To: | FTI Brands LLC (ipdocket@porterwright.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88487542 - INSTANT SNEAKER CLEANER - 4015300-2053 |
Sent: | September 12, 2019 07:01:10 PM |
Sent As: | ecom103@uspto.gov |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 Attachment - 6 Attachment - 7 Attachment - 8 Attachment - 9 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88487542
Mark: INSTANT SNEAKER CLEANER
|
|
Correspondence Address: |
|
Applicant: FTI Brands LLC
|
|
Reference/Docket No. 4015300-2053
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 12, 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.
SEARCH OF OFFICE’S DATABASE OF MARKS
SECTION 2(e)(1) REFUSAL – MERELY DESCRIPTIVE
Registration is refused because the applied-for mark merely describes a feature and purpose 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. 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)).
“Whether consumers could guess what the product is from consideration of the mark alone is not the test.” In re Am. Greetings Corp., 226 USPQ 365, 366 (TTAB 1985).
The applied for mark is “INSTANT SNEAKER CLEANER” (standard character form) for “Cleaning sponge for footwear” in International Class 21.
The attached Internet evidence from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary establishes that “INSTANT” means “produced or occurring with or as if with extreme rapidity and ease”, “SNEAKER” means “a sports shoe with a pliable rubber sole”, and “CLEANER” means “an implement or machine for cleaning”:
The following additional attached Internet evidence shows that the wording “INSTANT”, “SNEAKER”, and “CLEANER” are commonly used in some combination to describe implements for cleaning athletic shoes quickly and easily:
· http://www.amazon.com/Mint-Instant-Sneaker-Cleaner-Oz/dp/B00KQ775M8
· http://www.walmart.com/ip/Cavalier-Instant-Sneaker-Cleaner-Just-Spray-and-Wipe-Clean-7-oz/830426244
· http://www.kicksusa.com/snipes/triple-action-foam-611810.html
· http://www.kiwicare.com/en-us/products/kiwi-sneaker-cleaner
Applicant’s goods are cleaning sponges for footwear. Therefore, the proposed mark merely describes a feature and purpose of applicant’s goods, namely, that they are cleaning implements (“CLEANERS”) for use on footwear such as sports shoes (“SNEAKERS”) that work rapidly and with ease (“INSTANT”).
Only where the combination of descriptive terms creates a unitary mark with a unique, incongruous, or otherwise nondescriptive meaning in relation to the goods is the combined mark registrable. See In re Colonial Stores, Inc., 394 F.2d 549, 551, 157 USPQ 382, 384 (C.C.P.A. 1968); In re Positec Grp. Ltd., 108 USPQ2d 1161, 1162-63 (TTAB 2013).
In this case, both the individual components and the composite result are descriptive of applicant’s goods and do not create a unique, incongruous, or nondescriptive meaning in relation to the goods. Specifically, the individual definitions of the words in the mark, “INSTANT”, “SNEAKER”, and “CLEANER”, do not change or create a new, unique, incongruous, or nondescriptive meaning when used in combination as “INSTANT SNEAKER CLEANER” in connection with applicant’s identified goods.
Conclusion
Therefore, because applicant’s proposed mark is merely descriptive of applicant’s goods, registration is refused under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act.
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
/Ray Harmon/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 103
United States Patent & Trademark Office
(571) 272-0386
raymond.harmon@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE