Offc Action Outgoing

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application

 

 

 

SECOND 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:  December 31, 2019

 

This Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on June 5, 2019.

 

In a previous Office action(s) dated December 5, 2019, the trademark examining attorney refused registration of the applied-for mark under Trademark Act Section 2(d) for a likelihood of confusion with a registered mark, and under Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45 for failure to show the applied-for mark in use in commerce with any of the specified goods.  In addition, applicant was required to satisfy the Requirement for Acceptable Identification of Goods.

 

Based on applicant’s response, the trademark examining attorney notes that the Requirement for Acceptable Identification of Goods has been satisfied. 

 

Further, the trademark examining attorney maintains previous refusals and now makes the NEW refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) in the summary of issues below. 

 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES that applicant must address:

• Refusal Under Section 2(e)(1) – Merely Descriptive (NEW)
• Refusal Under Section 2(e)(2) – Primarily Geographically Descriptive
• Refusal for Unacceptable Specimen

 

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

 

Registration is refused because the applied-for mark merely describes a feature, function and/or purpose 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.

 

A mark is merely descriptive if “it immediately conveys information concerning a feature, quality, or characteristic of [an applicant’s] goods or services.”  In re N.C. Lottery, 866 F.3d 1363, 1367, 123 USPQ2d 1707, 1709 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing In re Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, 488 F.3d 960, 963, 82 USPQ2d 1828, 1831 (Fed. Cir. 2007)); TMEP §1209.01(b); see DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1251, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Abcor Dev. Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 814, 200 USPQ 215, 218 (C.C.P.A. 1978)). 

 

Here, applicant has applied to register “AMERICA’S TOOL CRIB” for “Recorded computer software and hardware for controlling an automated machine tool and accessories dispenser machine for the manufacturing industry, sold as a unit; Recorded computer software and hardware for managing supply purchase and inventory for the manufacturing industry; Downloadable software for controlling an automated machine tool and accessories dispenser machine for the manufacturing industry; Downloadable software for managing supply purchase and inventory for the manufacturing industry; Recorded computer application software for handheld computers, namely, software for controlling an automated machine tool and accessories dispenser machine for the manufacturing industry; Recorded computer application software for handheld computers, namely, software for managing supply purchase and inventory for the manufacturing industry”.

 

As applicant explains in its response, “a ‘tool crib’ is a term of art amongst tradespeople, indicating a location where one can go and select tools for carrying out various jobs.”  See Applicant’s Response p.2.

 

The examining attorney has attached excerpts from the Internet demonstrating descriptive use of the wording “tool crib” in association with tool crib management software.

-          http://www.assetpanda.com/tool-crib-management-software/

-          http://www.autocrib.com/products/touch-toolroom

-          http://www.waspbarcode.com/, http://www.waspbarcode.com/buzz/the-right-tools/

-          http://www.gigatrak.com/tool-crib-software/

-          http://www.business2community.com/product-management/benefits-of-tool-crib-software-and-management-0281842

 

Further, the addition of the term “AMERICA’S” in the mark is merely laudatory.  “Marks that are merely laudatory and descriptive of the alleged merit of a product [or service] are . . . regarded as being descriptive” because “[s]elf-laudatory or puffing marks are regarded as a condensed form of describing the character or quality of the goods [or services].”  DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1256, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1759 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re The Boston Beer Co., 198 F.3d 1370, 1373, 53 USPQ2d 1056, 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1999)); see In re The Boston Beer Co., 198 F.3d at 1373-74, 53 USPQ2d at 1058-59  (holding THE BEST BEER IN AMERICA so highly laudatory and descriptive of applicant’s beer and ale being of a superior quality that it is incapable of acquiring distinctiveness); In re Carvel Corp., 223 USPQ 65, 68-69 (TTAB 1984) (holding AMERICA’S FRESHEST ICE CREAM so highly laudatory and descriptive of applicant’s frozen desserts and ice cream being of a superior quality that it is incapable of registration on the Supplemental Register); In re Wileswood, Inc., 201 USPQ 400, 402-404 (TTAB 1978) (holding AMERICA’S BEST POPCORN! and AMERICA’S FAVORITE POPCORN! highly laudatory and descriptive of applicant’s unpopped popcorn being that of a superior quality and popularity); TMEP §1209.03(n).  In fact, “puffing, if anything, is more likely to render a mark merely descriptive, not less so.”  DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d at 1256, 103 USPQ2d at 1759.

 

Therefore, the applied-for mark is merely descriptive of the identified goods because it immediately refers to the feature, characteristic, and/or purpose of applicant’s goods, namely, software being of superior quality for the control and management of the dispensing and inventorying of machine tools and accessories within a space for holding such goods.

 

The determination of whether a mark is merely descriptive is made in relation to an applicant’s goods and/or services, not in the abstract.  DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1254, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re The Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 1300, 102 USPQ2d 1217, 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2012); TMEP §1209.01(b); see, e.g., In re Polo Int’l Inc., 51 USPQ2d 1061, 1062-63 (TTAB 1999) (finding DOC in DOC-CONTROL would refer to the “documents” managed by applicant’s software rather than the term “doctor” shown in a dictionary definition); In re Digital Research Inc., 4 USPQ2d 1242, 1243-44 (TTAB 1987) (finding CONCURRENT PC-DOS and CONCURRENT DOS merely descriptive of “computer programs recorded on disk” where the 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).

 

For the reasons stated above, the proposed mark merely describes the feature, characteristic, and/or purpose of applicant’s goods, namely, software being of superior quality for the control and management of the dispensing and inventorying of machine tools and accessories within a space for holding such goods.

 

SUPPLEMENTAL REGISTER – ADVISORY

 

The applied-for mark has been refused registration on the Principal Register.  Applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration and/or by amending the application to seek registration on the Supplemental Register.  See 15 U.S.C. §1091; 37 C.F.R. §§2.47, 2.75(a); TMEP §§801.02(b), 816.  Amending to the Supplemental Register does not preclude applicant from submitting evidence and arguments against the refusal(s).  TMEP §816.04.

 

Although registration on the Supplemental Register does not afford all the benefits of registration on the Principal Register, it does provide the following advantages to the registrant:

 

(1)        Use of the registration symbol ® with the registered mark in connection with the designated goods and/or services, which provides public notice of the registration and potentially deters third parties from using confusingly similar marks.

 

(2)        Inclusion of the registered mark in the USPTO’s database of registered and pending marks, which will (a) make it easier for third parties to find it in trademark search reports, (b) provide public notice of the registration, and thus (c) potentially deter third parties from using confusingly similar marks.

 

(3)        Use of the registration by a USPTO trademark examining attorney as a bar to registering confusingly similar marks in applications filed by third parties.

 

(4)        Use of the registration as a basis to bring suit for trademark infringement in federal court, which, although more costly than state court, means judges with more trademark experience, often faster adjudications, and the opportunity to seek an injunction, actual damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

 

(5)        Use of the registration as a filing basis for a trademark application for registration in certain foreign countries, in accordance with international treaties.

 

See 15 U.S.C. §§1052(d), 1091, 1094; J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks & Unfair Competition §§19:33, 19:37 (rev. 4th ed. Supp. 2017).

 

Applicant should note the following additional ground for refusal.

 

REFUSAL UNDER SECTION 2(e)(2) – PRIMARILY GEOGRAPHICALLY DESCRIPTIVE

 

Registration remains refused because the applied-for mark is primarily geographically descriptive of the origin of applicant’s goods and/or services.  Trademark Act Section 2(e)(2), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(2); see TMEP §§1210, 1210.01(a).

 

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 Joint-Stock Co. “Baik,” 80 USPQ2d 1305, 1309 (TTAB 2006).

 

Primary Significance of the Mark is a Generally Known Geographic Place/Location

 

Here, applicant has applied to register “AMERICA’S TOOL CRIB” for “Recorded computer software and hardware for controlling an automated machine tool and accessories dispenser machine for the manufacturing industry, sold as a unit; Recorded computer software and hardware for managing supply purchase and inventory for the manufacturing industry; Downloadable software for controlling an automated machine tool and accessories dispenser machine for the manufacturing industry; Downloadable software for managing supply purchase and inventory for the manufacturing industry; Recorded computer application software for handheld computers, namely, software for controlling an automated machine tool and accessories dispenser machine for the manufacturing industry; Recorded computer application software for handheld computers, namely, software for managing supply purchase and inventory for the manufacturing industry”.

 

As shown by the attached dictionary definition, the primary significance of “AMERICA” is a geographic location, namely, the United States of America.

 

The addition of generic or highly descriptive wording to a geographic word or term does not diminish that geographic word or term’s primary geographic significance.  TMEP §1210.02(c)(ii); see, e.g., In re Hollywood Lawyers Online, 110 USPQ2d 1852, 1853-54 (TTAB 2014) (holding HOLLYWOOD LAWYERS ONLINE primarily geographically descriptive of attorney referrals, online business information, and an online business directory); In re Cheezwhse.com, Inc., 85 USPQ2d 1917, 1920 (TTAB 2008) (holding NORMANDIE CAMEMBERT primarily geographically descriptive of cheese).

 

Here, the addition of “TOOL CRIB” does not obviate this refusal.  Here, “TOOL CRIB” is defined Merriam-Webster Dictionary as referring to “crib” or “an enclosure especially of framework”.  See previously attached definition.  Thus, the wording “tool crib”, as shown by applicant’s identification of goods, is merely descriptive of a feature, function, purpose, or use of applicant’s goods, namely, a hardware and/or software for the management of tools in an enclosure in the United States of America.

 

Applicant’s Goods Originate in America, the Geographic Place Identified in the Mark

 

Goods are considered to originate from a geographic location when the record shows that the goods are sold there, manufactured or produced there, packaged and shipped from there, and/or contain a main ingredient or component derived from there.  See In re Jacques Bernier Inc., 894 F.2d 389, 391-92, 13 USPQ2d 1725, 1727 (Fed. Cir. 1990), opposition sustained sub nom. Fred Hayman Beverly Hills, Inc. v. Jacques Bernier Inc., 38 USPQ2d 1691 (TTAB 1996) (holding applicant’s perfume did not originate from RODEO DRIVE because, although goods did not have to be manufactured or produced at the geographic site and could “be sold there” to originate from the geographic location, there was insufficient evidence to show that perfume was sold on RODEO DRIVE); In re Joint-Stock Co. “Baik,” 80 USPQ2d 1305, 1310 (TTAB 2006) (holding applicant’s vodka originated from BAIKALSKAYA, a Russian word meaning “from Baikal,” because it was made from the water of Lake Baikal and applicant produced various vodkas from a location near Lake Baikal); In re JT Tobacconists, 59 USPQ2d 1080, 1083 (TTAB 2001) (holding applicant’s cigars, cigar cases, and humidors originated from MINNESOTA because they were packaged and shipped from MINNESOTA, and applicant’s business was located in MINNESOTA); In re Nantucket Allserve Inc., 28 USPQ2d 1144, 1145-46 (TTAB 1993) (holding applicant’s beverages originated from NANTUCKET because labels for applicant’s goods suggested a connection with NANTUCKET, additional evidence suggested that some ingredients came from NANTUCKET and that applicant’s goods were sold at applicant’s store located in NANTUCKET, and applicant’s corporate headquarters and research and development center were located in NANTUCKET); TMEP §1210.03.

 

As applicant’s address indicates, applicant is located in the state of Michigan of the United States.  

 

Purchasers are Likely to Make a Good-Place Association

 

When there is no genuine issue that the geographical significance of a term is its primary significance, and the geographical place is neither obscure nor remote, a public association of the goods and/or services with the place is presumed if an applicant’s goods and/or services originate in the place named in the mark.  TMEP §1210.04; see, e.g., In re Cal. Pizza Kitchen Inc., 10 USPQ2d 1704, 1706 (TTAB 1988) (holding CALIFORNIA PIZZA KITCHEN primarily geographically descriptive of restaurant services rendered in California); In re Handler Fenton Ws., Inc., 214 USPQ 848, 849-50 (TTAB 1982) (holding DENVER WESTERNS primarily geographically descriptive of western-style shirts originating in Denver).

