UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
|
U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 88385746
MARK: MINIMALLY PROCESSED PROTEIN
|
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
CLICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER: http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp
|
|
APPLICANT: Boulder Organics LLC
|
|
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: CORRESPONDENT E-MAIL ADDRESS: |
|
OFFICE ACTION
TO AVOID ABANDONMENT OF APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION, THE USPTO MUST RECEIVE APPLICANT’S COMPLETE RESPONSE TO THIS LETTER WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF THE ISSUE/MAILING DATE BELOW. A RESPONSE TRANSMITTED THROUGH THE TRADEMARK ELECTRONIC APPLICATION SYSTEM (TEAS) MUST BE RECEIVED BEFORE MIDNIGHT EASTERN TIME OF THE LAST DAY OF THE RESPONSE PERIOD.
ISSUE/MAILING DATE: 7/7/2019
The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney. Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issue(s) below. 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(a), 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.
Office Records Search:
The trademark examining attorney has searched the Office’s database of registered and pending marks and has found no conflicting marks that would bar registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d). TMEP §704.02; see 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).
Summary of Issues:
• Sections 1, 2 and 45 Refusal - Merely Informational
• Section 2(e)(1) Refusal – Merely Descriptive
SECTIONS 1, 2 AND 45 REFUSAL – MERELY INFORMATIONAL:
Registration is refused because the applied-for mark is a slogan or term that does not function as a trademark to indicate the source of applicant’s goods 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 slogan or term that is used to merely convey information about applicant’s or similar goods and/or services. See In re Boston Beer Co., 198 F.3d 1370, 1372-74, 53 USPQ2d 1056, 1058-59 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding THE BEST BEER IN AMERICA for beer and ale a common claim of superiority and incapable of registration); In re Aerospace Optics, Inc., 78 USPQ2d 1861, 1864 (TTAB 2006) (holding SPECTRUM for illuminated pushbutton switches information about the multiple color feature of the goods and incapable of registration); In re Melville Corp., 228 USPQ 970, 971 (TTAB 1986) (holding BRAND NAMES FOR LESS for retail clothing store services a common promotional phrase and incapable of registration); TMEP §1202.04(a).
Slogans and terms that are merely informational in nature, such as statements or laudatory phrases about goods and/or services ordinarily used in business or in a particular trade or industry, are not registrable. See In re Eagle Crest, Inc., 96 USPQ2d 1227, 1229 (TTAB 2010). Determining whether the slogan or term 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 at 1862; TMEP §1202.04. “The more commonly a [slogan or term] 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).
Applicant’s mark is MINIMALLY PROCESSED PROTEIN and its goods are pet food.
As shown by the attached definitions, “MINIMALLY” means to a very small degree, “PROCESSED” when applied to foods means treated or modified or preserved in some way, and “PROTEIN” a fundamental component of living cells and foods that is consumed and provides necessary nourishment for an animal. Taken together, this wording merely informs consumers that applicant’s pet foods contain or are made up of PROTEIN that has been MINIMALLY PROCESSED.
The attached additional evidence from the following websites shows third parties using the wording MINIMALLY PROCESSED and PROTEIN to provide information about the fact that the pet food products discussed have only been processed to a small degree and contain PROTEIN:
http://www.petfoodprocessing.net/articles/12838-safety-first-producing-raw-minimally-processed-pet-diets
http://www.instinctpetfood.com/dogs/raw
http://www.whole-dog-journal.com/food/which-is-the-best-type-of-dog-food/
http://www.stevesrealfood.com/
http://petcentral.chewy.com/best-sources-protein-pets/
The attached additional evidence from the following websites also shows use of the exact wording of the mark in relation to pet foods to indicate that they contain protein that has been minimally processed:
http://www.foodbusinessnews.net/articles/12666-really-clean---a-feed-clean-approach-to-pet-diets-goes-beyond-a-short-clean-label
http://www.cuteness.com/13717967/wet-vs-dry-cat-food-the-pros-cons
This informational wording provides valuable information for consumers who may be seeking foods that are perceived as healthier for their pets because of a minimal amount of processing.
Accordingly, as shown by the attached evidence, consumers would perceive MINIMALLY PROCESSED PROTEIN merely as an informational statement rather than a trademark identifying the source of the applicant’s pet food.
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).
Applicant should note the following additional ground for refusal.
SECTION 2(e)(1) REFUSAL - MERELY DESCRIPTIVE:
Registration is refused because the applied-for mark merely describes the goods and features/characteristics/aspect thereof. 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 describes an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose, or use of an applicant’s goods and/or services. TMEP §1209.01(b); see, e.g., In re TriVita, Inc., 783 F.3d 872, 874, 114 USPQ2d 1574, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 1173, 71 USPQ2d 1370, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004)); In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293, 1297, 75 USPQ2d 1420, 1421 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Estate of P.D. Beckwith, Inc. v. Comm’r of Patents, 252 U.S. 538, 543 (1920)).
The descriptiveness of a mark is determined in relation to an applicant’s goods and/or services, the context in which the mark is being used, and the possible significance the mark would have to the average purchaser because of the manner of its use or intended use. See In re The Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 1300, 102 USPQ2d 1217, 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, 488 F.3d 960, 963-64, 82 USPQ2d 1828, 1831 (Fed. Cir. 2007)); TMEP §1209.01(b). Descriptiveness of a mark is not considered in the abstract. In re Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, 488 F.3d at 963-64, 82 USPQ2d at 1831.
