To: | Speedway Motors, Inc. (docketdept@uspatent.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88132703 - SPEEDWAY MOTORS - 7440-168 |
Sent: | September 27, 2019 11:21:12 PM |
Sent As: | ecom115@uspto.gov |
Attachments: |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88132703
Mark: SPEEDWAY MOTORS
|
|
Correspondence Address: WOODARD, EMHARDT, MORIARTY, MCNETT & HEN 111 MONUMENT CIRCLE, SUITE 3700
|
|
Applicant: Speedway Motors, Inc.
|
|
Reference/Docket No. 7440-168
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
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). A link to the appropriate TEAS response form appears at the end of this Office action.
Issue date: September 27, 2019
SPECIMEN UNACCEPTABLE
No Direct Association
An application based on Trademark Act Section 1(a) must include a specimen showing the applied-for mark in use in commerce for each international class of services identified in the statement of use. 15 U.S.C. §1051(a)(1); 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a).
When determining whether a mark is used in connection with the services in the application, a key consideration is the perception of the user. In re JobDiva, Inc., 843 F.3d at 942, 121 USPQ2d at 1126 (citing Lens.com, Inc. v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc., 686 F.3d 1376, 1381-82, 103 USPQ2d 1672, 1676 (Fed Cir. 2012)). A specimen must show the mark used in a way that would create in the minds of potential consumers a sufficient nexus or direct association between the mark and the services being offered. In re Universal Oil Prods. Co., 476 F.2d at 655, 177 USPQ2d at 457; TMEP §1301.04(f)(ii); see also In re JobDiva, Inc., 843 F.3d at 942, 121 USPQ2d at 1126; In re Adver. & Mktg. Dev., Inc., 821 F.2d at 620, 2 USPQ2d at 2014.
To show a direct association, specimens showing the mark used in rendering the identified services need not explicitly refer to those services, but “there must be something which creates in the mind of the purchaser an association between the mark and the service activity.” In re WAY Media, Inc., 118 USPQ2d 1697, 1698 (TTAB 2016) (quoting In re Johnson Controls, Inc., 33 USPQ2d 1318, 1320 (TTAB 1994)).
In the present case, the specimen does not show a direct association between the mark and services in that the specimen merely shows portions of the mark printed on the sides of shipping boxes. The shipping boxes do not appear to reference or suggest the identified “catalog ordering services.” Moreover, to the extent said boxes are associated with the services, they would only be seen by the consumer well after the goods relevant to the catalog ordering services. Accordingly, they do not show a direct association with the identified services.
Mutilation
Additionally, registration is refused because the specimen does not show the mark in the drawing in use in commerce in International Class 35, which is required in the statement of use. Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a), 1301.04(g)(i). The mark appearing on the specimen and in the drawing must match; that is, the mark in the drawing “must be a substantially exact representation of the mark” on the specimen. See 37 C.F.R. §2.51(a)-(b); TMEP §807.12(a).
In this case, the specimen displays the mark as only a portion of the mark in the drawing, with edges of the inner circle and the shaded circle removed. However, the drawing displays the mark with a completed circle apart from, and inside a shaded circle behind. The mark on the specimen and in the drawing do not match because the mark on the drawing is only a portion of the mark appearing on the specimen.
A portion of a mark may be registered only “if that portion presents a separate and distinct commercial impression.” In re Lorillard Licensing Co., 99 USPQ2d 1312, 1316 (TTAB 2011) (citing In re 1175854 Ontario Ltd., 81 USPQ2d 1446, 1448 (TTAB 2006)). In this case, the drawing shows only a nonseparable part of the mark appearing on the specimen. See In re Chem. Dynamics Inc., 839 F.2d 1569, 1571, 5 USPQ2d 1828, 1829-30 (Fed. Cir. 1988); In re Guitar Straps Online LLC, 103 USPQ2d 1745, 1751 (TTAB 2012); TMEP §807.12(a), (d). Specifically, the removed portions of the lined circle shape itself, and the shaded circle in which a considerable portion of the mark appears. Applicant has thus failed to provide the required evidence of use of the mark in commerce. See TMEP §807.12(a).
Applicant may respond to this refusal by submitting, for each applicable international class, a different specimen (a verified “substitute” specimen) that (a) was in actual use in commerce prior to the expiration of the deadline for filing the statement of use and (b) shows the mark in actual use in commerce for the services identified in the statement of use. A “verified substitute specimen” is a specimen that is accompanied by the following statement made in a signed affidavit or supported by a declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20: “The substitute (or new, or originally submitted, if appropriate) specimen(s) was/were in use in commerce prior to expiration of the filing deadline for a statement of use.” The substitute specimen cannot be accepted without this statement.
Applicant, however, may not withdraw the statement of use. See 37 C.F.R. §2.88(f); TMEP §1109.17.
The USPTO will not accept an amended drawing submitted in response to this refusal because the changes would materially alter the drawing of the mark in the original application or as previously acceptably amended. See 37 C.F.R. §2.72(a)-(b); TMEP §807.14. Specifically, amending the mark to match any of the marks on the specimen would alter and remove design elements such that the overall commercial impression would be changed.
For instructions on how to submit a different specimen using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) response form, see the Specimen webpage.
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.
How to respond. Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action
/Jim Hill/
James Hill
Examining Attorney
Law Office 115, USPTO
(571) 270-5682
james.hill@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE