Offc Action Outgoing

QUALITY, AFFORDABLE SELF-CARE PRODUCTS

L. Perrigo Company

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88279570 - QUALITY, AFFORDABLE SELF-CARE - 200407444796

To: L. Perrigo Company (trademark@honigman.com)
Subject: U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88279570 - QUALITY, AFFORDABLE SELF-CARE - 200407444796
Sent: November 12, 2019 01:37:19 PM
Sent As: ecom125@uspto.gov
Attachments: Attachment - 1
Attachment - 2

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application

 

U.S. Application Serial No. 88279570

 

Mark:  QUALITY, AFFORDABLE SELF-CARE

 

 

 

 

Correspondence Address: 

Anessa Owen Kramer

HONIGMAN LLP

39400 WOODWARD AVENUE, SUITE 101

BLOOMFIELD HILLS MI 48304

 

 

 

Applicant:  L. Perrigo Company

 

 

 

Reference/Docket No. 200407444796

 

Correspondence Email Address: 

 trademark@honigman.com

 

 

 

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:  November 12, 2019

 

INTRODUCTION

 

This Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on October 14, 2019.

 

In a previous Office action(s) dated April 18, 2019, the trademark examining attorney refused registration of the applied-for mark based on the following: Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1) for being merely descriptive of the applied-for goods and services.  In addition, applicant was required to satisfy the following requirement(s):  amend the identification of goods and/or services.

 

Based on applicant’s response, the trademark examining attorney notes that the following requirement(s) have been satisfied: definite amended identifications provided.  See TMEP §§713.02, 714.04. 

 

Further, the trademark examining attorney maintains and now makes FINAL the refusal.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b); TMEP §714.04.

 

SECTION 2(e)(1) FINAL REFUSAL - MERELY DESCRIPTIVE

The refusal under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1) is now made FINAL for the reasons set forth below.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b).

 

Applicant’s mark is QUALITY, AFFORDABLE SELF-CARE PRODUCTS for “Non-medicated cosmetic and deodorant products, namely, feminine hygiene wash, depilatories, toothpaste and mouthwash, tooth whitening preparations” in International Class 3, “Allergy relief medications; antacids; antihistamines; antitussive preparations; anti-diarrheal preparations namely, antidiarrheal medications; cough syrups, cough expectorants, decongestants, decongestant nasal sprays; disposable test strips for measuring blood glucose levels; eye drops; laxatives; medicated smoking cessation gums and lozenges; medicinal gastrointestinal preparations, namely, medicines for the treatment of gastrointestinal diseases and disorders; medicated pads, namely, first aid wipes for anti-itch and anti-infective purposes, wipes for treatment of hemorrhoids and wipes for treatment of skin fungal infections; nutritional supplements; oral analgesics; personal lubricants; pharmaceuticals for treating vaginal infections; pharmaceuticals for contraceptive purposes being contraceptive preparations; sleeping pills or tablets; suppositories; topical analgesics; topical antibiotic creams and ointments; topical preparations for the treatment of alopecia; Topical pharmaceutical and medical preparations, namely, antibiotic creams and ointments, anti-itch creams and ointments, anti-fungal preparations, creams for treatment of cold sores, hair regrowth treatments, lidocaine spray for male desensitization; infant formulas; oral electrolyte beverages for medical purposes; weight loss products, namely, supplements for weight loss or weight management; topical human antiparasitic products, namely, antiparasitics; medicated cosmetics; pregnancy diagnostic kits and tests; infant formula and food; sinus medications for the treatment of sinus congestion; medications and topical ointments for the treatment of foot conditions” in International Class 5, “Medical apparatus and instruments, namely, glucose meters, pen needles for diabetes management, menstrual cups, and lice combs” in International Class 10, “Printed materials, namely, flyers, newsletters, pamphlets, reports, banners and product inserts in the field of healthcare and healthcare products” in International Class 16, “Dental apparatus and instruments, namely, manual toothbrushes, dental floss and flossers, electric toothbrushes and accessories, interdental picks” in International Class 21, and “Business management services in relation to wholesale and retail of pharmaceutical, cosmetic, and hygiene products for human and veterinary use, food supplements and medical apparatus and instruments; demonstration of goods for promotional purposes; distribution of advertising material in the nature of samples; import and export agency services; providing commercial information in the field of pharmaceutical, cosmetic and hygiene products; sales promotion for others; promotional and advertising services” in International Class 35.

 

A mark is merely descriptive if it describes an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose, or use of an applicant’s goods and/or services.  TMEP §1209.01(b); see, e.g., In re TriVita, Inc., 783 F.3d 872, 874, 114 USPQ2d 1574, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 1173, 71 USPQ2d 1370, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004)); In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293, 1297, 75 USPQ2d 1420, 1421 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Estate of P.D. Beckwith, Inc. v. Comm’r of Patents, 252 U.S. 538, 543 (1920)). 

 

A mark does not need to be merely descriptive of all the goods or services specified in an application.  In re The Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 1300, 102 USPQ2d 1217, 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Franklin Cnty. Historical Soc'y, 104 USPQ2d 1085, 1089 (TTAB 2012).  “A descriptiveness refusal is proper ‘if the mark is descriptive of any of the [goods or] services for which registration is sought.’”  In re The Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 675 F.3d at 1300, 102 USPQ2d at 1219 (quoting In re Stereotaxis Inc., 429 F.3d 1039, 1040, 77 USPQ2d 1087, 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2005)).

 

“Marks that are merely laudatory and descriptive of the alleged merit of a product [or service] are . . . regarded as being descriptive” because “[s]elf-laudatory or puffing marks are regarded as a condensed form of describing the character or quality of the goods [or services].”  DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1256, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1759 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re The Boston Beer Co., 198 F.3d 1370, 1373, 53 USPQ2d 1056, 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1999)); see In re Nett Designs, Inc., 236 F.3d 1339, 1342, 57 USPQ2d 1564, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (holding THE ULTIMATE BIKE RACK merely laudatory and descriptive of applicant’s bicycle racks being of superior quality); In re The Boston Beer Co., 198 F.3d at 1373-74, 53 USPQ2d at 1058-59 (holding THE BEST BEER IN AMERICA merely laudatory and descriptive of applicant’s beer and ale being of superior quality); TMEP §1209.03(k).  In fact, “puffing, if anything, is more likely to render a mark merely descriptive, not less so.”  DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d at 1256, 103 USPQ2d at 1759.

 

 

Generally, if the individual components of a mark retain their descriptive meaning in relation to the goods and/or services, the combination results in a composite mark that is itself descriptive and not registrable.  In re Fat Boys Water Sports LLC, 118 USPQ2d 1511, 1516 (TTAB 2016) (citing In re Tower Tech, Inc., 64 USPQ2d 1314, 1317-18 (TTAB (2002)); TMEP §1209.03(d); see, e.g., Apollo Med. Extrusion Techs., Inc. v. Med. Extrusion Techs., Inc., 123 USPQ2d 1844, 1851 (TTAB 2017) (holding MEDICAL EXTRUSION TECHNOLOGIES merely descriptive of medical extrusion goods produced by employing medical extrusion technologies); In re Cannon Safe, Inc., 116 USPQ2d 1348, 1351 (TTAB 2015) (holding SMART SERIES merely descriptive of metal gun safes); In re King Koil Licensing Co., 79 USPQ2d 1048, 1052 (TTAB 2006) (holding THE BREATHABLE MATTRESS merely descriptive of beds, mattresses, box springs, and pillows).  Here, the wording QUALITY AFFORDABLE is merely laudatory of the applied-for goods and services. The previously attached dictionary evidence shows that QUALITY means “having a high degree of excellence” and AFFORDABLE means having “the financial means for”. Thus, taken together the wording merely means having the financial means for goods/services that are of a high degree of quality.

 

Only where the combination of descriptive terms creates a unitary mark with a unique, incongruous, or otherwise nondescriptive meaning in relation to the goods and/or services is the combined mark registrable.  See In re Colonial Stores, Inc., 394 F.2d 549, 551, 157 USPQ 382, 384 (C.C.P.A. 1968); In re Positec Grp. Ltd., 108 USPQ2d 1161, 1162-63 (TTAB 2013).

 

Finally, the previously attached evidence shows “SELF-CARE” refers to improving one’s own well-being and preserving health. Thus, this wording merely describes a feature or characteristic of the applied-for hygeniene, medications, medical apparatus, healthcare literature, and dental products and corresponding business management and advertising services. That is, applicant’s goods and services are all used in the furtherance of self-care behaviors. The attached evidence from ahdictionary.com shows that wording PRODUCTS is generic for the applied-for goods and service.

 

In this case, both the individual components and the composite result are descriptive of applicant’s goods and/or services and do not create a unique, incongruous, or nondescriptive meaning in relation to the goods and/or services. Taken in its entirety, the mark means hygeniene, medications, medical apparatus, healthcare literature, and dental products and corresponding business management and advertising services which are of a high degree of excellence and are financially available to consumers.

 

Applicant seemingly argues that the mark is not informational. Further, the applicant argues that it should not be required to submit a disclaimer. The basis for this refusal is that the entire mark is merely descriptive. Thus, the entire mark has been refused on the principal register.

 

For these reasons, the applied-for mark is FINALLY refused under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act.

 

SUPPLEMENTAL REGISTER

 

Although an amendment to the Supplemental Register would normally be an appropriate response to this refusal, such a response is not appropriate in the present case.  The instant application was filed under Trademark Act Section 1(b) and is not eligible for registration on the Supplemental Register until an acceptable amendment to allege use meeting the requirements of 37 C.F.R. §2.76 has been timely filed.  37 C.F.R. §2.47(d); TMEP §§816.02, 1102.03.

 

If applicant files an acceptable allegation of use and also amends to the Supplemental Register, the application effective filing date will be the date applicant met the minimum filing requirements under 37 C.F.R. §2.76(c) for an amendment to allege use.  TMEP §§816.02, 1102.03; see 37 C.F.R. §2.75(b).  In addition, the undersigned trademark examining attorney will conduct a new search of the USPTO records for conflicting marks based on the later application filing date.  TMEP §§206.01, 1102.03.

 

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).

 

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.  

 

How to respond.  Click to file a response to this final Office action and/or appeal it to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB)

 

/Brendan J. Ketchum/

Trademark Examining Attorney

United States Patent & Trademark Office

Law Office 125

(571)272-5397

brendan.ketchum@uspto.gov

 

 

RESPONSE GUIDANCE

  • Missing the response deadline to this letter will cause the application to abandon.  A response or notice of appeal must be received by the USPTO before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period.  TEAS and ESTTA maintenance or unforeseen circumstances could affect an applicant’s ability to timely respond.  

 

 

 

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88279570 - QUALITY, AFFORDABLE SELF-CARE - 200407444796

To: L. Perrigo Company (trademark@honigman.com)
Subject: U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88279570 - QUALITY, AFFORDABLE SELF-CARE - 200407444796
Sent: November 12, 2019 01:37:21 PM
Sent As: ecom125@uspto.gov
Attachments:

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

 

USPTO OFFICIAL NOTICE

 

Office Action (Official Letter) has issued

on November 12, 2019 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88279570

 

Your trademark application has been reviewed by a trademark examining attorney.  As part of that review, the assigned attorney has issued an official letter that you must respond to by the specified deadline or your application will be abandoned.  Please follow the steps below.

 

(1)  Read the official letter.

 

(2)  Direct questions about the contents of the Office action to the assigned attorney below. 

 

 

/Brendan J. Ketchum/

Trademark Examining Attorney

United States Patent & Trademark Office

Law Office 125

(571)272-5397

brendan.ketchum@uspto.gov

 

Direct questions about navigating USPTO electronic forms, the USPTO website, the application process, the status of your application, and/or whether there are outstanding deadlines or documents related to your file to the Trademark Assistance Center (TAC).

 

(3)  Respond within 6 months (or earlier, if required in the Office action) from November 12, 2019, using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS).  The response must be received by the USPTO before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period.  See the Office action for more information about how to respond.

 

 

 

GENERAL GUIDANCE

·       Check the status of your application periodically in the Trademark Status & Document Retrieval (TSDR) database to avoid missing critical deadlines.

 

·       Update your correspondence email address, if needed, to ensure you receive important USPTO notices about your application.

 

·       Beware of misleading notices sent by private companies about your application.  Private companies not associated with the USPTO use public information available in trademark registrations to mail and email trademark-related offers and notices – most of which require fees.  All official USPTO correspondence will only be emailed from the domain “@uspto.gov.”

 

 

 


uspto.report is an independent third-party trademark research tool that is not affiliated, endorsed, or sponsored by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) or any other governmental organization. The information provided by uspto.report is based on publicly available data at the time of writing and is intended for informational purposes only.

While we strive to provide accurate and up-to-date information, we do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, reliability, or suitability of the information displayed on this site. The use of this site is at your own risk. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.

All official trademark data, including owner information, should be verified by visiting the official USPTO website at www.uspto.gov. This site is not intended to replace professional legal advice and should not be used as a substitute for consulting with a legal professional who is knowledgeable about trademark law.

© 2024 USPTO.report | Privacy Policy | Resources | RSS Feed of Trademarks | Trademark Filings Twitter Feed