Offc Action Outgoing

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application

 

 

 

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:  October 02, 2019

 

 

INTRODUCTION

 

This Office action is supplemental to and supersedes the previous Office action issued on July 8, 2019 in connection with this application.

 

Upon further consideration of the initial application, a NEW ISSUE has been identified.  Please respond to the new issue below.  The examining attorney apologizes for any inconvenience this may cause the applicant.

 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES applicant must address:

• NEW ISSUE:
• • TEAS Plus Status Lost – Additional Fee Required
• ISSUES CONTINUED AND MAINTAINED:
• • Section 2(e)(1) Refusal – Merely Descriptive
  • Supplemental Register Advisory
  • Translation Requirement

 

Applicant must respond to all issues raised in this Office action within six (6) months of the date of issuance of this Office action.  37 C.F.R. §2.62(a); see TMEP §711.02.  If applicant does not respond within this time limit, the application will be abandoned.  37 C.F.R. §2.65(a).

 

TEAS PLUS STATUS LOST –ADDITIONAL FEE REQUIRED

 

A TEAS Plus application must include an English translation of all non-English wording.  TMEP §819.01(m); see 37 C.F.R. §2.22(a)(16)-(17).  In this case, the mark comprises or includes the foreign term LA VENTA.  However, applicant did not provide an English translation in the initial application. 

 

Because applicant has not satisfied all the TEAS Plus application filing requirements, applicant must submit an additional processing fee of $125 per class.  See 37 C.F.R §§2.6(a)(1)(v), 2.22(c); TMEP §819.04.  The additional fee is required even if applicant later satisfies this requirement by submitting a translation and/or transliteration of the non-English wording and/or non-Latin characters in the mark.

 

SECTION 2(e)(1) REFUSAL - MERELY DESCRIPTIVE

 

The applied-for mark is LAVENTA and identifies “Providing home shopping services in the field of general consumer merchandise by means of television and Internet” in International Class 35, and “Entertainment services, namely, multimedia production services; Entertainment services, namely, the provision of continuing programming featuring content relating to home shopping delivered by television and the Internet” in International Class 41.

Registration is refused because the applied-for mark merely describes the purpose of applicant’s services.  Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); see TMEP §§1209.01(b), 1209.03 et seq. Specifically, the applied-for mark describes the purpose of applicant’s services, which is to provide goods for sale at a low price.

A mark is merely descriptive if it describes an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose, or use of an applicant’s 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 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).

Further, the foreign equivalent of a merely descriptive English term is also merely descriptive.  In re N. Paper Mills, 64 F.2d 998, 998, 17 USPQ 492, 493 (C.C.P.A. 1933); In re Highlights for Children, Inc., 118 USPQ2d 1268, 1270 (TTAB 2016) (quoting In re Optica Int’l, 196 USPQ 775, 777 (TTAB 1977)).  Under the doctrine of foreign equivalents, marks with foreign terms from common, modern languages are translated into English to determine descriptiveness.  Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee en 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1377, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1696 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing In re Sarkli, Ltd., 721 F.2d 353, 354, 220 USPQ 111, 113 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Am. Safety Razor Co., 2 USPQ2d 1459, 1460 (TTAB 1987)); see TMEP §1209.03(g).

Applicant’s mark is in Spanish, which is a common, modern language in the United States.  In re Aquamar, Inc., 115 USPQ2d 1122 (TTAB 2015). The doctrine is applied when “the ordinary American purchaser” would “stop and translate” the foreign term into its English equivalent.  Palm Bay, 396 F.3d at 1377, 73 USPQ2d at 1696 (quoting In re Pan Tex Hotel Corp., 190 USPQ 109, 110 (TTAB 1976)); TMEP §1209.03(g).  The ordinary American purchaser includes those proficient in the foreign language.  In re Spirits Int’l, N.V., 563 F.3d 1347, 1352, 90 USPQ2d 1489, 1492 (Fed. Cir. 2009); see In re Highlights for Children, Inc., 118 USPQ2d at 1271.  In this case, the ordinary American purchaser would likely stop and translate the mark because the Spanish language is a common, modern language spoken by an appreciable number of consumers in the United States.

In this case, the attached translation from the SpanishDict shows that the term LA VENTA translates to “for sale” in English. See http://www.spanishdict.com/translate/a%20la%20venta; http://www.spanishdict.com/translate/la%20venta. And, the attached definition from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary shows that “for sale” means “available for purchase at a reduced price.” See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sale. Accordingly, the direct English translation of the term “LAVENTA” in the mark is “for sale,” which describes the purpose of applicant’s services – to provide goods for sale.

Further, the attached evidence from QVC, the Home Shopping Network, and Shop HQ shows that the term “for sale” is commonly used by home shopping services and home shopping television and internet programs to describe shopping services that provide goods at a low price. See http://www.qvc.com/for-the-home/furniture/beds/_/N-17jsx/c.html; http://www.qvc.com/for-the-home/garden-center/garden-tools/_/N-19qpbk6/c.html; http://www.hsn.com/shop/treadmills/hf0185; http://www.hsn.com/shop/desks/ho0175; http://www.shophq.com/v/sale-and-clearance/?r=jewelry&q=gemstones&icid=LN4-_-J-_-GemstoneSaleClr-_-033019. Thus, the terms “on sale” describe the purpose of applicant’s services, which is to provide merchandise for sale at a low cost.

Finally, the minor design element does not lessen the descriptive nature of the applied for mark. Background designs in composite marks consisting of common geometric shapes, such as circles, ovals, squares, triangles, diamonds, and other geometric designs, are generally not regarded as marks for services absent a showing of distinctiveness in the design alone.  In re Anton/Bauer Inc., 7 USPQ2d 1380, 1381 (TTAB 1988) (citing In re Raytheon Co., 202 USPQ 317 (TTAB 1979)); TMEP §1202.11; see also Seabrook Foods, Inc. v. Bar-Well Foods Ltd., 568 F.2d 1342, 1344, 196 USPQ 289, 291 (C.C.P.A. 1977). In this case the design element is merely a background carrier in the shape of a rectangle. Thus, the descriptive literal element in the applied-for mark is the dominant element of the mark.

For the forgoing reasons, the mark LAVENTA, as applied to the identified services, merely describes the purpose of the services, which is to provide goods for sale at a low cost. Accordingly, the proposed mark is merely descriptive, and registration is refused under Section 2(e)(1).

SUPPLEMENTAL REGISTER ADVISORY

Although an amendment to the Supplemental Register would normally be an appropriate response to this refusal, such a response is not appropriate in the present case.  The instant application was filed under Trademark Act Section 1(b) and is not eligible for registration on the Supplemental Register until an acceptable amendment to allege use meeting the requirements of 37 C.F.R. §2.76 has been timely filed.  37 C.F.R. §2.47(d); TMEP §§816.02, 1102.03.

If applicant files an acceptable allegation of use and also amends to the Supplemental Register, the application effective filing date will be the date applicant met the minimum filing requirements under 37 C.F.R. §2.76(c) for an amendment to allege use.  TMEP §§816.02, 1102.03; see 37 C.F.R. §2.75(b).  In addition, the undersigned trademark examining attorney will conduct a new search of the USPTO records for conflicting marks based on the later application filing date.  TMEP §§206.01, 1102.03.

Although registration on the Supplemental Register does not afford all the benefits of registration on the Principal Register, it does provide the following advantages to the registrant:

(1)        Use of the registration symbol ® with the registered mark in connection with the designated goods and/or services, which provides public notice of the registration and potentially deters third parties from using confusingly similar marks.

(2)        Inclusion of the registered mark in the USPTO’s database of registered and pending marks, which will (a) make it easier for third parties to find it in trademark search reports, (b) provide public notice of the registration, and thus (c) potentially deter third parties from using confusingly similar marks.

(3)        Use of the registration by a USPTO trademark examining attorney as a bar to registering confusingly similar marks in applications filed by third parties.

(4)        Use of the registration as a basis to bring suit for trademark infringement in federal court, which, although more costly than state court, means judges with more trademark experience, often faster adjudications, and the opportunity to seek an injunction, actual damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

(5)        Use of the registration as a filing basis for a trademark application for registration in certain foreign countries, in accordance with international treaties.

See 15 U.S.C. §§1052(d), 1091, 1094; J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks & Unfair Competition §§19:33, 19:37 (rev. 4th ed. Supp. 2017).

Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.  However, if applicant responds to the refusal, applicant must also respond to the requirement set forth below.

TRANSLATION REQUIREMENT

 

To permit proper examination of the application, applicant must submit an English translation of all wording in the mark that appears to be foreign.  37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(9), 2.61(b); TMEP §809.  The following English translation is suggested:  The English translation of “LAVENTA” in the mark is “FOR SALE”.  TMEP §809.03.  See attached translation evidence from http://www.spanishdict.com/translate/a%20la%20venta; http://www.spanishdict.com/translate/la%20venta. 

 

ASSISTANCE

 

Please call or email the assigned trademark examining attorney with questions about this Office action.  Although the trademark examining attorney cannot provide legal advice or statements about applicant’s rights, the trademark examining attorney can provide applicant with additional explanation about the refusal and requirements in this Office action.  See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06.  Although the USPTO does not accept emails as responses to Office actions, emails can be used for informal communications and will be included in the application record.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(c), 2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05. 

 

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 response to this nonfinal Office action  

 

 

/Rebecca Eubank/

Rebecca Eubank

Examining Attorney

Law Office 116

571-270-5577

rebecca.eubank@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 October 02, 2019 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88447509

 

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. 

 

 

/Rebecca Eubank/

Rebecca Eubank

Examining Attorney

Law Office 116

571-270-5577

rebecca.eubank@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 October 02, 2019, 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.”