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:  August 29, 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.  

 

 

The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney.  Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issues below.  15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(a), 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.

 

 

SEARCH CLAUSE

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).

 

 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES THAT APPLICANT MUST ADDRESS

 

-        Section 2(e)(2) Refusal – Primarily Geographically Descriptive

o   Supplemental Register Response Option

-        Partial Section 2(f) Claim Not Accepted

 

 

SECTION 2(e)(2) REFUSAL – PRIMARILY GEOGRAPHICALLY DESCRIPTIVE

Registration is refused because the applied-for mark is primarily geographically descriptive of the origin of applicant’s services.  Trademark Act Section 2(e)(2), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(2); see TMEP §§1210, 1210.01(a).

 

 

A mark is primarily geographically descriptive when the following is demonstrated:

 

(1) The primary significance of the mark is a generally known geographic place or location;

 

(2) The goods and/or services for which applicant seeks registration originate in the geographic place identified in the mark; and

 

(3) Purchasers would be likely to make a goods-place or services-place association; that is, purchasers would be likely to believe that the goods and/or services originate in the geographic place identified in the mark.

 

TMEP §1210.01(a); see In re Societe Generale des Eaux Minerales de Vittel S.A., 824 F.2d 957, 959, 3 USPQ2d 1450, 1452 (Fed. Cir. 1987); In re Hollywood Lawyers Online, 110 USPQ2d 1852, 1853 (TTAB 2014).

 

 

The applicant has applied to register the mark MICHIGAN ONLINE for “Providing education courses in the field of arts and culture, business, data science, education, health, science, social sciences and technology offered through online, non-downloadable videos and instructor assistance.”

 

 

The attached evidence from Merriam-Webster.Com defines the term, MICHIGAN, as a “state in the northern U.S. in the Great Lakes region including an upper (northwestern) peninsula and a lower (southeastern) peninsula and having a border on all of the Great Lakes except Lake Ontario.”

 

 

In the instant case, the applicant is located in Michigan and the services are rendered, as indicated by the specimen of record, via the University of Michigan in Michigan. The most prominent meaning or significance of the term in relation to the applicant’s services is geographic. If the most prominent meaning or significance of a mark is geographic for the goods and/or services in the application, the fact that the mark may have other meanings in other contexts does not alter its geographic significance in the context of the application.  See In re Opryland USA Inc., 1 USPQ2d 1409, 1412-13 (TTAB 1986) (holding the mark THE NASHVILLE NETWORK primarily geographically descriptive of television program production and distribution services when finding that the primary significance of the term referred to Nashville, Tennessee and not that of a style of music); In re Cookie Kitchen, Inc., 228 USPQ 873, 874 (TTAB 1986) (noting that where MANHATTAN refers to a type of cocktail and to a geographic location that having an alternative meaning does not alter the mark’s primary geographic significance in the context of the goods in the application); In re Jack’s Hi-Grade Foods, Inc., 226 USPQ 1028, 1029 (TTAB 1985) (noting that where NEAPOLITAN refers to a type of ice cream and also means “pertaining to Naples, Italy” that having an alternative meaning does not alter the mark’s primary geographic significance in the context of the goods in the application); TMEP §1210.02(b)(i).

 

 

The examining attorney acknowledges the generic term, ONLINE, in the applied-for mark, however, the addition of generic or highly descriptive wording to a geographic word or term does not diminish that geographic word or term’s primary geographic significance.  TMEP §1210.02(c)(ii); see, e.g., In re Hollywood Lawyers Online, 110 USPQ2d 1852, 1853-54 (TTAB 2014) (holding HOLLYWOOD LAWYERS ONLINE primarily geographically descriptive of attorney referrals, online business information, and an online business directory); In re Cheezwhse.com, Inc., 85 USPQ2d 1917, 1920 (TTAB 2008) (holding NORMANDIE CAMEMBERT primarily geographically descriptive of cheese).

 

 

In the instant case, the applicant is located in Michigan and the services for which applicant seeks registration originate in the geographic place identified in the mark, as indicated by the specimen of record. When there is no genuine issue that the geographical significance of a term is its primary significance, and the geographical place is neither obscure nor remote, a public association of the goods and/or services with the place is presumed if an applicant’s goods and/or services originate in the place named in the mark.  TMEP §1210.04; see, e.g., In re Cal. Pizza Kitchen Inc., 10 USPQ2d 1704, 1706 (TTAB 1988) (holding CALIFORNIA PIZZA KITCHEN primarily geographically descriptive of restaurant services rendered in California); In re Handler Fenton Ws., Inc., 214 USPQ 848, 849-50 (TTAB 1982) (holding DENVER WESTERNS primarily geographically descriptive of western-style shirts originating in Denver).

 

 

Lastly, purchasers are likely to believe that the services originate in the geographic place named in the mark because of the applicant’s location and because the source of the services is the University of Michigan.

 

Accordingly, registration is refused under Section 2(e)(2) of the Trademark Act.

 

SUPPLEMENTAL REGISTER RESPONSE OPTION

The applied-for mark has been refused registration on the Principal Register.  Applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration and/or by amending the application to seek registration on the Supplemental Register.  See 15 U.S.C. §1091; 37 C.F.R. §§2.47, 2.75(a); TMEP §§801.02(b), 816.  Amending to the Supplemental Register does not preclude applicant from submitting evidence and arguments against the refusal(s).  TMEP §816.04.

 

 

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).

 

 

PARTIAL SECTION 2(f) CLAIM NOT ACCEPTED

Applicant has asserted a claim of acquired distinctiveness based on ownership of a prior registration for the mark M UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN.  The applied-for mark is MICHIGAN ONLINE.  As explained below, the mark in the prior registration does not support applicant’s claim of acquired distinctiveness because it is not the same mark.

 

 

A claim of acquired distinctiveness may be based on an applicant’s ownership of one or more active prior registrations of the same mark on the Principal Register.  37 C.F.R. §2.41(a)(1); TMEP §1212.04.  In regard to a partial Section 2(f) claim, Applicant may claim ownership of one or more active prior registrations on the Principal Register of that portion of the mark for goods and/or services that are sufficiently similar to those named in the pending application.  TMEP §1212.02(f)(i); see 37 C.F.R. §2.41(a)(1). An applied-for mark is considered the same mark if it is the legal equivalent of the previously-registered mark.  In re Highlights for Children, Inc., 118 USPQ2d 1268, 1273-74 (TTAB 2016) (citing In re Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp., 240 F.3d 1341, 1347, 57 USPQ2d 1807, 1812 (Fed. Cir. 2001)); TMEP §1212.04(b). 

 

 

To be legal equivalents, the applied-for mark must be indistinguishable from the previously-registered mark or create the same, continuing commercial impression such that the consumer would consider them both to be the same mark.  In re Highlights for Children, Inc., 118 USPQ2d at 1274, 1275 n.18 (citing In re Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp., 240 F.3d at 1347, 57 USPQ2d at 1812)); In re Nielsen Bus. Media, Inc., 93 USPQ2d 1545, 1547 (TTAB 2010); TMEP §1212.04(b). 

 

 

In the present case, the applied-for mark and the mark in the prior registration are not the same mark, and thus are not legal equivalents, because the mark for which the partial Section 2(f) claim is based is a different mark from that portion of the applied-for mark.

 

 

Therefore, the prior registration does not support applicant’s claim of acquired distinctiveness and the claim is not accepted. 

 

 

 

Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration. 

 

 

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(s) and/or requirement(s) 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. 

 

 

How to respond.  Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action  

 

 

 

/AKhan/

Asmat Khan

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 114

(571)-272-9453

asmat.khan@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 August 29, 2019 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88453242

 

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. 

 

 

Khan, Asmat

/AKhan/

Asmat Khan

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 114

(571)-272-9453

asmat.khan@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 August 29, 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.”