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: 6/3/2019

 

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.  

 

This responds to applicant's communication dated April 22, 2019, wherein applicant responded to the requirement for a disclaimer statement.  For the reasons set forth below, the requirement for a disclaimer of “CLINIC” is continued:

 

DISCLAIMER REQUIREMENT CONTINUED

 

Applicant was required to disclaim the wording “CLINIC” because it merely describes an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose, or use of applicant’s goods and/or services, and thus is an unregistrable component of the mark.   See 15 U.S.C. §§1052(e)(1), 1056(a); DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1251, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 1173, 71 USPQ2d 1370, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004)); TMEP §§1213, 1213.03(a). 

 

As discussed, evidence from an online dictionary previously made of record shows this word refers to “an organization or institution that offers some kind of advice, treatment, or instruction”.  Applicant has identified cosmetic services encompassing those which treat nail and skin conditions.  This nature is made clear in applicant’s specimen of use describing services to repair nails and remove callouses.  Therefore, the wording merely describes a characteristic of the services and is subject to disclaimer.

 

In response, applicant has asserted a claim of acquired distinctiveness under Trademark Act Sec. 2(f) based on use in commerce for at least the five years immediately before the date of this statement and based on its ownership of existing Reg. No. 2304214 for NAIL CLINIC covering “nail and skin care salon services”.  Although not stated, these statements presumably are intended to render a disclaimer unnecessary.   

 

In this case, however, applicant must disclaim the wording “CLINIC” because it is not inherently distinctive.  Moreover, this unregistrable term is generic for applicant’s goods and/or services and is thus an unregistrable component of the mark.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); In re Am. Inst. of Certified Pub. Accountants, 65 USPQ2d 1972, 1981-85 (TTAB 2003); TMEP §§1212.02(e), 1213.03(b).  Applicant cannot overcome this requirement by submitting a claim of acquired distinctiveness under Trademark Act Section 2(f).  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(f).  Such a claim would be insufficient because “generic terms cannot be rescued by proof of distinctiveness or secondary meaning no matter how voluminous the proffered evidence may be.”  Royal Crown Co. v. Coca-Cola Co., 892 F.3d 1358, 1370, 127 USPQ2d 1041, 1048 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting In re Northland Aluminum Prods., 777 F.2d 1556, 1558, 227 USPQ2d 961, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1985)); see TMEP §1212.02(i).

 

“A mark is generic if its primary significance to the relevant public is the class or category of goods or services on or in connection with which it is used.”  TMEP §1209.01(c)(i) (citing H. Marvin Ginn Corp. v. Int’l Ass’n of Fire Chiefs, Inc., 782 F.2d 987, 989-90, 228 USPQ 528, 530 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re ActiveVideo Networks, Inc., 111 USPQ2d 1581, 1600 (TTAB 2014)).  Determining whether a mark is generic requires a two-step inquiry:

 

(1)       What is the genus of goods and/or services at issue?

 

(2)       Does the relevant public understand the designation primarily to refer to that genus of goods and/or services?

 

H. Marvin Ginn Corp. v. Int’l Ass’n of Fire Chiefs, Inc., 782 F.2d at 989-90, 228 USPQ at 530; In re Meridian Rack & Pinion, 114 USPQ2d 1462, 1463 (TTAB 2015); TMEP §1209.01(c)(i). 

 

Regarding the first part of the inquiry, the genus of goods and/or services is often defined by an applicant’s identification of goods and/or services.  In re Meridian Rack & Pinion, 114 USPQ2d at 1463. 

 

In this case, the application identifies the goods and/or services as skin care, nail care and related cosmetic and personal care services, which adequately defines the genus at issue.

 

Regarding the second part of the inquiry, the relevant public is the purchasing or consuming public for the identified goods and/or services.  Sheetz of Del., Inc. v. Doctor’s Assocs. Inc., 108 USPQ2d 1341, 1351 (TTAB 2013).  In this case, the relevant public comprises ordinary consumers who purchase applicant’s services, because there are no restrictions or limitations to the channels of trade or classes of consumers.  The attached evidence from an online dictionary shows that the word “CLINIC” in the applied-for mark refers to “an establishment or hospital department where outpatients are given medical treatment or advice, especially of a specialist nature” and “a place where people go to receive a particular type of medical treatment or advice”.  Additional attached evidence indicates common use of “clinic” to identify establishments offering nail care, skin care and related services.  Such evidence also supports a conclusion that applicant’s own use of “CLINIC” is not “substantially exclusive” as claimed in its response.  Further excerpts from applicant’s own site indicate the provision of care services of a type associated with a clinic. 

 

If accepted, applicant’s Sec. 2(f) claim would serve to exclude others from use of a generic term commonly employed by others to identify businesses similar to that of the applicant.  Based on evidence of record, such exclusive rights cannot be granted.  As to applicant claim of ownership of a prior registration for a mark containing “CLINIC”, applicant’s claim is insufficient evidence of acquired distinctiveness because the term is now generic.  In this regard, it is noted that the referenced prior registration issued 47 years ago.  A term that was once arbitrary or suggestive may lose its distinguishing and origin-denoting characteristics through use in a descriptive or generic sense over a period of time, and may come to be regarded by the purchasing public as nothing more than a descriptive or generic designation.  In re Digital Research, Inc., 4 USPQ2d 1242, 1243 (TTAB 1987); In re Int’l Spike, Inc., 190 USPQ 505, 507 (TTAB 1976).

 

Thus, trademark rights are not static, and eligibility for registration must be determined on the basis of the facts and evidence in the record at the time registration is sought, which includes during examination and any related appeal.  In re Chippendales USA Inc., 622 F.3d 1346, 1354, 96 USPQ2d 1681, 1686 (Fed. Cir. 2010); In re Morton-Norwich Prods., Inc., 671 F.2d 1332, 1344, 213 USPQ 9, 18 (C.C.P.A. 1982); In re Thunderbird Prods. Corp., 406 F.2d 1389, 1391, 160 USPQ 730, 732 (C.C.P.A. 1969).

 

Applicant may respond to this issue by submitting a disclaimer in the following format, in conjunction with a withdrawal of the partial Sec. 2(f) claim:

 

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

 

For an overview of disclaimers and instructions on how to satisfy this issue using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), see the Disclaimer webpage.

 

PLEASE NOTE:  In order to expedite prosecution of the application, applicant is encouraged to e-mail or telephone the trademark examining attorney to resolve the issues raised above.  In this case, applicant may comply with the disclaimer requirement via an informal email authorizing entry of the proposed disclaimer by the examining attorney (steven.perez@uspto.gov).  This will avoid the need to submit a formal response.   

 

If the applicant has any questions or needs assistance in responding to this Office action, please e-mail or telephone the assigned examining attorney.

 

/SMP/

Steven M. Perez

Trademark Attorney

Law Office 101

(571) 272-5888

steven.perez@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 6/3/2019 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 88284929

 

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 6/3/2019 (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.