To: | OIC Toys, LLC (ttraveland@txcorplaw.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88270307 - GRAB BAG - N/A |
Sent: | July 02, 2020 04:27:33 PM |
Sent As: | ecom115@uspto.gov |
Attachments: |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88270307
Mark: GRAB BAG
|
|
Correspondence Address: |
|
Applicant: OIC Toys, LLC
|
|
Reference/Docket No. N/A
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
Applicant’s Response Is Incomplete
Issue date: July 02, 2020
The application is abandoned because applicant’s response to the final Office action dated October 21, 2019 is not complete for the reason(s) stated below. See 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §2.65(a); TMEP §§718.02, 718.03.
In this case, applicant did not (1) raise a new issue, (2) resolve all outstanding issue(s) in the final Office action, (3) provide any new or compelling evidence with regard to the outstanding issue(s), or (4) present analysis and arguments that were persuasive or shed new light on the outstanding issue(s). Additionally, applicant did not timely file a notice of appeal and no time remains in the response period.
Applicant’s attorney makes an unconvincing argument in its request for reconsideration that the mark is not merely descriptive because the hand, not the treats or prizes inside the bag, surprises those reaching into the bag. Applicant contends that “the kids know there will be candy in the bag and they aren’t drawing that out unseen. The surprise is the monster hand popping out of the bag as the kids try to get the candy out of the bag.” The surprise element does not, however, change the nature of the “Cloth bags for storage; Halloween goodie bags made of cloth; cloth Halloween goodie bags; Halloween candy bags in the nature of cloth bags for storing candy” listed in the identification. Therefore, this argument is unconvincing.
Applicant may file a Petition to the Director Under Trademark Rule 2.146 within two months of the issue date of this notice to request that the abandonment determination be reversed and the application be returned to active status. TMEP §§715.03(a)(ii)(D), 718.03(b), 1705.04, 1713.01-.02. However, the Director will grant the petition in rare cases if (1) the USPTO committed a clear procedural error or abuse of discretion, or (2) applicant can show substantial compliance with the response requirements. TMEP §§715.03(a)(ii)(D), 718.03(b), 1713.01-02.
/Andrea B. Cornwell/
Andrea B. Cornwell
Examining Attorney
Law Office 115
571-272-4608
andrea.cornwell@uspto.gov