To: | Insignia Systems, Inc. (dockmpls@merchantgould.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88200857 - BANNERPOPS - 8995.121US02 |
Sent: | October 09, 2019 12:35:03 PM |
Sent As: | ecom100@uspto.gov |
Attachments: |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88200857
Mark: BANNERPOPS
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
Applicant: Insignia Systems, Inc.
|
|
Reference/Docket No. 8995.121US02
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: October 09, 2019
This Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on Aug. 26, 2019.
In a previous Office action(s) dated Feb. 25, 2019, the trademark examining attorney refused registration of the applied-for mark based on the following:
- Duplicate registrations
- Refusal under Section 2(e)(1)
- Requirement for further information
The following refusal(s) have been obviated: Registration No. 4251713, which would have resulted in a duplicate registration, has been abandoned. See TMEP §§713.02, 714.04.
Further, the trademark examining attorney maintains and now makes FINAL the refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) 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:
FINAL REFUSAL UNDER SECTION 2(E)(1) – PROPOSED MARK IS MERELY DESCRIPTIVE
Applicant’s argument that “the wording BANNERPOPS does not immediately convey to one seeing the mark the specific nature of the goods and the fact that they are point of purchase displays” is unpersuasive because the determination of whether a mark is merely descriptive is made in relation to an applicant’s goods and/or services, 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).
In this case, the wording “BANNERPOPS” identifies characteristics or features of the identified goods, which are identified as point of purchase displays - namely, that they involve point of purchase (or “POP”) banner displays. A “banner” is “a strip of cloth on which a sign is painted” and, in the context of the applicant’s goods, POP means “point of purchase.” See evidence attached to the Feb. 25, 2019 Office action.
As a whole, the wording BANNERPOPS merely describes the nature of the applicant’s goods as POP (“point of purchase”) banner displays. Accordingly, the refusal under Section 2(e)(1) is maintained and made FINAL.
SUPPLEMENTAL REGISTER
The applied-for mark has been refused registration on the Principal Register. Applicant may respond by submitting evidence and arguments against the refusal. In addition, applicant may respond by amending the application to seek registration on the Supplemental Register. See 15 U.S.C. §§1052(f), 1091.
To amend an intent-to-use application under Trademark Act Section 1(b) to use in commerce, an applicant must file, prior to approval of the mark for publication, an acceptable amendment to allege use. See 15 U.S.C. §1051(c); 37 C.F.R. §2.76; TMEP §§806.01(b), 1103. An amendment to allege use must satisfy the following requirements:
(1) STATEMENTS: The following statements: “The applicant is the owner of the mark sought to be registered.” and “The applicant is using the mark in commerce on or in connection with all the goods/services in the application or notice of allowance, or as subsequently modified.”
(2) DATES OF FIRST USE: The date of first use of the mark anywhereon or in connection with the goods and/or services, and the date of first use of the mark in commerceas a trademark or service mark. See more information about dates of use.
(3) GOODS AND/OR SERVICES: The goods and/or services specified in the application.
(4) SPECIMEN: A specimen showing how applicant uses the mark in commerce for each class of goods and/or services for which use is being asserted. If a single specimen supports multiple classes, applicant should indicate which classes the specimen supports rather than providing multiple copies of the same specimen. See more information about specimens.
(5) FEE(S): A filing fee for each international class of goods and/or services for which use is being asserted (find current fee information).
(6) VERIFICATION: Verification of (1) through (4) above in an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20. See more information about verification.
See 37 C.F.R. §2.76(b); TMEP §1104.08.
An amendment to allege use may be filed online via the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS). Filing an amendment to allege use is not considered a response to an Office action. 37 C.F.R. §2.76(h); TMEP §1104. An applicant must file a separate response to any outstanding Office action. TMEP §1104; see 37 C.F.R. §2.76(h).
FINAL REQUIREMENT FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
The applicant’s response did not address the requirement in the Feb. 25, 2019 Office action for further information about the goods. Accordingly, that requirement is maintained and made final
Factual information about the goods must clearly indicate how they operate, their salient features, and their prospective customers and channels of trade. Conclusory statements regarding the goods will not satisfy this requirement.
Failure to comply with a request for information is grounds for refusing registration. In re Harley, 119 USPQ2d 1755, 1757-58 (TTAB 2016); TMEP §814. Merely stating that information about the goods is available on applicant’s website is an insufficient response and will not make the relevant information of record. See In re Planalytics, Inc., 70 USPQ2d 1453, 1457-58 (TTAB 2004).
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)
/Andrew Benzmiller/
Staff Attorney
Law Office 100
(571) 272-9127
andrew.benzmiller@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE