To: | Voltu Motor Inc. (docketing@procopio.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88482584 - BLOCK - 12428205US01 |
Sent: | September 20, 2019 01:45:53 PM |
Sent As: | ecom125@uspto.gov |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 Attachment - 6 Attachment - 7 Attachment - 8 Attachment - 9 Attachment - 10 Attachment - 11 Attachment - 12 Attachment - 13 Attachment - 14 Attachment - 15 Attachment - 16 Attachment - 17 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88482584
Mark: BLOCK
|
|
Correspondence Address: PROCOPIO, CORY, HARGREAVES & SAVITCH LLP
|
|
Applicant: Voltu Motor Inc.
|
|
Reference/Docket No. 12428205US01
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: September 20, 2019
The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney. Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issues below. 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(a), 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.
PRIOR-PENDING APPLICATION ADVISORY
In response to this Office action, applicant may present arguments in support of registration by addressing the issue of the potential conflict between applicant’s mark and the mark in the referenced application. Applicant’s election not to submit arguments at this time in no way limits applicant’s right to address this issue later if a refusal under Section 2(d) issues.
SECTION 2(e)(1) REFUSAL- MERELY DESCRIPTIVE
“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).
Applicant identifies “electrical converters; electrical inverters; electrical transformers; electric capacitors; electric batteries for vehicles; electrical accumulators for vehicles; electric batteries for energy storage; electrical accumulators for energy storage; battery chargers.”
The attached internet evidence demonstrates the wording “BLOCK” refers to the “engine bock.” See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_block and http://www.howacarworks.com/engine-block. Therefore, the wording “BLOCK” is merely descriptive of a characteristic of applicant’s goods, namely, that applicant’s batteries and electrical goods are meant to be used with the engine block of a car.
Therefore, as the applied-for mark is merely descriptive, registration is refused under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1).
Response Options
(1) STATEMENTS: The following statements: “The applicant is the owner of the mark sought to be registered.” and “The applicant is using the mark in commerce on or in connection with all the goods in the application or notice of allowance, or as subsequently modified.”
(2) DATES OF FIRST USE: The date of first use of the mark anywhereon or in connection with the goods, and the date of first use of the mark in commerceas a trademark or service mark. See more information about dates of use.
(3) GOODS AND/OR SERVICES: The goods specified in the application.
(4) SPECIMEN: A specimen showing how applicant uses the mark in commerce for each class of goods and/or services for which use is being asserted. If a single specimen supports multiple classes, applicant should indicate which classes the specimen supports rather than providing multiple copies of the same specimen. See more information about specimens.
(5) FEE(S): A filing fee for each international class of goods and/or services for which use is being asserted (find current fee information).
(6) VERIFICATION: Verification of (1) through (4) above in an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20. See more information about verification.
See 37 C.F.R. §2.76(b); TMEP §1104.08.
An amendment to allege use may be filed online via the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS). Filing an amendment to allege use is not considered a response to an Office action. 37 C.F.R. §2.76(h); TMEP §1104. An applicant must file a separate response to any outstanding Office action. TMEP §1104; see 37 C.F.R. §2.76(h).
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. 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
/Teague Avent/
Teague Avent
Examining Attorney
Law Office 125
(571) 272-1219
teague.avent@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE