To: | Miller, John (jlawrencemiller@yahoo.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88464205 - MONTAUK TRIBE OF INDIANS - N/A |
Sent: | July 05, 2019 04:35:31 PM |
Sent As: | ecom107@uspto.gov |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 Attachment - 6 Attachment - 7 Attachment - 8 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88464205
Mark: MONTAUK TRIBE OF INDIANS
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
Applicant: Miller, John
|
|
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: July 05, 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.
How to respond. Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action
SEARCH RESULTS
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).
REFUSAL TO REGISTER – FALSE CONNECTION
Registration is refused because the applied-for mark consists of or includes matter which may falsely suggest a connection with the Montauk Tribe of Indians. Trademark Act Section 2(a), 15 U.S.C. §1052(a). Although the Montauk Tribe is not the applicant and is not connected with the services provided by applicant under the applied-for mark, the historic Montauk or Montaukett Indians are sufficiently well-known that consumers would presume a connection. See id.
(1) The mark sought to be registered is the same as, or a close approximation of, the name or identity previously used by another person or institution.
(2) The mark would be recognized as such, in that it points uniquely and unmistakably to that person or institution.
(3) The person or institution identified in the mark is not connected with the goods sold or services performed by applicant under the mark.
(4) The fame or reputation of the named person or institution is of such a nature that a connection with such person or institution would be presumed when applicant’s mark is used on its goods and/or services.
In re Pedersen, 109 USPQ2d at 1188-89; In re Jackson Int’l Trading Co., 103 USPQ2d 1417, 1419 (TTAB 2012); TMEP §1203.03(c)(i); see also Univ. of Notre Dame du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imps. Co., 703 F.2d 1372, 1375-77, 217 USPQ 505, 508-10 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (providing foundational principles for the current four-part test used to determine the existence of a false connection).
In this case, applicant has applied to register the mark “MONTAUK TRIBE OF INDIANS” for “Association services, namely, promoting the interests of the Montauk Tribe of Indians and members of the Montauk Tribe of Indians. Outreach in the nature of providing information in the field of the tribal culture. Association services, namely, promoting the interests and welfare of members of an Indian tribe.”
The Montauk Tribe of Indians, or Montaukett Indians, are seeking recognition in New York State. See attached evidence from http://www.27east.com/news/article.cfm/Montauk/561927/The-Montaukett-Indians-May-Soon-Be-Recognized-By-New-York-State. A small group of Montauk Indians reside in the Long Island region of New York. See attached evidence from http://accessgenealogy.com/new-york/montauk-tribe.htm. The Montauk have also filed a petition for federal recognition. See attached New York page from http://www.aaanativearts.com/petitioners-list-for-federal-recognition-by-state.
Given that applicant is an individual person, and not the Montauk Tribe of Indians, registration must be refused on grounds that the applied-for mark falsely suggests a connection with the Indian tribe named in the mark.
Applicant should note the following additional ground for refusal.
REFUSAL TO REGISTER – DESCRIPTIVE MARK
Applicant has applied to register the mark “MONTAUK TRIBE OF INDIANS” for “Association services, namely, promoting the interests of the Montauk Tribe of Indians and members of the Montauk Tribe of Indians. Outreach in the nature of providing information in the field of the tribal culture. Association services, namely, promoting the interests and welfare of members of an Indian tribe.” The applied-for mark describes the subject matter of applicant’s association services and information services.
The Montauk Tribe of Indians, is seeking recognition in New York State. See attached evidence from http://www.27east.com/news/article.cfm/Montauk/561927/The-Montaukett-Indians-May-Soon-Be-Recognized-By-New-York-State. A small group of Montauk Indians reside in the Long Island region of New York. See attached evidence from http://accessgenealogy.com/new-york/montauk-tribe.htm. Given that applicant’s association services and information services involve the Montauk Tribe of Indians, the proposed mark merely describes the subject matter of the information and the subject matter and beneficiaries of the association services. Accordingly, registration on the Principal Register must be refused under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act.
AMENDMENT TO SUPPLEMENTAL REGISTER (ADVISORY)
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.
STATEMENT REQUIRED – CONNECTION WITH MONTAUK TRIBE OF INDIANS
AMENDED IDENTIFICATION OF SERVICES REQUIRED
THIS PARTIAL REQUIREMENT APPLIES ONLY TO THE SERVICES SPECIFIED THEREIN
Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate:
INTERNATIONAL CLASS 35: Association services, namely, promoting the interests of the Montauk Tribe of Indians and members of the Montauk Tribe of Indians; Association services, namely, promoting the interests and welfare of members of an American Indian tribe
INTERNATIONAL CLASS 41: Providing information in the field of the history of the Montauk Indian tribal culture
INTERNATIONAL CLASS 45: Providing information in the field of a specific ethnic culture, namely, the Montauk Indian tribal culture
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.
MULTIPLE-CLASS APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS
(1) List the goods and/or services by their international class number in consecutive numerical order, starting with the lowest numbered class.
(2) Submit a filing fee for each international class not covered by the fee already paid (view the USPTO’s current fee schedule). The application identifies services that are classified in at least three classes; however, applicant submitted a fee sufficient for only one class). Applicant must either submit the filing fees for the classes not covered by the submitted fees or restrict the application to the number of classes covered by the fees already paid.
See 15 U.S.C. §§1051(b), 1112, 1126(e); 37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(6)-(7), 2.34(a)(2)-(3), 2.86(a); TMEP §§1403.01, 1403.02(c).
See an overview of the requirements for a Section 1(b) multiple-class application and how to satisfy the requirements online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form.
For this application to proceed further, 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.
In addition, because applicant filed a TEAS RF application, applicant must respond online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) to avoid incurring an additional fee. See 37 C.F.R. §2.23(b)(1), (c).
ATTORNEY
For attorney referral information, applicant may consult the American Bar Association’s Consumers’ Guide to Legal Help; an online directory of legal professionals, such as FindLaw®; or a local telephone directory. The USPTO, however, may not assist an applicant in the selection of a private attorney. 37 C.F.R. §2.11.
Beware of misleading notices sent by private companies about your application. Private companies not associated with the USPTO often use public information provided in USPTO trademark applications to mail and email trademark-related offers and notices – most of which require fees. These companies often have names similar to the USPTO. All official USPTO correspondence will only be emailed from the domain “@uspto.gov.” For a current list of companies the USPTO has received complaints about, information on how to identify these offers and notices, and what to do if you receive one, see the misleading notices webpage.
/Kathy de Jonge/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 107
(571) 272-9152
kathleen.dejonge@USPTO.gov (informal use only)
RESPONSE GUIDANCE