Offc Action Outgoing

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

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

 

 

 

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:  September 19, 2019

 

 

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.  

 

 

The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney.  Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issue(s) below.  15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(a), 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.

No Likelihood of Confusion

 

The trademark examining attorney has searched the Office’s database of registered and pending marks and has found no conflicting marks that would bar registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d).  TMEP §704.02; see 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).

 

Misdescriptive

 

Applicant seeks to register the mark BARKs for use with “Dietary supplements for pets”.

 

Registration is refused because the applied-for mark is deceptively misdescriptive of applicant’s goods.  Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); see In re Hinton, 116 USPQ2d 1051, 1051-52 (TTAB 2015) (holding THCTea deceptively misdescriptive of tea-based beverages not containing THC); In re Schniberg, 79 USPQ2d 1309, 1312 (TTAB 2006) (holding SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 deceptively misdescriptive of history books and entertainment services not pertaining to the events of September 11, 2001); TMEP §1209.04.

 

The nature of the goods with which applicant intends to use or is using the mark is not clear from the present record and additional information is required.  To permit proper examination of the application, applicant must provide the following:

 

(1)       A written statement explaining whether the goods do or will contain tree bark.

 

(2)       A sample of advertisements or promotional materials featuring the goods and a photograph of the identified goods, or if such materials are not available, applicant must submit samples of advertisements or promotional materials and a photograph  of similar goods. 

 

(3)       A written statement describing in detail the nature, purpose, and channels of trade of the goods.

 

See 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b); TMEP §§814, 1402.01(e). 

 

Failure to comply with a request for information is grounds for refusing registration.  In re Harley, 119 USPQ2d 1755, 1757-58 (TTAB 2016); TMEP §814.  Merely stating that information about the goods or services is available on applicant’s website is an insufficient response and will not make the relevant website information of record.  See In re Planalytics, Inc., 70 USPQ2d 1453, 1457-58 (TTAB 2004).

 

Applicant is advised that, if applicant’s response to the request for information indicates that the goods identified in the application do not or will not contain tree bark, registration may be refused on the ground that the applied-for mark is deceptively misdescriptive.  15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); see In re Hinton, 116 USPQ2d 1051, 1052 (TTAB 2015); In re Berman Bros. Harlem Furniture Inc., 26 USPQ2d 1514, 1515-16 (TTAB 1993); TMEP §§1203.02(e), 1209.04.

 

The test for determining whether a mark is deceptively misdescriptive has two parts:  (1) whether the mark misdescribes the goods and/or services; and if so, (2) whether consumers are likely to believe the misrepresentation.  See In re White Jasmine LLC, 106 USPQ2d 1385, 1394 (TTAB 2013) (citing In re Quady Winery, Inc., 221 USPQ 1213, 1214 (TTAB 1984)); TMEP §1209.04. 

 

Regarding the first part of the test, a mark is misdescriptive when the mark merely describes a significant aspect of the goods and/or services that the goods and/or services could plausibly possess but in fact do not.  In re Hinton, 116 USPQ2d 1051, 1052 (TTAB 2015); In re Schniberg, 79 USPQ2d 1309, 1312 (TTAB 2006); In re Phillips-Van Heusen, 63 USPQ2d 1047, 1048 (TTAB 2005); see TMEP §1209.04.  To be merely descriptive, a mark must immediately convey knowledge of a quality, feature, function, or characteristic of an applicant’s goods or services.  In re The Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 1300, 102 USPQ2d 1217, 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, 488 F.3d 960, 963, 82 USPQ2d 1828, 1831 (Fed. Cir. 2007)); TMEP §1209.01(b).

 

Although the applicant has submitted promotional materials about the product indicating that there will be no wood products or synthetics in its product, the current identification of goods omits that clarification.  Thus based on the mark, which focuses on the letters BARK, and the current identification, the examining attorney finds that the mark tells consumers that the goods which will be made to look like tree branches, could contain tree bark.  Because consumers may purchase the goods thinking they contain tree bark, when the applicant’s materials indicate they will not, the examining attorney finds that the mark misdescribes the goods.

 

Regarding the second part of the test, the Board has applied the reasonably prudent consumer test in assessing whether consumers are likely to believe the misrepresentation.  In re Hinton, 116 USPQ2d 1051, 1052 (TTAB 2015) (citing R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 226 USPQ 169, 179 (TTAB 1985)). 

 

In this case, the attached article from the Whole Dog Journal shows that the reasonably prudent consumer is likely to believe the representation because tree bark that is nutritional and not poisonous for dogs can be part of dog treats or nutritional supplements.

 

Based on the mark, the current identification of goods and the evidence, the examining attorney refuses registration because the applied-for mark is deceptively misdescriptive of applicant’s goods.  Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1);

 

Applicant May Respond

 

Although the examining attorney has refused registration, the applicant may respond to the refusal to register by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.

 

If the applicant chooses to respond to the refusal to register, the applicant must also respond to the following informalities.

 

Specimen

 

Registration is refused because the specimen in International Class 5 is not acceptable as a print display associated with the goods and appears to be mere advertising material; thus, the specimen fails to show the applied-for mark in use in commerce.  Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); In re Ancha Elecs., Inc., 1 USPQ2d 1318, 1319-20 (TTAB 1986); TMEP §§904, 904.03(g), 904.07(a).  Specifically, applicant submitted specimens that invite others to invest in their product which is not currently in use.  In fact the business card states that “If you feel this product is a good idea lease tell your pet owner friends and email us your comments”.  The advertising flier refers to a “website coming soon” and “patent pending”.  Furthermore, the applicant refers to the goods in future terms such as, “the treat will be shaped into forms of sticks for various sizes” and “BARKs is that product for pets which will provide not only vegetative fiber for digestive benefit but with higher levels of CBAs….”

 

Acceptable print display specimens are point-of-sale materials such as banners, shelf-talkers (a printed card or sign affixed to a store shelf to call a buyer’s attention to a particular product displayed on that shelf), and window displays, which are designed to catch the attention of purchasers and prospective purchasers as an inducement to make a sale.  TMEP §904.03(g); see In re U.S. Tsubaki, Inc., 109 USPQ2d 2002, 2003 (TTAB 2014) (citing In re Shipley Co., 230 USPQ 691, 694 (TTAB 1986)).  Brochures and other advertising material may be acceptable specimens as print displays only if sufficient evidence, such as a photograph of a trade show booth, is provided showing how such specimens are used in an actual display featuring the goods and the print advertising material together.  See In re Ancha Elecs., Inc., 1 USPQ2d at 1319-20; TMEP §904.03(g).  Otherwise, such materials are generally considered mere advertising and are not acceptable as specimens for showing use in commerce for goods, as in the present case.  See In re Kohr Bros., 121 USPQ2d 1793, 1794 (TTAB 2017) (quoting In re Quantum Foods, Inc., 94 USPQ2d 1375, 1379 (TTAB 2010)); TMEP §904.04(b). 

 

An application based on Trademark Act Section 1(a) must include a specimen showing the applied-for mark in use in commerce for each international class of goods identified in the application or amendment to allege use.  15 U.S.C. §1051(a)(1); 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a). 

 

Examples of specimens for goods include tags, labels, instruction manuals, containers, photographs that show the mark on the actual goods or packaging, and displays such as banners or shelf talkers associated with the actual goods at their point of sale.  See TMEP §§904.03 et seq.  Webpages may also be specimens for goods when they include a picture or textual description of the goods associated with the mark and the means to order the goods.  TMEP §904.03(i). 

 

Applicant may respond to this refusal by satisfying one of the following for each applicable international class:

 

(1)       Submit evidence that the specimen was used with the goods at their point-of-sale, such as (a) a photograph of the specimen used with the goods as a display associated with the goods; or (b) a verified statement explaining how the specimen is actually used at the point of sale and specifying how applicant’s mark is associated with the goods. 

 

(2)       Submit a different specimen (a verified “substitute” specimen) that (a) was in actual use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application or prior to the filing of an amendment to allege use and (b) shows the mark in actual use in commerce for the goods identified in the application or amendment to allege use.  A “verified substitute specimen” is a specimen that is accompanied by the following statement made in a signed affidavit or supported by a declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20:  “The substitute (or new, or originally submitted, if appropriate) specimen(s) was/were in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application or prior to the filing of the amendment to allege use.”  The substitute specimen cannot be accepted without this statement.

 

(3)       Amend the filing basis to intent to use under Section 1(b), for which no specimen is required.  This option will later necessitate additional fee(s) and filing requirements such as providing a specimen.

 

For an overview of all the response options referenced above and instructions on how to satisfy these options online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, please go to the Specimen webpage.  

 

 

If the applicant has any questions or needs assistance in responding to this Office action, please call or e-mail the assigned examining attorney.

 

 

How to respond.  Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action  

 

 

/D. Beryl Gardner/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 117

571-272-9162 (O)

571-273-9162 (F)

beryl.gardner@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 September 19, 2019 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88494756

 

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. 

 

 

/D. Beryl Gardner/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 117

571-272-9162 (O)

571-273-9162 (F)

beryl.gardner@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 September 19, 2019, 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.”