To: | Establishment Labs S.A. (rguerra@brickellip.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88214478 - SUPER SILICONE - N/A |
Sent: | September 30, 2019 11:15:37 AM |
Sent As: | ecom105@uspto.gov |
Attachments: |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88214478
Mark: SUPER SILICONE
|
|
Correspondence Address: 1101 BRICKELL AVENUE, S. TOWER, STE. 800 |
|
Applicant: Establishment Labs S.A.
|
|
Reference/Docket No. N/A
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). A link to the appropriate TEAS response form appears at the end of this Office action.
Issue date: September 30, 2019
This Office action is supplemental to and supersedes the previous Office action issued on March 5, 2019 in connection with this application. Based on information and/or documentation in applicant’s response, the trademark examining attorney now issues the following new requirement for a disclaimer of descriptive wording and notification that the amendment to Section 1(a) is not acceptable, as discussed below. See TMEP §§706, 711.02.
In the previous Office action, the trademark examining attorney refused registration of the applied-for mark based on Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1) for being primarily merely descriptive. In addition, applicant was required to amend the identification of goods to avoid deceptiveness.
Based on applicant’s response, the trademark examining attorney notes that the requirement for an amendment to the identification of goods has been satisfied. See TMEP §713.02.
However, because applicant did not acceptably amend to Section 1(a) through an Allegation of Use, the refusal under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1) is maintained and continued.
The following is a SUMMARY OF NEW ISSUES that applicant must address:
Applicant must respond to all issues raised in this Office action and the previous Office action, within six (6) months of the date of issuance of this Office action. 37 C.F.R. §2.62(a); see TMEP §711.02. If applicant does not respond within this time limit, the application will be abandoned. 37 C.F.R. §2.65(a).
DISCLAIMER REQUIRED
In this case, applicant must disclaim the word “SILICONE” because it is not inherently distinctive. These unregistrable term(s) at best are merely descriptive of an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose, or use of applicant’s goods and/or services. See 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1251, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2012); TMEP §§1213, 1213.03(a).
The identification of goods in the application indicates that applicant's goods include “silicone”. Therefore, this wording merely describes the type of goods applicant provides.
Applicant may respond to this issue by submitting a disclaimer in the following format:
No claim is made to the exclusive right to use “SILICONE” apart from the mark as shown.
For an overview of disclaimers and instructions on how to satisfy this issue using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), see the Disclaimer webpage.
AMENDMENT TO SECTION 1(a) NOT ACCEPTABLE
Applicant has requested to amend the application from an intent-to-use basis under Trademark Act Section 1(b) to a use in commerce basis under Section 1(a). However, applicant did not file and satisfy the legal requirements for an allegation of use (either an amendment to allege use or a statement of use). See 37 C.F.R. §2.35(b)(8); TMEP §806.03(e). Accordingly, the requested amendment is not accepted and the Section 1(b) basis remains the operative basis.
An applicant may amend an application from intent to use to use in commerce only by filing an allegation of use, which has various legal requirements including providing verified dates of first use of the mark, a verified statement that the mark is in use in commerce, a specimen showing actual use of the mark in commerce for each international class, and a fee. 37 C.F.R. §2.35(b)(8); TMEP §806.01(b); see 37 C.F.R. §§2.76, 2.88. In addition, certain time restrictions apply to filing allegations of use. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.76(a), 2.88(a); TMEP §§1104.03, 1109.04.
For more information about an allegation of use and requirements for filing either an amendment to allege use or statement of use, please go to the Intent-to-Use Applications webpage. Allegations of use may be filed online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) “Statement of Use/Amendment to Allege Use for Intent-to-Use Application,” form number one (1), located under Intent to Use Forms.
ASSISTANCE
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 nonfinal Office action
/Elizabeth A. O'Brien/
Examining Attorney
Law Office 105
(571) 272-0046
Elizabeth.OBrien@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE