To: | Kathryn Nash (ran03550@gmail.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88350636 - MINIBUTMIGHTY - N/A |
Sent: | January 08, 2020 03:16:59 PM |
Sent As: | ecom108@uspto.gov |
Attachments: |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88350636
Mark: MINIBUTMIGHTY
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
Applicant: Kathryn Nash
|
|
Reference/Docket No. N/A
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
FINAL 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) 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: January 08, 2020
This Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on December 2, 2019.
In a previous Office action dated June 2, 2019, the trademark examining attorney refused registration of the applied-for mark based on the following: mark in drawing differed from mark in specimen and failure to show the applied-for mark in use in commerce with any of the specified services.
Based on applicant’s response, the trademark examining attorney notes that the following refusal has been withdrawn: failure to show the applied-for mark in use in commerce with any of the specified services. See TMEP §§713.02, 714.04.
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
- Mark on Drawing and Specimen Differ
MARK ON DRAWING AND SPECIMEN DIFFER
Applicant was previously refused registration in International Class 41 because the mark on the drawing and originally submitted specimen differed and because the submitted Class 41 specimen did not show a direct association between the applied-for mark and the identified services. Response options for overcoming that refusal, if any, were set forth in the prior Office action. Applicant, however, responded to such refusal by submitting a substitute specimen for each refused international class that does not show proper use of the applied-for mark in commerce for the reasons immediately stated below. Thus, the refusal to register the applied-for mark in International Class 41 is now made final because applicant failed to provide evidence of use of the mark in commerce. Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a), 2.63(b); TMEP §§904, 904.07, 1301.04(g)(i).
In the December 2, 2019 Response, the applicant requested to amend the mark in the application. The USPTO cannot accept the proposed changes because they would materially alter the mark in the drawing filed with the original application or as previously amended. 37 C.F.R. §2.72(a)(2), (b)(2); TMEP §807.14. Accordingly, the proposed drawing amendment will not be entered; the previous drawing of the mark will remain operative. See TMEP §807.17.
The original drawing shows the mark as “MINI BUT MIGHTY”; three separate words, in standard character form. The proposed amended drawing shows the mark as the stylized letters “MF” inside a double diamond design, above the stylized, unitary wording “MINIBUTMIGHTY”, over the stylized wording “FITNESS” between two horizontal lines. Additionally, the amended drawing shows the mark in the colors black and gold, while a particular color is not claimed in the original application.
The USPTO cannot accept an amendment to a mark if it will materially alter the mark in the drawing filed with the original application. 37 C.F.R. §2.72(a)(2), (b)(2); TMEP §807.14. An amendment to the mark is material when the USPTO would need to republish the mark with the change in the USPTO Trademark Official Gazette to fairly present the mark to the public. In re Thrifty, Inc., 274 F.3d 1349, 1352, 61 USPQ2d 1121, 1123-24 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing In re Hacot-Columbier, 105 F.3d 616, 620, 41 USPQ2d 1523, 1526 (Fed. Cir. 1997)); TMEP §807.14.
That is, an amendment is material if the altered mark does not retain “the essence of the original mark” or if the new and old forms do not “create the impression of being essentially the same mark.” In re Hacot-Columbier, 105 F.3d at 620, 41 USPQ2d at 1526 (quoting Visa Int’l Serv. Ass’n v. Life-Code Sys., Inc., 220 USPQ 740, 743-44 (TTAB 1983)); see, e.g., In re Who? Vision Sys., Inc., 57 USPQ2d 1211, 1218 (TTAB 2000) (amendment from “TACILESENSE” to “TACTILESENSE” a material alteration); In re CTB Inc., 52 USPQ2d 1471, 1475 (TTAB 1999) (amendment of TURBO with a design to just the typed word TURBO without design a material alteration).
When determining materiality, the addition of any element that would require a further search of the USPTO database for conflicting marks is also relevant. In re Guitar Straps Online LLC, 103 USPQ2d 1745, 1747 (TTAB 2012) (citing In re Pierce Foods Corp., 230 USPQ 307, 308-09 (TTAB 1986)); In re Who? Vision Sys. Inc., 57 USPQ2d at 1218-19; TMEP §807.14.
In the present case, applicant’s proposed amendment would materially alter the mark in the drawing filed with the original application because the amended drawing adds an acronym, wording and design elements which change the commercial impression of the mark and which would require a further search of the USPTO database for conflicting marks. Thus, the amended drawing of the mark cannot be accepted and the original drawing of the mark will remain operative.
As such, registration is refused because the specimen does not show the mark in the drawing in use in commerce in International Class 41, which is required in the application. Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a), 1301.04(g)(i). The mark appearing on the specimen and in the drawing must match; that is, the mark in the drawing “must be a substantially exact representation of the mark” on the specimen. See 37 C.F.R. §2.51(a)-(b); TMEP §807.12(a).
In this case, the substitute specimen, submitted with the December 2, 2019 response, displays the mark as the stylized letters “MF” inside a double diamond design, above the stylized, unitary wording “MINIBUTMIGHTY”, over the stylized wording “FITNESS” between two horizontal lines. However, as explained above, the original drawing remains operative, which displays the mark as three separate words, “MINI BUT MIGHTY”, with no design elements or additional wording.
Applicant has thus failed to provide the required evidence of use of the mark in commerce. See TMEP §807.12(a).
Applicant may respond to this refusal by satisfying one of the following:
(1) Submit a different specimen (a verified “substitute” specimen) for each applicable international class that (a) shows the mark in the drawing in actual use in commerce for the services in the application, and (b) was in actual use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application or prior to the filing of an amendment to allege use.
Examples of specimens for services include advertising and marketing materials, brochures, photographs of business signage and billboards, and webpages that show the mark used in the actual sale, rendering, or advertising of the services. See TMEP §1301.04(a), (h)(iv)(C).
(2) Submit a request to amend the filing basis to intent to use under Section 1(b), for which no specimen is required. This option will later necessitate additional fee(s) and filing requirements such as providing a specimen.
The USPTO will not accept an amended drawing submitted in response to this refusal because the changes would materially alter the drawing of the mark in the original application or as previously acceptably amended. See 37 C.F.R. §2.72(a)-(b); TMEP §807.14. Specifically, amending the mark on the drawing to agree with the mark on the specimen would be a material alteration because the amended drawing adds wording and design elements which would require a further search of the USPTO database for conflicting marks.
For more information about drawings and instructions on how to satisfy these response options online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, see the Drawing webpage.
COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE TRADEMARK OFFICE
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 request for reconsideration of this final Office action that fully resolves all outstanding requirements and refusals and/or click to file a timely appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) with the required filing fee(s).
/Anna C. Burdecki/
Anna C. Burdecki
Examining Attorney
Law Office 108
(571) 270-1941
anna.burdecki@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE