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:  January 30, 2020

In the incoming correspondence of November 25, 2019, the applicant (1) argues against the refusal under Section 2(d), which acceptable and (2) argues against the refusal under Section 2(e)(1), which is not acceptable.  All previous argument and evidence is incorporated herein.  The applicant is advised as follows:

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

Registration was refused because the applied-for mark merely names the goods and describes a feature and characteristic 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.  The examiner has considered the applicant’s arguments and has found them to be unpersuasive.  The refusal under Section 2(e)(1) is continued and maintained. 

 

The applicant seeks registration for the term “LATCH” for “non-metal locks for use in programmable locking systems.”

A mark is merely descriptive if it describes a quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose or use of the specified goods.  TMEP §1209.01(b); see In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293, 1297, 75 USPQ2d 1420, 1421 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Gyulay, 820 F.2d 1216, 1217-18, 3 USPQ2d 1009, 1010 (Fed. Cir. 1987). 

The determination of whether a mark is merely descriptive is considered in relation to the identified goods, not in the abstract.  In re Abcor Dev. Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 814, 200 USPQ 215, 218 (C.C.P.A. 1978); TMEP §1209.01(b); see, e.g., In re Polo Int’l Inc., 51 USPQ2d 1061 (TTAB 1999) (finding DOC in DOC-CONTROL would be understood to refer to the “documents” managed by applicant’s software, not “doctor” as shown in dictionary definition); In re Digital Research Inc., 4 USPQ2d 1242 (TTAB 1987) (finding CONCURRENT PC-DOS merely descriptive of “computer programs recorded on disk” where 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 applicant states that “Registration No. 4961853” was “filed and prosecuted without benefit of counsel” and suggests that had “counsel” filed that mark, it would not have been held descriptive as a whole; therefore, the disclaimer in that mark is not relevant.  The fact that the application was filed “without counsel” is not dispositive as to the descriptiveness of the term.  That mark is registered on the Supplemental Register due to the design created from the stylized font with the generic term “LATCH” disclaimed. 

The applicant’s argument that the term “LATCH” “clearly…harks back to an earlier time, when gates opened with a latch, or keys turned in the latch...” and “[T]he mark is reminiscent or suggestive of times in which there was no need to secure your home, and your gate was easily unlatched to let in your neighbor or a visiting friend” is not well taken.  The term is not in “Old English,” and appears in current dictionaries. 

The applicant submitted a definition from the Merriam Webster Dictionary that includes the definition of “LATCH” as “a fastener (as for a door) in which a spring slides a bolt into a hole.”  The applicant states that his “non-metal locks for use in programmable locking systems are nothing like …fasteners (as for a door) in which a spring slides a bolt into a hole.”  It is noted on the attached excerpts from the applicant’s website that the mechanisms for the goods include “Latchbolt Throws” and “Deadbolt Throws” as the bolting mechanism, or “LATCH.”  The offerings in the “M” and “C” series of applicant’s goods may also use a conventional key to “turn the latch.”  Rather than hearkening to an earlier time when a “LATCH” was purely mechanical, the term “LATCH” is easily understood when viewed in the context of applicant’s “modern” goods.  The purpose of the goods is the same, whether mechanical or electronic, and that is to be used as a lock or “LATCH.”

In this case, the applicant’s mark is merely a descriptive, if not generic, term which does not create a new or unique, incongruous or nondescriptive meaning in relation to the goods or services.  Potential users would readily understand that the purpose of the goods is to lock or “LATCH” something.  The term merely names the purpose of the goods.  Accordingly, the refusal to registration on the Principal Register under Section 2(e)(1) is maintained and continued.

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

The applicant must provide the following:

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

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.

 

The applicant must provide information regarding any patent applications, issued patents and provisional patents the applicant may have in regard to the goods. 

 

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).

 

RESPONSE GUIDELINES

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.  

 

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. 

 

How to respond.  Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action.    

 

 

 

 

/Paula Mahoney/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 119

571-272-9191

paula.mahoneyuspto.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 January 30, 2020 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88333285

 

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. 

 

 

/Paula Mahoney/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 119

571-272-9191

paula.mahoneyuspto.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 January 30, 2020, 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.”