To: | OLD WESTMINSTER WINERY LLC (mailroom@ppblaw.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88174117 - NITRO - 0623-003-TM |
Sent: | September 15, 2019 06:52:37 PM |
Sent As: | ecom106@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 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88174117
Mark: NITRO
|
|
Correspondence Address: PATENT PORTFOLIO BUILDERS, PLLC
|
|
Applicant: OLD WESTMINSTER WINERY LLC
|
|
Reference/Docket No. 0623-003-TM
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) 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: September 15, 2019
This Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on August 6, 2019.
The sole issue raised in the first Office action, the refusal to register under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, is made final.
TRADEMARK ACT SECTION 2(e)(1) REFUSAL – MARK IS MERELY DESCRIPTIVE
Registration has been refused because the applied-for mark merely describes a feature of applicant’s goods. Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); see TMEP §§1209.01(b), 1209.03 et seq. The refusal under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1) is now made FINAL for the reasons set forth below. See 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b).
The determination of whether a mark is merely descriptive is made in relation to an applicant’s goods, not in the abstract. DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1254, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re The Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 1300, 102 USPQ2d 1217, 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2012); TMEP §1209.01(b); see, e.g., In re Polo Int’l Inc., 51 USPQ2d 1061, 1062-63 (TTAB 1999) (finding DOC in DOC-CONTROL would refer to the “documents” managed by applicant’s software rather than the term “doctor” shown in a dictionary definition); In re Digital Research Inc., 4 USPQ2d 1242, 1243-44 (TTAB 1987) (finding CONCURRENT PC-DOS and CONCURRENT DOS merely descriptive of “computer programs recorded on disk” where the relevant trade used the denomination “concurrent” as a descriptor of a particular type of operating system). “Whether consumers could guess what the product [or service] is from consideration of the mark alone is not the test.” In re Am. Greetings Corp., 226 USPQ 365, 366 (TTAB 1985).
The applicant in this case seeks registration of the proposed mark, NITRO, in standard character form, for use with wine.
In response to the refusal, the applicant argues that the proposed mark is suggestive, rather than merely descriptive. The applicant notes that “NITRO” has several meanings and that a “ consumer would not readily associate "nitro" as defining "nitrogen," as alleged in the Office Action.”
However, descriptiveness is considered in relation to the relevant goods. DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1254, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “That a term may have other meanings in different contexts is not controlling.” In re Franklin Cnty. Historical Soc’y, 104 USPQ2d 1085, 1087 (TTAB 2012) (citing In re Bright-Crest, Ltd., 204 USPQ 591, 593 (TTAB 1979)); TMEP §1209.03(e). “It is well settled that so long as any one of the meanings of a term is descriptive, the term may be considered to be merely descriptive.” In re Mueller Sports Med., Inc., 126 USPQ2d 1584, 1590 (TTAB 2018) (quoting In re Chopper Indus., 222 USPQ 258, 259 (TTAB 1984)).
The attached excerpts from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, (5th ed. 2019) and Merriam-Webster, (2019), demonstrate that “nitro” means “nitrogen”. As made clear by the attached articles from online publications and beverage producers and retailers, including Food & Wine, nitrogen is emerging as an ingredient in beverages, including wine, because it produces smaller bubbles giving the beverages a smoother feel. Indeed, nitrogen, or nitro, is being used not only in alcoholic, but even non-alcoholic beverages. Moreover, the applicant itself promotes nitrogen as an ingredient in its wines stating that the wine “receives a dose of nitrogen in the can – resulting in a softer, frothier texture.” [See excerpt from applicant’s website accompanying the first Office action].
Finally, it is noted that there is a clear competitive need for others using nitrogen in their own products to be able to use the term “nitro” to describe those goods. Two major reasons for not protecting descriptive marks are (1) to prevent the owner of a descriptive mark from inhibiting competition in the marketplace and (2) to avoid the possibility of costly infringement suits brought by the trademark or service mark owner. In re Abcor Dev. Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 813, 200 USPQ 215, 217 (C.C.P.A. 1978); TMEP §1209. Businesses and competitors should be free to use descriptive language when describing their own goods and/or services to the public in advertising and marketing materials. See In re Styleclick.com Inc., 58 USPQ2d 1523, 1527 (TTAB 2001).
Consumers are encountering the use of “nitro” in the marketplace to identify an ingredient in alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages alike. Accordingly, those encountering the proposed mark used on the identified goods will readily perceive that the applicant’s goods feature nitro as an ingredient. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, the refusal to register under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act must be made final.
FINAL REFUSAL RESPONSE GUIDELINES
This is a final refusal. Please use the links in the paragraph above the signature block below to respond to the instant Office action and/or file an appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.
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 final Office action and/or appeal it to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB).
/Martha L. Fromm/
Trademark Examining Attorney
United States Patent & Trademark Office
Law Office 106
571-272-9320
Martha.Fromm@USPTO.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE