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:  July 31, 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.

 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES:

 

• DUPLICATE APPLICATION REFUSAL
• SECTIONS 1, 2, AND 45 REFUSAL – REPEATING PATTERN
• SECTION 2(e)(5) REFUSAL - FUNCTIONAL DESIGN
• REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
• SIGNED APPLICATION REQUIREMENT

 

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).

 

DUPLICATE APPLICATION REFUSAL

 

Registration is refused because this application and U.S. Application Serial No.  88457579 appear to be duplicate applications.  37 C.F.R. §2.48; TMEP §703.  The USPTO will not issue duplicate registrations.  37 C.F.R. §2.48; TMEP §703.  Applicant may respond to this refusal by abandoning one of them.

 

Applicant can expressly abandon the application (i.e., withdraw a pending application and end the application process) using the TEAS Request for Express Abandonment (Withdrawal) of Application form.  This form must be properly signed by the applicant or, if represented by an authorized attorney, by the applicant’s attorney.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.68(a), 2.193(e)(2); TMEP §§611.03(b), 718.01.  Once filed, a request for abandonment may not be withdrawn.  37 C.F.R. §2.68(a).

 

Applicant should note the following additional ground for refusal.

 

SECTIONS 1, 2, AND 45 REFUSAL – REPEATING PATTERN

 

Registration is also refused because the applied-for mark, consisting of a repeating pattern used on some or all of the surfaces of goods, is merely an ornamental feature of the goods; it does not function as a trademark to indicate the source of applicant’s goods and to identify and distinguish them from others.  Trademark Act Sections 1, 2, and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051-1052, 1127; see In re F.C.F. Inc., 30 USPQ2d 1825, 1828 (TTAB 1994); TMEP §§1202.03 et seq., 1202.19(e) et seq.

 

The USPTO will not register an applied-for mark unless it functions as a mark.  See 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1052, 1127; In re Bose Corp., 192 USPQ 213, 215 (C.C.P.A. 1976) (“Before there can be registration, there must be a trademark . . . .”); In re Int’l Spike, Inc., 196 USPQ 447, 449 (TTAB 1977) (“Registration presupposes the existence of a trademark to be registered.”); TMEP §1202.  That is, the mark must serve as an indicator of the source of the goods or services, identifying and distinguishing them from those of others.  See 15 U.S.C. §1127; TMEP §1202.  Not every designation that a party places on goods or packaging, or uses in connection with services, is an inherently distinctive source indicator, regardless of the party’s intentions when adopting the designation.  In re Eagle Crest, Inc., 96 USPQ2d 1227, 1229 (TTAB 2010); In re Vertex Grp., LLC, 89 USPQ2d 1694, 1701 (TTAB 2009) (“As is the case with any trademark, mere intent that a word, name, symbol or device function as a trademark or service mark is not enough in and of itself.”).  

 

Here, the applied-for mark consists of a repeating pattern of diamond shapes.  As used on the specimens, the applied-for mark would be perceived merely as an ornamental feature of the goods because it covers the entirety of the upper portion of the soles of ballet pointe shoes where ornamental designs typically appear.  In particular, ballet pointe shoes commonly feature designs on the soles.  Please see the attached Internet evidence showing ballet pointe shoes with soles featuring ornamental or decorative designs.  As such, consumers would not view the applied-for repeating pattern as a source indicator for the goods.

 

Applicant asserted a claim of acquired distinctiveness under Trademark Act Section 2(f) based on applicant’s use of the mark in commerce with applicant’s goods for five years prior to the date on which the claim is made.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(f).  A claim of acquired distinctiveness under Section 2(f) is a concession that the mark is not inherently distinctive.  See TMEP §1212.02(b).

 

However, applicant’s claim of acquired distinctiveness based on length of use is not acceptable to show that the mark has acquired distinctiveness under Section 2(f).  In general, applicants face a heavy burden in establishing acquired distinctiveness in an application to register product design trade dress.  A mere statement of five years’ use for repeating patterns is generally not sufficient to establish that a mark has acquired distinctiveness.  See TMEP §1212.02(b)(i).

 

An applicant bears the burden of proving that a mark has acquired distinctiveness under Trademark Act Section 2(f).  In re La. Fish Fry Prods., Ltd., 797 F.3d 1332, 1335, 116 USPQ2d 1262, 1264 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293, 1297, 75 USPQ2d 1420, 1422 (Fed. Cir. 2005)); TMEP §1212.01.  “To show that a mark has acquired distinctiveness, an applicant must demonstrate that the relevant public understands the primary significance of the mark as identifying the source of a product or service rather than the product or service itself.”  In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d at 1297, 75 USPQ2d at 1422. 

