To: | GMH TEQUESTA HOLDINGS LLC (tmconfirm@dilworthlaw.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88205666 - PEER - 18-1256 |
Sent: | April 14, 2020 06:20:54 PM |
Sent As: | ecom101@uspto.gov |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88205666
Mark: PEER
|
|
Correspondence Address: |
|
Applicant: GMH TEQUESTA HOLDINGS LLC
|
|
Reference/Docket No. 18-1256
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
Applicant’s Response Is Incomplete
Issue date: April 14, 2020
The application is abandoned because applicant’s response to the 9/23/2019 final Office action dated is not complete for the reason(s) stated below. See 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §2.65(a); TMEP §§718.02, 718.03.
In this case, applicant did not (1) raise a new issue, (2) resolve all outstanding issue(s) in the final Office action, (3) provide any new or compelling evidence with regard to the outstanding issue(s), or (4) present analysis and arguments that were persuasive or shed new light on the outstanding issue(s). Additionally, applicant did not timely file a notice of appeal and no time remains in the response period. See attached from the TTAB records.
Applicant may file a Petition to the Director Under Trademark Rule 2.146 within two months of the issue date of this notice to request that the abandonment determination be reversed and the application be returned to active status. TMEP §§715.03(a)(ii)(D), 718.03(b), 1705.04, 1713.01-.02. However, the Director will grant the petition in rare cases if (1) the USPTO committed a clear procedural error or abuse of discretion, or (2) applicant can show substantial compliance with the response requirements. TMEP §§715.03(a)(ii)(D), 718.03(b), 1713.01-02.
Applicant is advised that the amendment in the identification is acceptable and has been made of record.
SECTION 2(e)(1) REFUSAL - MERELY DESCRIPTIVE
Registration is refused because the applied-for mark merely describes a feature and/or characteristic of applicant’s services. Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); see TMEP §§1209.01(b), 1209.03 et seq.
Applicant argues that the mark is not merely descriptive because the term “peer” does not appear in the identification and that addiction treatment services covers a broad spectrum of methods and processes such that other wording could be used to describe these services.
However it is not necessary that a term describe all of the purposes, functions, characteristics, or features of a services to be considered merely descriptive; it is enough if the term describes one significant function, attribute, or property. In re The Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 1300, 102 USPQ2d 1217, 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Second, even if there are other words that can be used to describe applicant's services, it does not establish that applicant's term is not merely descriptive. The question is simply whether the term PEER describes applicant's services and not rather if there are better terms to describe those services. Here the evidence shows that PEER does describe a type of addiction treatment service.
/Benji Paradewelai/
Trademark Attorney
Law Office 101, USPTO
Direct Dial: (571) 272-1658
Email: benji.paradewelai@uspto.gov (for informal inquiries)
http://www.uspto.gov (for filing Official responses)
---