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: 12/8/2018

 

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

 

No Conflicting Marks Noted

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).  However, the applicant must respond to the following issues within the prescribed six-month response period in order to avoid abandonment.

 

REFUSAL – APPLIED-FOR MARK IS GENERIC

Registration is refused because the applied-for mark is generic for the applicant’s goods.  Trademark Act Sections 1, 2, and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1052, 1127; see TMEP §§1209.01(c) et seq., 1209.02(b).  Thus, applicant’s claim of acquired distinctiveness under Trademark Act Section 2(f) is insufficient to overcome the refusal because “generic terms cannot be rescued by proof of distinctiveness or secondary meaning no matter how voluminous the proffered evidence may be.”  Royal Crown Co. v. Coca-Cola Co., 892 F.3d 1358, 1365, 127 USPQ2d 1041, 1045 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting In re Northland Aluminum Prods., 777 F.2d 1556, 1558, 227 USPQ2d 961, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1985)); see TMEP §1212.02(i).

 

“A mark is generic if its primary significance to the relevant public is the class or category of goods or services on or in connection with which it is used.”  TMEP §1209.01(c)(i) (citing H. Marvin Ginn Corp. v. Int’l Ass’n of Fire Chiefs, Inc., 782 F.2d at 989-90, 228 USPQ at 530; In re ActiveVideo Networks, Inc., 111 USPQ2d 1581, 1600 (TTAB 2014)).  Determining whether a mark is generic requires a two-step inquiry:

 

(1)       What is the genus of goods and/or services at issue?

 

(2)       Does the relevant public understand the designation primarily to refer to that genus of goods and/or services?

 

In re Cordua Rests., Inc., 823 F.3d 594, 599, 118 USPQ2d 1632, 1634 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing H. Marvin Ginn Corp. v. Int’l Ass’n of Fire Chiefs, Inc., 782 F.2d at 990, 228 USPQ at 530); TMEP §1209.01(c)(i). 

 

Regarding the first part of the inquiry, the genus of the goods and/or services may be defined by an applicant’s identification of goods and/or services.  See In re Cordua Rests., Inc., 823 F.3d at 602, 118 USPQ2d at 1636 (citing Magic Wand Inc. v. RDB Inc., 940 F.2d 638, 640, 19 USPQ2d 1551, 1552 (Fed. Cir. 1991)); see also In re 1800Mattress.com IP, LLC, 586 F.3d 1359, 1361, 1363, 92 USPQ2d 1682, 1682, 1684 (Fed. Cir. 2009).   

 

In this case, the application identifies the goods and/or services as “hair care preparations and hair styling preparations.”  Based on the specimens of record and the excerpt from the applicant’s website it is clear that the applicant’s relevant hair care products all contain bamboo and/or bamboo extracts as a primary ingredient.  Therefore, the genus can be narrowed to hair care preparations and hair styling preparations containing bamboo and/or bamboo extracts.  See the specimens of record and the attached excerpt taken from the applicant’s website.

 

Importantly, the name of an ingredient, a key aspect, a central focus or feature, or a main characteristic of goods may be generic for those goods and/or services.  See In re Cordua Rests., Inc., 823 F.3d 594, 604, 118 USPQ2d 1632, 1637-38 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (affirming the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s holding of CHURRASCOS (a type of grilled meat) generic for restaurant services); In re Hotels.com LP, 573 F.3d 1300, 1304, 91 USPQ2d 1532, 1535 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (affirming the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s holding of HOTELS.COM generic for travel agency services, namely, making reservations and bookings for temporary lodging, and providing information about temporary lodging); In re Emergency Alert Sols. Grp., LLC, 122 USPQ2d 1088, 1091-93 (TTAB 2017) (holding LOCKDOWN ALARM generic for training services focusing on the use of and response to lockdown alarms); In re Meridian Rack & Pinion, 114 USPQ2d 1462, 1465-66 (TTAB 2015) (holding BUYAUTOPARTS.COM generic for on-line retail store services featuring auto parts); TMEP §1209.03(v); see also A.J. Canfield Co. v. Honickman, 808 F.2d 291, 292, 1 USPQ2d 1364, 1365 (3d Cir. 1986) (holding CHOCOLATE FUDGE generic for diet sodas).  Thus, a term does not need to be the name of a specific product and/or service to be found generic.  Any term that the relevant public understands to refer to the genus can be generic.  Royal Crown Co. v. Coca-Cola Co., 892 F.3d 1358, 1367, 127 USPQ2d 1041, 1046 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting In re Cordua Rests., Inc., 823 F.3d at 603, 118 USPQ2d at 1637 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).

 

As evidence of the primary and key nature of bamboo/bamboo extracts as an ingredient in the applicant’s hair care and styling products, the excerpt from the applicant website has a section entitled “THE BAMBOO DIFFERENCE” which states the following:

 

Dedicated to boosting hair's intrinsic strength & flexibility with eco-certified Bamboo extract and natural ingredients sustainably harvested and sourced from around the world. Bamboo is one of the world's fastest growing, most resilient, botanical resources.

 

BAMBOO PRODUCTS CONTAINS:

Eco-certified Bamboo extract: rich in vitamins, minerals and amino acids

 

As further evidence of the generic nature of “BAMBOO” when used in connection with hair care products, the examining attorney has web excerpts showing numerous other parties using “bamboo shampoos and conditions” to generically refer to their hair care products containing bamboo extracts.  See the five (5) representative registrations attached. 

 

Notably, material obtained from the Internet is generally accepted as competent evidence in trademark examination.  See In re Jonathan Drew Inc., 97 USPQ2d 1640, 1641-42 (TTAB 2011); In re Davey Prods. Pty Ltd., 92 USPQ2d 1198, 1202-03 (TTAB 2009); In re Leonhardt, 109 USPQ2d 2091, 2098 (TTAB 2008); TBMP §1208.03; TMEP §710.01(b).

 

Regarding the second part of the inquiry, the relevant public is the purchasing or consuming public for the identified goods and/or services.  Sheetz of Del., Inc. v. Doctor’s Assocs. Inc., 108 USPQ2d 1341, 1351 (TTAB 2013) (citing Magic Wand Inc. v. RDB Inc., 940 F.2d at 640, 19 USPQ2d at 1553).  In this case, the relevant public comprises ordinary consumers who purchase the applicant’s goods, because there are no restrictions or limitations to the channels of trade or classes of consumers.  As discussed above, the attached relevant web excerpts shows that the wording “bamboo” in the applied-for mark is a type of shampoo and refers to a key and primary ingredient of the applicant’s and third party hair care preparations.  Thus the relevant public would understand this designation to refer primarily to that genus of goods because it refers to a type of hair care product and its key and primary ingredient.

 

REFUSAL IN THE ALTERNATIVE – APPLIED-FOR MARK IS MERELY DESCRIPTIVE

In the alternative, if the applied-for mark is ultimately determined not to be generic by an appellate tribunal, then registration is refused because the applied-for mark is merely descriptive of a the goods.  Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); see TMEP §§1209.01(b), 1209.03 et seq.

 

A mark is merely descriptive if it describes an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose, or use of the specified goods and/or services.  TMEP §1209.01(b); see In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293, 1297, 75 USPQ2d 1420, 1421 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Gyulay, 820 F.2d 1216, 1217-18, 3 USPQ2d 1009, 1009-10 (Fed. Cir. 1987).  Determining whether a mark is merely descriptive is considered in relation to the identified goods and/or services, not in the abstract.  In re Bayer AG, 488 F.3d 960, 963-64, 82 USPQ2d 1828, 1831 (Fed. Cir. 2007); In re Abcor Dev. Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 814, 200 USPQ 215, 217-18 (C.C.P.A. 1978); TMEP §1209.01(b).  As discussed, the term “bamboo” is simply the name of a primary and key ingredient of the applicant’s hair care preparations and styling preparations.

 

In addition, applicant’s claim of acquired distinctiveness in the application is a concession that the mark sought to be registered is merely descriptive of applicant’s goods.  In re Leatherman Tool Grp., Inc., 32 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (TTAB 1994); see Yamaha Int’l Corp. v. Hoshino Gakki Co., 840 F.2d 1572, 1577, 6 USPQ2d 1001, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

 

APPLICANT’S EVIDENCE OF ACQUIRED DISTINCTIVENESS IS INSUFFICIENT

The applicant asserted in the application a claim of acquired distinctiveness under Section 2(f).  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(f).  The applicant relied solely on a claim that “the mark has become distinctive of the goods/services through the applicant's substantially exclusive and continuous use of the mark in commerce that the U.S. Congress may lawfully regulate for at least the five years immediately before the date of this statement.”  See 37 C.F.R. §2.41.

 

If the applied-for mark is ultimately determined to be merely descriptive and not generic, the Section 2(f) evidence is insufficient to show acquired distinctiveness because of the highly descriptive nature of the term “bamboo.”

 

The amount and character of evidence needed to establish acquired distinctiveness depends on the facts of each case and particularly on the nature of the mark sought to be registered.  Roux Labs., Inc. v. Clairol Inc., 427 F.2d 823, 829, 166 USPQ 34, 39 (C.C.P.A. 1970); In re Chevron Intellectual Prop. Grp. LLC, 96 USPQ2d 2026, 2030 (TTAB 2010); TMEP §1212.01.  An applicant’s evidentiary burden of showing acquired distinctiveness increases with the level of descriptiveness of the mark sought to be registered; a more descriptive term requires more evidence.  Royal Crown Co. v. Coca-Cola Co., 892 F.3d at 1365, 127 USPQ2d at 1045 (citing In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293, 1300, 75 USPQ2d 1420, 1424 (Fed. Cir. 2005)).

 

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

 

Identification Must be Amended to Avoid Deceptiveness Refusal

The applicant’s mark consists of the wording “BAMBOO”, which indicates that the applicant’s goods have bamboo and or bamboo extracts as an ingredient.  Specifically, the applicant’s specimens indicate that the applicant’s hair care products contain “eco-certified bamboo.”  Additionally, as noted above, the excerpt from the applicant’s website indicates that the applicant’s hair care preparations and styling preparations all contain bamboo and/or bamboo extracts as a primary ingredient.

 

This feature or characteristic is considered desirable for applicant’s goods and/or services because bamboo is widely desired for hair and skin care products because it is known to strengthen, renew and even re-grow hair.  However, if some or all of the goods and/or services do not (or will not) in fact have or exhibit this feature or characteristic, then registration may be refused because the mark consists of or includes deceptive matter in relation to the identified goods and/or services.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(a); In re Budge Mfg. Co., 857 F.2d 773, 8 USPQ2d 1259 (Fed. Cir. 1988); TMEP §1203.02-.02(b).

 

To avoid such refusal, applicant may amend the identification to specify that the goods and/or services possess this relevant feature or characteristic.  See TMEP §§1203.02(e)(ii), (f)(i), 1402.05 et seq.  However, merely amending the identification to exclude goods or services with the named feature or characteristic will not avoid a deceptiveness refusal.  TMEP §1203.02(f)(i).

 

Therefore, applicant may amend the identification to the following, if accurate: 

 

“Hair care preparations and hair styling preparations all containing bamboo extract,” in International Class 3.

 

 

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.  

 

 

If the applicant has any questions or needs assistance with the present application, please telephone the assigned examining attorney.

 

 

 

/Jeffery C. Coward/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 106

Phone: 571-272-9148

Fax: 571-273-9106

E-mail: jeffery.coward@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 12/8/2018 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 88146122

 

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 12/8/2018 (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.