To: | Sprite Industries, Inc. (mgarred@stetinalaw.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88473660 - SPRITE INDUSTRIES - SPRIT-101T |
Sent: | August 27, 2019 03:05:06 PM |
Sent As: | ecom120@uspto.gov |
Attachments: |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88473660
Mark: SPRITE INDUSTRIES
|
|
Correspondence Address: |
|
Applicant: Sprite Industries, Inc.
|
|
Reference/Docket No. SPRIT-101T
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
COMBINED EXAMINER’S AMENDMENT/PRIORITY ACTION 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: August 27, 2019
USPTO database searched; no conflicting marks found. The trademark examining attorney searched the USPTO database of registered and pending marks and found no conflicting marks that would bar registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d). 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); TMEP §704.02.
Applicant must address issues shown below. On August 27, 2019, the examining attorney and Mark B. Garred discussed the issues below. Applicant must timely respond to these issues. See 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §2.62(a); TMEP §708.05.
Introduction. The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney. Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issue below. 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(a), 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.
The determination as to whether a trade name also functions as a trademark is based on the manner in which the applied-for mark is used on the specimen or any other evidence of use, as well as the probable impact of such use on purchasers. In re Diamond Hill Farms, 32 USPQ2d at 1384; In re Univar Corp., 20 USPQ2d 1865, 1866 (TTAB 1991); TMEP §1202.01. In this case, the specimen shows the applied-for mark used on the back side, lower portion of the packaging for applicant’s goods near the applicant’s contact information. Presented in this manner, the applied-for mark identifies applicant as a business entity rather than a mark that identifies applicant’s goods and distinguishes them from those of others. Thus, registration must be refused under Sections 1, 2, and 45.
Conclusion – priority 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 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.
Application has been amended as shown below. As agreed to by the individual identified in the Priority Action section, the examining attorney has amended the application as shown below.
Disclaimer. The following disclaimer statement is added to the record:
No claim is made to the exclusive right to use “INDUSTRIES” apart from the mark as shown.
See 15 U.S.C. §1056(a); TMEP §§1213, 1213.08(a)(i).
Attorney bar information. The attorney bar information has been provided. 37 C.F.R. §2.17(b)(3).
Attorney attestation. The attorney has agreed to add following statement to the record: “The attorney of record is an active member in good standing of the bar of the highest court of a U.S. state (including the District of Columbia and any U.S. Commonwealth or territory).” 37 C.F.R. §2.17(b)(3).
Conclusion – examiner’s amendment. Please notify the examining attorney immediately of any objections. TMEP §707. In addition, applicant is advised that amendments to the goods and/or services are permitted only if they clarify or limit them; amendments that add to or broaden the scope of the goods and/or services are not permitted. 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a).
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.
/Joshua S. Toy/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 120
571-272-4856
joshua.toy@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE