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

 

 

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

 

Summary of Issues

 

·       Nondistinctive Product Design Refusal

·       Request for Information

·       Mark Description and Mark Drawing Amendments

 

Search of Office Records

 

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).

 

Nondistinctive Product Design Refusal

 

Registration is refused because the applied-for mark consists of a nondistinctive product design or nondistinctive features of a product design that is not registrable on the Principal Register without sufficient proof of acquired distinctiveness.  Trademark Act Sections 1, 2, and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051-1052, 1127; Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Bros., Inc., 529 U.S. 205, 210, 213-14, 54 USPQ2d 1065, 1068-69 (2000); In re Slokevage, 441 F.3d 957, 961, 78 USPQ2d 1395, 1398 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see TMEP §1202.02(b)(i).

 

A product design can never be inherently distinctive as a matter of law; consumers are aware that such designs are intended to render the goods more useful or appealing rather than identify their source.  See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Bros., 529 U.S. at 212-13, 54 USPQ2d at 1068-69; In re Slokevage, 441 F.3d at 962, 78 USPQ2d at 1399.  Thus, consumer predisposition to equate a product design with its source does not exist.  Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Bros., 529 U.S. at 213, 54 USPQ2d at 1069.

 

In response to this refusal, applicant may assert a claim that the applied-for mark has acquired distinctiveness under Trademark Act Section 2(f). To support this claim of acquired distinctiveness, applicant may submit evidence of “advertising expenditures, sales success, length and exclusivity of use, unsolicited media coverage, and consumer studies (linking the name to a source).”  In re Change Wind Corp., 123 USPQ2d 1453, 1467 (TTAB 2017) (quoting In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293, 1300, 75 USPQ2d 1420, 1424 (Fed. Cir. 2005)).  A showing of acquired distinctiveness need not consider all of these types of evidence; no single factor is determinative.  In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d at 1300, 75 USPQ2d at 1424; see TMEP §§1212.06 et seq.  However, “[t]he evidence must relate to the promotion and recognition of the specific configuration embodied in the applied-for mark and not to the goods in general.”  In re Change Wind Corp., 123 USPQ2d at 1467 (citing Inwood Labs., Inc. v. Ives Labs., Inc., 456 U.S. 844, 851 n.11, 214 USPQ 1, 4 n.11 (1982)). 

 

To establish acquired distinctiveness, an applicant may rely only on use in commerce that may be regulated by the U.S. Congress.  See 15 U.S.C. §§1052(f), 1127.  Use solely in a foreign country or between two foreign countries is not evidence of acquired distinctiveness in the United States.  TMEP §§1010, 1212.08; see In re Rogers, 53 USPQ2d 1741, 1746-47 (TTAB 1999).

 

As an alternative to submitting evidence of acquired distinctiveness, applicant may amend the application to the Supplemental Register.  Trademark Act Section 23, 15 U.S.C. §1091; see 37 C.F.R. §§2.47, 2.75(a); TMEP §§816, 1202.02(b)(i).

 

Evidence of Five Years’ Use Insufficient

 

Evidence of five years’ use considered alone is generally not sufficient to show acquired distinctiveness for nondistinctive product design marks.  E.g., In re R.M. Smith, Inc., 734 F.2d 1482, 1485, 222 USPQ 1, 3 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Change Wind Corp., 123 USPQ2d 1453, 1467 (TTAB 2017). Actual evidence that the mark is perceived as a mark for the relevant goods is required to establish distinctiveness. See generally In re The Black & Decker Corp., 81 USPQ2d 1841, 1844 (TTAB 2006) (finding applicant successfully established acquired distinctiveness for the design of a key head for key blanks and various metal door hardware, where evidence submitted in support thereof included twenty-four years of use in commerce and significant evidence regarding industry practice, such that the evidence showed that "it is common for manufacturers of door hardware to use key head designs as source indicators.");  In re R.M. Smith, Inc., 734 F.2d 1482, 222 USPQ 1 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (configuration of pistol grip water nozzle for water nozzles). As such, applicant’s claim of acquired distinctiveness based on five years’ continuous and substantially exclusive use is not enough to establish that the mark has acquired distinctiveness in the minds of consumers.

 

Request for Information

 

Applicant must provide the following information and documentation regarding the applied-for three-dimensional configuration mark:

 

(1)       A written statement as to whether the applied-for mark, or any feature(s) thereof, is or has been the subject of a design or utility patent or patent application, including expired patents and abandoned patent applications.  Applicant must also provide copies of the patent and/or patent application documentation.

 

(2)       Advertising, promotional, and/or explanatory materials concerning the applied-for configuration mark, particularly materials specifically related to the design feature(s) embodied in the applied-for mark.

 

(3)       A written explanation and any evidence as to whether there are alternative designs available for the feature(s) embodied in the applied-for mark, and whether such alternative designs are equally efficient and/or competitive.  Applicant must also provide a written explanation and any documentation concerning similar designs used by competitors.

 

(4)       A written statement as to whether the product design or packaging design at issue results from a comparatively simple or inexpensive method of manufacture in relation to alternative designs for the product/container.  Applicant must also provide information regarding the method and/or cost of manufacture relating to applicant’s goods.

 

(5)       Any other evidence that applicant considers relevant to the registrability of the applied-for configuration mark.

 

See 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b); In re Morton-Norwich Prods., Inc., 671 F.2d 1332, 1340-41, 213 USPQ 9, 15-16 (C.C.P.A. 1982); TMEP §§1202.02(a)(v) et seq.

 

Any document filed with the USPTO becomes part of the official public application record and will not be returned or removed.  TMEP §§404, 814.  If any of the information requested above is confidential or applicant does not want such information to become part of the public record for a valid reason, applicant should submit an explanation of those circumstances or redact confidential portions prior to submission.  See TMEP §814.  Applicants are not required to submit confidential information into the record; a written explanation or summary of that information may suffice.  Id.

 

Regarding the requirement for this information, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board and its appeals court have recognized that the necessary technical information for ex parte determinations as to functionality is usually more readily available to an applicant, and thus an applicant is normally the source of most of the evidence in these cases.  In re Teledyne Indus. Inc., 696 F.2d 968, 971, 217 USPQ 9, 11 (Fed. Cir. 1982); see In re Babies Beat Inc., 13 USPQ2d 1729, 1731 (TTAB 1990) (holding registration was properly refused where applicant failed to comply with trademark examining attorney’s request for copies of patent applications and other patent information); TMEP §1202.02(a)(v).

 

Failure to comply with a request for information can be grounds for refusing registration.  In re AOP LLC, 107 USPQ2d 1644, 1651 (TTAB 2013); In re DTI P’ship LLP, 67 USPQ2d 1699, 1701-02 (TTAB 2003); TMEP §814.

 

Mark Description and Drawing Requirement

 

The drawing of applicant’s applied-for three-dimensional mark is not acceptable because it includes functional elements depicted in solid lines rather than broken or dotted lines.  See TMEP §1202.02(c)(i)(A).  Elements of a mark that are functional are required to be shown in broken or dotted lines.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.52(b)(4); In re Water Gremlin Co., 635 F.2d 841, 844, 208 USPQ 89, 91 (C.C.P.A. 1980); In re Heatcon, Inc., 116 USPQ2d 1366, 1379-80 (TTAB 2015); TMEP §1202.02(c)(i)(A). 

 

“Functional matter cannot be protected as a trademark.”  TMEP §1202.02(a)(iii)(A); see 15 U.S.C. §§1052(e)(5), (f), 1091(c), 1064(3), 1115(b)(8).  A feature is functional as a matter of law if it is “‘essential to the use or purpose of the [product]’” or “‘it affects the cost or quality of the [product].’”  TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Mktg. Displays, Inc., 532 U.S. 23, 33, 58 USPQ2d 1001, 1006 (2001); TMEP §1202.02(a)(iii)(A).

 

In considering whether a particular product or packaging design is functional, the functionality analysis can be confined to one particular competitively significant area of use for the applied-for mark.  It is not necessary to consider all potential uses of the applied-for mark which might be encompassed by the identification of goods.  Valu Eng’g, Inc. v. Rexnord Corp., 278 F.3d 1268, 1276-78, 61 USPQ2d 1422, 1427-28 (Fed. Cir. 2002); see TMEP §1202.02(a)(v)(C).

 

In the present case, the following elements are functional:  The holes located at the top, end, and bottom of the product; the eye portion of the product; and the weight located on the bottom of the product. The attached evidence from Dickssportinggoods.com, Amazon.com and Basspro.com, shows that the holes located at the top, end, and bottom of the configuration are almost per se functional because they are used to attach hooks and lines to the product. Further, the eye and weight portion of the configuration are functional in that they allow the lure to more accurately imitate live and injured bait fish.  See In re Morton-Norwich Prods., Inc., 671 F.2d 1332, 1340-41, 213 USPQ 9, 15-16 (C.C.P.A. 1982); TMEP §1202.02(a)(v).

 

Therefore, applicant must provide (1) a new drawing of the mark showing the functional element(s) in broken or dotted lines, and (2) an amended mark description that references the matter in broken or dotted lines and indicates such matter is not claimed as part of the mark.  See TMEP §1202.02(c)(i)(A), (c)(ii).  Applicant must provide the amended drawing regardless of whether the remaining portions of the mark are determined to be registrable.  TMEP §1202.02(c)(i)(A).

 

The following mark description format is suggested, if accurate: 

 

The mark consists of a three-dimensional configuration of the outline of a fishing lure, with a slight boomerang angle on the top and an interior curve, creating a hook on the bottom.  The broken lines depicting holes on the top, end, and bottom, eyes, and the weight located in the interior curve indicate placement of the mark on the goods and are not part of the mark. 

 

See TMEP §1202.02(c)(ii).

 

 

Comments

 

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.  

 

 

 

/Faucette, Max/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 107

(571)270-5655

max.faucette@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. 88331859

 

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.