 

To support the claim of acquired distinctiveness, applicant may respond by submitting other evidence.  See TMEP §1212.02(g).  Such evidence may include “advertising expenditures, sales success, length and exclusivity of use, unsolicited media coverage, and consumer studies (linking the name to a source).”  In re Change Wind Corp., 123 USPQ2d 1453, 1467 (TTAB 2017) (quoting In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293, 1300, 75 USPQ2d 1420, 1424 (Fed. Cir. 2005)).  A showing of acquired distinctiveness need not consider all of these types of evidence; no single factor is determinative.  In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d at 1300, 75 USPQ2d at 1424; see TMEP §§1212.06 et seq.  Rather, the determination involves assessing all of the circumstances involving the use of the mark.  See In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d at 1300, 75 USPQ2d at 1424 (citing Thompson Med. Co., Inc. v. Pfizer Inc., 753 F.2d 208, 217, 225 USPQ2d 124, 131-32 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).

 

Applicant may overcome this refusal by satisfying one of the following options:

 

(1)  Amend to the Supplemental Register, which is a second trademark register for marks not yet eligible for registration on the Principal Register, but which may become recognized as source indicators. 

 

(2)  Claim acquired distinctiveness under Trademark Act Section 2(f) by submitting evidence that the applied-for mark has become distinctive of applicant’s goods; that is, proof that applicant’s extensive use and promotion of the mark has allowed consumers now directly to associate the mark with applicant as the source of the goods.

 

(3) Amend the filing basis to intent to use under Section 1(b).  This option will later necessitate additional fee(s) and filing requirements.

 

For an overview of all response options referenced above and instructions on how to satisfy each option online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, please go to http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/law/ornamental.jsp.

 

Applicant should note the following additional ground for refusal.

 

SECTION 2(e)(5) REFUSAL - FUNCTIONAL DESIGN

 

Registration is also refused because the applied-for mark, which consists of a three-dimensional configuration of the goods, appears to be a functional design for such goods.  Trademark Act Section 2(e)(5), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(5); see TMEP §1202.02(a)-(a)(ii).  A feature is functional if it is “‘essential to the use or purpose of the [product]’” or “‘it affects the cost or quality of the [product].’”  TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Mktg. Displays, Inc., 532 U.S. 23, 33, 58 USPQ2d 1001, 1006 (2001) (quoting Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Prods. Co., 514 U.S. 159, 165, 34 USPQ2d 1161, 1163-64 (1995)); Inwood Labs., Inc., v. Ives Labs., Inc., 456 U.S. 844, 850 n.10, 214 USPQ 1, 4 n.10 (1982); TMEP §1202.02(a)(iii)(A).

 

A mark that consists of a three-dimensional configuration of a product or its packaging is functional, and thus unregistrable, when the evidence shows that the design provides identifiable utilitarian advantages to the user; i.e., the product or container “has a particular shape because it works better in [that] shape.”  Valu Eng’g, Inc. v. Rexnord Corp., 278 F.3d 1268, 1274, 61 USPQ2d 1422, 1425 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (internal punctuation and citation omitted); see TMEP §1202.02(a)(iii)(A).

 

The evidence need not establish that the configuration at issue is the very best design for the particular product or product packaging.  A configuration can be held functional when the evidence shows that it provides a specific utilitarian advantage that makes it one of a few superior designs available.  See In re Bose Corp., 772 F.2d 866, 227 USPQ 1 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (holding shape of a loudspeaker system enclosure functional because it conforms to the shape of the sound matrix and is thereby an efficient and superior design); In re Dietrich, 91 USPQ2d 1622 (TTAB 2009) (holding particular spoke arrangement of a bicycle wheel functional because it is more stable and provides better performance than wheels with other spoke arrangements featuring the same or greater number of spokes); In re Am. Nat’l Can Co., 41 USPQ2d 1841 (TTAB 1997) (holding metal beverage containers with vertical fluting functional because vertical fluting is one of a limited number of ways to strengthen can sidewalls and it allows for an easier way to grip and hold the can); TMEP §1202.02(a)(v), (a)(v)(C).

 

On the other hand, where the evidence shows that the specific product or container configuration at issue provides no real utilitarian advantages to the user, but is one of many equally feasible, efficient and competitive designs, then it may be registrable.  See In re Morton-Norwich Prods., Inc., 671 F.2d 1332, 213 USPQ 9 (C.C.P.A. 1982).  However, a product configuration cannot be registered on the Principal Register without a showing of acquired distinctiveness.  See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Bros., Inc., 529 U.S. 205, 54 USPQ2d 1065 (2000); TMEP §1202.02(b)-(b)(i).

 

In this case, applicant has applied to register a repeating pattern design that is applied to the upper portion of the sole of a ballet pointe shoe.  The repeating diamond pattern creates grooves which are functional features that aid in the traction or anti-slip feature of ballet pointe shoes.  The attached evidence discusses the common practice of scraping or scoring the soles of ballet shoes in order to render them less slippery and to help dancers grip the floor.  Applicant’s own website touts the “anti-slip sole” feature of its ballet pointe shoes.  Please see attached.  As such, the grooves created by applicant’s repeating pattern design provide identifiable utilitarian advantages to the user and appears to be a functional design for such goods.  Thus, registration is also refused under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(5).

 

A determination that an applied-for mark is functional constitutes an absolute bar to registration on the Principal or Supplemental Registers, regardless of any evidence of acquired distinctiveness.  Trademark Act Sections 2(e)(5) and 23(c), 15 U.S.C. §§1052(e)(5), 1091(c); see TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Mktg. Displays, Inc., 532 U.S. 23, 29, 58 USPQ2d 1001, 1006 (2001); In re Controls Corp. of Am., 46 USPQ2d 1308, 1311 (TTAB 1998); TMEP §1202.02(a)(iii)(A).

 

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

 

If applicant responds to the refusal(s), applicant must also respond to the requirement(s) set forth below.

 

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

 

Applicant must provide the following information and documentation regarding the applied-for repeating pattern mark:

 

(1)       A written statement as to whether the applied-for mark, or any feature(s) thereof, is or has been the subject of a design or utility patent or patent application, including expired patents and abandoned patent applications.  Applicant must also provide copies of the patent and/or patent application documentation.

 

(2)       Advertising, promotional, and/or explanatory materials concerning the applied-for mark, particularly materials specifically related to the design feature(s) embodied in the applied-for mark.

 

(3)       A written explanation and any evidence as to whether there are alternative designs available for the feature(s) embodied in the applied-for mark, and whether such alternative designs are equally efficient and/or competitive.  Applicant must also provide a written explanation and any documentation concerning similar designs used by competitors.

 

(4)       A written statement as to whether the product design or packaging design at issue results from a comparatively simple or inexpensive method of manufacture in relation to alternative designs for the product/container.  Applicant must also provide information regarding the method and/or cost of manufacture relating to applicant’s goods.

 

(5)       Any other evidence that applicant considers relevant to the registrability of the applied-for repeating pattern mark, including whether the diamond pattern provides any advantages as to traction, stability or durability.

 

See 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b); In re Morton-Norwich Prods., Inc., 671 F.2d 1332, 1340-41, 213 USPQ 9, 15-16 (C.C.P.A. 1982); TMEP §§1202.02(a)(v) et seq.

 

Any document filed with the USPTO becomes part of the official public application record and will not be returned or removed.  TMEP §§404, 814.  If any of the information requested above is confidential or applicant does not want such information to become part of the public record for a valid reason, applicant should submit an explanation of those circumstances or redact confidential portions prior to submission.  See TMEP §814.  Applicants are not required to submit confidential information into the record; a written explanation or summary of that information may suffice.  Id.

 

Regarding the requirement for this information, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board and its appeals court have recognized that the necessary technical information for ex parte determinations as to functionality is usually more readily available to an applicant, and thus an applicant is normally the source of most of the evidence in these cases.  In re Teledyne Indus. Inc., 696 F.2d 968, 971, 217 USPQ 9, 11 (Fed. Cir. 1982); see In re Babies Beat Inc., 13 USPQ2d 1729, 1731 (TTAB 1990) (holding registration was properly refused where applicant failed to comply with trademark examining attorney’s request for copies of patent applications and other patent information); TMEP §1202.02(a)(v).

 

Failure to comply with a request for information can be grounds for refusing registration.  In re AOP LLC, 107 USPQ2d 1644, 1651 (TTAB 2013); In re DTI P’ship LLP, 67 USPQ2d 1699, 1701-02 (TTAB 2003); TMEP §814.

 

SIGNED APPLICATION REQUIRED

 

The application was unsigned, resulting in the application not being properly verified.  See TMEP §804.  Applicant must properly sign and therefore verify the application in an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.2(n), 2.33(a)-(b)(1), (c), 2.34(a)(1)(i); TMEP §804.02. 

 

The following statements must be verified:  That applicant believes applicant is the owner of the mark; that the mark is in use in commerce and was in use in commerce as of the application filing date; that to the best of the signatory’s knowledge and belief, no other persons, except, if applicable, concurrent users, have the right to use the mark in commerce, either in the identical form or in such near resemblance as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods/services of such other persons, to cause confusion or mistake, or to deceive; that the specimen shows the mark as used on or in connection with the goods or services as of the application filing date; and that the facts set forth in the application are true.  37 C.F.R. §§2.33(b)(1), (c), 2.34(a)(1)(i), 2.59(a).  For more information about this, see the Verified statement webpage.

 

To provide these verified statements.  After opening the correct TEAS response form, answer “yes” to wizard question #10, and follow the instructions within the form for signing.  In this case, the form will require two signatures:  one in the “Declaration Signature” section and one in the “Response Signature” section.

 

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  

 

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. 

 

 

 

/Hai-Ly Lam/

Hai-Ly Lam

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 112

Telephone: (571) 272-3354

Email: hai.lam@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 July 31, 2019 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88457581

 

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. 

 

 

/Hai-Ly Lam/

Hai-Ly Lam

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 112

Telephone: (571) 272-3354

Email: hai.lam@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 July 31, 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.”