Offc Action Outgoing

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

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

 

 

 

 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:  April 04, 2020

 

The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney.  Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issues below.  15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(a), 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.

 

SEARCH RESULTS

 

The trademark examining attorney searched the USPTO database of registered and pending marks and found no conflicting marks that would bar registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d).  15 U.S.C. §1052(d); TMEP §704.02.

 

Drug Paraphernalia Refusal –– Based on ID – Per se unlawful – Not in Lawful Use in Commerce

 

Registration is refused because the applied-for mark is not in lawful use in commerce.  Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; see TMEP §907. 

To qualify for federal trademark registration, the use of a mark in commerce must be lawful.  Gray v. Daffy Dan’s Bargaintown, 823 F.2d 522, 526, 3 USPQ2d 1306, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (stating that “[a] valid application cannot be filed at all for registration of a mark without ‘lawful use in commerce’”); TMEP §907; see In re Stellar Int’l, Inc., 159 USPQ 48, 50-51 (TTAB 1968); Coahoma Chemical Co., Inc. v. Smith, 113 USPQ 413 (Com’r Pat. & Trademarks 1957) (concluding that “use of a mark in connection with unlawful shipments in interstate commerce is not use of a mark in commerce which the [Office] may recognize.”).  Thus, the goods to which the mark is applied must comply with all applicable federal laws.  See In re Brown, 119 USPQ2d 1350, 1351 (TTAB 2016) (citing In re Midwest Tennis & Track Co., 29 USPQ2d 1386, 1386 n.2 (TTAB 1993) (noting that “[i]t is settled that the Trademark Act’s requirement of ‘use in commerce,’ means a ‘lawful use in commerce’”)); In re Pepcom Indus., Inc., 192 USPQ 400, 401 (TTAB 1976); TMEP §907. 

Here, certain items to which the proposed mark are applied are broad enough to encompass goods that are unlawful under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 U.S.C. §§801-971.  The following evidence establishes that the goods on which the mark will be used or are primarily intend for use with cannabis/controlled substances. See attached evidence from http://extractiontek.com/, http://www.cannabisequipmentnews.com/extraction/video/21081294/extractiontek-solutions-ets-ets-designs-large-scale-closedloop-hydrocarbon-extractors, http://thecannabisindustry.org/members/extractiontek/ and http://cannacon.org/exhibitors/hal-extraction-booth/.  This evidence supports the conclusion that applicant is producing and selling equipment for processing cannabis.

 

 

The CSA makes it unlawful to sell, offer for sale, or use any facility of interstate commerce to transport “drug paraphernalia,” which is defined as “any equipment, product, or material of any kind which is primarily intended or designed for use in manufacturing, compounding, converting, concealing, producing, processing, preparing, injecting, ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise introducing in the human body a controlled substance.”  21 U.S.C. § 863.  Under the CSA, marijuana is a controlled substance.  21 U.S.C. §§ 812(a), (c), 841, 844.

 

In order for an application to have a valid basis that could properly result in a registration, the use of the mark has to be lawful.  See In re Pepcom Indus., Inc., 192 USPQ 400, 401 (TTAB 1976)  The claimed use of the applied-for mark in connection with such goods was not in lawful commerce as of the filing date. See In re Brown, 119 USPQ2d, 1351-1352.    

 

On December 20, 2018, the CSA was amended to remove “hemp” from the definition of marijuana and specifically exclude “tetrahydrocannabinols in hemp (as defined under section 297A of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946)” from Schedule I, 21 U.S.C. §812(c)(17).  Because the identified goods consist of or include items that are still prohibited under the Controlled Substances Act, namely, apparatus for use in processing cannabis, the applicant did not have a valid filing basis for any such items or activities.  To the extent the applicant’s goods are exclusively for use with products derived solely from cannabis plants that meet the current statutory definition of hemp, such goods may be lawful.

 

Therefore, in order to overcome this refusal, applicant must amend the identification of goods to specify that all items are “exclusively for use with cannabis products solely derived from hemp with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol [THC] concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.”  Please see the complete requirement for an acceptable identification of goods below.

 

The applicant may also present arguments and evidence against this refusal. 

 

AMENDMENT TO IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS

 

The identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified to specify the particular type of apparatus in Class 7, e.g., “machines for extracting oils and chemicals from plants” in Class 7.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.

 

Additionally, the suggested wording from the Controlled Substances Act Refusal above is incorporated below.

 

Applicant may adopt the following identification, if accurate.  The wording that appears in bold and/or italics below represents the suggested changes.  Any wording that is crossed out represents matter that must be deleted from the identification.

 

International Class 7: Machines for extracting oils and chemicals from plants exclusively for use with cannabis with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol [THC] concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis

 

Applicant’s goods may be clarified or limited, but may not be expanded beyond those originally itemized in the application or as acceptably amended.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06.  Applicant may clarify or limit the identification by inserting qualifying language or deleting items to result in a more specific identification; however, applicant may not substitute different goods or add goods not found or encompassed by those in the original application or as acceptably amended.  See TMEP §1402.06(a)-(b).  The scope of the goods sets the outer limit for any changes to the identification and is generally determined by the ordinary meaning of the wording in the identification.  TMEP §§1402.06(b), 1402.07(a)-(b).  Any acceptable changes to the goods will further limit scope, and once goods are deleted, they are not permitted to be reinserted.  TMEP §1402.07(e).

 

For assistance with identifying and classifying goods in trademark applications, please see the USPTO’s online searchable U.S. Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual.  See TMEP §1402.04.

 

APPLICANT MUST AMEND DATE OF FIRST USE IN COMMERCE IF AMENDING IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS TO OVERCOME THE UNLAWFUL USE IN COMMERCE REFUSAL

 

If the Applicant amends the Identification of Goods to comply with the 2018 Farm Bill, the Date of First Use in Commerce will remain before the date of enactment of the Farm Bill (December 20, 2018) for each class in the application.  This will need to be changed to December 20, 2018 or later, as the applied-for goods could not have been in lawful use in commerce prior to that date.  The date of First Use Anywhere can remain as is.

 

Therefore, if amending the Identification of Goods, applicant must provide a new date of first use of the mark in commerce, verified with an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iii), 2.193(e)(1); TMEP §§903, 903.04.

 

For an overview of the requirement for providing a verified date of first use of the mark in commerce and instructions on how to satisfy this requirement online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, please go to http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademark/laws-regulations/dates-use.

 

Response guidelines

 

For this application to proceed, applicant must explicitly address each refusal and/or requirement in this Office action.  For a refusal, applicant may provide written arguments and evidence against the refusal, and may have other response options if specified above.  For a requirement, applicant should set forth the changes or statements.  Please see “Responding to Office Actions” and the informational video “Response to Office Action” for more information and tips on responding.

Please call or email the assigned trademark examining attorney with questions about this Office action.  Although an examining attorney cannot provide legal advice, the examining attorney can provide additional explanation about the refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) in this Office action.  See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06. 

 

The USPTO does not accept emails as responses to Office actions; however, emails can be used for informal communications and are included in the application record.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(c), 2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05. 

 

USPTO changed federal trademark rules to rename TEAS Reduced Fee (RF) application to “TEAS Standard” and to eliminate TEAS Regular application form.  Current TEAS RF applicants will generally need to continue to meet similar application requirements.  See Changes to the Trademark Rules of Practice to Mandate Electronic Filing Final Rule and Correction, 84 Fed. Reg. 37,081, 68,045, 69,330 (published July 31, 2019, effective Feb. 15, 2020) (codified at 37 C.F.R. pts. 2 & 7).  And current TEAS Regular applicants must now provide an email address when submitting documents through TEAS, will generally be sent correspondence electronically from the USPTO, and will pay a filing fee of $275 per class (instead of $400) when adding a class.  For more information about these changes, see the Mandatory Electronic Filing webpage. 

 

How to respond.      

 

 

/Lindsey H. Ben/

Lindsey H. Ben

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 108

Phone: (571) 272-4239

Lindsey.Ben@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 April 04, 2020 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88382228

 

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. 

 

 

/Lindsey H. Ben/

Lindsey H. Ben

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 108

Phone: (571) 272-4239

Lindsey.Ben@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 April 04, 2020, 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.”