To: | Winter Equipment Company, Inc. (docketing@faysharpe.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88422273 - PLOW GUARD MAXX - WINT 5073US1 |
Sent: | August 01, 2019 12:51:33 PM |
Sent As: | ecom111@uspto.gov |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 Attachment - 6 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88422273
Mark: PLOW GUARD MAXX
|
|
Correspondence Address: |
|
Applicant: Winter Equipment Company, Inc.
|
|
Reference/Docket No. WINT 5073US1
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: August 01, 2019
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.
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).
In this case, applicant’s mark is PLOW GUARD MAXX for, “Blade wear parts, namely, edge guards, blade wear guards, and moldboard shoes, all specially adapted for snow plows, commercial plows, highway plows, agricultural plows, and road grading machinery.”
Applicant’s goods include “snow plows,” “agricultural plows,” “edge guards” and “blade wear guards.” In other words, applicant’s goods are guards used on the blades of snow plows and agricultural plows.” As such, PLOW GUARD describes the nature of the goods and what the goods are used for.
MAX(MAXX) is defined as, “to the greatest extent possible.” In other words, applicant’s blades and blade parts are the best, the most effective, the MAXX; or provide maximum performance. As such, MAXX describes the quality of the goods.
Therefore, PLOW GUARD MAXX is descriptive because it describes the nature of the goods (PLOW GUARD) as well as the quality of the goods (MAXX performance).
Registration is therefore refused under Section 2e1.
Identification of Goods
Blade wear parts, namely, plow edge guards, plow blade wear guards, and moldboard shoes, all specially adapted for snow plows, commercial plows, highway plows, agricultural plows, and road grading machinery, in class 7.
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.
Effective January 1, 2019, a new version of the Nice Agreement Eleventh Edition changed the classification of certain goods and services. See Nice Classification, 11th ed., version 2019 (Nice 11-2019). Applications filed on or after January 1, 2019 must comply with this new version. See 37 C.F.R. §2.85(e)(1); TMEP §1401.09. Applications filed prior to January 1, 2019 must comply with the edition/version of the Nice Agreement in effect as of the application filing date; however, applicants of such applications can choose to comply with the new version. See 37 C.F.R. §2.85(e)(1)-(2); TMEP §1401.09. If applicant chooses to comply with the new version, the entire identification must comply with this version. See 37 C.F.R. §2.85(e)(2); TMEP §1401.09. The USPTO’s online U.S. Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual provides classification information for the new version as well as information for previous editions/versions in notes to specific entries. See TMEP §1402.04.
Telephone for Clarification Recommended
Search Results
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).
How to respond. Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action
/Inga Ervin/
Inga Ervin
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 111
571-272-9379
571-273-9379(fax)
Inga.Ervin@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE