Offc Action Outgoing

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application

 

 

 

NONFINAL OFFICE ACTION

 

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).  A link to the appropriate TEAS response form appears at the end of this Office action. 

 

 

Issue date:  August 03, 2020

 

The examining attorney acknowledges the amendment to allege use.  The disclaimer requirement is maintained.  The wording PYRAMID is clearly descriptive in view of the specimen which shows that the services/goods feature a pyramid structure methodology/process/system.

 

Further, the proposed mark fails to function as a mark for both class 16 and 35.  This creates a new issue in the application.  This action is, therefore, “non-final.”

Failure to Function—Class 16

Registration is refused because the applied-for mark, as used on the specimen of record, merely identifies a process or system; it does not function as a trademark to indicate the source of applicant’s goods and to identify and distinguish them from others.  Trademark Act Sections 1, 2, and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051-1052, 1127; see In re Griffin Pollution Control Corp., 517 F.2d 1356, 1358-59, 186 USPQ 166, 167 (C.C.P.A. 1975); TMEP §§904.07(b), 1202. 

 

A process or system is only a way of doing something, and is not generally a tangible product.  Cf. TMEP §1301.02(e).  An applied-for mark that identifies only a process, style, method, or system is therefore not registrable as a trademark.  Cf. In re HSB Solomon Assocs., LLC, 102 USPQ2d 1269, 1270 (TTAB 2012); In re Hughes Aircraft Co., 222 USPQ 263, 264 (TTAB 1984). 

 

Whether a designation functions as a mark depends on the commercial impression it makes on the relevant public; that is, whether purchasers would likely regard it as a source-indicator for the goods.  See In re Keep A Breast Found., 123 USPQ2d 1869, 1879 (TTAB 2017) (quoting In re Eagle Crest Inc., 96 USPQ2d 1227, 1229 (TTAB 2010)); TMEP §1202.  The specimen and any other relevant evidence of use is reviewed to determine whether an applied-for mark is being used as a trademark.  In re Bose Corp., 546 F.2d 893, 897, 192 USPQ 213, 216 (C.C.P.A. 1976); In re Volvo Cars of N. Am., Inc., 46 USPQ2d 1455, 1459 (TTAB 1998).

 

In this case, the specimen shows the applied-for mark used solely to identify a process or system because the mark appears only as the name of a business system/method.  The mark appears above a pyramid which exhibits a business system.  Indeed, the wording GAB’S in the mark is an acronym for “Global Architecture of Business Systems” per the specimen.  Emphasis added.  Further, the proposed mark fails to function as a trademark for publications as it appears only the 16^th page of the publication and buried in text.  Consumers would not extract this wording from the 16^th page of the publication and understand it as an indicator of source for the goods.  Trademark Act Sections 1, 2, and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051-1052, 1127; see In re Phoseon Tech., Inc., 103 USPQ2d 1822, 1827-28 (TTAB 2012); In re Remington Prods., Inc., 3 USPQ2d 1714, 1715 (TTAB 1987); TMEP §§904.07(b); 1202 et seq.

 

Failure to Function—Class 35

Registration is refused because the applied-for mark, as used on the specimen of record, merely identifies a process or system; it does not function as a service mark to indicate the source of applicant’s services and to identify and distinguish them from others.  Trademark Act Sections 1, 2, 3, and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051-1053, 1127; see In re HSB Solomon Assocs., LLC, 102 USPQ2d 1269, 1270 (TTAB 2012) (citing In re Universal Oil Prods. Co., 476 F.2d 653, 655-56, 177 USPQ 456, 457 (C.C.P.A. 1973); TMEP §1301.02(e)).

 

A process or system is only a way of doing something, and is not generally a service.  TMEP §1301.02(e).  An applied-for mark that identifies only a process, style, method, or system is therefore not registrable as a service mark.  In re HSB Solomon Assocs., LLC, 102 USPQ2d at 1270; In re Hughes Aircraft Co., 222 USPQ 263, 264 (TTAB 1984). 

 

Whether a designation functions as a mark depends on the commercial impression it makes on the relevant public; that is, whether purchasers would likely regard it as a source-indicator for the services.  See In re Keep A Breast Found., 123 USPQ2d 1869, 1879 (TTAB 2017) (quoting In re Eagle Crest Inc., 96 USPQ2d 1227, 1229 (TTAB 2010)); TMEP §1202.  The specimen and any other relevant evidence of use is reviewed to determine whether an applied-for mark is being used as a service mark.  In re Bose Corp., 546 F.2d 893, 897, 192 USPQ 213, 216 (C.C.P.A. 1976); In re Volvo Cars of N. Am., Inc., 46 USPQ2d 1455, 1459 (TTAB 1998).  A specimen showing the applied-for mark referring solely to a process or system, and not to applicant’s services, is evidence that the relevant public would not regard the designation as a service mark.  See In re Universal Oil Prods. Co., 476 F.2d at 655-56, 177 USPQ at 457.

 

In this case, the specimen shows the applied-for mark used solely to identify a process or system because the mark appears only as the name of a business system/method.  The mark appears above a pyramid which exhibits a business system.  Indeed, the wording GAB’S in the mark is an acronym for “Global Architecture of Business Systems” per the specimen.  Emphasis added. 

 

Applicant’s class 35 description of services makes clear that the services involve a process or method as the services are described as “business efficiency advice which employs a methodology to maximize the internal and external communication of a business and a methodology for structuring business information.”  Emphasis added.  However, the proposed mark on the specimens would not also function as a mark for services.  The proposed mark appears only buried in the advertisement as a reference to the pyramid structure which appears below it.  The mark BIG BANG appears at the top of the specimen and would be understood as the provider/source of the service.

 

Response Options

Response options.  Applicant may respond to this refusal by satisfying one of the following for each applicable class:

 

(1)       Submit a different specimen (a verified “substitute” specimen) that (a) was in actual use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application or prior to the filing of an amendment to allege use and (b) shows proper trademark/service mark use for the goods/services in the application or amendment to allege use.  A “verified substitute specimen” is a specimen that is accompanied by the following statement made in a signed affidavit or supported by a declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20:  “The substitute (or new, or originally submitted, if appropriate) specimen(s) was/were in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application or prior to the filing of the amendment to allege use.”  The substitute specimen cannot be accepted without this statement.

 

Examples of specimens.  Specimens for goods include a photograph of (1) the actual goods bearing the mark; (2) an actual container, packaging, tag or label for the goods bearing the mark; or (3) a point-of-sale display showing the mark directly associated with the goods.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.56(b)(1), (c); TMEP §904.03(a)-(m).  A webpage specimen submitted as a display associated with the goods must show the mark in association with a picture or textual description of the goods and include information necessary for ordering the goods.  TMEP §904.03(i); see 37 C.F.R. §2.56(b)(1), (c).  Any webpage printout or screenshot submitted as a specimen must include the webpage’s URL and the date it was accessed or printed.  37 C.F.R. §2.56(c).  Specimens for services must show a direct association between the mark and the services and include:  (1) copies of advertising and marketing material, (2) a photograph of business signage or billboards, or (3) materials showing the mark in the sale, rendering, or advertising of the services.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.56(b)(2), (c); TMEP §1301.04(a), (h)(iv)(C).  Any webpage printout or screenshot submitted as a specimen must include the webpage’s URL and the date it was accessed or printed.  37 C.F.R. §2.56(c).

 

(2)       Amend the filing basis to intent to use under Section 1(b) for which no specimen is required before publication. See TMEP §806.03(c).  This includes withdrawing an amendment to allege use, if one was filed.  This option will later necessitate additional fee(s) and filing requirements, including a specimen.

 

To amend the basis from Section 1(a) to Section 1(b), applicant must submit the following statement, verified with an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20:  “Applicant has a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce and had a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce as of the application filing date.”  37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(2); TMEP §806.01(b); see 15 U.S.C. §1051(b); 37 C.F.R. §2.35(b)(1). 

 

To withdraw an amendment to allege use, applicant must make a statement in the record requesting that the amendment to allege use be withdrawn. 

 

For more information about the response options above and instructions on how to submit a different specimen using the online Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, see the Specimen webpage.

 

 

How to respond.  Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action.    

 

 

/Daniel F. Capshaw/

Daniel F. Capshaw

Examining Attorney

Law Office 110

571-272-9356

daniel.capshaw@uspto.gov

 

 

 

RESPONSE GUIDANCE

• Missing the response deadline to this letter will cause the application to abandon.  A response or notice of appeal must be received by the USPTO before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period.  TEAS and ESTTA maintenance or unforeseen circumstances could affect an applicant’s ability to timely respond.  

 

• Responses signed by an unauthorized party are not accepted and can cause the application to abandon.  If applicant does not have an attorney, the response must be signed by the individual applicant, all joint applicants, or someone with legal authority to bind a juristic applicant.  If applicant has an attorney, the response must be signed by the attorney.

 

• If needed, find contact information for the supervisor of the office or unit listed in the signature block.

 

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

 

USPTO OFFICIAL NOTICE

 

Office Action (Official Letter) has issued

on August 03, 2020 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88206124

 

Your trademark application has been reviewed by a trademark examining attorney.  As part of that review, the assigned attorney has issued an official letter that you must respond to by the specified deadline or your application will be abandoned.  Please follow the steps below.

 

(1)  Read the official letter.

 

(2)  Direct questions about the contents of the Office action to the assigned attorney below. 

 

 

/Daniel F. Capshaw/

Daniel F. Capshaw

Examining Attorney

Law Office 110

571-272-9356

daniel.capshaw@uspto.gov

 

 

Direct questions about navigating USPTO electronic forms, the USPTO website, the application process, the status of your application, and/or whether there are outstanding deadlines or documents related to your file to the Trademark Assistance Center (TAC).

 

(3)  Respond within 6 months (or earlier, if required in the Office action) from August 03, 2020, using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS).  The response must be received by the USPTO before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period.  See the Office action for more information about how to respond

 

 

 

GENERAL GUIDANCE

·       Check the status of your application periodically in the Trademark Status & Document Retrieval (TSDR) database to avoid missing critical deadlines.

 

·       Update your correspondence email address, if needed, to ensure you receive important USPTO notices about your application.

 

·       Beware of misleading notices sent by private companies about your application.  Private companies not associated with the USPTO use public information available in trademark registrations to mail and email trademark-related offers and notices – most of which require fees.  All official USPTO correspondence will only be emailed from the domain “@uspto.gov.”