Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. PTO Form 1957 (Rev 10/2011) |
OMB No. 0651-0050 (Exp 09/20/2020) |
Input Field |
Entered |
---|---|
SERIAL NUMBER | 88214906 |
LAW OFFICE ASSIGNED | LAW OFFICE 109 |
MARK SECTION | |
MARK | http://uspto.report/TM/88214906/mark.png |
LITERAL ELEMENT | AF WATCH |
STANDARD CHARACTERS | YES |
USPTO-GENERATED IMAGE | YES |
MARK STATEMENT | The mark consists of standard characters, without claim to any particular font style, size or color. |
ARGUMENT(S) | |
Descriptiveness Rejection Under Section 2(e)(1) As stated by the Examining Attorney in the Office Action issued on March 6, 2019, “[t]he
applied-for mark is AF WATCH for a variety of medical goods, as well as medical services and research and measuring services. The goods, as listed, specifically
include the term “watches” and applicant’s services likely work in conjunction with this hardware.” Thus, registration is refused because the applied-for mark merely
describes the nature of applicant’s goods and/or services” within the meaning of Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, as amended. For the reasons that follow,
Applicant disagrees with the refusal and requests that the mark be passed to publication. The standard for determining whether AF WATCH is descriptive is whether “it forthwith conveys an immediate idea of the ingredients, qualities or characteristics of the services.” In re The Stroh Brewery Co., 34 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1796, 1797 (T.T.A.B. 1995)(emphasis added) quoting In re Abcor Dev. Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 200 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 215, 218 (C.C.P.A. 1978). Suggestive marks, by contrast, require the purchaser to exercise some “imagination, thought or perception to reach a conclusion as to the nature of the goods or services.” Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (“TMEP”)§1209.01(a); see also In re Southern Nat'l Bank, 219 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 1231 (T.T.A.B. 1983). The Board takes the position that the “distinctive” threshold is relatively low. See In re Southern Nat’l Bank, 219 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 1231 (T.T.A.B. 1983) (test requires only “some degree of imagination or perception”; finding MONEY 24 sufficiently distinctive for “automated teller services”; refusal of registration reversed). A suggestive mark “may shed some light on the characteristics of the goods.” Erma Corp. v. Superclips Ltd., 218 U.S.P.Q. 124, 130 (E.D. Mich. 1983). If there is any doubt as to whether a mark is descriptive, the Board resolves doubt in favor of the applicant and passes the mark to publication. Stroh Brewery, 34 U.S.P.Q.2d at 1797 (“[w]hen doubts exist as to whether a term is descriptive . . . (the) Board resolve[s] doubts in favor of the applicant and pass[es] the mark to publication”); In re Grand Metro. Foodservice, 30 U.S.P.Q.2d 1974, 1976 (T.T.A.B. 1994) (“any doubt with respect to the issue of descriptiveness should be resolved in applicant’s behalf,” finding MUFFUNS not merely descriptive of muffins). When refusing registration under Section 2(e)(1), the Examining Attorney has the burden of establishing a prima facie case that the mark is descriptive. See In re American Standard Inc., 223 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 353, 355 (T.T.A.B. 1984) (“the Board must conclude that the Patent and Trademark Office has failed to carry its burden of establishing a threshold or prima facie case for the ‘merely descriptive’ determination.”). Moreover, to refuse registration on the ground that a mark is merely descriptive, the Examining Attorney must make a substantial showing based on clear evidence of descriptive use. In re Kopy Kat, Inc., 182 USPQ 372, 373 (CCPA 1974); see also In re Intelligent Med. Sys., Inc., 5 USPQ2d at 1675. In support of his claim that AF WATCH is descriptive of the goods listed in the application, the Examining Attorney submitted an excerpt from the American Heart Association’s website (www.heart.org) that demonstrates that AF is a commonly understood abbreviation for Atrial Fibrillation, as well as a single journal abstract from the website of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (www.onlinejacc.org) discussing the ability of smartwatches to track and detect atrial fibrillations, leading the Examining Attorney to conclude that “the goods, as listed, specifically include the term “watches” and applicant’s services likely work in conjunction with this hardware” (emphasis added). The Examining Attorney provides no other bases for rejecting the Applicant’s mark as descriptive. The Examining Attorney has presumed that the term “WATCH” in Applicant’s mark could only refer to a “time piece” or “chronometer”. This reasoning, however, is flawed as according to dictionary.com, the term “WATCH”, actually could have the following alternate meanings: verb (used without object) to be alertly on the lookout, look attentively, or observe, as to see what comes, is done, or happens; to look or wait attentively and expectantly (usually followed by for); to be careful or cautious; to keep awake, especially for a purpose; remain vigilant, as for protection or safekeeping; to keep vigil, as for devotional purposes; or to keep guard. verb (used with object) to keep under attentive view or observation, as in order to see or learn something; view attentively or with interest; to contemplate or regard mentally; to look or wait attentively and expectantly for; or to guard, tend, or oversee, especially for protection or safekeeping. noun close, continuous observation for the purpose of seeing or discovering something; vigilant guard, as for protection or restraint; a keeping awake for some special purpose; a period of time for watching or keeping guard; a small, portable timepiece, as a wrist watch or pocket watch; or a chronometer. Thus, out of the possible sixteen (16) above-listed definitions of the term “WATCH”, the Examining Attorney assumed that the term “WATCH”, as used in the Applicant’s mark, could only refer to one of the last two (2) possible above-listed definitions of the term “WATCH” – which in this case is not accurate. Actually, Applicant’s goods and services are focused on the actual treatment of the patient’s cardiovascular disease, and not the specific apparatus and/or hardware used to monitor the patient’s cardiovascular disease. Watches may be used as one type of electrocardiograph monitors to analyze cardiovascular disease; however, there are a number of other types of apparatus and/or hardware that may be used as electrocardiograph monitors as well. As such, in order to avoid any possible confusion regarding the purpose and focus of the AF WATCH mark as it is used in conjunction with Applicant’s goods and/or services, Applicant hereby deletes “watches” from the identification of goods in Class 10. This amendment to the identification of goods in Class 10 further emphasizes that the term “WATCH” in Applicant’s mark has no relevance to the term “watches” defined as “time pieces” or “chronometers” as presumed by the Examining Attorney, but rather more closely relates to a number of the other various definitions of the term “WATCH”, such as the way that Applicant alertly, attentively, carefully, cautiously, or vigilantly monitors the patient’s cardiovascular disease and treatment. Given the above, the applied-for mark does not merely describe the nature of applicant’s goods and/or services but rather requires mental gymnastics to determine the true meaning of AF WATCH. Thus, the AF WATCH mark is similar to the term “DESIGNERS” which was found to be suggestive rather than descriptive in the context of the mark “DESIGNERS PLUS+.” In re Hampshire-Designers, Inc., 199 U.S.P.Q. 383 (T.T.A.B. 1978). AF WATCH represents an idea which requires some operation of the imagination to connect it with the goods and/or services, creating a single and distinct commercial impression. Platinum Home Mortg. Corp. v. Platinum Financial Group, Inc., 149 F.3d 722, 727 (7th Cir. 1998). Courts have consistently held that general or vague terms that only broadly or tenuously describe the relevant goods or services cannot be considered “merely descriptive” marks. See Physicians Formula Cosmetics, Inc. v. West Cabot Cosmetics, Inc., 857 F.2d 80, 81, 8 U.S.P.Q.2d 1136 (2d Cir. 1988) (PHYSICIANS FORMULA not descriptive of skin creams and lotions because “the mark does little to identify the product other than to locate it in the realm of medicine”); see also Polaroid Corp. v. Anken Chemical & Film Corp., 343 F.2d 771, 145 U.S.P.Q. 191 (C.C.P.A. 1965) (POLYCOPY held suggestive for photocopying machines); In re Hutchison Technology, Inc., 852 F.2d 552, 554, 7 U.S.P.Q.2d 1490 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (TECHNOLOGY is not descriptive of electronic and mechanical computer components because “technology is such a very broad term which includes many categories of goods . . . and does not convey an immediate idea of the ‘ingredients, qualities, or characteristics’ of [applicant’s] goods”). “The more imagination that is required on the potential customer’s part to get some direct description of the product from the designation, the more likely the term is suggestive, not descriptive…If the mental leap between the word and the product’s attributes is not almost instantaneous, this strongly indicates suggestiveness, not direct descriptiveness.” See J. Thomas McCarthy, Trademarks and Unfair Competition, § 11:67, 68 (4th Ed.)(emphasis added.) Here, the mark does not describe the goods and/or services offered in connection with it; there is much imagination required to determine the “direct description” of the services listed in the application for AF WATCH. In particular, a consumer would have to use a multi-step reasoning process to determine the identity of these services. There is certainly not an “almost instantaneous” mental leap between the AF WATCH mark and its associated goods and/or services; thus, the AF WATCH mark is at most suggestive, not merely descriptive, for use in connection with the goods and/or services listed in the Application. For the above-stated reasons, AF WATCH cannot reasonably be said to forthwith convey an immediate idea of the qualities or characteristics of Applicant’s goods and/or services. When encountering the AF WATCH mark, a consumer must exercise a high degree of imagination, thought or perception to determine Applicant’s goods and/or services. Given the above, the Examining Attorney has not met the burden of establishing a prima facie case that the mark is descriptive. As such, Applicant respectfully suggests that the AF WATCH mark is at best suggestive of Applicant’s services and, therefore, the Examining Attorney has improperly refused registration of Applicant’s mark. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the Examining Attorney withdraw the descriptiveness rejection and allow the subject application to be passed to publication.
|
|
EVIDENCE SECTION | |
EVIDENCE FILE NAME(S) | |
ORIGINAL PDF FILE | evi_98220232232-20190906165602995305_._Evidence.pdf |
CONVERTED PDF FILE(S) (4 pages) |
\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\882\149\88214906\xml5\ROA0002.JPG |
\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\882\149\88214906\xml5\ROA0003.JPG | |
\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\882\149\88214906\xml5\ROA0004.JPG | |
\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\882\149\88214906\xml5\ROA0005.JPG | |
DESCRIPTION OF EVIDENCE FILE | Screen shots from Dictionary.com regarding the term "WATCH". |
GOODS AND/OR SERVICES SECTION (010)(current) | |
INTERNATIONAL CLASS | 010 |
DESCRIPTION | |
Medical apparatus and instruments for treating cardiovascular disease; surgical apparatus and instruments; defibrillators; medical instruments for cardiovascular diagnostics; medical electrodes; electrocardiograph apparatus; high frequency electromagnetic therapy apparatus; low frequency electric therapy apparatus; catheters; rigid and flexible medical endoscopes; cardiac electrophysiological mapping catheters; cardiac probes; medical guidewires; stents; heart pacemakers; electrocardiograph monitors and apparatus, including wearable electrocardiograph monitors, watches and apparatus; apparatus and hardware configured to analyze electrocardiographs; mobile phone, computer and apparatus hardware having programs or apps configured to acquire and process data from electrocardiograph monitors, data, hardware, watches, and apparatus | |
FILING BASIS | Section 1(b) |
GOODS AND/OR SERVICES SECTION (010)(proposed) | |
INTERNATIONAL CLASS | 010 |
TRACKED TEXT DESCRIPTION | |
Medical apparatus and instruments for treating cardiovascular disease; surgical apparatus
and instruments; defibrillators; medical instruments for cardiovascular diagnostics; medical electrodes;
electrocardiograph apparatus; high frequency electromagnetic therapy apparatus; low frequency electric therapy
apparatus; catheters; rigid and flexible medical endoscopes; cardiac electrophysiological mapping catheters;
cardiac probes; medical guidewires; stents; |
|
FINAL DESCRIPTION | |
Medical apparatus and instruments for treating cardiovascular disease; surgical apparatus and instruments; defibrillators; medical instruments for cardiovascular diagnostics; medical electrodes; electrocardiograph apparatus; high frequency electromagnetic therapy apparatus; low frequency electric therapy apparatus; catheters; rigid and flexible medical endoscopes; cardiac electrophysiological mapping catheters; cardiac probes; medical guidewires; stents; heart pacemakers. | |
FILING BASIS | Section 1(b) |
GOODS AND/OR SERVICES SECTION (042)(current) | |
INTERNATIONAL CLASS | 042 |
DESCRIPTION | |
Scientific and technological services, namely, scientific research in the field of cardiology; scientific and technological services, namely, monitoring, analysis, testing, and evaluation of patient electrocardiographs and other patient cardiac signal data; design of apparatus and instruments for monitoring, analyzing, treating, and diagnosing cardiovascular disease; research and development in the field of cardiac catheters and cardiac disease measurement and diagnosis apparatus and instruments; industrial research in the field of apparatus and instruments for monitoring, treating and diagnosing cardiovascular disease; design and development of computer servers, computer hardware, and computer software; design and development of data acquisition, computer cloud data acquisition, data monitoring, data processing, data analysis, and medical diagnosis hardware and software in the field of cardiovascular disease | |
FILING BASIS | Section 1(b) |
GOODS AND/OR SERVICES SECTION (042)(proposed) | |
INTERNATIONAL CLASS | 042 |
TRACKED TEXT DESCRIPTION | |
Scientific and technological services, namely, scientific research in the field of cardiology; scientific and technological services, namely, monitoring, analysis, testing, and evaluation of patient electrocardiographs and other patient cardiac signal data; design of apparatus and instruments for monitoring, analyzing, treating, and diagnosing cardiovascular disease; research and development in the field of cardiac catheters and cardiac disease measurement and diagnosis apparatus and instruments; industrial research in the field of apparatus and instruments for monitoring, treating and diagnosing cardiovascular disease; design and development of computer servers, computer hardware, and computer software; design and development of data acquisition, computer cloud data acquisition, data monitoring, data processing, data analysis, and medical diagnosis hardware and software in the field of cardiovascular disease; providing a web hosting platform for hosting patient information and data management in the field of cardiovascular information; medical laboratory services. | |
FINAL DESCRIPTION | |
Scientific and technological services, namely, scientific research in the field of cardiology; scientific and technological services, namely, monitoring, analysis, testing, and evaluation of patient electrocardiographs and other patient cardiac signal data; design of apparatus and instruments for monitoring, analyzing, treating, and diagnosing cardiovascular disease; research and development in the field of cardiac catheters and cardiac disease measurement and diagnosis apparatus and instruments; industrial research in the field of apparatus and instruments for monitoring, treating and diagnosing cardiovascular disease; design and development of computer servers, computer hardware, and computer software; design and development of data acquisition, computer cloud data acquisition, data monitoring, data processing, data analysis, and medical diagnosis hardware and software in the field of cardiovascular disease; providing a web hosting platform for hosting patient information and data management in the field of cardiovascular information; medical laboratory services. | |
FILING BASIS | Section 1(b) |
GOODS AND/OR SERVICES SECTION (044)(current) | |
INTERNATIONAL CLASS | 044 |
DESCRIPTION | |
Health care services, namely, providing a platform and database for patient information and data management in the field of cardiovascular information; acquisition and collection of data and information, including remote acquisition and collection of data and information, for cardiovascular treatment and diagnostic purposes; medical diagnosis and medical examination services of cardiovascular diseases for medical and clinical purposes; medical services by a cardiologist or technician; medical laboratory services; providing health care information in the field of cardiovascular disease by electronic means in the nature of computer networks and computer cloud data acquisition | |
FILING BASIS | Section 1(b) |
GOODS AND/OR SERVICES SECTION (044)(proposed) | |
INTERNATIONAL CLASS | 044 |
TRACKED TEXT DESCRIPTION | |
FINAL DESCRIPTION | |
Health care services, namely, database for patient information and data management, collection, and storage in the field of cardiovascular patient and medical information; acquisition and collection of data and information, including remote acquisition and collection of data and information, for cardiovascular treatment and diagnostic purposes; providing medical and patient information and data blockchain databases, including shared or reconciled blockchain databases; medical diagnosis and medical examination services of cardiovascular diseases for medical and clinical purposes; medical services by a cardiologist or medical technician; providing health care information in the field of cardiovascular disease by electronic means in the nature of computer networks, databases, blockchain databases, and computer cloud data acquisition. | |
FILING BASIS | Section 1(b) |
GOODS AND/OR SERVICES SECTION (009)(class added) | |
INTERNATIONAL CLASS | 009 |
DESCRIPTION | |
Mobile phones, computer and computer apparatus hardware having recorded software programs and software apps for use in acquiring process data from electrocardiograph monitors, data, hardware and apparatus. | |
FILING BASIS | Section 1(b) |
PAYMENT SECTION | |
NUMBER OF CLASSES | 1 |
APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION PER CLASS | 275 |
TOTAL FEES DUE | 275 |
SIGNATURE SECTION | |
DECLARATION SIGNATURE | /Jennifer M. Mikulina/ |
SIGNATORY'S NAME | Jennifer M. Mikulina |
SIGNATORY'S POSITION | Attorney of Record - Illinois Bar Member |
SIGNATORY'S PHONE NUMBER | 312-372-2000 |
DATE SIGNED | 09/06/2019 |
RESPONSE SIGNATURE | /Jennifer M. Mikulina/ |
SIGNATORY'S NAME | Jennifer M. Mikulina |
SIGNATORY'S POSITION | Attorney of record, Illinois bar member |
SIGNATORY'S PHONE NUMBER | 3123722000 |
DATE SIGNED | 09/06/2019 |
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY | YES |
FILING INFORMATION SECTION | |
SUBMIT DATE | Fri Sep 06 17:19:03 EDT 2019 |
TEAS STAMP | USPTO/ROA-XX.XXX.XXX.XXX- 20190906171903435688-8821 4906-610ac8aa164a33587ddd e23b83ca024729dde6f154e5f 86ed10a2fb5b202158a7-DA-1 9025299-20190906165602995 305 |
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. PTO Form 1957 (Rev 10/2011) |
OMB No. 0651-0050 (Exp 09/20/2020) |
Descriptiveness Rejection Under Section 2(e)(1)
As stated by the Examining Attorney in the Office Action issued on March 6, 2019, “[t]he
applied-for mark is AF WATCH for a variety of medical goods, as well as medical services and research and measuring services. The goods, as listed, specifically
include the term “watches” and applicant’s services likely work in conjunction with this hardware.” Thus, registration is refused because the applied-for mark merely
describes the nature of applicant’s goods and/or services” within the meaning of Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, as amended. For the reasons that follow,
Applicant disagrees with the refusal and requests that the mark be passed to publication.
The standard for determining whether AF WATCH is descriptive is whether “it forthwith conveys an immediate idea of the ingredients, qualities or characteristics of the services.” In re The Stroh Brewery Co., 34 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1796, 1797 (T.T.A.B. 1995)(emphasis added) quoting In re Abcor Dev. Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 200 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 215, 218 (C.C.P.A. 1978). Suggestive marks, by contrast, require the purchaser to exercise some “imagination, thought or perception to reach a conclusion as to the nature of the goods or services.” Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (“TMEP”)§1209.01(a); see also In re Southern Nat'l Bank, 219 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 1231 (T.T.A.B. 1983). The Board takes the position that the “distinctive” threshold is relatively low. See In re Southern Nat’l Bank, 219 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 1231 (T.T.A.B. 1983) (test requires only “some degree of imagination or perception”; finding MONEY 24 sufficiently distinctive for “automated teller services”; refusal of registration reversed). A suggestive mark “may shed some light on the characteristics of the goods.” Erma Corp. v. Superclips Ltd., 218 U.S.P.Q. 124, 130 (E.D. Mich. 1983).
If there is any doubt as to whether a mark is descriptive, the Board resolves doubt in favor of the applicant and passes the mark to publication. Stroh Brewery, 34 U.S.P.Q.2d at 1797 (“[w]hen doubts exist as to whether a term is descriptive . . . (the) Board resolve[s] doubts in favor of the applicant and pass[es] the mark to publication”); In re Grand Metro. Foodservice, 30 U.S.P.Q.2d 1974, 1976 (T.T.A.B. 1994) (“any doubt with respect to the issue of descriptiveness should be resolved in applicant’s behalf,” finding MUFFUNS not merely descriptive of muffins).
When refusing registration under Section 2(e)(1), the Examining Attorney has the burden of establishing a prima facie case that the mark is descriptive. See In re American Standard Inc., 223 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 353, 355 (T.T.A.B. 1984) (“the Board must conclude that the Patent and Trademark Office has failed to carry its burden of establishing a threshold or prima facie case for the ‘merely descriptive’ determination.”). Moreover, to refuse registration on the ground that a mark is merely descriptive, the Examining Attorney must make a substantial showing based on clear evidence of descriptive use. In re Kopy Kat, Inc., 182 USPQ 372, 373 (CCPA 1974); see also In re Intelligent Med. Sys., Inc., 5 USPQ2d at 1675. In support of his claim that AF WATCH is descriptive of the goods listed in the application, the Examining Attorney submitted an excerpt from the American Heart Association’s website (www.heart.org) that demonstrates that AF is a commonly understood abbreviation for Atrial Fibrillation, as well as a single journal abstract from the website of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (www.onlinejacc.org) discussing the ability of smartwatches to track and detect atrial fibrillations, leading the Examining Attorney to conclude that “the goods, as listed, specifically include the term “watches” and applicant’s services likely work in conjunction with this hardware” (emphasis added). The Examining Attorney provides no other bases for rejecting the Applicant’s mark as descriptive.
The Examining Attorney has presumed that the term “WATCH” in Applicant’s mark could only refer to a “time piece” or “chronometer”. This reasoning, however, is flawed as according to dictionary.com, the term “WATCH”, actually could have the following alternate meanings:
verb (used without object)
to be alertly on the lookout, look attentively, or observe, as to see what comes, is done, or happens;
to look or wait attentively and expectantly (usually followed by for);
to be careful or cautious;
to keep awake, especially for a purpose; remain vigilant, as for protection or safekeeping;
to keep vigil, as for devotional purposes; or
to keep guard.
verb (used with object)
to keep under attentive view or observation, as in order to see or learn something; view attentively or with interest;
to contemplate or regard mentally;
to look or wait attentively and expectantly for; or
to guard, tend, or oversee, especially for protection or safekeeping.
noun
close, continuous observation for the purpose of seeing or discovering something;
vigilant guard, as for protection or restraint;
a keeping awake for some special purpose;
a period of time for watching or keeping guard;
a small, portable timepiece, as a wrist watch or pocket watch; or
a chronometer.
Thus, out of the possible sixteen (16) above-listed definitions of the term “WATCH”, the Examining Attorney assumed that the term “WATCH”, as used in the Applicant’s mark, could only refer to one of the last two (2) possible above-listed definitions of the term “WATCH” – which in this case is not accurate.
Actually, Applicant’s goods and services are focused on the actual treatment of the patient’s cardiovascular disease, and not the specific apparatus and/or hardware used to monitor the patient’s cardiovascular disease. Watches may be used as one type of electrocardiograph monitors to analyze cardiovascular disease; however, there are a number of other types of apparatus and/or hardware that may be used as electrocardiograph monitors as well. As such, in order to avoid any possible confusion regarding the purpose and focus of the AF WATCH mark as it is used in conjunction with Applicant’s goods and/or services, Applicant hereby deletes “watches” from the identification of goods in Class 10. This amendment to the identification of goods in Class 10 further emphasizes that the term “WATCH” in Applicant’s mark has no relevance to the term “watches” defined as “time pieces” or “chronometers” as presumed by the Examining Attorney, but rather more closely relates to a number of the other various definitions of the term “WATCH”, such as the way that Applicant alertly, attentively, carefully, cautiously, or vigilantly monitors the patient’s cardiovascular disease and treatment.
Given the above, the applied-for mark does not merely describe the nature of applicant’s goods and/or services but rather requires mental gymnastics to determine the true meaning of AF WATCH. Thus, the AF WATCH mark is similar to the term “DESIGNERS” which was found to be suggestive rather than descriptive in the context of the mark “DESIGNERS PLUS+.” In re Hampshire-Designers, Inc., 199 U.S.P.Q. 383 (T.T.A.B. 1978). AF WATCH represents an idea which requires some operation of the imagination to connect it with the goods and/or services, creating a single and distinct commercial impression. Platinum Home Mortg. Corp. v. Platinum Financial Group, Inc., 149 F.3d 722, 727 (7th Cir. 1998).
Courts have consistently held that general or vague terms that only broadly or tenuously describe the relevant goods or services cannot be considered “merely descriptive” marks. See Physicians Formula Cosmetics, Inc. v. West Cabot Cosmetics, Inc., 857 F.2d 80, 81, 8 U.S.P.Q.2d 1136 (2d Cir. 1988) (PHYSICIANS FORMULA not descriptive of skin creams and lotions because “the mark does little to identify the product other than to locate it in the realm of medicine”); see also Polaroid Corp. v. Anken Chemical & Film Corp., 343 F.2d 771, 145 U.S.P.Q. 191 (C.C.P.A. 1965) (POLYCOPY held suggestive for photocopying machines); In re Hutchison Technology, Inc., 852 F.2d 552, 554, 7 U.S.P.Q.2d 1490 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (TECHNOLOGY is not descriptive of electronic and mechanical computer components because “technology is such a very broad term which includes many categories of goods . . . and does not convey an immediate idea of the ‘ingredients, qualities, or characteristics’ of [applicant’s] goods”).
