To: | CRL Partnership (masteiner@duanemorris.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88411839 - FRIESLING - R2227-01801 |
Sent: | February 12, 2020 05:01:49 PM |
Sent As: | ecom110@uspto.gov |
Attachments: |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88411839
Mark: FRIESLING
|
|
Correspondence Address: |
|
Applicant: CRL Partnership
|
|
Reference/Docket No. R2227-01801
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
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: February 12, 2020
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.
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. This letter is in response to the applicant’s communication filed on January 21, 2020.
SUMMARY OF ISSUES:
THIS PARTIAL REQUIREMENT APPLIES TO CLASSES 32 AND 33 ONLY
Applicant may substitute the following wording, in bold, if accurate:
Non-alcoholic beverages, namely, alcohol free wine-flavored based drinks. IC 32
Alcoholic beverages, namely, wine-based drinks; Prepared cocktails consisting primarily of distilled spirits. IC 33
For assistance with identifying and classifying goods and services in trademark applications, please see the USPTO’s online searchable U.S. Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual. See TMEP §1402.04.
THIS PARTIAL REFUSAL APPLIES TO CLASSES 21, 32, and 33 ONLY
SECTION 2(e)(1) REFUSAL - MERELY DESCRIPTIVE
The applicant argues that the examining attorney has not presented evidence that the consuming public would recognize the proposed mark FRIESLING to refer to alcoholic beverages consisting of frozen Riesling wine. The applicant also contends that the proposed mark would not give consumers any insight as to the nature of the goods. The applicant concludes that the mark is suggestive.
The examining attorney is not persuaded by these arguments. The examining attorney had previously attached Internet evidence which demonstrated the use of FRIESLING in reference to frozen Riesling beverages. As outlined below, the applicant is now required to provide additional information pertaining to applied for goods.
The refusal to register under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1) is continued and maintained.
INFORMATION ABOUT GOODS/SERVICES REQUIRED
Factual information about the goods must clearly indicate how they operate, their salient features, and their prospective customers and channels of trade. Conclusory statements regarding the goods will not satisfy this requirement.
Failure to comply with a request for information is grounds for refusing registration. In re Harley, 119 USPQ2d 1755, 1757-58 (TTAB 2016); TMEP §814. Merely stating that information about the goods is available on applicant’s website is an insufficient response and will not make the relevant information of record. See In re Planalytics, Inc., 70 USPQ2d 1453, 1457-58 (TTAB 2004).
For this application to proceed, applicant must explicitly address each 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.
How to respond. Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action.
/Sanjeev K. Vohra
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 110
571.272.5885 - Work
571.273.5885 - Fax
sanjeev.vohra@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE