To: | Goodwell Inc. (patrick@goodwell.co) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88453740 - FLOSSBALL - N/A |
Sent: | August 21, 2019 10:00:08 AM |
Sent As: | ecom128@uspto.gov |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88453740
Mark: FLOSSBALL
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
Applicant: Goodwell Inc.
|
|
Reference/Docket No. N/A
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 21, 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
In this case, the applied-for mark is “FLOSSBALL” used in connection with “Floss for dental purposes; Compacts containing dental floss and also including lip gloss; Dental floss; Dental floss dispensers; Dental floss picks; Dental care kit comprising toothbrushes and floss; Oral care kit comprising toothbrushes and floss”. The attached dictionary evidence shows that “FLOSS” describes the nature of the goods and the use of the goods, which are dental floss and compacts and kits containing dental floss. The attached dictionary evidence also shows that the term “BALL” describes a feature of the goods, i.e., the goods come in a ball shape. Therefore, the combination of the terms “FLOSSBALL” immediately conveys to consumers that applicant’s goods involve dental floss that comes in a ball shape.
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, applicant’s combination of the descriptive terms “FLOSS” and “BALL” do not create a unique, incongruous, or nondescriptive meaning in relation to the goods. Considering the above, the applied-for mark is refused registration under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1).
SECTION 1(b) APPLICATION NOT ELIGIBLE FOR SUPPLEMENTAL REGISTER UNTIL AN ACCEPTABLE AMENDMENT TO ALLEGE USE IS FILED
TRADEMARK COUNSEL ADVISORY
Because of the legal technicalities and strict deadlines of the trademark application process, applicant may wish to hire a private attorney who specializes in trademark matters to assist in the process. The assigned trademark examining attorney can provide only limited assistance explaining the content of an Office action and the application process. USPTO staff cannot provide legal advice or statements about an applicant’s legal rights. TMEP §§705.02, 709.06. See Hiring a U.S.-licensed trademark attorney for more information.
RESPONSE GUIDELINES
For this application to proceed, applicant must explicitly address each refusal and/or requirement in this Office action. For a refusal, applicant may provide written arguments and evidence against the refusal, and may have other response options if specified above. For a requirement, applicant should set forth the changes or statements. Please see “Responding to Office Actions” and the informational video “Response to Office Action” for more information and tips on responding.
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
/Arriola, Kimberly/
Attorney Advisor
Law Office 128
(571)270-7984
kimberly.arriola@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE