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: 3/21/2019

THIS IS A FINAL ACTION.

INTRODUCTION

This Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on March 11, 2019.

In a previous Office action dated February 8, 2019, the trademark examining attorney refused registration of the applied-for mark based on the following: Trademark Act Section 2(e)4 for a mark that is primarily merely a surname.

The trademark examining attorney maintains and now makes FINAL the refusal in the summary of issues below. See 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b); TMEP §714.04.

SUMMARY OF ISSUES MADE FINAL THAT APPLICANT MUST ADDRESS:

INSUFFICIENT SECTION 2(f) CLAIM
SECTION 2(e)(4) REFUSAL – PRIMARILY MERELY A SURNAME

INSUFFICIENT SECTION 2(F) CLAIM

Applicant’s Trademark Act Section 2(f) claim based on five years’ use is insufficient to show acquired distinctiveness because applicant’s dates of use of the mark indicate that applicant has not actually used the mark in commerce for the requisite time period. See 15 U.S.C. §1052(f). For this claim to be accepted, applicant’s substantially exclusive and continuous use of the mark in commerce that the U.S. Congress may lawfully regulate must have been for at least five years before the date on which the claim is made. 15 U.S.C. §1052(f); 37 C.F.R. §2.41(a)(2); TMEP §1212.05. And such use must have been in a type of commerce that may be regulated by the U.S. Congress. See 15 U.S.C. §§1052(f), 1127.

In the present case, applicant asserted a claim of acquired distinctiveness on March 11, 2019. Five years prior to this date would be approximately March 11, 2014. However, the date of first use in commerce specified in the application is April 1, 2018, which is less than five years prior to the date the distinctiveness claim was made.

As an alternative to claiming acquired distinctiveness under Section 2(f), applicant may request to amend the application to seek registration on the Supplemental Register. See 15 U.S.C. §1091(a); 37 C.F.R. §§2.47, 2.75(a); TMEP §§801.02(b), 816. To amend to the Supplemental Register, the mark must be in lawful use in commerce; however, no specific length of use is required. See 15 U.S.C. §1091(a); 37 C.F.R. §2.47(a); TMEP §815.02.

SECTION 2(e)(4) REFUSAL – PRIMARILY MERELY A SURNAME – Continued & Maintained

Registration is refused because the applied-for mark is primarily merely a surname. Trademark Act Section 2(e)(4), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(4); see TMEP §1211.

An applicant’s mark is primarily merely a surname if the surname, when viewed in connection with the applicant’s recited goods and/or services, “‘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.

First, please see the evidence attached to the Office Action dated February 8, 2019, from LEXISNEXIS®, establishing the surname significance of “FELMLEE”. This evidence shows the applied-for mark appearing 345 times as a surname in a 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.

Second, 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 evidence attached to the Office Action dated February 8, 2019, included screenshots from applicant's website demonstrating that Femlee is the surname of the founder of Felmlee Enterprises, Inc.

Third, 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 evidence attached to the Office Action dated February 8, 2019, from The American Heritage Dictionary and The Columbia Gazetteer of the World shows that “FELMLEE” does not appear in the dictionary or the gazetteer. Thus, this term appears to have no recognized meaning or significance other than as a surname.

Fourth, 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 evidence attached to the Office Action dated February 8, 2019, from LEXISNEXIS® shows another surname, “HELMLY”, that has a similar structures and/or pronunciations.

Fifth, the mark is in standard character form, lacking any stylization which would remove its primary significance from that of a surname.

Therefore, upon weighing of the above factors, the primary significance of the term “FELMLEE” to purchasers is primarily merely a surname.

ADVISORY: OPTIONS TO OBTAIN REGISTRATION

A mark deemed primarily merely a surname may be registered on the Principal Register under Trademark Act Section 2(f) based on a claim of acquired distinctiveness. See 15 U.S.C. §1052(f); 37 C.F.R. §2.41(a); TMEP §§1211, 1212. Applicant may respond by asserting a claim of acquired distinctiveness based on one or more of the following:

(1) Prior Registrations: Applicant may claim ownership of one or more active prior registrations on the Principal Register of the same mark for goods and/or services that are sufficiently similar to those named in the pending application. 37 C.F.R. §2.41(a)(1); TMEP §§1212, 1212.04. Applicant may do so by submitting the following statement, if accurate: “The mark has become distinctive of the goods and/or services as evidenced by the ownership of active U.S. Registration No(s). <> on the Principal Register for the same mark for sufficiently similar goods and/or services.” TMEP §1212.04(e).

(2) Five Years’ Use: Applicant may submit the following statement, verified with an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20: “The mark has become distinctive of the goods and/or 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.” 37 C.F.R. §2.41(a)(2); TMEP §1212.05(d); see 37 C.F.R. §2.193(e)(1).

(3) Other Evidence: Applicant may submit other evidence of acquired distinctiveness, with the following statement, if accurate: “The evidence shows that the mark has become distinctive of the goods and/or services.” 37 C.F.R. §2.41(a)(3); TMEP §1212.06. Such additional evidence may include “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)).

If applicant cannot satisfy one of the above, 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

Applicant must respond within six months of the date of issuance of this final Office action or the application will be abandoned. 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §2.65(a). Applicant may respond by providing one or both of the following:

(1) a response filed using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) that fully satisfies all outstanding requirements and/or resolves all outstanding refusals; and/or

(2) an appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board filed using the Electronic System for Trademark Trials and Appeals (ESTTA) with the required filing fee of $200 per class.

37 C.F.R. §2.63(b)(1)-(2); TMEP §714.04; see 37 C.F.R. §2.6(a)(18); TBMP ch. 1200.

In certain rare circumstances, an applicant may respond by filing a petition to the Director pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b)(2) to review procedural issues. TMEP §714.04; see 37 C.F.R. §2.146(b); TBMP §1201.05; TMEP §1704 (explaining petitionable matters). There is a fee required for filing a petition. 37 C.F.R. §2.6(a)(15).

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.

/Brandy Mazzella/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 121

(571) 270-3777

brandy.mazzella@uspto.gov

TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER: Go to http://www.uspto.gov/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.uspto.gov/. 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.uspto.gov/trademarks/process/status/.

TO UPDATE CORRESPONDENCE/E-MAIL ADDRESS: Use the TEAS form at http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/correspondence.jsp.

To:	Felmlee Lures LLC (jkammerdeiner@msbk-law.com)
Subject:	U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 88179821 - FELMLEE - N/A
Sent:	3/21/2019 4:43:50 PM
Sent As:	ECOM121@USPTO.GOV
Attachments: