To: | Malco Products, Inc. (eggreive@rennerkenner.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88418849 - LITE FINISH - MCO.T0041 |
Sent: | July 31, 2019 10:30:28 AM |
Sent As: | ecom125@uspto.gov |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 Attachment - 6 Attachment - 7 Attachment - 8 Attachment - 9 Attachment - 10 Attachment - 11 Attachment - 12 Attachment - 13 Attachment - 14 Attachment - 15 Attachment - 16 Attachment - 17 Attachment - 18 Attachment - 19 Attachment - 20 Attachment - 21 Attachment - 22 Attachment - 23 Attachment - 24 Attachment - 25 Attachment - 26 Attachment - 27 Attachment - 28 Attachment - 29 Attachment - 30 Attachment - 31 Attachment - 32 Attachment - 33 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88418849
Mark: LITE FINISH
|
|
Correspondence Address: RENNER, KENNER, GREIVE, BOBAK, TAYLOR & |
|
Applicant: Malco Products, Inc.
|
|
Reference/Docket No. MCO.T0041
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
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: July 31, 2019
SEARCH OF OFFICE’S DATABASE OF MARKS
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).
SECTION 2(e)(1) REFUSAL- MERELY DESCRIPTIVE
“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).
Applicant identifies “Polishing wax.”
The attached internet evidence demonstrates that the wording “LITE” means “LIGHT”. See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lite. The attached internet evidence demonstrates the wording “LITE FINISH” refers to a type of surface wood finish that is light in color. See http://www.gilbertconstruct.com/types-of-wood-finish/; http://www.nytimes.com/1964/03/01/archives/light-or-dark-choice-of-furniture-finishing-methods.html; http://forum.woodcarvingillustrated.com/forum/woodcarving-illustrated/woodcarving/wood-finishing-and-painting/42651-wax-for-basswood; http://www.waxdepot.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=CTGY&Store_Code=WD&Category_Code=ICEFAQ; and http://www.lsirish.com/tutorials/woodcarving-tutorials/woodcarving-fundamentals-techniques/finishing-your-project/oil-wax-and-urethane-top-coats/. Therefore, the wording “LIGHT FINISH” merely describes a characteristic of applicant’s polishing wax, namely, that it is used to provide a light finish to various surfaces.
The examining attorney notes that the specimen states the wax removes “minor finish imperfections.”
Only where the combination of descriptive terms creates a unitary mark with a unique, incongruous, or otherwise nondescriptive meaning in relation to the goods 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 do not create a unique, incongruous, or nondescriptive meaning in relation to the goods. Specifically, the wording still merely conveys that applicant’s polishing wax is used as a light finish for various surfaces.
Therefore, as the applied-for mark is merely descriptive of applicant’s goods, registration is refused under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1).
Advisory
RESPONSE GUIDELINES
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. 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 nonfinal Office action
/Teague Avent/
Teague Avent
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 125
(571) 272-1219
teague.avent@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE