Offc Action Outgoing

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

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

 

 

 

FINAL 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) and/or Electronic System for Trademark Trials and Appeals (ESTTA).  A link to the appropriate TEAS response form and/or to ESTTA for an appeal appears at the end of this Office action. 

 

Issue date:  March 27, 2020

 

This is in response to applicant’s communication filed on March 3, 2020.  For the reasons stated below, the Section 2(e)(1) refusal is maintained and continued.

 

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

The applicant has applied to register the mark VIRTUAL for “fishing rods.”  In the initial Office action, the examining attorney determined that the mark was merely descriptive of a feature of the goods. 

 

In its response to the descriptiveness refusal, the applicant has primarily argued that the mark is suggestive.  The examining attorney has reviewed the applicant’s position on the descriptiveness position, but is upersuaded. 

 

The determination of whether a mark is merely descriptive is made in relation to an applicant’s goods and/or 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).  “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).

 

A mark is suggestive if some imagination, thought, or perception is needed to understand the nature of the goods and/or services described in the mark; whereas a descriptive term immediately and directly conveys some information about the goods and/or services.  See Stoncor Grp., Inc. v. Specialty Coatings, Inc., 759 F.3d 1327, 1332, 111 USPQ2d 1649, 1652 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citing DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1251-52, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1209.01(a).

 

Applicant provides in its response that the goods are compatible with Bluetooth technology.   Therefore, any consumer could guess that the wording describes a feature or characteristic of the goods. Per the attached evidence from what appears to be applicant’s website, the website states that applicant’s fishing rod is the world’s first integrated fishing rod that makes it easier to digitally log your catches with the simple push of button.  Thus, contrary to applicant’s argument that the definition of the term VIRTUAL does not support a descriptiveness finding, the evidence shows that mark describes a feature of the goods.  “A mark may be merely descriptive even if it does not describe the ‘full scope and extent’ of the applicant’s goods or services.”  In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 1173, 71 USPQ2d 1370, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing In re Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp., 240 F.3d 1341, 1346, 57 USPQ2d 1807, 1812 (Fed. Cir. 2001)); TMEP §1209.01(b).  It is enough if a mark describes only one significant function, attribute, or property.  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 In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d at 1173, 71 USPQ2d at 1371.

 

Further, “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).  The question is not whether someone presented only with the mark could guess what the goods and/or services are, but “whether someone who knows what the goods and[/or] services are will understand the mark to convey information about them.”  DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1254, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Tower Tech, Inc.,64 USPQ2d 1314, 1316-17 (TTAB 2002)); In re Mueller Sports. Med., Inc., 126 USPQ2d 1584, 1587 (TTAB 2018).

 

Additionally, the fact that third-party registrations exist for marks allegedly similar to applicant’s mark is not conclusive on the issue of descriptiveness.  See In re Scholastic Testing Serv., Inc., 196 USPQ 517, 519 (TTAB 1977); TMEP §1209.03(a).  An applied-for mark that is merely descriptive does not become registrable simply because other seemingly similar marks appear on the register.  In re Scholastic Testing Serv., Inc., 196 USPQ at 519; TMEP §1209.03(a).

 

It is well settled that each case must be decided on its own facts and the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board is not bound by prior decisions involving different records.  See In re Nett Designs, Inc., 236 F.3d 1339, 1342, 57 USPQ2d 1564, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re Datapipe, Inc., 111 USPQ2d 1330, 1336 (TTAB 2014); TMEP §1209.03(a).  The question of whether a mark is merely descriptive is determined based on the evidence of record at the time each registration is sought.  In re Virtual Indep. Paralegals, LLC, 2019 USPQ2d 111512, at *9 (TTAB 2019) (citing In re Nett Designs, Inc., 236 F.3d at 1342, 57 USPQ2d at 1566); TMEP §1209.03(a).

 

Finally, contrary to applicant’s argument that the Examining attorney did not provide any third-party usage of the term, is not relevant in a descriptiveness finding.  The fact that an applicant may be the first or only user of a merely descriptive designation does not necessarily render a word or term incongruous or distinctive; as in this case, the evidence shows that the wording VIRTUAL is merely descriptive of a feature of applicant’s goods.  See In re Fat Boys Water Sports LLC, 118 USPQ2d 1511, 1514 (TTAB 2016); In re Phoseon Tech., Inc., 103 USPQ2d 1822, 1826 (TTAB 2012); TMEP §1209.03(c).

 

In this case, therefore, the proper question is whether consumers familiar with the nature of the applicant’s goods would understand the mark VIRTUAL to describe a feature of the applicant’s goods.  The examining attorney again concludes that the answer to this question is yes.

 

Accordingly, for the above reasons, the examining attorney again concludes that the applied-for mark is merely descriptive of a feature of the goods, and is unpersuaded by the applicant’s arguments to the contrary.  Accordingly, the refusal to register under Section 2(e)(1) is hereby maintained and made FINAL.

 

How to respond.  Click to file a request for reconsideration of this final Office action that fully resolves all outstanding requirements and refusals and/or click to file a timely appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) with the required filing fee(s).

 

 

/Naakwama Ankrah/

Trademark Attorney Advisor

Law Office 109

571-272-9315

naakwama.ankrah@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 March 27, 2020 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88463050

 

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. 

 

 

/Naakwama Ankrah/

Trademark Attorney Advisor

Law Office 109

571-272-9315

naakwama.ankrah@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 March 27, 2020, 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.”