To: | Pro Video Instruments, LLC (kimra@majormorrislaw.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88439468 - NETWORK - N/A |
Sent: | April 07, 2020 03:35:42 PM |
Sent As: | ecom115@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 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88439468
Mark: NETWORK
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
Applicant: Pro Video Instruments, LLC
|
|
Reference/Docket No. N/A
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
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.
This Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on February 20, 2020. The examining attorney has carefully considered applicant’s arguments and/or amendments in favor of registration. The requests regarding significance of wording and for additional information have been satisfied. The attorney bar information and attestation are acceptable and have been entered into the application record. As to the remaining issues, the examining attorney has determined the following.
Registration is refused because the applied-for mark merely describes the function or purpose of applicant’s goods and/or services. 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 determination of whether a mark is merely descriptive is made in relation to an applicant’s goods and/or services, 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).
Applicant has applied to register the proposed mark NETWORK in standard character form for use on “audio-receivers and video-receivers; audio-video receivers; coaxial relays; television and video converters; video processors; video transmission apparatus.”
The applicant argues that the proposed mark does not immediately describe a quality of applicant’s products. The examining attorney has carefully reviewed applicant’s arguments and amendments in favor of registration but has found them unpersuasive. Thus, for the reasons set forth below, the refusal under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1) is now made FINAL. See 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b).
Evidence attached to the Office action dated August 20, 2020, indicates that the wording NETWORK means “a group or system of interconnected people or things.” Attached to this final Office action is additional evidence which demonstrates that a group of inter-connected televisions is described as a network of televisions. Also attached to this final Office action is evidence which demonstrates that goods of the type identified in the application are used to connect televisions. The specimen of record provides additional support for the argument that applicant’s goods are used to connect televisions into a network.
Based upon this evidence and the legal standards set forth above, the examining attorney concludes that the proposed mark NETWORK is merely descriptive of applicant’s goods. It appears that the purpose of applicant’s goods is to create a network of televisions. No amount of thought, imagination, or perception is required to reach this conclusion, and applicant has submitted no evidence to suggest otherwise.
Accordingly, the mark is refused registration on the Principal Register under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act.
The descriptiveness refusal is maintained and made FINAL.
OPTION FOR REGISTRATION – SUPPLEMENTAL REGISTER
TELEPHONE OR E-MAIL FOR CLARIFICATION
Please call or email the assigned trademark examining attorney with questions about this Office action. Although an examining attorney cannot provide legal advice, the examining attorney can provide additional explanation about the refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) in this Office action. See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06.
The USPTO does not accept emails as responses to Office actions; however, emails can be used for informal communications and are included in the application record. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(c), 2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05.
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).
/Alicia Collins Edwards/
Trademark Examining Attorney
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Law Office 115
571-272-9147
alicia.edwards@uspto.go
RESPONSE GUIDANCE