To: | Nikola Corporation (docket@techlawventures.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88220232 - CARBONFREE - BGT-0039TM25 |
Sent: | May 14, 2020 01:25:37 PM |
Sent As: | ecom126@uspto.gov |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 Attachment - 6 Attachment - 7 Attachment - 8 Attachment - 9 Attachment - 10 Attachment - 11 Attachment - 12 Attachment - 13 Attachment - 14 Attachment - 15 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88220232
Mark: CARBONFREE
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
Applicant: Nikola Corporation
|
|
Reference/Docket No. BGT-0039TM25
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
FINAL 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) and/or Electronic System for Trademark Trials and Appeals (ESTTA). A link to the appropriate TEAS response form and/or to ESTTA for an appeal appears at the end of this Office action.
Issue date: May 14, 2020
This Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on April 16, 2020 (“Applicant’s Response”).
In a previous Office actions dated March 13, 2019 and October 16, 2019, the trademark examining attorney refused registration of the applied-for mark based on the following:
· Trademark Act Sections 1, 2, 3, and 45 for failure to function as a trademark
The trademark examining attorney maintains and now makes FINAL the refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) in the summary of issues below. See 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b); TMEP §714.04.
SUMMARY OF ISSUES MADE FINAL that applicant must address:
SECTIONS 1, 2, 3 AND 45 REFUSAL – FAILURE TO FUNCTION AS A TRADEMARK
Terms and expressions that merely convey an informational message are not registrable. In re Eagle Crest, Inc., 96 USPQ2d 1227, 1229 (TTAB 2010). Determining whether the term or expression functions as a trademark or service mark depends on how it would be perceived by the relevant public. In re Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 129 USPQ2d at 1150 (citing D.C. One Wholesaler, Inc. v. Chien, 120 USPQ2d 1710, 1713 (TTAB 2016)); In re Eagle Crest, Inc., 96 USPQ2d at 1229; TMEP §1202.04. “The more commonly a [term or expression] is used, the less likely that the public will use it to identify only one source and the less likely that it will be recognized by purchasers as a trademark [or service mark].” In re Hulting, 107 USPQ2d 1175, 1177 (TTAB 2013) (quoting In re Eagle Crest, Inc., 96 USPQ2d at 1229); TMEP §1202.04(b).
The applicant argues that this refusal is a specimen-based refusal and as this applicant has been filed on an intent to use basis so no specimens are available and the failure to function is premature. However, the issue here is the mark is a common phrase, as noted below, and thus does not function. Even with a specimen, the mark would still be a common phrase that would fail to function based on the use of the phrase in the marketplace.
The attached evidence from www.twitter.com, frontiergroup.com, www.greenbiz.com, redtri.com, www.thelifeimpact.com, grist.org, www.csmonitor.com, environmentamerica.org, www.flocabulary.com, www.dw.com, www.sustainability.google, www.washingtonpost.com, rmi.org, prospect.org, and www.youtube.com shows that this term or expression is commonly used to refer to energy that does not release carbon emissions and other means of not releasing carbon emissions and conveys a common message about the environmentally-friendly practices in manufacturing, develop, rendering, or other activities related to goods and services. Because consumers are accustomed to seeing this term or expression commonly used in everyday speech by many different sources, they would not perceive it as a mark identifying the source of applicant’s goods and/or services but rather as only conveying an informational message.
An applicant may not overcome this refusal by amending the application to seek registration on the Supplemental Register or asserting a claim of acquired distinctiveness under Section 2(f). TMEP §1202.04(d); see In re Eagle Crest, Inc., 96 USPQ2d at 1229. Nor will submitting a substitute specimen overcome this refusal. See TMEP §1202.04(d).
RESPONSE GUIDELINES
Response guidelines. For this application to proceed, applicant must explicitly address each refusal and/or requirement in this Office action. For a refusal, applicant may provide written arguments and evidence against the refusal, and may have other response options if specified above. For a requirement, applicant should set forth the changes or statements. Please see “Responding to Office Actions” and the informational video “Response to Office Action” for more information and tips on responding.
How to respond. Click to file a request for reconsideration of this final Office action that fully resolves all outstanding requirements and refusals and/or click to file a timely appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) with the required filing fee(s).
/Katherine Ferrell/
Examining Attorney
Law Office 126
(571)-270-3576
Katherine.Ferrell@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE