Offc Action Outgoing

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

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

 

 

 

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:  October 28, 2019

 

INTRODUCTION

 

This Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on 10/10/2019.

 

In a previous Office action dated 04/11/2019, the trademark examining attorney refused registration of the applied-for mark based on the following: Trademark Act Section 2(d) for a likelihood of confusion with a registered mark, and Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1) for mere descriptiveness of the mark.  In addition, applicant was required to satisfy the following requirement:  amend the identification of goods.

 

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

 

In addition, the following refusal have been withdrawn:  Section 2(d) refusal.  See TMEP §§713.02, 714.04. 

 

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

 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES MADE FINAL that applicant must address:

• SECTION 2(e)(1) REFUSAL - MERELY DESCRIPTIVE
• ADVISORY: SUPPLEMENTAL REGISTER
• ADVISORY: DISCLAIMER REQUIRED – SUPPLEMENTAL REGISTER

 

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

 

Registration is refused because the applied-for mark merely describes a feature, characteristic and purpose of applicant’s goods and/or services.  Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); see TMEP §§1209.01(b), 1209.03 et seq.

 

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)). 

 

Applicant has applied to register the mark UNIFIED SECURITY PLATFORM for use in connection with “Providing online non-downloadable software for identifying malware attacks; Providing online non-downloadable software used for detection of malicious websites, botnets, and wireless access points; Providing online non-downloadable software providing the ability to manage traffic on a computer network; online computer services, namely, providing spam filtering services to protect websites and online applications from receiving unsolicited messages; Providing online non-downloadable software for management of computer software applications on a user's network; Providing online non-downloadable computer software for visualization of connected devices and wireless access points; Providing online non-downloadable software for monitoring, managing, and anonymizing personally identifying information and protecting confidential data on computer networks; computer security services in the nature of providing authentication, issuance, and validation of network users; online cloud-based services used for authentication in the fields of security monitoring, access control, information flow control, and facilitating computer connections for local area, wide area and global computer networks; Computer security services, namely, online monitoring computer networks for securing and protecting data and information from unauthorized access and malware attacks; Technical support, namely, online monitoring the technological functions of computer network systems.”

 

The word “UNIFIED” means brought together, combined or united.  See previously attached dictionary entries.   Further, the term “UNIFIED” is commonly used in the industry to in relation to similar goods and services to describe software and hardware that works together.  See attached Internet evidence. The word “SECURITY” refers to something that secures or protects.  See attached dictionary entries.  The word “PLATFORM” refers to the type of computer system you are using, in relation to the type of software you can use on it.  See the previously attached dictionary entries.  As applied to the identified goods and/or services, the combined term “UNIFIED SECURITY PLATFORM”, immediately conveys the idea that the goods and/or services are a unified software, hardware and services system for use in protecting computer systems and networks.  Applicant’s identification of goods confirms that applicant’s goods perform that function, and are for use in that field.  Thus, the term “UNIFIED SECURITY PLATFORM” is merely descriptive of a feature, characteristic and purpose of applicant’s goods and/or services.

 

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 Tower Tech, Inc., 64 USPQ2d 1314, 1317-18 (TTAB 2002) (holding SMARTTOWER merely descriptive of “commercial and industrial cooling towers and accessories therefor, sold as a unit”); In re Sun Microsystems, Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1084, 1087 (TTAB 2001) (holding AGENTBEANS merely descriptive of “computer software for use in the development and deployment of application programs on a global computer network”); In re Putnam Publ’g Co., 39 USPQ2d 2021, 2022 (TTAB 1996) (holding FOOD & BEVERAGE ON-LINE merely descriptive of “a news and information service updated daily for the food processing industry, contained in a database”); In re Copytele, Inc., 31 USPQ2d 1540, 1542 (TTAB 1994) (holding SCREEN FAX PHONE merely descriptive of “facsimile terminals employing electrophoretic displays”).  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.

 

Applicant argues that there are other meanings to the terms in the applied-for mark.  However, the determination of whether a mark is merely descriptive is made in relation to an applicant’s goods and/or services, not in the abstract.  DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1254, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re The Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 1300, 102 USPQ2d 1217, 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2012); TMEP §1209.01(b); see, e.g., In re Polo Int’l Inc., 51 USPQ2d 1061, 1062-63 (TTAB 1999) (finding DOC in DOC-CONTROL would refer to the “documents” managed by applicant’s software rather than the term “doctor” shown in a dictionary definition); In re Digital Research Inc., 4 USPQ2d 1242, 1243-44 (TTAB 1987) (finding CONCURRENT PC-DOS and CONCURRENT DOS merely descriptive of “computer programs recorded on disk” where the relevant trade used the denomination “concurrent” as a descriptor of a particular type of operating system). 

 

“Whether consumers could guess what the product [or service] is from consideration of the mark alone is not the test.”  In re Am. Greetings Corp., 226 USPQ 365, 366 (TTAB 1985).  The question is not whether someone presented only with the mark could guess what the goods and/or services are, but “whether someone who knows what the goods and[/or] services are will understand the mark to convey information about them.”  DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1254, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Tower Tech, Inc.,64 USPQ2d 1314, 1316-17 (TTAB 2002)); In re Mueller Sports. Med., Inc., 126 USPQ2d 1584, 1587 (TTAB 2018).  “That a term may have other meanings in different contexts is not controlling.”  In re Franklin Cnty. Historical Soc’y, 104 USPQ2d 1085, 1087 (TTAB 2012) (citing In re Bright-Crest, Ltd., 204 USPQ 591, 593 (TTAB 1979)); TMEP §1209.03(e).  “It is well settled that so long as any one of the meanings of a term is descriptive, the term may be considered to be merely descriptive.”  In re Mueller Sports Med., Inc., 126 USPQ2d 1584, 1590 (TTAB 2018) (quoting In re Chopper Indus., 222 USPQ 258, 259 (TTAB 1984)).

 

“A mark may be merely descriptive even if it does not describe the ‘full scope and extent’ of the applicant’s goods or services.”  In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 1173, 71 USPQ2d 1370, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing In re Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp., 240 F.3d 1341, 1346, 57 USPQ2d 1807, 1812 (Fed. Cir. 2001)); TMEP §1209.01(b).  It is enough if a mark describes only one significant function, attribute, or property.  In re The Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 1300, 102 USPQ2d 1217, 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2012); TMEP §1209.01(b); see In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d at 1173, 71 USPQ2d at 1371.

 

The fact that an applicant may be the first or only user of a merely descriptive designation does not necessarily render a word or term incongruous or distinctive; as in this case, the evidence shows that UNIFIED SECURITY PLATFORM is merely descriptive.  See In re Fat Boys Water Sports LLC, 118 USPQ2d 1511, 1514 (TTAB 2016); In re Phoseon Tech., Inc., 103 USPQ2d 1822, 1826 (TTAB 2012); TMEP §1209.03(c).

 

Applicant has submitted a list of registrations.  However, the mere submission of a list of registrations or a copy of a private company search report does not make such registrations part of the record.  See In re Peace Love World Live, LLC, 127 USPQ2d 1400, 1405 n.17 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re 1st USA Realty Prof’ls, 84 USPQ2d 1581, 1583 (TTAB 2007); In re Duofold Inc., 184 USPQ 638, 640 (TTAB 1974)); TBMP §1208.02; TMEP §710.03.

 

To make third party registrations part of the record, an applicant must submit copies of the registrations, or the complete electronic equivalent from the USPTO’s automated systems, prior to appeal.  In re Star Belly Stitcher, Inc., 107 USPQ2d 2059, 2064 (TTAB 2013); TBMP §1208.02; TMEP §710.03.  Accordingly, these registrations will not be considered.

 

Even if the registrations were properly submitted, vocabulary used in the computer and electronics fields is particularly noted for changing rapidly, and descriptiveness is determined based on the facts and evidence in the record at the time registration is sought.  In re Sun Microsystems, Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1084, 1088 (TTAB 2001); In re Styleclick.com Inc., 57 USPQ2d 1445, 1448 (TTAB 2000) (noting “a year or two is an eternity in ‘Internet time,’ given the rapid advancement of the Internet into every facet of daily life”).  A term that was once arbitrary or suggestive may lose its distinguishing and origin-denoting characteristics through use in a descriptive sense over a period of time, and come to be regarded by the purchasing public as nothing more than a descriptive 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, third-party registrations of applicant’s mark or portions of applicant’s mark are not probative on the question of descriptiveness.  Each case must be taken on its own facts.  In re Pennzoil Prods. Co., 20 USPQ2d 1753, 1758 (TTAB 1991); TMEP §1209.03(a).

 

Therefore, the mark UNIFIED SECURITY PLATFORM, as applied to the identified goods and/or services, merely describes a feature of applicant’s goods and/or services, namely, that the goods and/or services are a unified software, hardware and services system for use in protecting computer systems and networks.  Accordingly, the proposed mark is merely descriptive, and the refusal on the Principal Register under Section 2(e)(1) is made final.

 

ADVISORY: 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.

 

ADVISORY: DISCLAIMER REQUIRED – SUPPLEMENTAL REGISTER

 

Applicant is advised that, if an acceptable allegation of use and an amendment to the Supplemental Register are filed, applicant will be required to disclaim “SECURITY PLATFORM” because such wording appears to be generic in the context of applicant’s goods and/or services.  See 15 U.S.C. §1056(a); In re Wella Corp., 565 F.2d 143, 144, 196 USPQ 7, 8 (C.C.P.A. 1977); In re Creative Goldsmiths of Wash., Inc., 229 USPQ 766, 768 (TTAB 1986); TMEP §1213.03(b).

 

Applicant may submit a disclaimer in the following format:

 

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

 

TMEP §1213.08(a)(i).

 

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

 

RESPONSE GUIDELINES

 

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. 

 

 

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)

 

 

/John Salcido/

John Salcido

Examining Attorney

Law Office 122

571-272-7549

John.Salcido@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.  

 

• Responses signed by an unauthorized party are not accepted and can cause the application to abandon.  If applicant does not have an attorney, the response must be signed by the individual applicant, all joint applicants, or someone with legal authority to bind a juristic applicant.  If applicant has an attorney, the response must be signed by the attorney.

 

• If needed, find contact information for the supervisor of the office or unit listed in the signature block.

 

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

 

USPTO OFFICIAL NOTICE

 

Office Action (Official Letter) has issued

on October 28, 2019 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88298440

 

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. 

 

 

/John Salcido/

John Salcido

Examining Attorney

Law Office 122

571-272-7549

John.Salcido@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 October 28, 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.”