“A mark may be merely descriptive even if it does not describe the ‘full scope and extent’ of the applicant’s goods or services.” In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 1173, 71 USPQ2d 1370, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing In re Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp., 240 F.3d 1341, 1346, 57 USPQ2d 1807, 1812 (Fed. Cir. 2001)); TMEP §1209.01(b). It is enough if a mark describes only one significant function, attribute, or property. 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 In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d at 1173, 71 USPQ2d at 1371.
In the present application, applicant’s mark is MINIMALLY PROCESSED PROTEIN and its goods are pet food.
As discussed above and indicated by the attached evidence, “MINIMALLY” means to a very small degree, “PROCESSED” when applied to foods means treated or modified or preserved in some way, and “PROTEIN” a fundamental component of living cells and foods that is consumed and provides necessary nourishment for an animal. Taken together, this wording merely describes the fact that applicant’s pet foods contain or are made up of PROTEIN that has been MINIMALLY PROCESSED.
The previously referenced additional attached evidence shows third parties using the wording MINIMALLY PROCESSED and PROTEIN to provide information about the fact that the pet food products discussed have only been processed to a small degree and contain PROTEIN. As also noted above, other parties are using the exact wording of the mark in relation to their own goods to describe the fact that the goods contain MINIMALLY PROCESSED PROTEIN. This informational wording provides valuable information for consumers who may be seeking foods that are perceived as healthier for their pets because of a minimal amount of processing.
If the individual components of a mark retain their descriptive meaning in relation to the goods and/or services, the combination results in a composite mark that is itself descriptive and not registrable. In re Fat Boys Water Sports LLC, 118 USPQ2d 1511, 1516 (TTAB 2016) (citing In re Tower Tech, Inc., 64 USPQ2d 1314, 1317-18 (TTAB (2002)); TMEP §1209.03(d); see, e.g., In re Cannon Safe, Inc., 116 USPQ2d 1348, 1351 (TTAB 2015) (holding SMART SERIES merely descriptive of metal gun safes, because “each component term retains its merely descriptive significance in relation to the goods, resulting in a mark that is also merely descriptive”); In re King Koil Licensing Co., 79 USPQ2d 1048, 1052 (TTAB 2006) (holding THE BREATHABLE MATTRESS merely descriptive of beds, mattresses, box springs, and pillows where the evidence showed that the term “BREATHABLE” retained its ordinary dictionary meaning when combined with the term “MATTRESS” and the resulting combination was used in the relevant industry in a descriptive sense); In re Associated Theatre Clubs Co., 9 USPQ2d 1660, 1663 (TTAB 1988) (holding GROUP SALES BOX OFFICE merely descriptive of theater ticket sales services, because such wording “is nothing more than a combination of the two common descriptive terms most applicable to applicant’s services which in combination achieve no different status but remain a common descriptive compound expression”).
Only where the combination of descriptive terms creates a unitary mark with a unique, incongruous, or otherwise nondescriptive meaning in relation to the goods and/or services is the combined mark registrable. See In re Colonial Stores, Inc., 394 F.2d 549, 551, 157 USPQ 382, 384 (C.C.P.A. 1968); In re Positec Grp. Ltd., 108 USPQ2d 1161, 1162-63 (TTAB 2013).
In this case, both the individual components and the composite result are descriptive of applicant’s goods and/or services and do not create a unique, incongruous, or nondescriptive meaning in relation to the goods and/or services.
Thus, the proposed mark merely describes applicant’s goods and/or services or aspects thereof. Accordingly, registration is refused under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1).
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.
/James W. MacFarlane/
Examining Attorney
Law Office 104
(571) 270-1512 (phone)
(571) 270-2512 (fax)
james.macfarlane@uspto.gov
TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER: Go to http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp. Please wait 48-72 hours from the issue/mailing date before using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), to allow for necessary system updates of the application. For technical assistance with online forms, e-mail TEAS@uspto.gov. For questions about the Office action itself, please contact the assigned trademark examining attorney. E-mail communications will not be accepted as responses to Office actions; therefore, do not respond to this Office action by e-mail.
All informal e-mail communications relevant to this application will be placed in the official application record.
WHO MUST SIGN THE RESPONSE: It must be personally signed by an individual applicant or someone with legal authority to bind an applicant (i.e., a corporate officer, a general partner, all joint applicants). If an applicant is represented by an attorney, the attorney must sign the response.
PERIODICALLY CHECK THE STATUS OF THE APPLICATION: To ensure that applicant does not miss crucial deadlines or official notices, check the status of the application every three to four months using the Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) system at http://tsdr.gov.uspto.report/. Please keep a copy of the TSDR status screen. If the status shows no change for more than six months, contact the Trademark Assistance Center by e-mail at TrademarkAssistanceCenter@uspto.gov or call 1-800-786-9199. For more information on checking status, see http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/process/status/.
TO UPDATE CORRESPONDENCE/E-MAIL ADDRESS: Use the TEAS form at http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/correspondence.jsp.