 

In applicant’s response, applicant has provided third-party registrations for “AMERICA”-formative marks on the Principal Register.  The fact that third-party registrations exist for marks allegedly similar to applicant’s mark is not conclusive on the issue of descriptiveness.  See In re Scholastic Testing Serv., Inc., 196 USPQ 517, 519 (TTAB 1977); TMEP §1209.03(a).  An applied-for mark that is merely descriptive does not become registrable simply because other seemingly similar marks appear on the register.  In re Scholastic Testing Serv., Inc., 196 USPQ at 519; TMEP §1209.03(a).

 

It is well settled that each case must be decided on its own facts and the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board is not bound by prior decisions involving different records.  See In re Nett Designs, Inc., 236 F. 3d 1339, 1342, 57 USPQ2d 1564, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re Datapipe, Inc., 111 USPQ2d 1330, 1336 (TTAB 2014); TMEP §1209.03(a).  The question of whether a mark is merely descriptive is determined based on the evidence of record at the time each registration is sought.  In re theDot Commc’ns Network LLC, 101 USPQ2d 1062, 1064 (TTAB 2011); TMEP §1209.03(a); see In re Nett Designs, Inc., 236 F.3d at 1342, 57 USPQ2d at 1566.

 

Here, the applicant’s provided examples include unitary wording that is distinct from applicant’s applied-for mark.

 

As all three factors of the test for geographic descriptiveness has been fulfilled, the applicant’s mark is refused under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(2).

 

Applicant should note the following additional ground for refusal.

 

REFUSAL FOR UNACCEPTABLE SPECIMEN

 

Registration remains refused because the specimen in International Class 9 is not acceptable as a display associated with downloadable software and appears to be mere advertising material; thus, the specimen fails to show the applied-for mark in use in commerce for that international class.  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).  Specifically, the specimen fails to provide the means to enable the user to download or purchase the software from the website.  See In re Sones, 590 F.3d 1282, 1286-89, 93 USPQ2d 1118, 1122-24 (Fed. Cir. 2009); In re Azteca Sys., Inc., 102 USPQ2d 1955, 1957 (TTAB 2012); TMEP §§904.03(e), (i) et seq.  Without this feature, the specimen is mere advertising material, which is not acceptable as a specimen to show use in commerce for goods.  See In re Kohr Bros., 121 USPQ2d 1793, 1794 (TTAB 2017) (quoting In re Quantum Foods, Inc., 94 USPQ2d 1375, 1379 (TTAB 2010)); In re Genitope Corp., 78 USPQ2d 1819, 1822 (TTAB 2006); TMEP §904.04(b), (c).

 

An application based on Trademark Act Section 1(a) must include a specimen showing the applied-for mark in use in commerce for each international class of goods identified in the application or amendment to allege use.  15 U.S.C. §1051(a)(1); 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a). 

 

Examples of specimens for downloadable software include instruction manuals and screen printouts from (1) web pages showing the mark in connection with ordering or purchasing information or information sufficient to download the software, (2) the actual program that shows the mark in the title bar, or (3) launch screens that show the mark in an introductory message box that appears after opening the program.  See TMEP §904.03(e), (i), (j).  Webpages may also be specimens for goods when they include a picture or textual description of the goods associated with the mark and the means to order the goods.  See In re Sones, 590 F.3d at 1286-89, 93 USPQ2d at 1122-24; In re Azteca Sys., Inc., 102 USPQ2d at 1957; TMEP §§904.03(i) et seq.

 

Applicant may respond to this refusal by satisfying one of the following for each applicable international class:

 

(1)        Submit a different specimen (a verified “substitute” specimen) that (a) 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 and (b) shows the mark in actual use in commerce for the software identified in the application or amendment to allege use.  A “verified substitute specimen” is a specimen that is accompanied by the following statement made in a signed affidavit or supported by a declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20:  “The substitute (or new, or originally submitted, if appropriate) specimen(s) was/were in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application or prior to the filing of the amendment to allege use.”  The substitute specimen cannot be accepted without this statement.

 

(2)        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.

 

For an overview of both response options referenced above and instructions on how to satisfy either option online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, please go to the Specimen webpage.  

 

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.    

 

 

 

/Jeanie H. Lee/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 105

571-272-6110

jeanie.lee@uspto.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 December 31, 2019 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88360754

 

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. 

 

 

/Jeanie H. Lee/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 105

571-272-6110

jeanie.lee@uspto.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 December 31, 2019, 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.”