To: | Cai,LiMei (tmofficialnotices@gmail.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88360395 - CPSC - N/A |
Sent: | February 04, 2020 02:27:18 PM |
Sent As: | ecom108@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 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88360395
Mark: CPSC
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
Applicant: Cai,LiMei
|
|
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: February 04, 2020
This Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on December 12, 2019.
In a previous Office action dated June 14, 2019, the trademark examining attorney refused registration of the applied-for mark based on the following: Trademark Act Section 2(a) for a false connection with a U.S. government agency. In addition, applicant was required to satisfy the following requirement: provide information about the relationship between the applicant and U.S. government agency at issue.
In the December 12, 2019 Response, the applicant made no argument against the refusal nor did the applicant provide the required information. Instead, the applicant provided only a new specimen showing the applied-for mark in use in commerce.
The trademark examining attorney maintains and now makes FINAL the refusal and requirement in the summary of issues below. See 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b); TMEP §714.04.
SUMMARY OF ISSUES MADE FINAL
- Trademark Act Section 2(a) Refusal – False Connection
- Information Required – Inquiry About Relationship Between Applicant & Institution
TRADEMARK ACT SECTION 2(a) REFUSAL – FALSE CONNECTION
(1) The mark sought to be registered is the same as, or a close approximation of, the name or identity previously used by another person or institution.
(2) The mark would be recognized as such, in that it points uniquely and unmistakably to that person or institution.
(3) The person or institution identified in the mark is not connected with the goods sold by applicant under the mark.
(4) The fame or reputation of the named person or institution is of such a nature that a connection with such person or institution would be presumed when applicant’s mark is used on its goods.
In re Pedersen, 109 USPQ2d at 1188-89; In re Jackson Int’l Trading Co., 103 USPQ2d 1417, 1419 (TTAB 2012); TMEP §1203.03(c)(i); see also Univ. of Notre Dame du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imps. Co., 703 F.2d 1372, 1375-77, 217 USPQ 505, 508-10 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (providing foundational principles for the current four-part test used to determine the existence of a false connection).
An institution need not “be large, well known, or ‘national’ to be protected from the registration of a mark that falsely suggests a connection” under Section 2(a). TMEP §1203.03(a)(ii); see Gavel Club v. Toastmasters Int’l, 127 USPQ 88, 94 (TTAB 1960).
In this case, the Internet evidence attached to the June 14, 2019 Office action, from the websites of Acronym Finder (www.acronymfinder.com) and the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (www.cpsc.gov) showed that the mark sought to be registered, “CPSC”, is the same as that of the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). See the evidence attached to the June 14, 2019 Office action.
Further, the Internet evidence attached to the June 14, 2019 Office action, from the websites of Acronym Finder (www.acronymfinder.com), the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (www.cpsc.gov), Investopedia (www.investopedia.com), PR Newswire (www.prnewswire.com), the United States Government (www.usa.gov), and Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org), showed that the mark “CPSC” would be recognized as the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), in that letters “CPSC” point uniquely and unmistakably to the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). See the evidence attached to the June 14, 2019 Office action.
To supplement the previously-attached Internet evidence, the attached Internet evidence from the websites of Anchor It! (www.anchorit.gov), Arnold & Porter (www.arnoldporter.com), Safer Products (www.saferproducts.gov), and the Google search engine (www.google.com), shows that the mark “CPSC” would be recognized as the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), in that letters “CPSC” point uniquely and unmistakably to the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC).
Additionally, there is no information in the application record regarding a connection between United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and the applicant. In the June 14, 2019 Office action, the examining attorney specifically inquired as to such a relationship; however, the applicant gave no response to the inquiry. Thus, it is presumed that there is no connection between the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and the goods sold by the applicant under the applied-for mark.
Further, the goods of the applicant are consumer products, which would be subject to regulation by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). The previously-attached evidence and the evidence attached hereto shows that the fame or reputation of the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is of such a nature that a connection with the agency would be presumed when applicant’s mark is used on its goods. As there is no evidence of record indicating that the applicant is connected to the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), this mark would be misleading to consumers who would presume a connection with the well-known institution.
As such, the applicant’s applied-for mark must be refused under Trademark Act Section 2(a).
Considering all of the above, the refusal under Trademark Act Section 2(a) is hereby made FINAL.
INFORMATION REQUIRED – INQUIRY ABOUT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN APPLICANT & INSTITUTION NAMED IN MARK
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