To: | Kranz, Carissa (dhochman@wrslawyers.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88215077 - VEGAN V BEVVEG - 21907-002 |
Sent: | October 15, 2019 04:16:57 PM |
Sent As: | ecom103@uspto.gov |
Attachments: |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88215077
Mark: VEGAN V BEVVEG
|
|
Correspondence Address: WOLF, RIFKIN, SHAPIRO, SCHULMAN & RABKIN 11400 W. OLYMPIC BLVD. 9TH FLOOR
|
|
Applicant: Kranz, Carissa
|
|
Reference/Docket No. 21907-002
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: October 15, 2019
INTRODUCTION
This Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on September 6, 2019.
In a previous Office action(s) dated March 6, 2019, applicant was required to satisfy the following requirement(s): (1) clarify the mark description and color claim; (2) submit a new drawing of the mark; (3) amend the identification of services; and (4) disclaim descriptive wording in the mark.
Based on applicant’s response, the trademark examining attorney notes that the following requirement(s) have been satisfied: (1) definite amended identification provided, and (2) disclaimer of “VEGAN” provided. See TMEP §713.02.
The following is a SUMMARY OF ISSUES that applicant must address:
• NEW ISSUE: Drawing of the Mark
• Amended Description of Mark and Color Claim Required
• Mark Image Unclear
The original drawing shows the mark as follows: A green, incomplete, single line circle with the green wording “VEGAN” at the top of the circle and the transparent letter “V” appearing within an upside-down green triangle under “VEGAN” in the center of the circle. The green wording “BEVVEG!” connects the curved lines of the circle to form the bottom of the circle. The white in the mark represents background and is not claimed as a feature of the mark.
The proposed amended drawing shows the mark as follows: An incomplete single line circle with the wording “VEGAN” at the top of the circle and the letter “V” appearing within an upside-down triangle under “VEGAN” in the center of the circle. The wording “BEVEG!” connects the curved lines of the circle to form the bottom of the circle. The letter “V” in the wording “BEVEG!” appears within an upside-down triangle.
The USPTO cannot accept an amendment to a mark if it will materially alter the mark in the drawing filed with the original application, or in a previously accepted amended drawing. 37 C.F.R. §2.72(a)(2), (b)(2); TMEP §807.14. An amendment to the mark is material when the USPTO would need to republish the mark with the change in the USPTO Trademark Official Gazette to fairly present the mark to the public. In re Thrifty, Inc., 274 F.3d 1349, 1352, 61 USPQ2d 1121, 1123-24 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing In re Hacot-Columbier, 105 F.3d 616, 620, 41 USPQ2d 1523, 1526 (Fed. Cir. 1997)); TMEP §807.14.
That is, an amendment is material if the altered mark does not retain “the essence of the original mark” or if the new and old forms do not “create the impression of being essentially the same mark.” In re Hacot-Columbier, 105 F.3d at 620, 41 USPQ2d at 1526 (quoting Visa Int’l Serv. Ass’n v. Life-Code Sys., Inc., 220 USPQ 740, 743-44 (TTAB 1983)); see, e.g., In re Who? Vision Sys., Inc., 57 USPQ2d 1211, 1218 (TTAB 2000) (amendment from “TACILESENSE” to “TACTILESENSE” a material alteration); In re CTB Inc., 52 USPQ2d 1471, 1475 (TTAB 1999) (amendment of TURBO with a design to just the typed word TURBO without design a material alteration).
When determining materiality, the addition of any element that would require a further search of the USPTO database for conflicting marks is also relevant. In re Guitar Straps Online LLC, 103 USPQ2d 1745, 1747 (TTAB 2012) (citing In re Pierce Foods Corp., 230 USPQ 307, 308-09 (TTAB 1986)); In re Who? Vision Sys. Inc., 57 USPQ2d at 1218-19; TMEP §807.14.
In the present case, applicant’s proposed amendment would materially alter the mark in the drawing filed with the original application or as previously amended because changing the wording “BEVVEG” to “BEVEG” would alter the commercial impression of the mark and require a further search of the USPTO database.
To avoid the application from abandoning, applicant must respond to this issue. TMEP §807.17. Applicant may respond by (1) withdrawing the request to amend the drawing, or (2) arguing that the proposed amendment is not a material alteration of the mark.
For more information about changes to the mark in the drawing after the application filing date, please go to the Drawing webpage.
AMENDED DESCRIPTION OF MARK AND COLOR CLAIM CLARIFICATION REQUIRED
Applicant’s proposed amendment to the drawing would materially alter the mark in the drawing filed with the original application, thus the previous drawing of the mark will remain operative and the requirement to amend the mark description and clarify the color claim is MAINTAINED and CONTINUED.
To clarify whether color is a feature of the mark, applicant may respond by satisfying one of the following:
(1) If color is not a feature of the mark, applicant must submit a new drawing showing the mark only in black and white. In this case, amending the mark to delete color would not be considered a material alteration; however, any other amendments to the drawing will not be accepted if they would materially alter the mark. 37 C.F.R. §2.72; see TMEP §§807.07(c), 807.14 et seq.
(2) If color is a feature of the mark, applicant must provide a complete list of all the colors claimed as a feature of the mark and a description of the literal and design elements that specifies where all the colors appear in those elements. 37 C.F.R. §§2.37, 2.52(b)(1); see TMEP §807.07(a)-(a)(ii). Generic color names must be used to describe the colors in the mark, e.g., red, yellow, blue. TMEP §807.07(a)(i)-(ii). If black, white, and/or gray are not being claimed as a color feature of the mark, applicant must exclude them from the color claim and include in the description a statement that the colors black, white, and/or gray represent background, outlining, shading, and/or transparent areas and are not part of the mark. See TMEP §807.07(d).
The following color claim and description are suggested, if accurate:
Color claim: “The color green is claimed as a feature of the mark.”
Description: “The mark consists of a green, incomplete, single line circle with the green wording “VEGAN” at the top of the circle and the transparent letter “V” appearing within an upside-down green triangle under “VEGAN” in the center of the circle. The green wording “BEVVEG!” connects the curved lines of the circle to form the bottom of the circle. The white in the mark represents background and is not claimed as a feature of the mark.”
See TMEP §807.07(a)(i)-(b).
MARK IMAGE UNCLEAR
Applicant’s proposed amendment to the drawing would materially alter the mark in the drawing filed with the original application, thus the previous drawing of the mark will remain operative and the requirement to submit a clear drawing of the mark is MAINTAINED and CONTINUED.
Therefore, applicant must submit a new drawing showing a clear depiction of the mark. All lines must be clean, sharp and solid, and not fine or crowded. 37 C.F.R. §§2.53(c), 2.54(e); TMEP §§807.05(c), 807.06(a). Additionally, the USPTO will not accept a new drawing in which there are amendments or changes that would materially alter the applied-for mark. 37 C.F.R. §2.72; see TMEP §§807.13 et seq., 807.14 et seq.
For more information about drawings and instructions on how to submit a drawing, see the Drawing webpage.
Please call or email the assigned trademark examining attorney with questions about this Office action. Although the trademark examining attorney cannot provide legal advice or statements about applicant’s rights, the trademark examining attorney can provide applicant with additional explanation about the refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) in this Office action. See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06. Although the USPTO does not accept emails as responses to Office actions, emails can be used for informal communications and will be included in the application record. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(c), 2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05.
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
/Chioma (Bata) Oputa/
Examining Attorney
Law Office 103
571-272-5234
chioma.oputa@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE