To: | Antex Group Corp. (patrick@antexgroup.cn) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88455154 - PEEKSKILL - N/A |
Sent: | August 22, 2019 03:23:52 PM |
Sent As: | ecom122@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 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88455154
Mark: PEEKSKILL
|
|
Correspondence Address: |
|
Applicant: Antex Group Corp.
|
|
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 22, 2019
The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney. Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issue(s) below. 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(a), 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.
DATABASE SEARCH: The trademark examining attorney has searched the USPTO’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:
REFUSAL – SECTION 2(e)(2) – MARK IS PRIMARILY GEOGRAPHICALLY DESCRIPTIVE
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 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; that is, purchasers would be likely to believe that the goods 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 primary significance of the mark is a generally known geographic place or location
The primary significance of the wording PEEKSKILL is a generally known geographic place or location. The attached evidence from Wikipedia.org, cityofpeekskill.com, and columbiagazetteer.org shows that the wording PEEKSKILL is a city in the state of the New York.
The goods for which applicant seeks registration originate in the geographic place identified in the mark
The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has stated that the purpose of Trademark Act Section 2(e)(2) is “to leave geographic names free for all businesses operating in the same area to inform customers where their goods or services originate.” In re Spirits of New Merced, 85 USPQ2d at 1621 (citing In re MCO Props. Inc., 38 USPQ2d 1154, 1156 (TTAB 1995)).
Applicant’s address shows its location in New York, New York and the attached evidence from Google.com shows that Peekskill is located approximately 45 miles from applicant’s address of record. Therefore, it is presumed that applicant’s goods will originate in or near Peekskill, New York.
Purchasers would be likely to make a goods-place; that is, purchasers would be likely to believe that the goods originate in the geographic place identified in the mark
In this case, the primary significance of PEEKSKILL is a geographic location and applicant has it address location in the record near this geographic location. Under these circumstances, a goods-place association is presumed.
Based on the evidence and analysis above, applicant’s applied-for mark is primarily geographically descriptive and must be refused under Section 2(e)(2) of the Lanham Act.
ADVISORY – SUPPLEMENTAL REGISTER
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.
REQUIREMENT – AMEND IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS
The wording “tops” and “caps” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified because it does not specify the nature of the goods. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01. Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate: “tops as clothing” and “caps as headwear.”
The wording “outerwear” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified because the wording does not specify the godos. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01. Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate: “outerwear in the nature of {indicate articles of clothing, e.g., coats, etc.}.”
Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate:
Class 25: Clothing, namely, shorts, briefs, beachwear, and swimsuits: men's and women's sportswear and ready-to-wear, namely, tops as clothing, t-shirts, jackets, outerwear in the nature of {indicate articles of clothing, e.g., coats, etc.}, shirts, blouses, dresses, sweaters, shirts, pants, and skirts; women's short skirts, bras, camisoles, bodysuits, and bikini top and bottoms; clothing accessories, namely, men's and women's caps being headwear, hats, shoes, socks, scarves, and gloves
Applicant may amend the identification to clarify or limit the goods, but not to broaden or expand the goods beyond those in the original application or as acceptably amended. See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06. Generally, any deleted goods may not later be reinserted. See TMEP §1402.07(e).
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.
REQUIREMENT – AMEND MARK DESCRIPTION
The following description is suggested, if accurate: The mark consists of the word “PEEKSKILL” in stylized form.
ASSISTANCE
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.
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.
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
/Christina Calloway/
Examining Attorney
Law Office 122
571-272-7342
christina.calloway@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE