UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)

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

 

 

 

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: 4/1/2019

 

 

PRIORITY ACTION

 

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 March 26, 2019, the trademark examining attorney and Robert J. Hess, applicant’s attorney 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.

 

SECTION 2(e)(2) REFUSAL – GEOGRAPHICALLY DESCRIPTIVE

Registration is refused because the applied-for mark is primarily geographically descriptive of the origin of applicant’s services.  Trademark Act Section 2(e)(2), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(2); see TMEP §§1210, 1210.01(a).

 

A mark is primarily geographically descriptive when the following is demonstrated:

 

(1) The primary significance of the mark is a generally known geographic place or location;

 

(2) The services for which applicant seeks registration originate in the geographic place identified in the mark; and

 

(3) Purchasers would be likely to make a services-place association; that is, purchasers would be likely to believe that the services originate in the geographic place identified in the mark.

 

TMEP §1210.01(a); see In re Societe Generale des Eaux Minerales de Vittel S.A., 824 F.2d 957, 959, 3 USPQ2d 1450, 1452 (Fed. Cir. 1987); In re Hollywood Lawyers Online, 110 USPQ2d 1852, 1853 (TTAB 2014).

 

Primary Significance

The attached evidence from the Columbia Gazetteer shows that Canada and America are generally known places. The evidence shows that consumers encountering the mark would be familiar with Canada and America as countries located on the continent of North America and expect that applicant services originate in those countries.

 

If the most prominent meaning or significance of a mark is geographic for the services in the application, the fact that the mark may have other meanings in other contexts does not alter its geographic significance in the context of the application.  See In re Opryland USA Inc., 1 USPQ2d 1409, 1412-13 (TTAB 1986) (holding the mark THE NASHVILLE NETWORK primarily geographically descriptive of television program production and distribution services when finding that the primary significance of the term referred to Nashville, Tennessee and not that of a style of music); In re Cookie Kitchen, Inc., 228 USPQ 873, 874 (TTAB 1986) (noting that where MANHATTAN refers to a type of cocktail and to a geographic location that having an alternative meaning does not alter the mark’s primary geographic significance in the context of the goods in the application); In re Jack’s Hi-Grade Foods, Inc., 226 USPQ 1028, 1029 (TTAB 1985) (noting that where NEAPOLITAN refers to a type of ice cream and also means “pertaining to Naples, Italy” that having an alternative meaning does not alter the mark’s primary geographic significance in the context of the goods in the application); TMEP §1210.02(b)(i).

 

Origin of the Services

The services for which applicant seeks registration originate in this geographic place or location as shown by applicant’s address.  See TMEP §1210.03.

 

For services to originate in a geographic place, the record must show that they are rendered at least in part in the geographic place.  See In re Chalk’s Int’l Airline Inc., 21 USPQ2d 1637 (TTAB 1991) (holding PARADISE ISLAND AIRLINES primarily geographically descriptive of air transportation services of passengers and/or goods that are performed at least in part on Paradise Island); In re Cal. Pizza Kitchen Inc., 10 USPQ2d 1704 (TTAB 1988) (holding CALIFORNIA PIZZA KITCHEN primarily geographically descriptive of restaurant services rendered in California and outside the state as well); In re Opryland USA Inc., 1 USPQ2d 1409 (TTAB 1986) (holding THE NASHVILLE NETWORK primarily geographically descriptive of television production and distribution services provided in Nashville); TMEP §1210.03.

 

Services-Place Association

To establish a services-place association, the evidence need only show a “reasonable basis” for concluding that the public is likely to believe that the mark identifies the place from which the services originate.  See In re JT Tobacconists, 59 USPQ2d 1080, 1083-84 (TTAB 2001) (finding that nothing in the record suggested that it would be incongruous or unexpected for the purchasing public to believe that applicant’s cigars, cigar cases and humidors, “manufactured products which could have their origin practically anywhere,” came from the place named in the mark, as applicant was located in the place and the goods were packaged and shipped from the location, such that consumers would have a reasonable basis to believe the goods came from the place named in the mark); In re Cambridge Digital Sys., 1 USPQ2d 1659, 1661-62 (TTAB 1986) (finding that the location named in the mark was renowned for educational institutions and the record demonstrated the location was a manufacturing and commercial center producing related goods such that purchasers of applicant’s goods would reasonably believe they emanate from the place named in the mark); see also TMEP §1210.04; cf. In re Loew’s Theatres, Inc., 769 F.2d 764, 767-68, 226 USPQ 865, 867-68 (Fed. Cir. 1985).

 

When AMERICA or AMERICAN appears in a mark such that it primarily denotes the country of the United States as the origin of the services, then the primary significance is as a geographic location.  See In re Monograms Am., Inc., 51 USPQ2d 1317 (TTAB 1999); In re BankAmerica Corp., 231 USPQ 873 (TTAB 1986); Am. Diabetes Ass’n, Inc. v. Nat’l Diabetes Ass’n, 533 F. Supp. 16, 214 USPQ 231 (E.D. Pa. 1981), aff’d, 681 F.2d 804 (3d Cir. 1982); TMEP §1210.02(b)(iv).

 

When there is no genuine issue that the geographical significance of a term is its primary significance, and the geographical place is neither obscure nor remote, a public association of the services with the place is presumed if an applicant’s services originate in the place named in the mark.  TMEP §1210.04; see, e.g., In re Cal. Pizza Kitchen Inc., 10 USPQ2d 1704, 1706 (TTAB 1988) (holding CALIFORNIA PIZZA KITCHEN primarily geographically descriptive of restaurant services rendered in California); In re Handler Fenton Ws., Inc., 214 USPQ 848, 849-50 (TTAB 1982) (holding DENVER WESTERNS primarily geographically descriptive of western-style shirts originating in Denver).

 

Additional Matter

Further, the addition of the descriptive wording “CHALLENGE CUP” to the geographic term does not obviate the refusal. Attached evidence from Challenge Cup Series, Lucas Oil Off Road, and Colonial Challenge Cup shows that the wording “CHALLENGE CUP” is commonly used in connection with similar services to refer to an automobile racing event; this merely describes the nature or a characteristic of the services identified.

 

The addition of generic or highly descriptive wording to a geographic word or term does not diminish that geographic word or term’s primary geographic significance.  TMEP §1210.02(c)(ii); see, e.g., In re Hollywood Lawyers Online, 110 USPQ2d 1852, 1853-54 (TTAB 2014) (holding HOLLYWOOD LAWYERS ONLINE primarily geographically descriptive of attorney referrals, online business information, and an online business directory); In re Cheezwhse.com, Inc., 85 USPQ2d 1917, 1920 (TTAB 2008) (holding NORMANDIE CAMEMBERT primarily geographically descriptive of cheese).

 

Conclusion

Based on the evidence and analysis above, applicant’s applied-for mark is primarily geographically descriptive and must be refused under Section 2(e)(2) of the Lanham Act.

 

Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.  However, if applicant responds to the refusal, applicant must also respond to the requirement set forth below.

 

SUPPLEMENTAL REGISTER ADVISORY

The applied-for mark has been refused registration on the Principal Register.  Applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration and/or 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); TMEP §§801.02(b), 816.  Amending to the Supplemental Register does not preclude applicant from submitting evidence and arguments against the refusal(s).  TMEP §816.04.

 

Although registration on the Supplemental Register does not afford all the benefits of registration on the Principal Register, it does provide the following advantages to the registrant:

 

(1)       Use of the registration symbol ® with the registered mark in connection with the designated goods and/or services, which provides public notice of the registration and potentially deters third parties from using confusingly similar marks.

 

(2)       Inclusion of the registered mark in the USPTO’s database of registered and pending marks, which will (a) make it easier for third parties to find it in trademark search reports, (b) provide public notice of the registration, and thus (c) potentially deter third parties from using confusingly similar marks.

 

(3)       Use of the registration by a USPTO trademark examining attorney as a bar to registering confusingly similar marks in applications filed by third parties.

 

(4)       Use of the registration as a basis to bring suit for trademark infringement in federal court, which, although more costly than state court, means judges with more trademark experience, often faster adjudications, and the opportunity to seek an injunction, actual damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

 

(5)       Use of the registration as a filing basis for a trademark application for registration in certain foreign countries, in accordance with international treaties.

 

See 15 U.S.C. §§1052(d), 1091, 1094; J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks & Unfair Competition §§19:33, 19:37 (rev. 4th ed. Supp. 2017).

 

 

EXAMINER’S AMENDMENT

 

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. 

 

DISCLAIMER ADDED

The following disclaimer statement is added to the record:

 

            No claim is made to the exclusive right to use “CHALLENGE CUP” apart from the mark as shown.

 

See 15 U.S.C. §1056(a); TMEP §§1213, 1213.08(a)(i).

 

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.  

 

 

 

/Douglas A. Mondell/

Douglas A. Mondell

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 127

(571) 272-0120

douglas.mondell@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 4/1/2019 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 88248519

 

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 4/1/2019 (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.