attachment - 31 Attachment - 32 Attachment - 33 Attachment - 34 Attachment - 35 Attachment - 36 Attachment - 37 Attachment - 38 Attachment - 39 Attachment - 40 Attachment - 41 Attachment - 42 Attachment - 43 Attachment - 44 Attachment - 45 |
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
|
U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 88113717
MARK: BISSELL
|
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
CLICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER: http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp
|
|
APPLICANT: BISSELL Homecare, 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: 5/10/2019
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.
Introduction
Although the applicant has not submitted a formal Section 2(f) claim, some of the applicant’s argument appears to assert that the applicant’s mark has acquired distinctiveness based on the length of the time the mark has been in use in commerce. This argument is therefore construed as a Section 2(f) claim in the alternative. However, this claim is insufficient for the reasons discussed below, and also does not overcome the refusal. This alternative Section 2(f) claim is a new issue; consequently, this is a non-Final Office action.
Summary of Issues Applicant Must Address
Section 2(e)(4) Refusal – Surname
Applicant has applied for registration the mark BISSELL in standard-character mark for:
Air purifiers, in Class 11.
An applicant’s mark is primarily merely a surname if the surname “‘is the primary significance of the mark as a whole to the purchasing public.’” Earnhardt v. Kerry Earnhardt, Inc., 864 F.3d 1374, 1377, 123 USPQ2d 1411, 1413 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting In re Hutchinson Tech. Inc., 852 F.2d 552, 554, 7 USPQ2d 1490, 1492 (Fed. Cir. 1988)); TMEP §1211.01.
The following five inquiries are often used to determine the public’s perception of a term’s primary significance:
(1) Whether the surname is rare;
(2) Whether anyone connected with applicant uses the term as a surname;
(3) Whether the term has any recognized meaning other than as a surname;
(4) Whether the term has the structure and pronunciation of a surname; and
(5) Whether the term is sufficiently stylized to remove its primary significance from that of a surname.
In re Eximius Coffee, LLC, 120 USPQ2d 1276, 1278 & n.2, 1282-83 (TTAB 2016) (citing In re Benthin Mgmt. GmbH, 37 USPQ2d 1332, 1333-34 (TTAB 1995) for the Benthin inquiries/factors); TMEP §1211.01; see also In re Etablissements Darty et Fils, 759 F.2d 15, 16-18, 225 USPQ 652, 653 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
These inquiries are not exclusive, and any of these circumstances – singly or in combination – and any other relevant circumstances may be considered when making this determination. In re Eximius Coffee, LLC, 120 USPQ2d at 1277-78; TMEP §1211.01. For example, when the applied-for mark is not stylized, it is unnecessary to consider the fifth inquiry. In re Yeley, 85 USPQ2d 1150, 1151 (TTAB 2007); TMEP §1211.01.
The applicant was referred to evidence attached to the bottom of the initial Office action, from the LEXISNEXIS® surname database, which is a weekly updated directory of cell phone and other phone numbers (such as voice over IP) from various data providers, establishing the surname significance of BISSELL. This evidence shows the applied-for mark appearing 6724 times in this database.
Somewhat Rare Surname
The applicant has claimed that in addition to providing the total number of surname results, the Examining Attorney must provide the total number of listings in the surname database. Applicant’s Response, 4/30/2019, TSDR, at 1. Although the two cases cited by the applicant include this information, these cases do not require the Examining Attorney to provide this information.
The specific surname search page in Lexis® does not provide the total number of listings in the database. However, the attached printout from the nexis.com website indicates that the listings may exceed 1 billion. Attached to this Office action are printouts from census.gov, indicating the total surname results for BISSELL from the 2010 census, 5039. The census spreadsheet includes the frequency of the surname, 1.71 per 1K of the population. The Census website indicates the total US population in 2010 was 308.7 million people, and is currently about 328.9 million.
In Benthin, one of the two cases cited by the applicant, the total number of non-duplicative surname results was just over 100 out of 76 million listings, meaning there was “one Benthin for every 750,000 Listings.” In re Benthin Mgmt. GmbH, 37 USPQ2d at 1333. Nonetheless, despite the low number of surname results, the Board stated that but for the stylization of the mark, it would have found that “BENTHIN per se would be perceived as primarily merely a surname.” Id. at 1333-34. Since the applicant’s mark in this case is not stylized, and there are 5-6 times the number of surnames results for BISSELL as BENTHIN, Benthin supports the finding that BISSELL is primarily merely a surname.
In In re United Distillers plc, 56 USPQ2d 1220, 1221 (TTAB 2000), the number of surname results for Hackler, was 1,295 out of approximately 80 million entries. Although the frequency of Hackler in that case, is thus just slightly less than Bissell in this case, there were additional factors in United Distillers favoring a finding that Hackler was not a primarily a surname. Specifically, the term “hackler” is in the dictionary, the mark owner promoted a connection between the mark and the dictionary meaning, and no one associated with the applicant had HACKLER as their surname. Id. at 1222. As discussed below, BISSELL is not in the dictionary, and is the surname of the applicant’s founders.
The facts of this case are more analogous to those in In re Olin Corp., 124 USPQ2d 1327 (TTAB 2017), in which OLIN was found to be primarily merely a surname. In that case, there were 7,552 surname results in Lexis and 4,163 people with the surname Olin in the 2010 census. Id. at 1330.
Internet Evidence
The Lexis and Census surname results are now supplemented with specific evidence showing a number of individuals, alive and deceased, who have BISSELL as their surname. This includes Robin Bissell, the producer of The Hunger Games, and Mina Bissell, a cancer researcher, whose TED talk has been viewed over 1 million times.
Lexis® News Articles
Thus, the applicant is referred to the attached representative sample of 10 news articles from the Lexis® newspaper database, which demonstrates that the surname BISSELL appears routinely in news reports.
Thus, all of the foregoing evidence demonstrates that BISSELL is not a rare surname and its primary significance to purchasers would be that of a surname.
Surname Associated with Applicant
A term that is the surname of an individual applicant or that of an officer, founder, owner, or principal of applicant’s business is probative evidence of the term’s surname significance. TMEP §1211.02(b)(iv); see, e.g., In re Etablissements Darty et Fils, 759 F.2d 15, 16, 225 USPQ 652, 653 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (holding DARTY primarily merely a surname where “Darty” was the surname of applicant’s corporate president); In re Eximius Coffee, LLC, 120 USPQ2d 1276, 1278-80 (TTAB 2016) (holding ALDECOA primarily merely a surname where ALDECOA was the surname of the founder and individuals continuously involved in the business); In re Integrated Embedded, 120 USPQ2d 1504, 1507 (TTAB 2016) (holding BARR GROUP primarily merely a surname where BARR was the surname of the co-founder and applicant’s corporate officer and GROUP was found “incapable of lending source-identifying significance to the mark”); Miller v. Miller, 105 USPQ2d 1615, 1620, 1622-23 (TTAB 2013) (holding MILLER LAW GROUP primarily merely a surname where “Miller” was the surname of the applicant and the term “law group” was found generic).
The initial Office action included evidence indicating that the applicant’s founders, Melville and Anna Bissell had BISSELL as their surname and the company is still family owned today. Office action, 10/30/2018, TSDR, at 2-3. Thus, this is evidence of the mark’s surname significance.
The applicant appears to suggest that because the applicant was founded “well over 140 years ago, in 1876,” this evidence is irrelevant. See Applicant’s Response, 4/30/2019, TSDR, at 1. However, the evidence regarding the applicant’s founders was obtained from the applicant’s website. Because it is directed to intended consumers for the applicant’s goods, it informs consumers who may not otherwise know BISSELL is a surname, that BISSELL is a surname.
The applicant is now also referred to additional examples of its advertising from Amazon.com, Facebook, Twitter, and Pinterest, which describe the applicant as a family owned company, and include information about the applicant’s founder and current family members.
This evidence is analogous to that considered in Olin. In that case, there was evidence from the applicant’s website indicating that the applicant was founded in 1892, and its founder and subsequent managers in the 1940’s and 1950’s had Olin as their surname, but the applicant indicated that no one currently in the applicant’s upper management uses Olin as their surname. Id. at 1331. However, the Board concluded that because “Applicant still markets the fact that its founder had that name[,] [t]his further supports that the public perceives OLIN primarily as a surname.” Id. at 1332.
No Other Meaning
Evidence that a term has no recognized meaning or significance other than as a surname is relevant to determining whether the term would be perceived as primarily merely a surname. See In re Weiss Watch Co., 123 USPQ2d 1200, 1203 (TTAB 2017); In re Eximius Coffee, LLC, 120 USPQ2d 1276, 1280 (TTAB 2016); TMEP §1211.02(b)(vi). The applicant was previously provided evidence from OneLook@ Dictionary Search and The Columbia Gazetteer of the World shows that BISSELL does not appear in the dictionary (other than as a surname) or gazetteer. Office action, 10/30/2018, TSDR, at 4, 6. Thus, this term appears to have no recognized meaning or significance other than as a surname. Similarly, the Wikipedia® entry for BISSELL discusses the company’s surname significance. Office action, 10/30/2018, TSDR, at 5.
Although the applicant has argued that BISSELL has acquired distinctiveness, the applicant has not provided any evidence that BISSELL has any dictionary or other established meaning, analogous to HACKLER. See United Distillers plc, 56 USPQ2d at 1221-22 (“Applicant submitted Webster's Third New International Dictionary (1993) definition of ‘hackler’ as ‘one that hackles; esp.: a worker who hackles hemp, flax or broomcorn’; and, in the same dictionary, ‘hackle’ has several definitions, including ‘n. 1. A comb or board with long metal teeth for dressing flax, hemp, or jute’; and ‘hackle’ or ‘hackles’ as ‘v. To separate the long fibers of (flax, hemp, or jute) from waste material and from each other by combing with a hackle.’ In addition, applicant submitted (i) a copy of the poem ‘The Hackler from Grousehall,’ in which the opening line is ‘I am a roving hackler that loves the Shamrock shore, . . .."; and (ii) some of applicant's own promotional materials, used in connection with the involved goods, which include the following statements: The Hackler was a distiller of high quality Irish Poitin in 19th century Ireland.”).
Thus, as in Olin, “in the absence of any countervailing evidence supplied by Applicant, th[e] [negative dictionary evidence of record] establishes that [BISSELL] has no recognized meaning other than as a surname.” Olin, 124 USPQ2d at 1332.
Structure and Pronunciation
Evidence that a term has the structure and pronunciation of a surname may contribute to a finding that the primary significance of the term is that of a surname. In re Eximius Coffee, LLC, 120 USPQ2d 1276, 1280 (TTAB 2016); see In re Giger, 78 USPQ2d 1405, 1409 (TTAB 2006); In re Gregory, 70 USPQ2d 1792, 1796 (TTAB 2004); TMEP §1211.01(a)(vi). The applicant was provided a Wikipedia® article indicating that the suffix –ell (and the variant –el) are common surname suffixes. Office action, 10/30/2018, TSDR at 7-9. Thus, the applicant’s mark has the structure and pronunciation of a surname.
The applicant asserts that BISSELL does not have the structure and pronunciation of a surname simply because it is a rare surname. Applicant’s Response, 4/30/2018, TSDR, at 1. However, as discussed above, rare surnames are regularly found to be primarily merely surnames.
Notably, the Board stated in Olin, “Although we find that OLIN has the structure and pronunciation of a surname, this evidence has little significance in our analysis in light of the other evidence in this case. Even if OLIN did not have the ‘structure and pronunciation of a surname,’ our conclusion as to the surname refusal would not change.” Olin, 124 USPQ2d at 1332.
No Stylization
The mark is in standard-character form. Thus, there is no stylization to overcome its surname significance.
Third-Party Registrations
The applicant was previously referred to a third-party registration, No. 5130595, for the mark BISSELL BROTHERS; this mark was refused as a surname and is registered on the Supplemental Register. Office action, 10/30/2018, TSDR, at 19-21. Since the previous Office action issued, another third-party BISSELL formative mark has registered. Attached to this Office action is a copy of Registration No. 5678519, BISSELL MAPLE FARM, which was originally refused as a surname, and is registered with a Section 2(f) claim.
Thus, this is evidence that the Office currently views BISSELL as primarily merely a surname.
Applicant’s Prior Registrations
The applicant was also referred to one of its prior registrations for the mark BISSELL, Registration No. 1727157, which contains a Section 2(f) claim. Office action, 10/30/2018, TSDR, at 10-11. The registration was accompanied by excerpts from the application record indicating that the mark was refused as a surname and the applicant responded with a Section 2(f) claim based on prior registrations. Office action, 10/30/2018, TSDR, at 12-18.
In response to that surname refusal, applicant claimed acquired distinctiveness under Trademark Act Section 2(f) unconditionally and not in the alternative. Office action, 10/30/2018, TSDR, at 14-15. Notably, that Section 2(f) claim was based on the applicant’s prior Registration Nos. 0698093, 0878197, 0705542, and 0710700, Office action, 10/30/2018, TSDR, at 13-14, discussed in the applicant’s current response. Applicant’s Response, 4/30/2019, TSDR, at 1. The Section 2(f) claim for Registration No. 1727157 was also based on Registration No. 0825676 (now expired), which was also registered with a Section 2(f) claim. The applicant also previously owned four other registrations for BISSELL (now cancelled) that were registered with Section 2(f) claims. See attached copies. Thus, the Section 2(f) claim for Registration No. 1727157 is not an aberration, as the applicant claims in its response. Applicant’s Response, 4/30/2019, TSDR, at 1.
Thus, applicant previously conceded that BISSELL was not inherently distinctive but was rather primarily merely a surname. See Mini Melts, Inc. v. Reckitt Benckiser LLC, 118 USPQ2d 1464, 1479 (TTAB 2016) (citing Cold War Museum, Inc. v. Cold War Air Museum, Inc., 586 F.3d 1352, 1358, 92 USPQ2d 1626, 1629 (Fed. Cir. 2009)); TMEP §1212.02(b)-(c). Accordingly, applicant’s prior registration No. 1727157 is probative to show that applicant’s applied-for mark is not inherently distinctive in this case. See In re Thomas Nelson, Inc., 97 USPQ2d 1712, 1713 (TTAB 2011); TMEP §1212.02(c).
The applicant points out in its response that Registration No. 1727157 is now incontestable. Applicant’s Response, 4/30/2018, TSDR, at 1. TMEP §1216.02 discusses the effect of incontestability in ex parte examination.
In In re Am. Sail Training Ass’n, 230 USPQ 879 (TTAB 1986), the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board held that an examining attorney could not require a disclaimer of "TALL SHIPS" in an application for registration of the mark RETURN OF THE TALL SHIPS, where the applicant owned an incontestable registration for the mark TALL SHIPS for the identical services. This would be a collateral attack on an incontestable registration. However, this applies only where both the marks and the goods or services are identical, and the identical part of the applied-for mark would not be considered generic. The Board noted that the matter required to be disclaimed was "identical to the subject matter of applicant’s incontestable registration," and that "the services described in applicant’s application are identical to those recited in the prior incontestable registration." Id. at 880.
Ownership of an incontestable registration does not give the applicant a right to register the same mark for different goods or services, even if they are closely related to the goods or services in the incontestable registration. See In re Save Venice N.Y. Inc., 259 F.3d 1346, 1353, 59 USPQ2d 1778, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (applicant’s ownership of incontestable registration of the word mark SAVE VENICE for newsletters, brochures, and fundraising services did not preclude examining attorney from refusing registration of a composite mark consisting of the phrases THE VENICE COLLECTION and SAVE VENICE INC. with an image of the winged Lion of St. Mark for different goods.
Thus, it is not a collateral attack on the mark in Registration No. 1727157 to find that BISSELL is primarily merely a surname. The surname finding is consistent with the application record for Registration No. 1727157. It would only be a collateral attack on Registration No. 1727157 if the goods in this application included “electric carpet and rug shampooers and domestic vacuum cleaners, portable carpet and upholstery cleaners and extractors” and the Examining Attorney found that the mark had not acquired distinctiveness for those goods. The goods in this case are air purifiers, not “electric carpet and rug shampooers and domestic vacuum cleaners, portable carpet and upholstery cleaners and extractors.”
The applicant has also made of record a number of its other registrations that consist solely of or include the term BISSELL. Applicant’s Response, 4/30/2019, TSDR, at 3-18. A surname refusal is only appropriate if the mark as a whole is considered to be primarily merely a surname because the surname is combined with matter that is not inherently distinctive. See TMEP §1211.01(b). Thus, a surname refusal would not have been appropriate for Registration Nos. 2628758, 3158830, 3632322, 3735235, 3735236, 4773421, and 4765068.
This leaves Registration No. 2881723, BISSELL for “Household cleaning products, namely, floor cleaners, stain remover, carpet shampoo, upholstery shampoo”; Registration No. 3158831, BISSELL for “Household cleaning preparations for carpets, upholstery, floors, textiles, hard surfaces, and automobile interiors; all-purpose cleaners” and “Electrical cleaning devices; namely, carpet, bare floor, and upholstery cleaning extractors and vacuum cleaners and accessories”; and Registration No. 3735234, BISSELL for Cleaning products, namely, mops, brooms, dust pans, floor dusters, furniture dusters, squeegees; non-electric carpet sweepers; pet grooming device comprising a built in brush head and an attachment that connects to vacuums.” The last of these registered in 2010, well before the third-party BISSELL registrations, which registered in 2017 and 2019.
Further, the finding that BISSELL is a surname in this case is not a collateral attack on any of the applicant’s prior registrations because none of those registrations include air purifiers.
Thus, although BISSELL is a appears to be a rare surname based solely on the Lexis and Census results, the other above factors, plus the Internet evidence and news articles featuring people with BISSELL as a surname, support a finding that the term BISSELL in the mark is primarily merely a surname. Accordingly, the previously issued Section 2(e)(4) refusal is maintained and continued.
Insufficient Section 2(f) Claim
As in Olin, “Applicant has appeared to argue that its mark should not be refused registration as primarily merely a surname because it has acquired distinctiveness as a trademark. . . . It has long been established, however, that whether a mark is primarily merely a surname and whether it has acquired secondary meaning are separate considerations under the Trademark Act.” Olin, 124 USPQ2d at 1329.
Thus, as discussed above, the applicant’s response is construed as arguing in the alternative that the mark has acquired distinctiveness. The Examining Attorney agrees with the applicant that its prior registrations establish that the mark has acquired distinctiveness. However, that acquired distinctiveness is limited to the vacuum cleaners and other cleaning items in those prior registrations. The applicant’s prior registrations do not include air purifiers, the goods in this application.
Thus, the applicant was advised in the initial Office action that if it intended to claim that the mark had acquired distinctiveness for the identified goods based on the applicant’s prior registrations, the applicant must accompany its Section 2(f) claim with evidence or an explanation demonstrating the purported similarity or relatedness between the goods in the prior registrations and air purifiers. See TMEP §1212.04(c). It is not self-evident that the air purifiers in this application are sufficiently similar to any of the goods in the applicant’s prior registrations to accept a Section 2(f) claim without that evidence. See id.
The applicant has not provided that evidence or explanation. Thus, the applicant’s claim in the alternative of acquired distinctiveness is not sufficient to overcome the Section 2(e)(4) Refusal, which is maintained and continued.
If applicant cannot satisfy this evidence requirement, applicant may respond by amending the application to seek registration on the Supplemental Register. See 15 U.S.C. §1091; 37 C.F.R. §§2.47, 2.75(a).
Although registration on the Supplemental Register does not afford all the benefits of registration on the Principal Register, it does provide the following advantages to the registrant:
(1) Use of the registration symbol ® with the registered mark in connection with the designated goods and/or services, which provides public notice of the registration and potentially deters third parties from using confusingly similar marks.
(2) Inclusion of the registered mark in the USPTO’s database of registered and pending marks, which will (a) make it easier for third parties to find it in trademark search reports, (b) provide public notice of the registration, and thus (c) potentially deter third parties from using confusingly similar marks.
(3) Use of the registration by a USPTO trademark examining attorney as a bar to registering confusingly similar marks in applications filed by third parties.
(4) Use of the registration as a basis to bring suit for trademark infringement in federal court, which, although more costly than state court, means judges with more trademark experience, often faster adjudications, and the opportunity to seek an injunction, actual damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs.
(5) Use of the registration as a filing basis for a trademark application for registration in certain foreign countries, in accordance with international treaties.
See 15 U.S.C. §§1052(d), 1091, 1094; J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks & Unfair Competition §§19:33, 19:37 (rev. 4th ed. Supp. 2017).
Response Guidelines
Because applicant filed a TEAS RF application, applicant must respond online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) to avoid incurring an additional fee. See 37 C.F.R. §2.23(b)(1), (c).
/Kim Teresa Moninghoff/
Examining Attorney
Law Office 113
Phone: 571-272-4738
Fax: 571-273-9113
Email: kim.moninghoff@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.
Free Israel Bissell
The Berkshire Eagle (Pittsfield, Massachusetts)
April 24, 2019 Wednesday
Copyright 2019 The Berkshire Eagle All Rights Reserved
Section: OPINION; Pg. A06
Length: 609 words
Body
OUR OPINION
For years, Hinsdale celebrated the exploits of Israel Bissell, an express rider who helped sound the alarm that the British were coming. He was overshadowed by Paul Revere, and as challenges were made to the historic veracity of Bissell's exploits, he fell out of favor in his adopted town and vanished into the murk of history.
In recent years, however, documents that were available only to a handful of scholars who visited museums or universities to access them have become available to all thanks to websites like FamilySearch.org, Ancentry.com and Fold3. The Eagle's Jennifer Huberdeau used these online resources in an exhaustive study of the man and the legend ("An error of transcription? The case for Israel Bissell," Eagle, Historical Landscapes, April 21) that makes a compelling case that Israel Bissell deserves the recognition once accorded him by the town of Hinsdale.
In April 1775, the arrival of British troops who would famously fight in Lexington prompted sending out riders to "alarm the country quite to Connecticut" with a letter that came to be known as the Lexington Alarm. Israel Bissell was charged to take the letter from Watertown to Worcester, where copies were made. Five days later, it had made its way to New York City, a journey of 345 miles, and ultimately to Philadelphia. The legend grew over the decades, likely triggered by a newspaper column, of the one rider who made the Watertown to New York City trip alone, sounding the alarm that the British were coming.
An article of 1929 credits Israel Bissell of East Windsor, Conn., for making the ride. Bissell would later move to Middlefield and Hinsdale where he is buried. In a 1932 letter to the editor in The Berkshire Eagle, Phillip Smith wrote that two Israel Bissells, father and son, moved from Connecticut to Middlefield and then Hinsdale in 1775. Which Bissell made the historic ride?
BMX showcase planned in Eloy
The Eloy Enterprise (AZ)
8 May 2019
Copyright 2019 The Eloy Enterprise
Distributed by Newsbank, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Section: ELOYENTERPRISE
Length: 429 words
Byline: Staff Reports
Body
ELOY — An Arizona BMX team will host a team showcase on 9 a.m. to noon Saturday at the Youth On Track Cycling BMX Track at 4210 W. Francisco Drive in Eloy.
The Peak Performance-BioLab Sciences BMX team, co-sponsored by Aero BMX, Youth On Track Cycling, and Sun and Spoke Bicycle Shop, have signed Arizona BMX and cycling standout Will Bissell to its newly formed National BMX team.
The event is being held to commemorate the formation of the national team and Bissell's signing.
War hero led VMI into new era; Gen. Michael Bissell dies at 80, leaves lasting legacy at VMI and VWIL
The Roanoke Times (Virginia)
February 9, 2019 Saturday, Metro Edition
Copyright 2019 Times-World, LLC All Rights Reserved
Section: SPORTS; Pg. 1C
Length: 930 words
Byline: Alison Graham alison.graham@roanoke.com 9813324
Body
The radio crackled with devastating news: "We've got one young soldier that blew his leg off and he's bleeding to death."
Michael Bissell was on his second tour in Vietnam when a group of American troops ran into a division of Viet Cong. They were under heavy fire and had called for reinforcements. Bissell volunteered to take his helicopter and crew to save the soldier.
Bissell flew toward a landing zone, but as he was about to set down, the helicopter was riddled with machine gun fire. Bissell flew up and tried again farther out in the field but was hit again. He was shot in the neck and the rounds of ammunition knocked out the control panels and gauges.
Charlotte's Newsmakers in 2013: Smoky Bissell; Chairman, The Bissell Cos.
Charlotte Business Journal
January 3, 2014 Friday
Copyright 2014 American City Business Journal, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Length: 635 words
Byline: Will Boye
Body
Smoky Bissell landed his largest single lease deal ever in 2013 when insurance giant MetLife Inc. (NYSE:MET) took 340,000 square feet at Ballantyne Corporate Park, becoming the largest tenant at the south Charlotte office campus. Now the 76-year-old developer is trying to figure out what to do for an encore.
Bissell, chairman of The Bissell Cos., started building the 10-story Gragg and Woodward office buildings in 2011 at the northwest corner of Ballantyne Commons Parkway and North Community House Road. At the time, it was the largest speculative office project in the nation. Bissell was going vertical when many developers were still reeling from the recession.
Blacksburg's Austin Bissell earns All-American honors; In the region: Blacksburg's Austin Bissell named All-American
The Roanoke Times (Virginia)
July 15, 2018 Sunday, Metro Edition
Copyright 2018 Times-World, LLC All Rights Reserved
Section: SPORTS; Pg. 6C
Length: 575 words
Byline: The Roanoke Times
Body
Soccer, hockey, basketball and field hockey.
Austin Bissell, who shined for the Blacksburg boys soccer team as a senior this year, has been named a high school All-American by the United Soccer Coaches.
Bissell, who plans to join Radford University as a preferred walk-on, was one of 21 boys' soccer players who earned All-America honors from the national coaches organization for the winter/spring seasons.
Building anxiety
Philly.com
May 6, 2019 Monday
Copyright 2019
Distributed by Tribune Content Agency
Section: STATE AND REGIONAL NEWS
Length: 2521 words
Byline: Alfred Lubrano, Philly.com
Body
During the demolition, Ashaw knocked down a house at 909 Taney St. that belonged to Ruth Bissell, who lives in Shrewsbury, Monmouth County.
In a February 2014 letter to Bissell, Beverly Penn, a senior lawyer in the code-enforcement unit of the City Solicitor's Office, described the vacant house as unsafe, and warned that the city was preparing to levy fines against Bissell.
Bissell's lawyer, Keith Northridge, said that while the house was in "disrepair," it had marble floors in several rooms and was well-crafted.
Norwalk blasts Willard for 15th win
Norwalk Reflector, Ohio
May 9, 2019 Thursday
Copyright 2019 Norwalk Reflector, Ohio
Distributed by Tribune Content Agency
Section: SPORTS
Length: 797 words
Byline: Norwalk Reflector, Ohio
Body
Jadon Hanson and Caden Cooper opened the frame with doubles to trim the deficit to 3-2, which brought on relief pitcher Diago Cazares. Cazares got Caleb Bissell on strikes, issued an intentional walk to Cooper McIntyre, uncorked a wild pitch to move both runners up and then settled down to get the last two outs to record the save.
Jacob Thompson worked six innings and took the loss, allowing three runs on six hits, but also working his way out of a bases-loaded jam with no outs in the top off the fifth.
Keegan Smith work the seventh for Edison and was aided by Bissell gunning down two base runners trying to steal second.
BASEBALL: Witter's heroics lift Tigers past Polar Bears; Monday’s prep baseball and tennis roundups.
Sandusky Register (Ohio)
May 7, 2019 Tuesday
Copyright 2019 The Sandusky Register
Distributed by Newsbank, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Section: SPORTS
Length: 1342 words
Byline: Register
Body
At Milan, Chase O'Dell's two-out walk-off single scored Thomas Simon as the Chargers rallied past the Rockets.
Simon, who held Oak Harbor to a single unearned run on four hits, singled with one out to get Edison (14-5, 8-2) in business. He was bunted to second by Luke Bissell before O'Dell came in to pinch-hit and ripped a single down the right-field line.
On the mound, Simon struck out 10 and walked one. Caleb Bissell added two hits for the Chargers.
SENIOR SPOILERS; Chrisman keeps Indians from clinching Middle Seven, wins on Senior Night
The Examiner (Independence - Blues Springs, Missouri)
May 7, 2019 Tuesday
Copyright 2019 The Examiner
Distributed by Newsbank, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Section: MO SPORTS; Pg. B1
Length: 730 words
Byline: Bill Althaus bill.althaus@examiner.net
Body
Fort Osage coach Todd Bissell tipped his hat to the Bears after his Indians fell to 8-14 overall and 7-2 in the conference.
“We win conference outright if we win tonight, so they beat a team that was really playing for something, a conference championship,” Bissell said. “I don’t know if they’ve hit the ball that hard or that well all season — but they earned every hit and every run tonight.
“They were just crushing the ball and their pitcher did a nice job, too. We just have to forget about this one and go out and do our best to get a (conference) win Thursday at North Kansas City.”
A-D-M's Bissell completes basic training; Branden Bissell of Adel has known he wanted to serve in the United States military all his life.
Dallas County News (Adel, Iowa)
December 11, 2008
Copyright 2008 Dallas County News, Stephens Media, LLC, d/b/a Dallas County News
Distributed by Newsbank, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Section: NEWS
Length: 291 words
Byline: Amber Williams
Body
Branden Bissell of Adel has known he wanted to serve in the United States military all his life.
"I've always wanted to be in the military my whole life," he said. "My grandpa was a marine, and I've always looked up to him, so it just kind of made sense."
Bissell, who is set to graduate from Adel-DeSoto-Minburn High School this May, graduated from basic military training at Fort Jackson, Columbia, S.C. through a program that allows students to attend National Guard or reserve weekend drills while still in school between their junior and senior years. In June, he will begin his advanced individual training, most likely in fire fighting, following in his father's footsteps.
His dad, Kyle Bissell, served on the Adel Fire Department and as a Dallas County paramedic for several years, and currently works for the Urbandale Fire Department.
