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:  April 06, 2020

 

 

INTRODUCTION

 

This Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on March 3, 2020.

 

In a previous Office action(s) dated September 9, 2019, the trademark examining attorney refused registration of the applied-for mark based on the following:  Trademark Act Section 2(d) for a likelihood of confusion with a registered mark, failure to show the applied-for mark in use in commerce with any of the specified services. 

 

In response to the previous Office action, applicant has submitted a verified statement of five years’ use and amended the application to seek registration on the Principal Register under Trademark Act Section 2(f) based on a claim of acquired distinctiveness.  For the reasons set forth below, the refusal under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1) is maintained and continued.  See TMEP §713.02. 

 

In addition, the following refusal(s) has been withdrawn:  Mark on the Drawing and Specimen Differ.  Id.

 

The following is a SUMMARY OF ISSUES that applicant must address:

•       Section 2(e)(1) Refusal – Merely Descriptive

•       NEW ISSUE:  Section 2(f) Acquired Distinctiveness Claim Insufficient

 

 

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

 

Based on applicant’s response, the refusal under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1) is MAINTAINED and CONTINUED. 

 

Registration is refused because the applied-for mark merely describes a feature of applicant’s services.  Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); see TMEP §§1209.01(b), 1209.03 et seq.

 

A mark is merely descriptive if it describes an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose, or use of an applicant’s goods and/or services.  TMEP §1209.01(b); see, e.g., In re TriVita, Inc., 783 F.3d 872, 874, 114 USPQ2d 1574, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 1173, 71 USPQ2d 1370, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004)); In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293, 1297, 75 USPQ2d 1420, 1421 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Estate of P.D. Beckwith, Inc. v. Comm’r of Patents, 252 U.S. 538, 543 (1920)). 

 

The applicant has applied to register the mark PSYCHEDELIC SCIENCE 20__ for “Educational services, namely, conducting conferences and workshops in the field of psychotherapy, mental health care, psychotherapeutic therapies, plant medicine, clinical research, psychological research, medical research, scientific research, pharmaceutical research, psychedelic therapies and distribution of course material in connection therewith; Providing a website featuring non-downloadable videos in the field of psychotherapy, mental health care, psychotherapeutic therapies, plant medicine, clinical research, psychological research, medical research, scientific research, pharmaceutical research, psychedelic therapies” in International Class 41.

 

Generally, if the individual components of a mark retain their descriptive meaning in relation to the goods and/or services, the combination results in a composite mark that is itself descriptive and not registrable.  In re Fat Boys Water Sports LLC, 118 USPQ2d 1511, 1516 (TTAB 2016) (citing In re Tower Tech, Inc., 64 USPQ2d 1314, 1317-18 (TTAB (2002)); TMEP §1209.03(d); see, e.g., Apollo Med. Extrusion Techs., Inc. v. Med. Extrusion Techs., Inc., 123 USPQ2d 1844, 1851 (TTAB 2017) (holding MEDICAL EXTRUSION TECHNOLOGIES merely descriptive of medical extrusion goods produced by employing medical extrusion technologies); In re Cannon Safe, Inc., 116 USPQ2d 1348, 1351 (TTAB 2015) (holding SMART SERIES merely descriptive of metal gun safes); In re King Koil Licensing Co., 79 USPQ2d 1048, 1052 (TTAB 2006) (holding THE BREATHABLE MATTRESS merely descriptive of beds, mattresses, box springs, and pillows). 

 

Only where the combination of descriptive terms creates a unitary mark with a unique, incongruous, or otherwise nondescriptive meaning in relation to the goods and/or services 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, both the individual components and the composite result are descriptive of applicant’s goods and/or services and do not create a unique, incongruous, or nondescriptive meaning in relation to the goods and/or services.  

 

The previously attached dictionary evidence indicates the terms in applicant’s mark are defined as follows:

 

PSYCHEDELIC: “of, relating to, or being drugs (such as LSD) capable of producing abnormal psychic effects (such as hallucinations) and sometimes psychotic states”

 

SCIENCE: “systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied”

 

Further, as applicant states in its response, the changeable date “20__” indicates the year of applicant’s event.  Thus, the changeable date “20__” fails to function as a mark to indicate source because it merely provides information regarding the year applicant’s event will take place.  Matter is merely informational and does not function as a mark when, based on its nature and the context of its use by the applicant and/or others in the marketplace, consumers would perceive it as merely conveying general information about the goods or services or an informational message, and not as a means to identify and distinguish the applicant’s goods/services from those of others.  See TMEP §1202.04.

