Offc Action Outgoing

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

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

 

 

 

FINAL 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) and/or Electronic System for Trademark Trials and Appeals (ESTTA).  A link to the appropriate TEAS response form and/or to ESTTA for an appeal appears at the end of this Office action. 

 

 

Issue date:  January 02, 2020

 

 INTRODUCTION

 

This Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on December 4, 2019.

 

In a previous Office action dated September 20, 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 and Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1) for a mark that is merely descriptive.  In addition, applicant was required to satisfy the following requirement:  amend the identification of goods.

 

The trademark examining attorney maintains and now makes FINAL the refusals and requirement in the summary of issues below.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b); TMEP §714.04.

 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES MADE FINAL that applicant must address:

• Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion
• Section 2(e)(1) Refusal – Merely Descriptive
• Advisory: Application Not Eligible For Supplemental Register
• Identification of Goods – Amendment Required

 

SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 5275953.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the previously attached registration.

 

Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that is so similar to a registered mark that it is likely consumers would be confused, mistaken, or deceived as to the commercial source of the goods and/or services of the parties.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).  Likelihood of confusion is determined on a case-by-case basis by applying the factors set forth in In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973) (called the “du Pont factors”).  In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1322, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1747 (Fed. Cir. 2017).  Only those factors that are “relevant and of record” need be considered.  M2 Software, Inc. v. M2 Commc’ns, Inc., 450 F.3d 1378, 1382, 78 USPQ2d 1944, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Shen Mfg. Co. v. Ritz Hotel Ltd., 393 F.3d 1238, 1241, 73 USPQ2d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2004)); see In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1744 (TTAB 2018). 

 

Although not all du Pont factors may be relevant, there are generally two key considerations in any likelihood of confusion analysis:  (1) the similarities between the compared marks and (2) the relatedness of the compared goods and/or services.  See In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d at 1322, 123 USPQ2d at 1747 (quoting Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 1164-65, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2002)); Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co.,544 F.2d 1098, 1103, 192 USPQ 24, 29 (C.C.P.A. 1976) (“The fundamental inquiry mandated by [Section] 2(d) goes to the cumulative effect of differences in the essential characteristics of the goods [or services] and differences in the marks.”); TMEP §1207.01.

 

The applicant’s mark is “FLTR” presented in standard character form for use in association with: “Downloadable Computer application software for mobile and cellular phones and handheld computers, namely, software for use in creating, editing and sharing photos and videos, scrap books, scrap pages, scrapbook albums; Downloadable Computer graphics software; Downloadable computer filters; Downloadable graphics for mobile phones; Downloadable computer and mobile software application which allows users to edit photographs using filters, collages, color, highlights, fanciful designs, text, phrases, that can be posted, shared and transmitted via multi-media messaging, text messaging, mobile keyboard, email, online chatrooms, global computer networks, and other telecommunications networks; Downloadable computer software application for editing photographs digitally; Downloadable computer software application for taking and capturing photos or recording videos with or without different effects, filters and lenses through any device that has a camera function and access” in International Class 9.

 

The mark in Registration No. 5275953 is “INFLTR” presented in standard character form for use in association with: “Downloadable mobile applications for photo editing” in International Class 9.

 

Similarity of the Marks

 

Marks are compared in their entireties for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression.  Stone Lion Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 1321, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1371, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 2005)); TMEP §1207.01(b)-(b)(v).  “Similarity in any one of these elements may be sufficient to find the marks confusingly similar.”  In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1746 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Davia, 110 USPQ2d 1810, 1812 (TTAB 2014)); TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

The applicant argues that “INFLTR” and “FLTR” are not similar. This argument is not persuasive. Here, “INFLTR” and “FLTR” are similar in terms of sound, appearance, and overall commercial impression in that the entirety of the wording in the applied-for mark is incorporated by the registered mark. Incorporating the entirety of one mark within another does not obviate the similarity between the compared marks, as in the present case, nor does it overcome a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d).  See Wella Corp. v. Cal. Concept Corp., 558 F.2d 1019, 1022, 194 USPQ 419, 422 (C.C.P.A. 1977) (finding CALIFORNIA CONCEPT and surfer design and CONCEPT confusingly similar); Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Jos. E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 526 F.2d 556, 557, 188 USPQ 105, 106 (C.C.P.A. 1975) (finding BENGAL LANCER and design and BENGAL confusingly similar); In re Integrated Embedded, 120 USPQ2d 1504, 1513 (TTAB 2016) (finding BARR GROUP and BARR confusingly similar); In re Mr. Recipe, LLC, 118 USPQ2d 1084, 1090 (TTAB 2016) (finding JAWS DEVOUR YOUR HUNGER and JAWS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iii).  In the present case, the marks are identical in part.

 

The applicant argues that the term “FILTER” is diluted. This argument is not persuasive. The third party registrations have not been properly made of record. There is no Exhibit A attached to the applicant’s response. Applicant makes a reference to “59 pending and registered marks which contain the word FILTER.”  To make third party registrations part of the record, an applicant must submit copies of the registrations, or the complete electronic equivalent from the USPTO’s automated systems, prior to appeal.  In re Star Belly Stitcher, Inc., 107 USPQ2d 2059, 2064 (TTAB 2013); TBMP §1208.02; TMEP §710.03.  Accordingly, these registrations will not be considered.

 

Further applicant is advised that third-party applications are evidence only that the applications were filed; they are not evidence of use of the mark.  In re Mr. Recipe, LLC, 118 USPQ2d 1084, 1089 (TTAB 2016); see In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d 1266, 1270 n.8 (TTAB 2009); TBMP §1208.02; TMEP §710.03. Also, third-party registrations are entitled to little weight on the issue of confusing similarity because the registrations are “not evidence that the registered marks are actually in use or that the public is familiar with them.”  In re Midwest Gaming & Entm’t LLC, 106 USPQ2d 1163, 1167 n.5 (TTAB 2013) (citing In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 1346, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2010)); see TMEP §1207.01(d)(iii).  Moreover, the existence on the register of other marks does not provide a basis for registrability for the applied-for mark.  AMF Inc. v. Am. Leisure Prods., Inc., 474 F.2d 1403, 1406, 177 USPQ 268, 269 (C.C.P.A. 1973); In re Total Quality Grp., Inc., 51 USPQ2d 1474, 1477 (TTAB 1999).

 

Consequently, the Applicant’s mark and the Registrant’s mark are confusingly similar.

 

Relatedness of the Goods

 

The goods are compared to determine whether they are similar, commercially related, or travel in the same trade channels.  See Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369-71, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722-23 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 1165, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2002); TMEP §§1207.01, 1207.01(a)(vi).

 

The compared goods need not be identical or even competitive to find a likelihood of confusion.  See On-line Careline Inc. v. Am. Online Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1086, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1475 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Recot, Inc. v. Becton, 214 F.3d 1322, 1329, 54 USPQ2d 1894, 1898 (Fed. Cir. 2000); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).  They need only be “related in some manner and/or if the circumstances surrounding their marketing are such that they could give rise to the mistaken belief that [the goods and/or services] emanate from the same source.”  Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting 7-Eleven Inc. v. Wechsler, 83 USPQ2d 1715, 1724 (TTAB 2007)); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).

 

Determining likelihood of confusion is based on the description of the goods stated in the application and registration at issue, not on extrinsic evidence of actual use.  See In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1307, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1052 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1325, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1749 (Fed. Cir. 2017)).  

 

The applicant argues that the applicant’s goods as amended are not related to the goods in the registrant’s identification. This argument is not persuasive. The amendment to the applicant’s identification is beyond the scope of the original identification as set forth in the Identification of Goods section of this action. The original identification in the application has been restored. The evidence below establishes that the goods of the applicant and registrant are related.

 

In this case, the registration uses broad wording to describe “downloadable mobile applications for photo editing,” which presumably encompasses all goods of the type described, including applicant’s more narrow “downloadable computer application software for mobile and cellular phones and handheld computers, namely, software for use in […] editing […] photos,”  “downloadable computer and mobile software application which allows users to edit photographs using filters, collages, color, highlights, fanciful designs, text, phrases, that can be posted, shared and transmitted via multi-media messaging, text messaging, mobile keyboard, email, online chatrooms, global computer networks, and other telecommunications networks,” and “downloadable computer software application for editing photographs digitally.”  See, e.g., In re Solid State Design Inc., 125 USPQ2d 1409, 1412-15 (TTAB 2018); Sw. Mgmt., Inc. v. Ocinomled, Ltd., 115 USPQ2d 1007, 1025 (TTAB 2015).  Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods are legally identical.  See, e.g., In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 127 USPQ2d 1627, 1629 (TTAB 2018) (citing Tuxedo Monopoly, Inc. v.Gen. Mills Fun Grp., Inc., 648 F.2d 1335, 1336, 209 USPQ 986, 988 (C.C.P.A. 1981); Inter IKEA Sys. B.V. v. Akea, LLC, 110 USPQ2d 1734, 1745 (TTAB 2014); Baseball Am. Inc. v. Powerplay Sports Ltd., 71 USPQ2d 1844, 1847 n.9 (TTAB 2004)).

 

Additionally, the goods of the parties have no restrictions as to nature, type, channels of trade, or classes of purchasers and are “presumed to travel in the same channels of trade to the same class of purchasers.”  In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1268, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).  Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods are related.

 

The previously attached Internet evidence, consisting of third party website evidence from Snap Chat, Snapseed, VSCO, and Prisma Photo editor, established that the same entity commonly produces the relevant goods and markets the goods under the same mark. In addition, attached is evidence from Adobe, Anthropics, InPixio, PaintShop Pro, and PicMonkey that establishes that the same entity commonly produces the relevant goods and markets the goods under the same mark.   Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods are considered related for likelihood of confusion purposes.  See, e.g., In re Davey Prods. Pty Ltd., 92 USPQ2d 1198, 1202-04 (TTAB 2009); In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d 1266, 1268-69, 1271-72 (TTAB 2009).

 

Conclusion

 

The overriding concern is not only to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods, but to protect the registrant from adverse commercial impact due to use of a similar mark by a newcomer.  See In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1208, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1690 (Fed. Cir. 1993).  Therefore, any doubt regarding a likelihood of confusion determination is resolved in favor of the registrant.  TMEP §1207.01(d)(i); see Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1265, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2002); In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 464-65, 6 USPQ2d 1025, 1026 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

 

Accordingly, since the Applicant’s mark and the Registrant’s mark are similar and their goods related, registration must be refused under Trademark Act Section 2(d).

 

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

 

Registration is refused because the applied-for mark merely describes a feature of applicant’s goods.  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)). 

 

In the instant case, Applicant seeks registration of the mark “FLTR” for use in association with: “Downloadable Computer application software for mobile and cellular phones and handheld computers, namely, software for use increating, editing and sharing photos and videos, scrap books, scrap pages, scrapbook albums.; Downloadable Computer graphics software; Downloadable computer filters; Downloadable graphics for mobile phones; Downloadable computer and mobile software application which allows users to edit photographs using filters, collages, color, highlights, fanciful designs, text, phrases, that can be posted, shared and transmitted via multi-media messaging, text messaging, mobile keyboard, email, online chatrooms, global computer networks, and other telecommunications networks; Downloadable computer software application for editing photographs digitally; Downloadable computer software application for taking and capturing photos or recording videos with or without different effects, filters and lenses through any device that has a camera function and access” in International Class 9.

 

The determination of whether a mark is merely descriptive is made in relation to an applicant’s goods, not in the abstract.  DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1254, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re The Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 1300, 102 USPQ2d 1217, 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2012); TMEP §1209.01(b); see, e.g., In re Polo Int’l Inc., 51 USPQ2d 1061, 1062-63 (TTAB 1999) (finding DOC in DOC-CONTROL would refer to the “documents” managed by applicant’s software rather than the term “doctor” shown in a dictionary definition); In re Digital Research Inc., 4 USPQ2d 1242, 1243-44 (TTAB 1987) (finding CONCURRENT PC-DOS and CONCURRENT DOS merely descriptive of “computer programs recorded on disk” where the relevant trade used the denomination “concurrent” as a descriptor of a particular type of operating system). 

 

“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).

 

A novel spelling or an intentional misspelling that is the phonetic equivalent of a merely descriptive word or term is also merely descriptive if purchasers would perceive the different spelling as the equivalent of the descriptive word or term.  See In re Quik-Print Copy Shop, Inc., 616 F.2d 523, 526 & n.9, 205 USPQ 505, 507 & n.9 (C.C.P.A. 1980) (holding “QUIK-PRINT,” phonetic spelling of “quick-print,” merely descriptive of printing and photocopying services); In re Calphalon Corp., 122 USPQ2d 1153, 1163 (TTAB 2017) (holding “SHARPIN”, phonetic spelling of “sharpen,” merely descriptive of cutlery knife blocks with built-in sharpeners); In re Carlson, 91 USPQ2d 1198, 1203 (TTAB 2009) (holding “URBANHOUZING,” phonetic spelling of “urban” and “housing,” merely descriptive of real estate services); TMEP §1209.03(j).

 

“FLTR” appears to be an intentional misspelling of “FILTER”. The word “FILTER” appears in the identification of goods. The attached evidence from Lexico shows that “FILTER” is defined as “a function used to alter the overall appearance of an image in a specific manner.” The previously attached evidence from Snapchat, Snapseed, and Prisma Photo Editor shows this wording is commonly used in connection with similar goods to mean an effect applied to photos with photo editing software.  In addition, attached is evidence from Make Use Of, Adobe, Creative Bloq and Anthropics that shows this wording is commonly used in connection with similar goods to mean software that alters the appearance of an image. Therefore, the wording merely describes a feature of the applicant’s goods.

 

The applicant argues that other marks in third party applications and registrations contain the word “FILTER”.  First, third-party applications are evidence only that the applications were filed; they are not evidence of use of the mark.  In re Mr. Recipe, LLC, 118 USPQ2d 1084, 1089 (TTAB 2016); see In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d 1266, 1270 n.8 (TTAB 2009); TBMP §1208.02; TMEP §710.03. Second, Applicant has submitted a list of registrations.  However, the mere submission of a list of registrations or a copy of a private company search report does not make such registrations part of the record.  See In re Peace Love World Live, LLC, 127 USPQ2d 1400, 1405 n.17 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re 1st USA Realty Prof’ls, 84 USPQ2d 1581, 1583 (TTAB 2007); In re Duofold Inc., 184 USPQ 638, 640 (TTAB 1974)); TBMP §1208.02; TMEP §710.03.

 

To make third party registrations part of the record, an applicant must submit copies of the registrations, or the complete electronic equivalent from the USPTO’s automated systems, prior to appeal.  In re Star Belly Stitcher, Inc., 107 USPQ2d 2059, 2064 (TTAB 2013); TBMP §1208.02; TMEP §710.03.  Accordingly, these registrations will not be considered.

 

Third, the marks in the registrations contain additional distinct wording in addition to the term “FILTER” that carry those marks. Finally, the fact that third-party registrations exist for marks allegedly similar to applicant’s mark is not conclusive on the issue of descriptiveness.  See In re Scholastic Testing Serv., Inc., 196 USPQ 517, 519 (TTAB 1977); TMEP §1209.03(a).  An applied-for mark that is merely descriptive does not become registrable simply because other seemingly similar marks appear on the register.  In re Scholastic Testing Serv., Inc., 196 USPQ at 519; TMEP §1209.03(a).

 

It is well settled that each case must be decided on its own facts and the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board is not bound by prior decisions involving different records.  See In re Nett Designs, Inc., 236 F. 3d 1339, 1342, 57 USPQ2d 1564, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re Datapipe, Inc., 111 USPQ2d 1330, 1336 (TTAB 2014); TMEP §1209.03(a).  The question of whether a mark is merely descriptive is determined based on the evidence of record at the time each registration is sought.  In re theDot Commc’ns Network LLC, 101 USPQ2d 1062, 1064 (TTAB 2011); TMEP §1209.03(a); see In re Nett Designs, Inc., 236 F.3d at 1342, 57 USPQ2d at 1566.

 

The applicant argues that there are other meanings of the term “FILTER”. This argument is not persuasive. Descriptiveness is considered in relation to the relevant goods.  DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1254, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 2012).  “That a term may have other meanings in different contexts is not controlling.”  In re Franklin Cnty. Historical Soc’y, 104 USPQ2d 1085, 1087 (TTAB 2012) (citing In re Bright-Crest, Ltd., 204 USPQ 591, 593 (TTAB 1979)); TMEP §1209.03(e).  “It is well settled that so long as any one of the meanings of a term is descriptive, the term may be considered to be merely descriptive.”  In re Mueller Sports Med., Inc., 126 USPQ2d 1584, 1590 (TTAB 2018) (quoting In re Chopper Indus., 222 USPQ 258, 259 (TTAB 1984)). Here, the evidence clearly establishes that the term “FLTR” is descriptive in the context of the applicant’s goods.

 

The applicant argues that the term “FLTR” does not immediately convey information about the goods. This argument is not persuasive. “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).

 

A mark is suggestive if some imagination, thought, or perception is needed to understand the nature of the goods and/or services described in the mark; whereas a descriptive term immediately and directly conveys some information about the goods and/or services.  See Stoncor Grp., Inc. v. Specialty Coatings, Inc., 759 F.3d 1327, 1332, 111 USPQ2d 1649, 1652 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citing DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1251-52, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1209.01(a). Here, the evidence establishes that the term “FLTR” is descriptive of the applicant’s software goods.

 

Applicant argues that any doubt regarding the mark’s descriptiveness should be resolved on applicant’s behalf.  E.g., In re Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 828 F.2d 1567, 1571 4 USPQ2d 1141, 1144 (Fed. Cir. 1987); In re Grand Forest Holdings, Inc., 78 USPQ2d 1152, 1156 (TTAB 2006).  However, in the present case, the evidence of record leaves no doubt that the mark is merely descriptive.

 

Thus, registration on the Principal Register must be refused under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1). Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusals by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration. If applicant responds to the refusals, applicant must also respond to the requirements set forth below.

 

ADVISORY: APPLICATION NOT ELIGIBLE FOR SUPPLEMENTAL REGISTER

 

Although an amendment to the Supplemental Register would normally be an appropriate response to a Section 2(e)(1) refusal, such a response is not appropriate in the present case.  The instant application was filed under Trademark Act Section 1(b) and is not eligible for registration on the Supplemental Register until an acceptable amendment to allege use meeting the requirements of 37 C.F.R. §2.76 has been timely filed.  37 C.F.R. §2.47(d); TMEP §§816.02, 1102.03.

 

If applicant files an acceptable allegation of use and also amends to the Supplemental Register, the application effective filing date will be the date applicant met the minimum filing requirements under 37 C.F.R. §2.76(c) for an amendment to allege use.  TMEP §§816.02, 1102.03; see 37 C.F.R. §2.75(b).  In addition, the undersigned trademark examining attorney will conduct a new search of the USPTO records for conflicting marks based on the later application filing date.  TMEP §§206.01, 1102.03.

 

IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS – AMENDMENT REQUIRED

 

The proposed amendment to the identification is not acceptable because it exceeds the scope of the identification in the application.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(6), 2.71(a); TMEP §§805, 1402.06 et seq., 1402.07.  Applicant’s goods and/or services may be clarified or limited, but may not be expanded beyond those originally itemized in the application or as acceptably amended.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06.  Therefore, the original identification in the application, and any previously accepted amendments, remain operative for purposes of future amendment.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.07(d).

 

In this case, the application originally identified the goods as follows:  Downloadable Computer application software for mobile and cellular phones and handheld computers, namely, software for use increating, editing and sharing photos and videos, scrap books, scrap pages, scrapbook albums; Downloadable Computer graphics software; Downloadable computer filters; Downloadable graphics for mobile phones; Downloadable computer and mobile software application which allows users to edit photographs using filters, collages, color, highlights, fanciful designs, text, phrases, that can be posted, shared and transmitted via multi-media messaging, text messaging, mobile keyboard, email, online chatrooms global computer networks, and other telecommunications networks; Downloadable computer software application for editing photographs digitally; Downloadable computer software application for taking and capturing photos or recording videos with or without different effects, filters and lenses through any device that has a camera function and access

 

However, the proposed amendment identifies the following goods:  “Software containing filters and presets” 

 

This proposed amendment is beyond the scope of the original identification because as amended both the function of the software and the format of the software has been removed. “Software containing filters” is broad enough to refer to downloadable software in Class 9, recorded software in Class 9, online non-downloadable game software in Class 41, or online non-downloadable software in Class 42 of any function.

 

Applicant must clarify the wording “downloadable computer filters” in the identification of goods in International Class 9 because it is indefinite.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03.  This wording is indefinite because it does not make clear what the goods are.  It is unclear if the applicant is referring to software for identifying and blocking websites or if the applicant is referring to photo editing software. 

 

Applicant must clarify the wording “downloadable computer and mobile software application which allows users to edit photographs using filters, collages, color, highlights, fanciful designs, text, phrases, that can be posted, shared and transmitted via multi-media messaging, text messaging, mobile keyboard, email, online chatrooms, global computer networks, and other telecommunications networks” in the identification of goods in International Class 9 because it is indefinite.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03.  This wording is indefinite because it does not make clear what the goods are. 

 

Applicant must clarify the wording “Downloadable computer software application for editing photographs digitally; Downloadable computer software application for taking and capturing photos or recording videos with or without different effects, filters and lenses through any device that has a camera function and access” in the identification of goods in International Class 9 because it is indefinite.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03.  This wording is indefinite because it does not make clear what the goods are.  Applicant must specify the items the software application is for.

 

Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate: 

 

            Class 9:     Downloadable computer application software for mobile and cellular phones and handheld computers, namely, software for use in creating, editing and sharing photos and videos, scrap books, scrap pages, scrapbook albums; Downloadable computer graphics software; Downloadable computer filters being downloadable software for identifying and blocking websites containing malicious, untrustworthy, and unwanted content and programs; Downloadable graphics for mobile phones; Downloadable computer software and mobile software application for editing photographs using filters, collages, color, highlights, fanciful designs, text, phrases, that can be posted, shared and transmitted via multi-media messaging, text messaging, mobile keyboard, email, online chatrooms, global computer networks, and other telecommunications networks; Downloadable computer software application for mobile and cellular phones and handheld computers, namely, software for editing photographs digitally; Downloadable computer software application for mobile and cellular phones and handheld computers, namely, software for taking and capturing photos and recording videos with or without different effects, filters and lenses through any device that has a camera function and access

 

Applicant may amend the identification to clarify or limit the goods and/or services, but not to broaden or expand the goods and/or services beyond those in the original application or as acceptably amended.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06.  Generally, any deleted goods and/or services may not later be reinserted.  See TMEP §1402.07(e).

 

For assistance with identifying and classifying goods and services in trademark applications, please see the USPTO’s online searchable U.S. Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual.  See TMEP §1402.04.

 

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 request for reconsideration of this final Office action that fully resolves all outstanding requirements and refusals and/or click to file a timely appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) with the required filing fee(s).

 

Applicant must respond within six months of the date of issuance of this final Office action or the application will be abandoned.  15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §2.65(a).  Applicant may respond by providing one or both of the following:

 

(1)       A request for reconsideration that fully resolves all outstanding requirements and refusals; and/or

 

(2)       An appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board with the required filing fees.

 

TMEP §715.01; see 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b)(1)-(2).

 

 

/Sarah E. Steinpfad/

Sarah E. Steinpfad

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 120

571-270-3089

Sarah.steinpfad@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 January 02, 2020 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88484860

 

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. 

 

 

/Sarah E. Steinpfad/

Sarah E. Steinpfad

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 120

571-270-3089

Sarah.steinpfad@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 January 02, 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.”