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: 5/1/2019

 

The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney.  Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issues below.  15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(a), 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.

 

SEARCH OF OFFICE’S DATABASE OF MARKS

 

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).

 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES

 

• Section 2(e)(2) Refusal – Primarily Geographically Descriptive
• Advisory: Supplemental Register Available
• Entity Clarification Required

 

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

 

Applicant seeks to register FLORIDA in connection with “Athletic footwear; Athletic shirts; Athletic shorts; Bandanas; Baseball caps and hats; Bathing suits; Bathing trunks; Beach coverups; Beanies; Bikinis; Flip flops; Hats; Headwear; Headwear, namely, beanies, sweatbands, lifeguard, visors, baseball hats, caps; Hoodies; Leggings; Long-sleeved shirts; Neck gaiters; Polo shirts; Sandals; Sandals and beach shoes; Shorts; Surf wear; Sweatshirts; T-shirts; T-shirts for men, women, children; Tank tops; Wet suits; Women's athletic tops with built-in bras; Women's hats and hoods; Graphic T-shirts; Hooded sweatshirts; Hooded sweatshirts for men, women, children; Short-sleeved or long-sleeved t-shirts” in International Class 25.  See application.

 

Registration is refused because the applied-for mark is primarily geographically descriptive of the origin of applicant’s goods.  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 goods for which applicant seeks registration originate in the geographic place identified in the mark; and

(3) Purchasers would be likely to make a goods-place association; that is, purchasers would be likely to believe that the goods 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).

The applied-for mark satisfies the three-prong test. First, the word FLORIDA identifies a generally known geographic place of the state of Florida in the United States.  See attached evidence from the Columbia Gazetteer.    

 

As shown in the attached document, the state of Florida has approximately 18,089,888 residents.  See attached evidence from the Columbia Gazetteer.   Notably, Florida is the second most visited state in the United States, and is known for Walt Disney World, the Everglades, South Beach, and the Overseas Highway.  See attached information from the World Atlas.  Therefore, the primary significance of FLORIDA is to identify a known geographic location that is neither obscure nor remote.

 

The design element of the applied-for mark – an inverse outline of the state of Florida as depicted on a traditional map of the United States – does not diminish the term’s primary geographic significance.  An accurate picture or design of geographically descriptive matter and the word or words that describe the design are legal equivalents.  See In re Can. Dry Ginger Ale, Inc., 86 F.2d 830, 832, 32 USPQ 49, 50 (C.C.P.A. 1936) (holding a map of Canada equivalent to the word “Canada” and primarily geographically descriptive of applicant’s soft drinks); East Tenn. Packing Co. v. Armour & Co., 102 USPQ 425, 426 (Chief Exam’r 1954) (finding a map of Tennessee equivalent to the word “Tennessee”); TMEP §1210.02(a).

 

Here, the design represents an accurate inverse outline of the state of Florida, as traditionally depicted on a map of the United States.  Further, this design represents the letter “F”, followed by “ORIDA”, which reinforces to the consumer that the letter “F” is a depiction of the state of Florida.  Such a depiction does not diminish the term’s primary geographic significance, but rather reinforces the mark as geographically descriptive because it provides another means for the consumer to associate the applied-for mark with Florida.  As such, the design element does not diminish the primary geographic significance of FLORIDA in the applied-for mark.

 

Second, goods are considered to originate from a geographic location when the record shows that the goods are sold there, manufactured or produced there, packaged and shipped from there, and/or contain a main ingredient or component derived from there.  See In re Jacques Bernier Inc., 894 F.2d 389, 391-92, 13 USPQ2d 1725, 1727 (Fed. Cir. 1990), opposition sustained sub nom. Fred Hayman Beverly Hills, Inc. v. Jacques Bernier Inc., 38 USPQ2d 1691 (TTAB 1996) (holding applicant’s perfume did not originate from RODEO DRIVE because, although goods did not have to be manufactured or produced at the geographic site and could “be sold there” to originate from the geographic location, there was insufficient evidence to show that perfume was sold on RODEO DRIVE); In re Joint-Stock Co. “Baik,” 80 USPQ2d 1305, 1310 (TTAB 2006) (holding applicant’s vodka originated from BAIKALSKAYA, a Russian word meaning “from Baikal,” because it was made from the water of Lake Baikal and applicant produced various vodkas from a location near Lake Baikal).

 

Here, applicant’s address of record is in Florida, and applicant sells the goods from the state of Florida.  See applicant’s web site. As such, the goods are considered to originate from the state of Florida. 

 

Third, purchasers would be likely to make a goods-place association.  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 goods with the place is presumed if an applicant’s goods 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). 

 

Here, the primary significance of FLORIDA is that of a geographic location, and the design does not diminish the primary significance of Florida as that of a geographic location.  Additionally, applicant sells the goods in the state of Florida.  Therefore, a goods-place association is presumed.

 

For the foregoing reasons, the mark is primarily geographically descriptive and registration is refused pursuant to Section 2(e)(2) of the Trademark Act.

 

ADVISORY: SUPPLEMENTAL REGISTER AVAILABLE

 

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 applicant’s mark has been refused registration on the Principal Register, 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.

 

ENTITY CLARIFICATION REQUIRED

 

The name of an individual person appears in the section of the application intended for the trademark owner’s name; however, the legal entity is set forth as a limited liability company. Applicant must clarify this inconsistency. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(2), (a)(3)(i)-(ii), 2.61(b); TMEP §803.02(a).

 

If applicant is an individual, applicant should simply request that the legal entity be amended to “individual” and must indicate his/her country of citizenship for the record. TMEP §803.03(a). Alternatively, if applicant is a limited liability company, applicant must provide the correct name of the limited liability company and the U.S. state or foreign country of incorporation or organization. TMEP §803.03(h).

 

If, in response to the above request, applicant provides information indicating that it is not the owner of the mark, registration may be refused because the application was void as filed. See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(d); TMEP §§803.06, 1201.02(b). An application must be filed by the party who owns or is entitled to use the mark as of the application filing date. See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(d); TMEP §1201.02(b).

 

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.

 

Please call or email the assigned trademark examining attorney with questions about this Office action.  Although the trademark examining attorney cannot provide legal advice or statements about applicant’s rights, the trademark examining attorney can provide applicant with additional explanation about the refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) in this Office action.  See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06.  Although the USPTO does not accept emails as responses to Office actions, emails can be used for informal communications and will be included in the application record.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(c), 2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05. 

Because of the legal technicalities and strict deadlines involved in the USPTO application process, applicant may wish to hire a private attorney specializing in trademark matters to represent applicant in this process and provide legal advice.  Although the undersigned trademark examining attorney is permitted to help an applicant understand the contents of an Office action as well as the application process in general, no USPTO attorney or staff is permitted to give an applicant legal advice or statements about an applicant’s legal rights.  TMEP §§705.02, 709.06. 

For attorney referral information, applicant may consult the American Bar Association’s Consumers’ Guide to Legal Help; an online directory of legal professionals, such as FindLaw®; or a local telephone directory.  The USPTO, however, may not assist an applicant in the selection of a private attorney.  37 C.F.R. §2.11.

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.  

 

 

 

/James McNamara/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 127

James.McNamara@uspto.gov

571-272-0923

 

 

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 5/1/2019 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 88295482

 

Your trademark application has been reviewed.  The trademark examining attorney assigned by the USPTO to your application has written an official letter to which you must respond.  Please follow these steps:

 

(1)  Read the LETTER by clicking on this link or going to http://tsdr.gov.uspto.report/, entering your U.S. application serial number, and clicking 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)  Respond within 6 months (or sooner if specified in the Office action), calculated from 5/1/2019, using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) response form located at http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp.  A response transmitted through TEAS must be received before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period.

 

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. 

 

(3)  Questions about the contents of the Office action itself should be directed to the trademark examining attorney who reviewed your application, identified below. 

 

/James McNamara/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 127

James.McNamara@uspto.gov

571-272-0923

 

 

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.