Offc Action Outgoing

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

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

 

 

 

NONFINAL 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).  A link to the appropriate TEAS response form appears at the end of this Office action. 

 

 

Issue date:  July 25, 2019

 

INTRODUCTION

 

This Office action is supplemental to and supersedes the previous Office action issued on April 29, 2019 in connection with this application.  Based on information and/or documentation in applicant’s response, the trademark examining attorney now issues the following new refusal:  Section 2(f) Claim Rejected.  See TMEP §§706, 711.02. 

 

In a previous Office action dated April 29, 2019, the trademark examining attorney refused registration of the applied-for mark based on the following:  Trademark Act Sections 1, 2, and 45 for being merely ornamental.  In addition, applicant was required to satisfy the following requirement: clarify the mark description.

 

Based on applicant’s response, the trademark examining attorney notes that the following requirement has been satisfied:  mark description clarified.  See TMEP §713.02. 

 

The following is a SUMMARY OF ISSUES that applicant must address:

 

            •  NEW ISSUE:  Section 2(f) Claim Rejected

            •  Sections 1, 2 and 45 Refusal – Merely Ornamental

 

Applicant must respond to all issues raised in this Office action and the previous April 29, 2019 Office action, within six (6) months of the date of issuance of this Office action.  37 C.F.R. §2.62(a); see TMEP §711.02.  If applicant does not respond within this time limit, the application will be abandoned.  37 C.F.R. §2.65(a).

 

SECTION 2(f) CLAIM REJECTED

 

Applicant has claimed Section 2(f) acquired distinctiveness in an effort to overcome the Sections 1, 2 and 45 merely ornamental refusal. See June 28, 2019 office action response.

 

Specifically, applicant claimed five years' use of the mark in order to support its Section 2(f) claim. See June 28, 2019 office action response. However, generally, evidence of five years’ use alone is not sufficient to show acquired distinctiveness of a mark that is mere ornamentation. Concrete evidence that the proposed mark is perceived as a mark for the relevant goods or services is required to establish distinctiveness. See In re Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 774 F.2d 1116, 227 USPQ 417 (Fed. Cir. 1985). TMEP §1202.03(d). Therefore, applicant must provide sufficient evidence if applicant wishes to claim Section 2(f) acquired distinctiveness.

 

Additionally, applicant claims ownership of U.S. Registration 4328847 ("WEBSTUR RICHMOND" & Design). See June 28, 2019 office action response. It is not clear whether this is meant to support the Section 2(f) claim. However, if it is, the mark in the prior registration does not support applicant’s claim of acquired distinctiveness because it is not the same mark.

 

A claim of acquired distinctiveness may be based on an applicant’s ownership of one or more active prior registrations of the same mark on the Principal Register.  37 C.F.R. §2.41(a)(1); TMEP §1212.04.  An applied-for mark is considered the same mark if it is the legal equivalent of the previously-registered mark.  In re Highlights for Children, Inc., 118 USPQ2d 1268, 1273-74 (TTAB 2016) (citing In re Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp., 240 F.3d 1341, 1347, 57 USPQ2d 1807, 1812 (Fed. Cir. 2001)); TMEP §1212.04(b). 

 

To be legal equivalents, the applied-for mark must be indistinguishable from the previously-registered mark or create the same, continuing commercial impression such that the consumer would consider them both to be the same mark.  In re Highlights for Children, Inc., 118 USPQ2d at 1274, 1275 n.18 (citing In re Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp., 240 F.3d at 1347, 57 USPQ2d at 1812)); In re Nielsen Bus. Media, Inc., 93 USPQ2d 1545, 1547 (TTAB 2010); TMEP §1212.04(b). 

 

In the present case, the applied-for mark and the mark in the prior registration are not the same mark, and thus are not legal equivalents, because the registered mark contains additional wording and design elements.

 

Therefore, the claim of five years' use and the claim of the prior registration do not support applicant’s claim of acquired distinctiveness, and the claim is not accepted. 

 

SECTIONS 1, 2 AND 45 REFUSAL – MERELY ORNAMENTAL

 

Registration is refused because the applied-for mark as used on the specimen of record is merely a decorative or ornamental feature of applicant’s clothing and, thus, does not function as a trademark to indicate the source of applicant’s clothing and to identify and distinguish applicant’s clothing from others.  Trademark Act Sections 1, 2, and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051-1052, 1127; see In re Lululemon Athletica Can. Inc., 105 USPQ2d 1684, 1689 (TTAB 2013); In re Pro-Line Corp., 28 USPQ2d 1141, 1142 (TTAB 1993); TMEP §§904.07(b), 1202.03 et seq.

 

The size, location, dominance, and significance of the alleged mark as used on the goods are all relevant factors in determining the commercial impression of the applied-for mark.  See, e.g., In re Peace Love World Live, LLC, 127 USPQ2d 1400, 1403 (TTAB 2018) (quoting In re Hulting, 107 USPQ2d 1175, 1178 (TTAB 2013)); In re Lululemon Athletica Can. Inc., 105 USPQ2d at 1687 (quoting In re Right-On Co., 87 USPQ2d 1152, 1156 (TTAB 2008)); TMEP §1202.03(a).

 

With respect to clothing, consumers may recognize small designs or discrete wording as trademarks, rather than as merely ornamental features, when located, for example, on the pocket or breast area of a shirt.  See TMEP §1202.03(a).  Consumers may not, however, perceive larger designs or slogans as trademarks when such matter is prominently displayed across the front of a t-shirt.  See In re Pro-Line Corp., 28 USPQ2d at 1142; In re Dimitri’s Inc., 9 USPQ2d 1666, 1667-68 (TTAB 1988); TMEP §1202.03(a), (b), (f)(i), (f)(ii).

 

In this case, the submitted specimen shows the applied-for mark, "RICHMOND" & Design, located directly on the upper-center area of the front of the shirt, where ornamental elements often appear.  See TMEP §1202.03(a), (b); see evidence attached to the April 29, 2019 office action and hereby incorporated by reference. Furthermore, the mark is displayed in a relatively large size on the clothing such that it dominates the overall appearance of the goods.  Lastly, the applied-for mark appears to be a design element that is used in a merely decorative manner that would be perceived by consumers as having little or no particular source-identifying significance.

 

Therefore, consumers would view the applied-for mark as a decorative or ornamental feature of the goods, rather than as a trademark to indicate the source of applicant’s goods and to distinguish them from others.

 

In appropriate circumstances, applicant may overcome this refusal by satisfying one of the following options:

 

(1)       Submit a different specimen (a verified “substitute” specimen) that was in actual use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application and that shows proper trademark use for the identified goods in International Class 25.  Examples of acceptable specimens that show non-ornamental use on clothing include hang tags and labels used inside a garment.

 

(2)       Claim acquired distinctiveness under Trademark Act Section 2(f) by submitting evidence that the applied-for mark has become distinctive of applicant’s goods; that is, proof that applicant’s extensive use and promotion of the mark allowed consumers now directly to associate the mark with applicant as the source of the goods.

 

(3)       Submit evidence that the applied-for mark is an indicator of secondary source; that is, proof that the mark is already recognized as a source indicator for other goods or services that applicant sells/offers.    

 

For an overview of the response options above and instructions on how to satisfy each option online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, see the Ornamental Refusal webpage.

 

RESPONSE GUIDELINES

 

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. 

 

To expedite prosecution of the application, applicant is encouraged to file its response to this Office action online via the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), which is available at http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/index.jsp.  If applicant has technical questions about the TEAS response to Office action form, applicant can review the electronic filing tips available online at http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/e_filing_tips.jsp and e-mail technical questions to TEAS@uspto.gov.

 

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 nonfinal Office action  

 

 

/Bianca Allen/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 123

(571) 272-5667

bianca.allen@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 July 25, 2019 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88301895

 

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. 

 

 

/Bianca Allen/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 123

(571) 272-5667

bianca.allen@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 July 25, 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.”