UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)

OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION

 

 

 

OFFICE ACTION

 

STRICT DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER

TO AVOID ABANDONMENT OF APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION, THE USPTO MUST RECEIVE APPLICANT’S COMPLETE RESPONSE TO THIS LETTER WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF THE ISSUE/MAILING DATE BELOW.  A RESPONSE TRANSMITTED THROUGH THE TRADEMARK ELECTRONIC APPLICATION SYSTEM (TEAS) MUST BE RECEIVED BEFORE MIDNIGHT EASTERN TIME OF THE LAST DAY OF THE RESPONSE PERIOD.

 

 

ISSUE/MAILING DATE: 5/1/2019

 

INTRODUCTION

 

This Office action is supplemental to and supersedes the previous Office action issued on March 11, 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 refusal:  Insufficient Section 2(f) Claim.  See TMEP §§706, 711.02. 

 

In a previous Office action dated March 11, 2019, the Trademark Examining Attorney refused registration of the applied-for mark based on the following:  Trademark Act Section 2(e)(4) for being primarily merely a surname.

 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES TO WHICH APPLICANT MUST RESPOND:

 

• Section 2(e)(4) Refusal – Primarily Merely a Surname – Maintained and Continued
• Insufficient Section 2(f) Claim – New Issue

 

Also contained herein is an advisory regarding Trademark Act Section 2(f) and the Supplemental Register.

 

Applicant must respond to all issues raised in this 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).

 

SECTION 2(e)(4) REFUSAL – PRIMARILY MERELY A SURNAME –

MAINTAINED AND CONTINUED

 

Registration is refused because the applied-for mark is primarily merely a surname.  Trademark Act Section 2(e)(4), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(4); see TMEP §1211. 

 

Applicant's mark is LINHART for Lip balm; Tooth whitening gels; Toothpastes; Tooth brushes; Retail store services featuring dental products; On-line retail store services featuring subscription boxes containing dental products.

 

Applicant’s mark is primarily merely a surname if the surname, when viewed in connection with Applicant’s recited goods and services, “‘is the primary significance of the mark as a whole to the purchasing public.’”  Earnhardt v. Kerry Earnhardt, Inc., 864 F.3d 1374, 1377, 123 USPQ2d 1411, 1413 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting In re Hutchinson Tech. Inc., 852 F.2d 552, 554, 7 USPQ2d 1490, 1492 (Fed. Cir. 1988)); TMEP §1211.01.

 

The following five inquiries are often used to determine the public’s perception of a term’s primary significance:

 

(1)       Whether the surname is rare;

 

(2)       Whether anyone connected with Applicant uses the term as a surname;

 

(3)       Whether the term has any recognized meaning other than as a surname;

 

(4)       Whether the term has the structure and pronunciation of a surname; and

 

(5)       Whether the term is sufficiently stylized to remove its primary significance from that of a surname.

 

In re Eximius Coffee, LLC, 120 USPQ2d 1276, 1278 & n.2, 1282-83 (TTAB 2016) (citing In re Benthin Mgmt. GmbH, 37 USPQ2d 1332, 1333-34 (TTAB 1995) for the Benthin inquiries/factors); TMEP §1211.01; see also In re Etablissements Darty et Fils, 759 F.2d 15, 16-18, 225 USPQ 652, 653 (Fed. Cir. 1985). 

 

These inquiries are not exclusive, and any of these circumstances – singly or in combination – and any other relevant circumstances may be considered when making this determination.  In re Eximius Coffee, LLC, 120 USPQ2d at 1277-78; TMEP §1211.01.  For example, where, as here, the applied-for mark is not stylized, it is unnecessary to consider the fifth inquiry.  In re Yeley, 85 USPQ2d 1150, 1151 (TTAB 2007); TMEP §1211.01.

 

Please see the previously attached evidence from LEXISNEXIS®, establishing the surname significance of "LINHART".  This evidence shows the applied-for mark appearing 1,351 times as a surname in the LEXISNEXIS® surname database, which is a weekly updated directory of cell phone and other phone numbers (such as voice over IP) from various data providers. 

 

The first inquiry is whether the surname is rare. Although “LINHART” appears to be a relatively rare surname, the statute makes no distinction between rare and commonplace surnames and even a rare surname may be unregistrable under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(4) if its primary significance to purchasers is that of a surname.  See In re Etablissements Darty et Fils, 759 F.2d 15, 16-18, 225 USPQ 652, 653 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Beds & Bars Ltd., 122 USPQ2d 1546, 1551 (TTAB 2017); In re Eximius Coffee, LLC, 120 USPQ2d 1276, 1281 (TTAB 2016) (citing In re E. Martinoni Co., 189 USPQ 589, 590-91 (TTAB 1975)); TMEP §1211.01(a)(v).  There is no minimum amount of evidence needed to establish that a mark is primarily merely a surname.  See In re Etablissements Darty et Fils, 759 F.2d at 17, 225 USPQ at 653; In re Beds & Bars Ltd., 122 USPQ2d at 1548; TMEP §1211.02(b)(i).

 

The second inquiry is whether anyone connected with Applicant uses "LINHART" as a surname. A term that is the surname of an individual applicant or that of an officer, founder, owner, or principal of an applicant’s business is probative evidence of the term’s surname significance.  TMEP §1211.02(b)(iv); see, e.g., In re Etablissements Darty et Fils, 759 F.2d 15, 16, 225 USPQ 652, 653 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (holding DARTY primarily merely a surname where “Darty” was the surname of applicant’s corporate president); In re Eximius Coffee, LLC, 120 USPQ2d 1276, 1278-80 (TTAB 2016) (holding ALDECOA primarily merely a surname where ALDECOA was the surname of the founder and individuals continuously involved in the business); In re Integrated Embedded, 120 USPQ2d 1504, 1507 (TTAB 2016) (holding BARR GROUP primarily merely a surname where BARR was the surname of the co-founder and applicant’s corporate officer and GROUP was found “incapable of lending source-identifying significance to the mark”); Miller v. Miller, 105 USPQ2d 1615, 1620, 1622-23 (TTAB 2013) (holding MILLER LAW GROUP primarily merely a surname where “Miller” was the surname of the applicant and the term “law group” was found generic). Here, the application is signed by "Zachary Linhart", who is listed as the "owner" of the mark. Therefore, it is clear from the record that "LINHART" is the surname of the owner of Applicant's business.

 

Furthermore, a term appearing on Applicant’s own website in a manner that confirms the term’s surname significance is probative evidence on the issue of that term’s primary significance.  See In re Eximius Coffee, LLC, 120 USPQ2d 1276, 1278-80 (TTAB 2016) (holding ALDECOA primarily merely a surname where applicant’s website explains the Aldecoa family history in coffee for three generations and notes that the current generation of coffee brewers shares the same surname); In re Integrated Embedded, 120 USPQ2d 1504, 1507 (TTAB 2016) (holding BARR GROUP primarily merely a surname where applicant’s website promotes its association with Mr. Michael Barr and his credentials and accomplishments as an active participant in applicant’s activities under the mark). In the present case, the previously attached evidence from Applicant's website explains the "LINHART" family history, including the beginnings of Dr. Jan Linhart's dental practice that now includes his son, Dr. Zachary Linhart. Thus, Applicant's website makes clear that the primary significance of "LINHART" is that of a surname.

 

The third inquiry is whether "LINHART" has any recognized meaning other than as a surname. Evidence that a term has no recognized meaning or significance other than as a surname is relevant to determining whether the term would be perceived as primarily merely a surname.  See In re Weiss Watch Co., 123 USPQ2d 1200, 1203 (TTAB 2017); In re Eximius Coffee, LLC, 120 USPQ2d 1276, 1280 (TTAB 2016); TMEP §1211.02(b)(vi).  The previously attached evidence from Collins English Dictionary shows that "LINHART" does not appear in the dictionary.  Thus, this term appears to have no recognized meaning or significance other than as a surname. 

 

The fourth, and final, relevant inquiry is whether "LINHART" has the structure and pronunciation of a surname. Evidence that a term has the structure and pronunciation of a surname may contribute to a finding that the primary significance of the term is that of a surname.  In re Eximius Coffee, LLC, 120 USPQ2d 1276, 1280 (TTAB 2016); see In re Giger, 78 USPQ2d 1405, 1409 (TTAB 2006); In re Gregory, 70 USPQ2d 1792, 1796 (TTAB 2004); TMEP §1211.01(a)(vi). Here, the previously attached Internet evidence demonstrates that "LINHART" is a surname of Roman-German origin, with various spelling variations such as Leonhardt, Lehner, Lenhart, Lenhard, and more. Therefore, "LINHART" does, in fact, have the structure and pronunciation of a surname.

 

For the foregoing reasons, the applied-for mark is primarily merely a surname and registration is refused pursuant to Section 2(e)(4) of the Trademark Act.

 

Response Options

 

A mark deemed primarily merely a surname may be registered on the Principal Register under Trademark Act Section 2(f) based on a claim of acquired distinctiveness.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(f); 37 C.F.R. §2.41(a); TMEP §§1211, 1212.  Applicant may respond by asserting a claim of acquired distinctiveness based on one or more of the following:

 

(1)       Prior Registrations:  Applicant may claim ownership of one or more active prior registrations on the Principal Register of the same mark for goods and services that are sufficiently similar to those named in the pending application.  37 C.F.R. §2.41(a)(1); TMEP §§1212, 1212.04.  Applicant may do so by submitting the following statement, if accurate:  “The mark has become distinctive of the goods and/or services as evidenced by the ownership of active U.S. Registration No(s). _______ on the Principal Register for the same mark for sufficiently similar goods and/or services.”  TMEP §1212.04(e).

 

(2)       Five Years’ Use:  Applicant may submit the following statement, verified with an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20:  “The mark has become distinctive of the goods and/or services through the applicant’s substantially exclusive and continuous use of the mark in commerce that the U.S. Congress may lawfully regulate for at least the five years immediately before the date of this statement.”  37 C.F.R. §2.41(a)(2); TMEP §1212.05(d); see 37 C.F.R. §2.193(e)(1).

 

(3)       Other Evidence:  Applicant may submit other evidence of acquired distinctiveness, with the following statement, if accurate:  “The evidence shows that the mark has become distinctive of the goods and services.”  37 C.F.R. §2.41(a)(3); TMEP §1212.06.  Such additional evidence may include “advertising expenditures, sales success, length and exclusivity of use, unsolicited media coverage, and consumer studies (linking the name to a source).”  In re Change Wind Corp., 123 USPQ2d 1453, 1467 (TTAB 2017) (quoting In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293, 1300, 75 USPQ2d 1420, 1424 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). 

 

If Applicant cannot satisfy one of the above, Applicant may respond by amending the application to seek registration on the Supplemental Register.  See 15 U.S.C. §1091; 37 C.F.R. §§2.47, 2.75(a).

 

INSUFFICIENT SECTION 2(f) CLAIM – NEW ISSUE

 

Applicant asserted a claim of acquired distinctiveness under Trademark Act Section 2(f) based on Applicant’s evidence of record.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(f).  However, upon careful review, this evidence is insufficient to show acquired distinctiveness because Applicant has failed to demonstrate that the applied-for mark has acquired distinctiveness when used in connection with the goods and services set forth in the application. Applicant may respond by providing additional evidence of acquired distinctiveness.

 

Applicant bears the burden of proving that a mark has acquired distinctiveness under Trademark Act Section 2(f).  In re La. Fish Fry Prods., Ltd., 797 F.3d 1332, 1335, 116 USPQ2d 1262, 1264 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293, 1297, 75 USPQ2d 1420, 1422 (Fed. Cir. 2005)); TMEP §1212.01.  Allegations of sales and advertising expenditures do not per se establish that a term has acquired significance as a mark.  See TMEP §1212.06(b).  The ultimate test in determining acquisition of distinctiveness under Section 2(f) is not Applicant’s efforts, but Applicant’s success in educating the public to associate the claimed mark with a single source.  Apollo Med. Extrusion Techs., Inc. v. Med. Extrusion Techs., Inc., 123 USPQ2d 1844, 1856 (TTAB 2017) (citing In re Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp., 774 F.2d 1116, 1125, 227 USPQ 417, 422 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re LC Trademarks, Inc., 121 USPQ2d 1197, 1208 (TTAB 2016); In re Pennzoil Prods. Co., 20 USPQ2d 1753, 1760-61 (TTAB 1991)); TMEP §1212.06(b).

 

In the present case, Applicant’s evidence consists of the following:

 

• Photographs of Applicant's celebrity patients (Response to Office action pp. 9-14 in TMNG)

 

• Section of Applicant's website displaying magazines and other publications that have written press releases or other articles about Applicant's dentistry services (Response to Office action pp. 15-17 in TMNG)

 

• Article dated February 23, 2018 from City Guide NY about Applicant's oral care products (Response to Office action pp. 18-19 in TMNG)

 

• Excerpt from Martha Stewart Living Magazine describing Applicant's tooth-whitener gel as a "Martha's Choice" product (Response to Office action p. 20 in TMNG)

 

• Review of Applicant's toothpaste on the Domino website (Response to Office action p. 21 in TMNG)

 

• Yelp page for Linhart Dentistry (Response to Office action pp. 22-35 in TMNG)

 

• Zocdoc page wherein patients can make an appointment with Dr. Zachary Linhart and reviews of Dr. Linhart's dentistry services (Response to Office action pp. 36-39 in TMNG)

 

• Fixr page with information, including contact information, location, and payment options, about Applicant's dental practice (Response to Office action p. 39 in TMNG)

 

• Healthgrades page with reviews of Dr. Jan Linhart's dentistry services (Response to Office action pp. 40-41 in TMNG)

 

• Facebook fan page for Linhart Dentistry showing posts by Applicant and patient reviews (Response to Office action pp. 42-54 in TMNG)

 

• Twitter page for Linhart Dentistry (Response to Office action p. 54 in TMNG)

 

• Instagram page for Linhart Dentistry (Response to Office action p. 55 in TMNG)

 

• Excerpts from Applicant's website, including previews of its Instagram posts, photographs and descriptions of its products with the option to "Buy Now", and information on the history of Applicant's business (Response to Office action pp. 56-59 in TMNG)

 

• NYU Dentistry page about the Linhart Continuing Dental Education Program (Response to Office action p. 60 in TMNG)

 

This evidence is insufficient because although it may show that the mark "LINHART" has acquired distinctiveness for dentistry services, it does not show that the mark "LINHART" has acquired distinctiveness for "lip balm; tooth whitening gels; toothpastes; tooth brushes; retail store services featuring dental products; on-line retail store services featuring subscription boxes containing dental products". Most of Applicant's submitted evidence relates to Applicant's success in the dentistry field and, in fact, does not mention Applicant's dental products at all. The customer reviews from Yelp, Zocdoc, Healthgrades, and Facebook only discuss Applicant's dentistry services. Further, the recent positive reviews on NY City Guide, Martha Stewart Living Magazine, and Domino for Applicant's products are insufficient to show that consumers are likely to view the mark "LINHART" as more than a surname of well-known dentists. The Examining Attorney further notes that Applicant's first use of the applied-for mark in commerce for the identified goods and services is as early as July 31, 2017, which is less than two years from the present. This relatively short amount of time combined with the minimal evidence of some recognition of Applicant's products fails to meet the evidentiary burden required for Trademark Act Section 2(f).

 

To support the claim of acquired distinctiveness, Applicant may respond by submitting additional evidence.  See TMEP §1212.02(g).  Such evidence may include “advertising expenditures, sales success, length and exclusivity of use, unsolicited media coverage, and consumer studies (linking the name to a source).”  In re Change Wind Corp., 123 USPQ2d 1453, 1467 (TTAB 2017) (quoting In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293, 1300, 75 USPQ2d 1420, 1424 (Fed. Cir. 2005)).  A showing of acquired distinctiveness need not consider all of these types of evidence; no single factor is determinative.  In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d at 1300, 75 USPQ2d at 1424; see TMEP §§1212.06 et seq.  Rather, the determination involves assessing all of the circumstances involving the use of the mark.  See In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d at 1300, 75 USPQ2d at 1424 (citing Thompson Med. Co., Inc. v. Pfizer Inc., 753 F.2d 208, 217, 225 USPQ2d 124, 131-32 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).

 

Applicant may also respond to the refusal by arguing in support of registration and/or amending the application to seek registration on the Supplemental Register.  See 15 U.S.C. §1091(a); 37 C.F.R. §§2.47, 2.75(a); TMEP §§801.02(b), 816.  If Applicant amends the application to the Supplemental Register, Applicant is not precluded from submitting evidence and arguments against this refusal.  TMEP §816.04.

 

RESPONSE GUIDELINES

 

For this application to proceed, Applicant must explicitly address each refusal 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. Please see “Responding to Office Actions” and the informational video “Response to Office Action” for more information and tips on responding.

 

ASSISTANCE

 

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 refusals 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.  

 

/Samantha Sherman/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 123

(571) 270-0903

Samantha.Sherman@uspto.gov

 

TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER:  Go to http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp.  Please wait 48-72 hours from the issue/mailing date before using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), to allow for necessary system updates of the application.  For technical assistance with online forms, e-mail TEAS@uspto.gov.  For questions about the Office action itself, please contact the assigned Trademark Examining Attorney.  E-mail communications will not be accepted as responses to Office actions; therefore, do not respond to this Office action by e-mail.

 

All informal e-mail communications relevant to this application will be placed in the official application record.

 

WHO MUST SIGN THE RESPONSE:  It must be personally signed by an individual applicant or someone with legal authority to bind an applicant (i.e., a corporate officer, a general partner, all joint applicants).  If an applicant is represented by an attorney, the attorney must sign the response. 

 

PERIODICALLY CHECK THE STATUS OF THE APPLICATION:  To ensure that Applicant does not miss crucial deadlines or official notices, check the status of the application every three to four months using the Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) system at http://tsdr.gov.uspto.report/.  Please keep a copy of the TSDR status screen.  If the status shows no change for more than six months, contact the Trademark Assistance Center by e-mail at TrademarkAssistanceCenter@uspto.gov or call 1-800-786-9199.  For more information on checking status, see http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/process/status/.

 

TO UPDATE CORRESPONDENCE/E-MAIL ADDRESS:  Use the TEAS form at http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/correspondence.jsp.

 

 

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)

 

 

IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING YOUR

U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION

 

USPTO OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) HAS ISSUED

ON 5/1/2019 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 88227237

 

Please follow the instructions below:

 

(1)  TO READ THE LETTER:  Click on this link or go to http://tsdr.uspto.gov,enter the U.S. application serial number, and click on “Documents.”

 

The Office action may not be immediately viewable, to allow for necessary system updates of the application, but will be available within 24 hours of this e-mail notification.

 

(2)  TIMELY RESPONSE IS REQUIRED:  Please carefully review the Office action to determine (1) how to respond, and (2) the applicable response time period.  Your response deadline will be calculated from 5/1/2019 (or sooner if specified in the Office action).  A response transmitted through the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) must be received before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period.  For information regarding response time periods, see http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/process/status/responsetime.jsp.

 

Do NOT hit “Reply” to this e-mail notification, or otherwise e-mail your response because the USPTO does NOT accept e-mails as responses to Office actions.  Instead, the USPTO recommends that you respond online using the TEAS response form located at http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp.

 

(3)  QUESTIONS:  For questions about the contents of the Office action itself, please contact the assigned trademark examining attorney.  For technical assistance in accessing or viewing the Office action in the Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) system, please e-mail TSDR@uspto.gov.

 

WARNING

 

Failure to file the required response by the applicable response deadline will result in the ABANDONMENT of your application.  For more information regarding abandonment, see http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/basics/abandon.jsp.

 

PRIVATE COMPANY SOLICITATIONS REGARDING YOUR APPLICATION:  Private companies not associated with the USPTO are using information provided in trademark applications to mail or e-mail trademark-related solicitations.  These companies often use names that closely resemble the USPTO and their solicitations may look like an official government document.  Many solicitations require that you pay “fees.” 

 

Please carefully review all correspondence you receive regarding this application to make sure that you are responding to an official document from the USPTO rather than a private company solicitation.  All official USPTO correspondence will be mailed only from the “United States Patent and Trademark Office” in Alexandria, VA; or sent by e-mail from the domain “@uspto.gov.”  For more information on how to handle private company solicitations, see http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/solicitation_warnings.jsp.