To: | Corcoran Group LLC (uspto.mail@realogy.com) |
Subject: | U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 88242626 - CORCORAN - N/A |
Sent: | 2/1/2019 11:29:54 AM |
Sent As: | ECOM127@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 Attachment - 16 Attachment - 17 Attachment - 18 Attachment - 19 Attachment - 20 Attachment - 21 Attachment - 22 Attachment - 23 Attachment - 24 Attachment - 25 Attachment - 26 Attachment - 27 Attachment - 28 Attachment - 29 Attachment - 30 Attachment - 31 Attachment - 32 |
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 88242626
MARK: CORCORAN
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
CLICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER: http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp
|
APPLICANT: Corcoran Group LLC
|
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: CORRESPONDENT E-MAIL ADDRESS: |
|
EXAMINER’S AMENDMENT/PRIORITY 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: 2/1/2019
DATABASE SEARCH: The trademark examining attorney has searched the USPTO’s database of registered and pending marks and has found no conflicting marks that would bar registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d). TMEP §704.02; see 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).
ISSUES APPLICANT MUST ADDRESS: On January 31, 2019, the trademark examining attorney and applicant’s attorney of record, Melissa Berger, discussed the issues below. Applicant must timely respond to these issues. See 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §2.62(a); TMEP §§708, 711.
The trademark examining attorney has searched the Office’s database of registered and pending marks and has found no conflicting marks that would bar registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d). TMEP §704.02; see 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).
Pending response to this priority action, registration is refused for the following reason. See TMEP §708.04.
SECTION 2(e)(4) REFUSAL – PRIMARILY MERELY A SURNAME
An applicant’s mark is primarily merely a surname if the surname, when viewed in connection with the 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, when 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 attached evidence from the LEXISNEXIS® surname database, establishing the surname significance of CORCORAN. This evidence shows the applied-for mark appearing 25,185 times as a surname in a weekly updated directory of cell phone and other phone numbers (such as voice over IP) from various data providers.
Surname Rareness
The issue of determining whether a surname is common or rare is not determined solely by comparing the number of listings of the surname to the total number of listings in a computerized database, because even the most common surname would represent only a small fraction of the database. In re Gregory, 70 USPQ2d 1792, 1795 (TTAB 2004). Rather, if a surname appears routinely in news reports or articles and receives media publicity so as to be broadly exposed to the general public, then such surname is not rare and its primary significance to purchasers would be that of a surname, such as in this case. See In re Beds & Bars Ltd., 122 USPQ2d 1546, 1551 (TTAB 2017); In re Gregory, 70 USPQ2d at 1795; TMEP §1211.01(a)(v).
In addition to the attached evidence from the LEXISNEXIS® Surname Database, the attached Wikipedia.com entry establishes the surname significance of CORCORAN. Specifically, CORCORAN is prominent enough to have its own Wikipedia® entry identifying it as a surname.
Further, the public is routinely exposed to CORCORAN in a surname context. See attached articles from CNYCentral.com, WVLT 8, and KUsports.com. Thus, not only are there numerous listings of the name used as a surname in national databases, but the public is also routinely exposed to this use in new reports and other articles and the name is not a rare or unknown surname. Therefore, this factor weighs in favor of surname significance.
Surname Connected with Applicant
Here, Corcoran Group, the applicant, was founded by Barbara Corcoran. See attached New York Times article. Thus CORCORAN has surname significance, as it is the surname of someone connected with the applicant, namely the company’s founder. Therefore, this factor weighs in favor of surname significance.
Other Recognized Meanings Absent
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 attached evidence form Onelook shows that there are seven dictionary results for CORCORAN, one of which is a slang dictionary and one of which is a baby name list. Of the remaining five, four of them either have no definition or define the name as a surname. See attached evidence from OneLook and attached definitions. The Wikipedia® entries list the term as a surname first and as the name of an Amtrak station second. See attached Wikipedia® Corcoran disambiguation page. None of the dictionaries have any additional meaning for the word other than of a name, and then primarily that of a surname. This evidence shows the lack of a non-surname significance to the term. Therefore, this factor weighs in favor of surname significance.
Structure and Pronunciation
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, “an” is a common surname suffix in multiple languages. See attached Wikipedia® evidence of common surname prefixes. The inclusion of this common surname suffix causes the look and feel of CORCORAN to be that of a surname. In combination with the common nature of this surname, as demonstrated by the attached articles previously discussed, it is likely that consumers will perceive it is as having the structure and pronunciation of a surname. Therefore, this factor weighs in favor of surname significance.
No Sufficient Stylization
This mark is in a script like font rather than standard characters. Adding a non-distinctive design element or letter stylization to a term that is primarily merely a surname does not change the surname significance of the term. The primary significance of such a mark would still be that of a surname. TMEP §1211.01(b)(ii); see In re Pickett Hotel Co., 229 USPQ 760, 763 (TTAB 1986) (holding PICKETT a surname despite use of stylized lettering); cf. In re Benthin Mgmt. GmbH, 37 USPQ2d 1332, 1333-34 (TTAB 1995). Therefore, this factor weighs in favor of surname significance.
Conclusion
In sum, all five factors show that the primary significance of the term CORCORAN is that 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.
Additionally, it is noted that applicant owns numerous registrations for which there is a claim of acquired distinctiveness, due to CORCORAN being primarily merely a surname. See attached registrations. A claim of distinctiveness under §2(f), whether made in the application as filed or in a subsequent amendment, may be construed as conceding that the matter to which it pertains is not inherently distinctive and, thus, not registrable on the Principal Register absent proof of acquired distinctiveness. TMEP §1212.02(b).
Supplemental Register and 2(f) Response Option – Advisory
The applied-for mark has been refused registration on the Principal Register. Applicant may respond by submitting evidence and arguments against the refusal. In addition, applicant may respond by doing one of the following: (1) amending the application to seek registration under Trademark Act Section 2(f), or (2) amending the application to seek registration on the Supplemental Register. See 15 U.S.C. §§1052(f), 1091.
APPLICATION HAS BEEN AMENDED: In accordance with the authorization granted by the individual identified in the Priority Action section above, the trademark examining attorney has amended the application as indicated below. Please advise the undersigned immediately of any objections. TMEP §707. Any amendments to the identification of services may clarify or limit the services, but may not add to or broaden the scope of the services. 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); see TMEP §§1402.06 et seq.
Amended Identification of Services
The identification of services in International Class 036 is amended to read as follows:
“Real estate brokerage services; franchising services, namely, providing financial information and advice regarding the establishment and/or operation of real estate brokerage business; real estate brokerage services, namely, arrangement of title insurance and real estate financing for others; real estate property management services; real estate agency services; leasing of real estate; real estate appraisal and valuation; real estate rental services, namely, rental of residential housing; providing information in the field of real estate by means of linking the website to other websites featuring real estate information; real estate investment; real estate escrow services; real estate services, namely, rental property management; providing real estate listings and real estate information via the Internet; providing information in the field of real estate via the Internet; commercial and residential real estate agency services; real estate services, namely, providing online questions to help users determine the best neighborhoods and communities suited to their individual needs and preferences; providing a database of information about residential real estate listings in different neighborhoods and communities; real estate consultancy services in association with the valuation, appraisal, brokerage, listing, management, letting and/or leasing of real estate; financial evaluation of real estate; mortgage advisory services, namely, mortgage compliance consulting services concerning financial requirements for mortgages, mortgage financial planning services and mortgage refinancing; providing an interactive web portal in the field of real estate, featuring news, information and user generated content.”
See TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.01(e).
RESPONDING TO THIS OFFICE ACTION
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.
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.
/Carolyn Detmer/
Carolyn Detmer
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 127
(571) 272-2722
carolyn.detmer1@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.