To: | National Railroad Passenger Corporation (svtmdocket@reedsmith.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88344464 - PENN STATION - N/A |
Sent: | November 02, 2019 12:56:31 PM |
Sent As: | ecom115@uspto.gov |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 Attachment - 6 Attachment - 7 Attachment - 8 Attachment - 9 Attachment - 10 Attachment - 11 Attachment - 12 Attachment - 13 Attachment - 14 Attachment - 15 Attachment - 16 Attachment - 17 Attachment - 18 Attachment - 19 Attachment - 20 Attachment - 21 Attachment - 22 Attachment - 23 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88344464
Mark: PENN STATION
|
|
Correspondence Address: Katherine M. Basile and Jason E. Garcia
|
|
Applicant: National Railroad Passenger Corporation
|
|
Reference/Docket No. N/A
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
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: November 02, 2019
This Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on October 11, 2019.
In a previous Office action dated June 5, 2019, the trademark examining attorney refused registration of the applied-for mark based on the following: Trademark Act Section 2(e)(2) because the applied-for mark is primarily geographically descriptive.
Applicant’s arguments have been considered and found unpersuasive for the reasons set forth below. Therefore, 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)(2) REFUSAL – PRIMARILY GEOGRAPHICALLY DESCRIPTIVE
A mark is primarily geographically descriptive when the following is demonstrated:
(1) The primary significance of the mark is a generally known geographic place or location;
(2) The goods and/or services for which applicant seeks registration originate in the geographic place identified in the mark; and
(3) Purchasers would be likely to make a goods-place or services-place association; that is, purchasers would be likely to believe that the goods and/or services originate in the geographic place identified in the mark.
TMEP §1210.01(a); see In re Societe Generale des Eaux Minerales de Vittel S.A., 824 F.2d 957, 959, 3 USPQ2d 1450, 1452 (Fed. Cir. 1987); In re Hollywood Lawyers Online, 110 USPQ2d 1852, 1853 (TTAB 2014).
Applicant has applied to register the mark PENN STATION for “Railroad transportation services; providing specialized facilities for mass transit for the general public; transportation reservation services; transportation information; transportation of goods and passengers” in International Class 039.
In the present case, the previously attached Internet evidence shows that the term PENN is an abbreviation for “Pennsylvania.” See the previously attached evidence from http://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=Penn. Also, the previously attached Internet evidence shows that Pennsylvania is “a state in the northeastern US.” See the previously attached evidence from http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/Pennsylvania. Furthermore, the previously attached Internet evidence shows that Pennsylvania commonly attracts visitors due to the states historical landmarks, arts and culture, and outdoor recreational activities. See the previously attached evidence from http://www.pa.gov/guides/exploring-pa/. Thus, PENN or Pennsylvania is a generally known geographic location.
Moreover, the previously attached Internet evidence shows that Pennsylvania Station, also known as New York Penn Station or Penn Station, is a railway station that connects New York City with other cities including Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. See the previously attached evidence from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_Station_(New_York_City) and http://www.american-rails.com/pennsylvania-station.html. Thus, applicant’s services are provided in Pennsylvania, and consumers are likely to believe that applicant’s services are provided in Pennsylvania because PENN STATION is a railroad station that provides transportation services from Pennsylvania and New York. Therefore, the term PENN is geographically descriptive.
In applicant’s response applicant argues that that the applied-for mark is a coined term and that applicant’s transportation station is widely recognized and has a popular significance apart from its offering services to Pennsylvania. Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive because if the most prominent meaning or significance of a mark is geographic for the services in the application, the fact that the mark may have other meanings in other contexts does not alter its geographic significance in the context of the application. See In re Opryland USA Inc., 1 USPQ2d 1409, 1412-13 (TTAB 1986) (holding the mark THE NASHVILLE NETWORK primarily geographically descriptive of television program production and distribution services when finding that the primary significance of the term referred to Nashville, Tennessee and not that of a style of music); In re Cookie Kitchen, Inc., 228 USPQ 873, 874 (TTAB 1986) (noting that where MANHATTAN refers to a type of cocktail and to a geographic location that having an alternative meaning does not alter the mark’s primary geographic significance in the context of the goods in the application); In re Jack’s Hi-Grade Foods, Inc., 226 USPQ 1028, 1029 (TTAB 1985) (noting that where NEAPOLITAN refers to a type of ice cream and also means “pertaining to Naples, Italy” that having an alternative meaning does not alter the mark’s primary geographic significance in the context of the goods in the application); TMEP §1210.02(b)(i). Here, the applied-for mark in connection with applicant’s services is primarily geographic because PENN STATION is a railroad station that provides transportation services from Pennsylvania, New York and other major cities.
Moreover, the attached Internet evidence shows that PENN STATION is a prominent landmark in Manhattan, New York. See the attached evidence from http://allthatsinteresting.com/old-penn-station; http://www.newyorktour1.com/blog/history-penn-station/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI1pCpv9vL5QIVBJyzCh2cvwC1EAMYASAAEgJ2d_D_BwE; and http://www.tripsavvy.com/a-complete-guide-to-nyc-penn-station-4584476. Furthermore, applicant’s identification of services has no limitations or restrictions, and as such, the services can include transportation to Pennsylvania by rail or providing mass transit facilities in Pennsylvania.
Additionally, for services to originate in a geographic place, the record must show that they are rendered at least in part in the geographic place. See In re Chalk’s Int’l Airline Inc., 21 USPQ2d 1637 (TTAB 1991) (holding PARADISE ISLAND AIRLINES primarily geographically descriptive of air transportation services of passengers and/or goods that are performed at least in part on Paradise Island); In re Cal. Pizza Kitchen Inc., 10 USPQ2d 1704 (TTAB 1988) (holding CALIFORNIA PIZZA KITCHEN primarily geographically descriptive of restaurant services rendered in California and outside the state as well); In re Opryland USA Inc., 1 USPQ2d 1409 (TTAB 1986) (holding THE NASHVILLE NETWORK primarily geographically descriptive of television production and distribution services provided in Nashville); TMEP §1210.03. In the present case, the record establishes that applicant’s services extend to the geographic location Pennsylvania.
Accordingly, the applied-for mark is primarily geographic and registration is refused on the Principal Register pursuant to Section 2(e)(2) of the Trademark Act.
SUPPLEMENTAL REGISTER
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.
DISCLAIMER
Applicant may submit a disclaimer in the following format:
No claim is made to the exclusive right to use “STATION” 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.
ASSISTANCE
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)
/Sahar Nasserghodsi/
Sahar Nasserghodsi
Examining Attorney
Law Office 115
(571)272-9192
Sahar.Nasserghodsi@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE