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:  February 03, 2020

 

 This Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on January 10, 2020.

 

In its response, applicant provided arguments in opposition to the examining attorney’s refusal pursuant to Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act.

 

Applicant’s arguments have been considered and found unpersuasive for the reason(s) set forth below.

 

The refusal under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1) is now made FINAL for the reasons set forth below.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b).

 

Refusal – Mark is Merely Descriptive

Registration is refused because the applied-for mark merely describes features 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 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)). 

 

Applicant has applied for the mark SPEXHAT for Headwear, namely, hats, caps, visors, hats adapted for holding eyeglasses or sunglasses.

 

Generally, 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., Apollo Med. Extrusion Techs., Inc. v. Med. Extrusion Techs., Inc., 123 USPQ2d 1844, 1851 (TTAB 2017) (holding MEDICAL EXTRUSION TECHNOLOGIES merely descriptive of medical extrusion goods produced by employing medical extrusion technologies); In re Cannon Safe, Inc., 116 USPQ2d 1348, 1351 (TTAB 2015) (holding SMART SERIES merely descriptive of metal gun safes); 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).  See also In re Franklin Cnty. Historical Soc’y, 104 USPQ2d 1085, 1086 (TTAB 2012) (holding CENTER OF SCIENCE AND INDUSTRY merely descriptive of operating a museum and conducting workshops, programs, and demonstrations in the field of science); In re Phoseon Tech., Inc., 103 USPQ2d 1822, 1823 (TTAB 2012) (holding SEMICONDUCTOR LIGHT MATRIX merely descriptive of light and UV curing systems composed primarily of light-emitting diodes (LEDs) for industrial and commercial applications); In re Putman Publ’g Co., 39 USPQ2d 2021, 2021-22 (TTAB 1996) (holding FOOD & BEVERAGE ON-LINE merely descriptive of news and information service for the food processing industry); In re Copytele, Inc., 31 USPQ2d 1540, 1541-42 (TTAB 1994) (holding SCREEN FAX PHONE merely descriptive of facsimile terminals employing electrophoretic displays).

 

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

 

Also, a novel spelling or an intentional misspelling that is the phonetic equivalent of a merely descriptive word or term is also merely descriptive if purchasers would perceive the different spelling as the equivalent of the descriptive word or term.  See In re Quik-Print Copy Shop, Inc., 616 F.2d 523, 526 & n.9, 205 USPQ 505, 507 & n.9 (C.C.P.A. 1980) (holding “QUIK-PRINT,” phonetic spelling of “quick-print,” merely descriptive of printing and photocopying services); In re Calphalon Corp., 122 USPQ2d 1153, 1163 (TTAB 2017) (holding “SHARPIN”, phonetic spelling of “sharpen,” merely descriptive of cutlery knife blocks with built-in sharpeners); In re Carlson, 91 USPQ2d 1198, 1203 (TTAB 2009) (holding “URBANHOUZING,” phonetic spelling of “urban” and “housing,” merely descriptive of real estate services); TMEP §1209.03(j).

 

In its response, applicant argues that its mark is merely suggestive.  A mark is suggestive if some imagination, thought, or perception is needed to understand the nature of the goods and/or services described in the mark; whereas a descriptive term immediately and directly conveys some information about the goods and/or services.  See Stoncor Grp., Inc. v. Specialty Coatings, Inc., 759 F.3d 1327, 1332, 111 USPQ2d 1649, 1652 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citing DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1251-52, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1209.01(a).

 

Indeed, applicant asserts that “SPEXHAT does not describe a quality, characteristic, function or purpose of the relevant goods” and that consumers “would not immediately assume that the phrase SPEXHAT referred to the headwear that is identified in the application.”  See Response.

 

Applicant’s assertions are entirely unfounded and go contrary to the plain meanings of the words “specs” and “hat.”  Further, the fact that applicant’s mark appears as a single word has no bearing on the issue of descriptiveness.  Even a “telescoped mark,” which consists of two or more words combined to create a single word that shares letters (unlike here, where the respective words SPEX and HAT share no letters), is merely descriptive or generic if the individual words are descriptive or generic and if the words retain their descriptive or generic meaning within the telescoped mark.  See In re Omaha Nat’l Corp., 819 F.2d 1117, 1118, 2 USPQ2d 1859, 1860 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (holding FIRSTIER merely descriptive of banking services); In re Greenliant Sys. Ltd., 97 USPQ2d 1078, 1083 (TTAB 2010) (holding NANDRIVE, a telescoped mark of the generic term “nand drive,” generic for electronic integrated circuits, including flash memory drives); TMEP §§1209.01(c)(i), 1209.03(d).

 

The determination of whether a mark is merely descriptive is made in relation to an applicant’s goods, 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).

 

In relation to applicant’s actual goods, the term SPEXHAT is highly descriptive of applicant’s goods.

 

Specifically, as noted previously in the Office Action dated July 10, 2019, the term “spex” is an obvious phonetic equivalent of the commonly-known word “specs.”  Further, as the record reflects, “specs” are short for “spectacles” or eyeglasses.  See attached.  In addition, the term “HAT” is a generic reference to the “hats” offered by applicant.

 

Thus, as used in connection with the goods, applicant’s mark clearly describes applicant’s goods, namely, that applicant provides hats adapted for use in connection with holding/securing eyeglasses (including “specs”/spectacles).  Accordingly, the applied for mark is merely descriptive and registration is refused on the Principal Register under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act.

 

 

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 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).

 

 

Marc J. Leipzig

/Marc J. Leipzig/

Law Office 115

Trademark Examining Attorney

Phone:  (571) 272-2104

marc.leipzig2@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 February 03, 2020 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88400869

 

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. 

 

 

Marc J. Leipzig

/Marc J. Leipzig/

Law Office 115

Trademark Examining Attorney

Phone:  (571) 272-2104

marc.leipzig2@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 February 03, 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.”