Offc Action Outgoing

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

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

 

 

 

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:  November 12, 2019

 

INTRODUCTION

 

This Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on October 15, 2019.

 

In a previous Office action dated June 24, 2019, the trademark examining attorney refused registration of the applied-for mark based on the following: Refusal Under Sections 1, 2, 3, and 45—Widely Used Commonplace Message/Expression. 

 

Further, 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:

• Refusal Under Sections 1, 2, 3, and 45—Widely Used Commonplace Message/Expression

 

REFUSAL UNDER SECTIONS 1, 2, 3, AND 45—WIDELY USED COMMONPLACE MESSAGE/EXPRESSION—MAINTAINED AND MADE FINAL

 

Registration is refused because the applied-for mark is a slogan or term that does not function as a trademark or service mark to indicate the source of applicant’s goods and/or services and to identify and distinguish them from others.  Trademark Act Sections 1, 2, 3, and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051-1053, 1127.  In this case, the applied-for mark is a commonplace term, message, or expression widely used by a variety of sources that merely conveys an ordinary, familiar, well-recognized concept or sentiment.  See In re Volvo Cars of N. Am., Inc., 46 USPQ2d 1455, 1460-61 (TTAB 1998) (holding DRIVE SAFELY not registrable for automobiles and automobile parts because the mark would be perceived merely as an “everyday, commonplace safety admonition”); In re Remington Prods., Inc., 3 USPQ2d 1714, 1715-16 (TTAB 1987) (holding PROUDLY MADE IN USA not registrable for electric shavers because the mark would be perceived merely as a common message encouraging the purchase of domestic-made products); TMEP §1202.04(b). 

 

Terms and expressions that merely convey an informational message are not registrable.  In re Eagle Crest, Inc., 96 USPQ2d 1227, 1229 (TTAB 2010).  Determining whether the term or expression functions as a trademark or service mark depends on how it would be perceived by the relevant public.  In re Eagle Crest, Inc., 96 USPQ2d at 1229; In re Aerospace Optics, Inc., 78 USPQ2d 1861, 1862 (TTAB 2006); TMEP §1202.04.  “The more commonly a [term or expression] is used, the less likely that the public will use it to identify only one source and the less likely that it will be recognized by purchasers as a trademark [or service mark].”  In re Hulting, 107 USPQ2d 1175, 1177 (TTAB 2013) (quoting In re Eagle Crest, Inc., 96 USPQ2d at 1229); TMEP §1202.04(b).

 

The attached evidence from http://www.lipstickalley.com/threads/royal-tea-party-part-11.1611370/page-288 and http://people.com/shop/fashion/plus-size-clothing-a1081315785.html and http://www.imgrumsite.com/hashtag/swimsuitbabe and http://www.amazon.com/Here-Being-Cute-T-Shirt-S010174/dp/B07D6F6BWQ and http://www.captivatinginspiration.com/product/out-here-being-cute-t-shirt-2/ shows that this term or expression is commonly used to refer to social media posts and conveys a message of inspiration. Because consumers are accustomed to seeing this term or expression commonly used in everyday speech by many different sources, they would not perceive it as a mark identifying the source of applicant’s goods and/or services but rather as only conveying an informational message.

 

Applicant’s Arguments

 

 

First, the applicant argues that the purchasing public associates the phrase OUT HERE BEING CUTE with the applicant, Izzy & Liv. To support this claim, the applicant provides an example of two social media posts to support its claim. However, neither post demonstrates the applied-for mark, OUT HERE BEING CUTE, being identified as the source of applicant’s goods. Instead, they only show a reference to applicant and the phrase being used as a message with no association to any particular goods made by the applicant.

 

Furthermore, applicant provides a search results page from Google and explains that most of the references from Google are to applicant’s website. However, a search results summary from an Internet search engine has limited probative value because such a list does not show the context in which the term or phrase is used on the listed web pages and may not include sufficient surrounding text to show the context within which the term or phrase is used.  TBMP §1208.03; see In re Bayer AG, 488 F.3d 960, 967, 82 USPQ2d 1828, 1833 (Fed. Cir. 2007); In re Star Belly Stitcher, Inc.,107 USPQ2d 2059, 2062 n.3 (TTAB 2013); TMEP §710.01(b).

 

Also, the applicant discusses the evidence offered by the Office to support the conclusion that the term is a widely used common place message. With respect to the evidence from http://www.lipstickalley.com/threads/royal-tea-party-part-11.1611370/page-288, the applicant argues that the phrase “out here being cute” in the link is being used to provide “general information” and “an opinion about the individuals in the picture.” While applicant is correct in its claims, this supports the conclusion that the phrase is a commonplace message as it is not being used to distinguish the goods of a party in commerce but instead only to convey a message.

 

Regarding the evidence at http://www.imgrumsite.com/hashtag/swimsuitbabe, applicant notes that the phrase is “used on in an informational context.” Again, applicant is correct as this is the basis for the refusal as expressions that merely convey an informational message are not registrable. See In re Eagle Crest, Inc., 96 USPQ2d 1227, 1229 (TTAB 2010).

 

With respect to the evidence at http://people.com/shop/fashion/plus-size-clothing-a1081315785.html, applicant argues that this is simply an infringing use of the applicant’s common law rights and copyright rights to the mark. Here, it is beyond the scope of this ex parte proceeding to determine the copyright or common law rights that applicant may have with respect to this wording.

 

Thus, because consumers are accustomed to seeing this term or expression commonly used in everyday speech by many different sources, they would not perceive it as a mark identifying the source of applicant’s goods and/or services but rather as only conveying an informational message.

 

An applicant may not overcome this refusal by amending the application to seek registration on the Supplemental Register or asserting a claim of acquired distinctiveness under Section 2(f).  TMEP §1202.04(d); see In re Eagle Crest, Inc., 96 USPQ2d at 1229.  Nor will submitting a substitute specimen overcome this refusal.  See TMEP §1202.04(d).

 

 

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)

 

 

/Collier L Johnson II/

Collier L Johnson II

Examining Attorney

Law Office 123

571-270-0878

collier.johnson@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 November 12, 2019 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88380822

 

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. 

 

 

/Collier L Johnson II/

Collier L Johnson II

Examining Attorney

Law Office 123

571-270-0878

collier.johnson@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 November 12, 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.”