Suspension Letter

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

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

 

 

 

SUSPENSION NOTICE

No Response Required

 

 

Issue date:  February 01, 2020

 

 

The application is suspended for the reason(s) specified below.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.67; TMEP §§716 et seq. 

 

Application suspended until submission of foreign registration or proof that foreign registration was renewed.  Applicant is required to provide a copy of a foreign registration from applicant’s country of origin; the foreign registration must be valid when the U.S. registration issues.  15 U.S.C. §1126(e); 37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(3)(ii)-(iii); TMEP §§1004, 1004.01(a).  Action on the application is suspended until the USPTO receives a copy of such foreign registration or proof that the foreign registration was renewed.  TMEP §§716.02(b), 1003.04.  Applicant must also provide an English translation if the foreign registration or renewal document is not in English.  37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(3)(ii)-(iii). 

 

If the foreign application abandons or the foreign registration is not renewed, applicant should promptly notify the trademark examining attorney.  See TMEP §§1003.08, 1004.01(a).  In such case, applicant may amend the application to rely on another filing basis, if appropriate, and will retain the priority filing date, if applicable.  TMEP §§1003.08, 1004.01(a).

 

Suspension process.  The USPTO will periodically check this application to determine if it should remain suspended.  See TMEP §716.04.  As needed, the trademark examining attorney will issue a letter to applicant to inquire about the status of the reason for the suspension.  TMEP §716.05. 

 

No response required.  Applicant may file a response, but is not required to do so. 

 

The amended identification clause is accepted. However, the refusal to register on grounds that the term NAGY is primarily merely a surname is maintained under Section 2 (e )(4) of the Trademark Act.

 

Evidence has been made of record establishing that NAGY has surname significance. “There is no rule as to the kind or amount of evidence necessary to show that [a] mark would be perceived as primarily merely a surname.”  In re Eximius Coffee, LLC, 120 USPQ2d 1276, 1278 (TTAB 2016); see TMEP §1211.01.  Each case is decided on its own facts, based on the evidence of record.  TMEP §1211.01; see In re Eximius Coffee, LLC, 120 USPQ2d at 1278 (citing In re Etablissements Darty et Fils, 759 F.2d 15, 17, 225 USPQ 652, 653 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). 

 

The following are examples of evidence that is generally considered to be relevant to such a determination:  telephone directory listings, excerpted listings and articles from computerized research databases, applicant’s website, evidence in the application record showing the term used as a surname, the manner of use on specimens, dictionary definitions of the term and evidence from dictionaries showing no definition of the term.  See TMEP §1211.02(b)(i)-(b)(iii), (b)(v)-(b)(vi).

 

The applicant asserts that the term is an acronym for its business slogan, and equivalent to a saying from the Chinese. However, the applicant has introduced no evidence, other than this statement, that such is the significance of the term NAGY.

 

The existence of other non-surname meanings of a mark does not preclude the mark from being held primarily merely a surname.  Miller v. Miller, 105 USPQ2d 1615, 1620-21 (TTAB 2013); see In re Harris-Intertype Corp., 518 F.2d 629, 631, 186 USPQ2d 238, 239 (C.C.P.A. 1975); In re Hamilton Pharms. Ltd., 27 USPQ2d 1939, 1942 (TTAB 1993).  The issue is not whether a mark that has surname significance might also have a non-surname significance, but whether, in the context of an applicant’s goods or services, the non-surname significance is the mark’s primary significance to the purchasing public.  Miller v. Miller, 105 USPQ2d at 1621; see In re Harris-Intertype Corp., 518 F.2d at 631, 186 USPQ2d at 239; In re Hamilton Pharms. Ltd., 27 USPQ2d at 1942.

 

For these reasons, the surname refusal is maintained. Once the certificate is of record, it is suggested that the applicant amend the application to seek registration on the Supplemental Register.

 

 

/Henry S. Zak/

Henry S. Zak

Examining Attorney

Law Office 119

(571)272-9354

henry.zak@uspto.gov

 

 

 

 

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

 

USPTO OFFICIAL NOTICE

 

Office Action (Official Letter) has issued

on February 01, 2020 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88481297

 

Your trademark application has been reviewed by a trademark examining attorney.  As part of that review, the assigned attorney has issued an official letter.  Please follow the steps below.

 

(1)  Read the official letter.  No response is necessary.

 

(2)  Direct questions about the contents of the Office action to the assigned attorney below. 

 

Henry S. Zak

/Henry S. Zak/

Henry S. Zak

Examining Attorney

Law Office 119

(571)272-9354

henry.zak@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).

 

 

 

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.”