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:  December 18, 2019

 

This Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on November 18, 2019.

 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES:

 

• Section 2(e)(1) Mere Descriptiveness
• Amendment of Identification of Goods Impermissibly Expands Scope
• Indefinite Identification of Goods Must be Clarified
• Further Information Regarding the Nature of the Goods Required

 

Further research has revealed the necessity for the addition of a refusal to register on the basis of mere descriptiveness.  Applicant’s statement that to the knowledge of applicant's attorney the proposed mark “HYDROBLADE” and “HYDRO” do not have any significance as applied to applicant's contemplated goods is noted, but in view of the attached evidence, is not persuasive. 

 

The receipt of the amendment to the identification of goods gives rise to a new issue concerning scope.  The requirement for an acceptable identification of goods is continued and maintained.  In addition, the requirement for additional information regarding the nature of the goods is continued:  applicant’s explanation is not sufficiently detailed.

 

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

Applicant seeks to register HYDROBLADE in standard character form for computer systems (original identification)/immersion cooling system and parts for immersion cooling of computer components (amended identification).

 

Registration is refused because the applied-for mark potentially merely describes a feature/purpose/function of applicant’s goods.  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)). 

 

The proposed mark is a combination of two terms “HYDRO” and “BLADE” that are potentially merely descriptive of the goods.  Although applicant has indicated that the systems will not use water but instead a dielectric fluid, the term “hydro” can mean something other than “water” (see attached definitions of “hydro” from Google search engine; December 17, 2019; www.collinsdictionary.com:  “containing hydrogen” and www.thefreedictionary.com:  “Liquid”).  Attached to the previous Office action was a definition of a “blade” as a type of computer hardware component (see excerpt from www.computerhope.com; Google search engine; May 22, 2019; attached to the Office action of the same date).  Applicant acknowledges that the term “BLADE” is descriptive of an element of the goods (“The contemplated immersion cooling system will include blades in the sense shown in a portion of the Office Action's excerpt.”).  Applicant is the source of goods described in the following articles as both employing blades and liquids or fluid (Google search engine; December 18, 2019; www.tmgcore.com:  ‘Redefining “high-density data centers through innovative two-phase liquid immersion cooling technology.’ and “Support for extremely high density compute blades consuming up to 6,000 watts (6kW) per blade”; www.anandtech.com:  “Each unit is fitted with TMGcore’s own blade infrastructure, aptly named as ‘OTTOblade’.” and “Two-phase immersion cooling in which servers are immersed in coolant fluid….”; and http://datacenterfrontier.com:  “Those data points are based on racks filled with OTTOblade servers, which pack 6kW of compute power into a single 1U blade.”).

 

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). 

 

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).

 

In this case, both the individual components and the composite result are descriptive of applicant’s goods and do not create a unique, incongruous, or nondescriptive meaning in relation to the goods.  Specifically, the meaning of “hydro” and “blade” remain the same whether they are presented as two words or one.

 

Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.

 

REQUIREMENTS

 

If applicant responds to the refusal, applicant must also respond to the requirements set forth below.

 

1.  Impermissible Expansion of Scope of the Goods

 

The proposed amendment to the identification is not acceptable because it exceeds the scope of the identification in the application.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(6), 2.71(a); TMEP §§805, 1402.06 et seq., 1402.07.  Applicant’s goods may be clarified or limited, but may not be expanded beyond those originally itemized in the application or as acceptably amended.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06.  Therefore, the original identification in the application, and any previously accepted amendments, remain operative for purposes of future amendment.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.07(d).

 

In this case, the application originally identified the goods as follows:  “computing systems.”

 

However, the proposed amendment identifies the following goods:  “immersion cooling system and parts for immersion cooling of computer components.” 

 

This proposed amendment is beyond the scope of the original identification because an immersion cooling system and parts therefor are not computing systems themselves, but systems used to cool computing systems. 

 

The amendment to the identification of goods is not acceptable. 

 

2.  Indefinite Language in the Identification of Goods

 

The identification for “computing systems” in International Class 9 is indefinite and too broad and must be clarified because the wording does not make clear the nature of the specific systems and could identify goods in more than one international class.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1401.05(d).

 

Applicant must indicate the items comprising the system and the function of the system or items.  The language “computing system” potentially indicates a broad range of goods.  For example, this language encompasses such diverse goods as “computer operating systems,” “removable hard drive based computer backup systems,” and “pattern recognition systems composed of computer chips, computer hardware and recorded computer software.”  Applicant must clarify the nature and function of the goods.  Clarification of the function of the goods will help the trademark examining attorney to examine the application properly and make appropriate decisions concerning possible conflicts between the applicant’s mark and other marks.

 

Applicant must clarify the goods by (1) describing the nature, purpose, or use of the system; and (2) listing the system’s parts or components, using common generic terms and referencing the primary parts or components of the system first.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1401.05(d), 1402.01, 1402.03(a).  Additionally, this wording should be classified in the same international class as the primary parts or components of the system.  See TMEP §1401.05(d). 

 

Applicant may adopt the following wording in International Class 9, if accurate:  “computing systems used in cooling immersion environments for [specify function, e.g., edge computing] comprised of [identify components].”

 

Applicant’s goods and/or services may be clarified or limited, but may not be expanded beyond those originally itemized in the application or as acceptably amended.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06.  Applicant may clarify or limit the identification by inserting qualifying language or deleting items to result in a more specific identification; however, applicant may not substitute different goods and/or services or add goods and/or services not found or encompassed by those in the original application or as acceptably amended.  See TMEP §1402.06(a)-(b).  The scope of the goods and/or services sets the outer limit for any changes to the identification and is generally determined by the ordinary meaning of the wording in the identification.  TMEP §§1402.06(b), 1402.07(a)-(b).  Any acceptable changes to the goods and/or services will further limit scope, and once goods and/or services are deleted, they are not permitted to be reinserted.  TMEP §1402.07(e).

 

For assistance with identifying and classifying goods and services in trademark applications, please see the USPTO’s online searchable U.S. Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual.  See TMEP §1402.04.

 

3.  Information Regarding the Nature of the Goods

 

Applicant has responded to the original requirement for information regarding the nature of the goods by stating that the immersion cooling products relate to immersion cooling of computer components as opposed to air cooled.  Applicant has also provided a copy of a press release that does not refer directly to applicant’s proposed mark.  This information is insufficient to clarify the nature of the goods.

 

To permit proper examination of the application, applicant must submit additional product information about applicant’s goods.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b); TMEP §814.  The requested product information should include fact sheets, instruction manuals, and/or advertisements.  If these materials are unavailable, applicant should submit similar documentation for goods of the same type, explaining how its own product will differ.  If the goods feature new technology and no competing goods are available, applicant must provide a detailed description of the goods.

 

Factual information about the goods must clearly indicate how they operate, their salient features, and their prospective customers and channels of trade.  Conclusory statements regarding the goods will not satisfy this requirement.

 

Failure to comply with a request for information is grounds for refusing registration.  In re Harley, 119 USPQ2d 1755, 1757-58 (TTAB 2016); TMEP §814.  Merely stating that information about the goods is available on applicant’s website is an insufficient response and will not make the relevant information of record.  See In re Planalytics, Inc., 70 USPQ2d 1453, 1457-58 (TTAB 2004).

 

Assistance

 

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 nonfinal Office action.    

 

 

Jeri Fickes

/Jeri Fickes/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 107, USPTO

571/272-9157

jeri.fickes@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 December 18, 2019 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88330304

 

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. 

 

 

Jeri Fickes

/Jeri Fickes/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 107, USPTO

571/272-9157

jeri.fickes@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 December 18, 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.”