To: | ADVANCE ON-SITE PROTECTION SECURITY, LLC (kameron@l4sb.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88494761 - SECURITY ON DEMAND - N/A |
Sent: | September 19, 2019 08:53:33 PM |
Sent As: | ecom117@uspto.gov |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 Attachment - 6 Attachment - 7 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88494761
Mark: SECURITY ON DEMAND
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
Applicant: ADVANCE ON-SITE PROTECTION SECURITY, LLC
|
|
Reference/Docket No. N/A
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 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.
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).
Merely Descriptive
Applicant seeks to register the mark SECURITYON DEMAND for use with “Monitoring burglar and security alarms; Monitoring home security alarms; Security guard services; Security guarding for facilities; Security services, namely, providing executive protection; Security threat analysis for protecting personal property; Security threat analysis for protecting personal safety; Security threat analysis for protecting public safety; Civil protection; Consultancy services in the field of home security; Home security alarm monitoring; Personal security consultation; Physical security consultancy; Police and civil protection services; Providing security surveillance of premises for others”.
“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).
In this case, the mark tells consumers shopping for security services, that the applicant provides security services that consumers can order and immediately pay for the services they use.
Only where the combination of descriptive terms creates a unitary mark with a unique, incongruous, or otherwise nondescriptive meaning in relation to the goods and/or services 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/or services and do not create a unique, incongruous, or nondescriptive meaning in relation to the goods and/or services. Specifically, the term SECURITY refers to the security services the applicant recited. The term ON DEMAND refers to the instant order that consumers can place for the services they want. The examining attorney has attached evidence of other on demand security services.
Based on the mark, the services identified and the supporting evidence, the examining attorney finds that the mark is descriptive and refuses registration under the Trademark Act §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.
Advisory: - Supplemental Cannot Be Recommended
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