 

Hence, the terms in the applied-for mark, individually, describe, or provide information about, a feature of applicant’s services, and the composite result does not create a nondescriptive meaning in relation to the services.  Consumers who encounter applicant’s mark will immediately presume that the subject matter of applicant’s educational services and website featuring non-downloadable videos is “PSYCHEDELIC SCIENCE”.

 

A mark that describes the subject matter of a conference has been held merely descriptive for such educational services.  See In re The Am. Acad. of Facial Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, 64 USPQ2d 1748 (TTAB 2002) (holding FACIAL PLASTIC SURGERY generic for training, association and collective membership services); In re Inst. Investor, Inc., 229 USPQ 614 (TTAB 1986) (holding INTERNATIONAL BANKING INSTITUTE for organizing seminars for bank leaders of major countries incapable); In re Indus. Relations Counselors, Inc., 224 USPQ 309 (TTAB 1984) (holding INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COUNSELORS, INC. an apt name or so highly descriptive of educational services in the industrial relations field that it is incapable of exclusive appropriation and registration); In re Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 222 USPQ 820 (TTAB 1984) (holding LAW & BUSINESS incapable of distinguishing the services of arranging and conducting seminars in the field of business law); In re Nat’l Shooting Sports Found., Inc., 219 USPQ 1018 (TTAB 1983) (holding SHOOTING, HUNTING, OUTDOOR TRADE SHOW & CONFERENCE incapable for trade show); see also TMEP §1209.01(b).

 

The attached Internet evidence from http://psfc.co, http://thescienceexplorer.com, http://fairhaven.wwu.edu, and www.nytimes.com demonstrates that the wording, “PSYCHEDELIC SCIENCE”, in the applied-for mark is a known field of study, and is merely descriptive of the subject matter of applicant’s educational services.

 

Moreover, as stated in the previous Office action, applicant’s specimen of record also demonstrates that PSYCHEDELIC SCIENCE is merely descriptive of the applied-for services.  Specifically, the first page of the specimen reads:

 

At Psychedelic Science 2017, scientists, doctors, therapists, students, educators, policymakers, artists, and others from around the world will come together to share and discover recently completed and ongoing research into the risks and benefits of psychedelics and medical marijuana for science, medicine, spirituality, creativity, and more. (emphasis added)

 

Websites and webpages as well as applicant’s specimen(s) and any explanatory text therein are generally a competent source for determining how the public perceives the mark in connection with applicant’s goods and/or services.  See In re N.C. Lottery, 866 F.3d 1363, 1367-68, 123 USPQ2d 1707, 1709-10 (Fed. Cir. 2017); In re Nett Designs, Inc., 236 F.3d 1339, 1341, 57 USPQ2d 1564, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing In re Bed & Breakfast Registry, 791 F.2d 157, 160, 229 USPQ 818, 819 (Fed. Cir. 1986)); TMEP §1209.01(b).

 

Determining the descriptiveness of a mark is done in relation to an applicant’s goods and/or services, the context in which the mark is being used, and the possible significance the mark would have to the average purchaser because of the manner of its use or intended use.  See In re The Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 1300, 102 USPQ2d 1217, 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, 488 F.3d 960, 963-64, 82 USPQ2d 1828, 1831 (Fed. Cir. 2007)); TMEP §1209.01(b).  Descriptiveness of a mark is not considered in the abstract.  In re Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, 488 F.3d at 963-64, 82 USPQ2d at 1831.

 

“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).

 

Here, someone who knows what applicant’s services are will understand the applied-for mark to convey information about them because the evidence of record demonstrates that PSYCHEDLIC SCIENCE is a known field of study.

 

Accordingly, the mark PSYCHEDELIC SCIENCE is merely descriptive of a feature of applicant’s services, and registration is properly refused on the Principal Register under Section 2(e)(1).

 

 

SUPPLEMENTAL REGISTER – ADVISORY

 

The applied-for mark has been refused registration on the Principal Register.  Applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration and/or by amending the application to seek registration on the Supplemental Register.  See 15 U.S.C. §1091; 37 C.F.R. §§2.47, 2.75(a); TMEP §§801.02(b), 816.  Amending to the Supplemental Register does not preclude applicant from submitting evidence and arguments against the refusal(s).  TMEP §816.04.

 

 

SECTION 2(f) ACQUIRED DISTINCTIVENESS CLAIM INSUFFICIENT

 

Applicant asserted a claim of acquired distinctiveness under Trademark Act Section 2(f) based on use of the mark in commerce with the goods and/or services for five years prior to the date on which the claim is made.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(f).  However, as the attached and previously attached evidence demonstrates, the allegation of five years’ use is insufficient to show acquired distinctiveness because the applied-for mark is highly descriptive of applicant’s goods and/or services.  See In re La. Fish Fry Prods., Ltd., 797 F.3d 1332, 1336-37, 116 USPQ2d 1262, 1265 (Fed. Cir. 2015); In re Virtual Indep. Paralegals, LLC, 2019 USPQ2d 111512, at *11-12 (TTAB 2019); TMEP §1212.05(a).  An applicant’s evidentiary burden of showing acquired distinctiveness increases with the level of descriptiveness of the mark sought to be registered; as in this case, a more descriptive term requires more evidence.  Royal Crown Co. v. Coca-Cola Co., 892 F.3d 1358, 1365, 127 USPQ2d 1041, 1045 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293, 1300, 75 USPQ2d 1420, 1424 (Fed. Cir. 2005)).  As the mark in this case is highly descriptive, applicant’s evidence is not sufficient to show acquired distinctiveness.

 

Applicant may respond by providing additional evidence of acquired distinctiveness, such as verified statements of long term use, advertising and sales expenditures, examples of advertising, affidavits and declarations of consumers, customer surveys.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.41(a)(3); TMEP §§1212.02(g), 1212.06 et seq. 

 

When determining whether the evidence shows the mark has acquired distinctiveness, the trademark examining attorney will consider the following six factors:  (1) association of the mark with a particular source by actual purchasers (typically measured by customer surveys linking the name to the source); (2) length, degree, and exclusivity of use; (3) amount and manner of advertising; (4) amount of sales and number of customers; (5) intentional copying; and (6) unsolicited media coverage.  See Converse, Inc. v. ITC, 909 F.3d 1110, 1120, 128 USPQ2d 1538, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“the Converse factors”).  “[N]o single factor is determinative.”  In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d at 1300, 75 USPQ2d at 1424; see TMEP §§1212.06 et seq.  Rather, all factors are weighed together in light of all the circumstances to determine whether the mark has acquired distinctiveness.  In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d at 1300, 75 USPQ2d at 1424.  This evidence must demonstrate that the relevant public understands the primary significance of the mark as identifying the source of applicant’s product or service rather than identifying the product or service itself.  In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d at 1297, 75 USPQ2d at 1422.

 

As well as submitting additional evidence, applicant may respond to the refusal by arguing in support of registration and/or amending the application to seek registration on the Supplemental Register.  See 15 U.S.C. §1091(a); 37 C.F.R. §§2.47, 2.75(a); TMEP §816.  If applicant amends the application to the Supplemental Register, applicant is not precluded from submitting evidence and arguments against this refusal.  TMEP §816.04.

 

 

RESPONSE GUIDELINES

 

Please call or email the assigned trademark examining attorney with questions about this Office action.  Although an examining attorney cannot provide legal advice, the examining attorney can provide additional explanation about the refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) in this Office action.  See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06. 

 

The USPTO does not accept emails as responses to Office actions; however, emails can be used for informal communications and are included in the application record.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(c), 2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05. 

 

 

 

.

 

How to respond.  Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action.    

 

 

/Chioma (Bata) Oputa/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 103

571-272-5234

chioma.oputa@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 April 06, 2020 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88468908

 

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. 

 

 

/Chioma (Bata) Oputa/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 103

571-272-5234

chioma.oputa@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 April 06, 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.”