“The more imagination that is required on the potential customer’s part to get some direct description of the product from the designation, the more likely the term is suggestive, not descriptive…If the mental leap between the word and the product’s attributes is not almost instantaneous, this strongly indicates suggestiveness, not direct descriptiveness.” See J. Thomas McCarthy, Trademarks and Unfair Competition, § 11:67, 68 (4th Ed.)(emphasis added.)
Here, the mark does not describe the goods and/or services offered in connection with it; there is much imagination required to determine the “direct description” of the services listed in the application for AF WATCH. In particular, a consumer would have to use a multi-step reasoning process to determine the identity of these services. There is certainly not an “almost instantaneous” mental leap between the AF WATCH mark and its associated goods and/or services; thus, the AF WATCH mark is at most suggestive, not merely descriptive, for use in connection with the goods and/or services listed in the Application.
For the above-stated reasons, AF WATCH cannot reasonably be said to forthwith convey an immediate idea of the qualities or characteristics of Applicant’s goods and/or services. When encountering the AF WATCH mark, a consumer must exercise a high degree of imagination, thought or perception to determine Applicant’s goods and/or services. Given the above, the Examining Attorney has not met the burden of establishing a prima facie case that the mark is descriptive. As such, Applicant respectfully suggests that the AF WATCH mark is at best suggestive of Applicant’s services and, therefore, the Examining Attorney has improperly refused registration of Applicant’s mark.
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the Examining Attorney withdraw the descriptiveness rejection and allow the subject application to be passed to publication.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer M. Mikulina
Attorney of Record – Illinois Bar Member
DECLARATION: The signatory being warned that willful false statements and the like are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, and that such willful false statements and the like may jeopardize the validity of the application or submission or any registration resulting therefrom, declares that, if the applicant submitted the application or allegation of use (AOU) unsigned, all statements in the application or AOU and this submission based on the signatory's own knowledge are true, and all statements in the application or AOU and this submission made on information and belief are believed to be true.
STATEMENTS FOR UNSIGNED SECTION 1(a) APPLICATION/AOU: If the applicant filed an unsigned application under 15 U.S.C. §1051(a) or AOU under 15 U.S.C. §1051(c), the signatory additionally believes that: the applicant is the owner of the mark sought to be registered; the mark is in use in commerce and was in use in commerce as of the filing date of the application or AOU on or in connection with the goods/services/collective membership organization in the application or AOU; the original specimen(s), if applicable, shows the mark in use in commerce as of the filing date of the application or AOU on or in connection with the goods/services/collective membership organization in the application or AOU; for a collective trademark, collective service mark, collective membership mark application, or certification mark application, the applicant is exercising legitimate control over the use of the mark in commerce and was exercising legitimate control over the use of the mark in commerce as of the filing date of the application or AOU; for a certification mark application, the applicant is not engaged in the production or marketing of the goods/services to which the mark is applied, except to advertise or promote recognition of the certification program or of the goods/services that meet the certification standards of the applicant. To the best of the signatory's knowledge and belief, no other persons, except, if applicable, authorized users, members, and/or concurrent users, have the right to use the mark in commerce, either in the identical form or in such near resemblance as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods/services/collective membership organization of such other persons, to cause confusion or mistake, or to deceive.
STATEMENTS FOR UNSIGNED SECTION 1(b)/SECTION 44 APPLICATION AND FOR SECTION 66(a) COLLECTIVE/CERTIFICATION MARK APPLICATION: If the applicant filed an unsigned application under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051(b), 1126(d), and/or 1126(e), or filed a collective/certification mark application under 15 U.S.C. §1141f(a), the signatory additionally believes that: for a trademark or service mark application, the applicant is entitled to use the mark in commerce on or in connection with the goods/services specified in the application; the 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; for a collective trademark, collective service mark, collective membership mark, or certification mark application, the applicant has a bona fide intention, and is entitled, to exercise legitimate control over the use of the mark in commerce and had a bona fide intention, and was entitled, to exercise legitimate control over the use of the mark in commerce as of the application filing date; the signatory is properly authorized to execute the declaration on behalf of the applicant; for a certification mark application, the applicant will not engage in the production or marketing of the goods/services to which the mark is applied, except to advertise or promote recognition of the certification program or of the goods/services that meet the certification standards of the applicant. To the best of the signatory's knowledge and belief, no other persons, except, if applicable, authorized users, members, and/or concurrent users, have the right to use the mark in commerce, either in the identical form or in such near resemblance as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods/services/collective membership organization of such other persons, to cause confusion or mistake, or to deceive.