To: | AP&G Co., Inc. (ptodocket@arelaw.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88471949 - SKEETER FEEDER - 03223/0054 |
Sent: | July 11, 2019 10:55:23 AM |
Sent As: | ecom101@uspto.gov |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88471949
Mark: SKEETER FEEDER
|
|
Correspondence Address: AMSTER, ROTHSTEIN & EBENSTEIN LLP
|
|
Applicant: AP&G Co., Inc.
|
|
Reference/Docket No. 03223/0054
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 11, 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.
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).
In this case, applicant must disclaim SKEETER because it is not inherently distinctive. These unregistrable term(s) at best are merely descriptive of an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose, or use of applicant’s goods. See 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1251, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2012); TMEP §§1213, 1213.03(a).
The attached evidence from Merriam-Webster.com. shows this word means “mosquito.” Thus, the word merely describes applicant’s goods because the goods are skeeter traps.
Applicant may respond to this issue by submitting a disclaimer in the following format:
No claim is made to the exclusive right to use “SKEETER” apart from the mark as shown.
For an overview of disclaimers and instructions on how to satisfy this issue using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), see the Disclaimer webpage.
“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).
Contending that SKEETER has alternate, non-descriptive meanings is spurious, as the meaning of a word must be considered in the context of the goods. Since the goods are mosquito traps, “skeeter” is equivalent to “mosquito.”
How to respond. Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action
Ira Goodsaid
/Ira Goodsaid/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 101
571-272-9166
ira.goodsaid@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE