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 27, 2019

 

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.

 

The examining attorney respectfully advises applicant that this Office Action contains the following refusal(s)/requirement(s) summarized immediately below and further explained within the body of this Office Action.

 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES that applicant must address:

 

• LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION REFUSAL -- applicant must respond to the examining attorney’s refusal to register the proposed mark because of a likelihood of confusion with the cited registered mark(s).

 

• DESCRIPTIVENESS REFUSAL -- applicant must respond to the examining attorney’s refusal to register the proposed mark because the mark is merely descriptive.

 

 

 

SUMMARY OF ADVSORIES:

 

• POTENTIAL ADDITIONAL LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION REFUSAL -- applicant is advised that the trademark examining attorney has searched the USPTO's database of registered and pending marks and has also found marks in prior-filed pending applications that may present a bar to registration of applicant's mark under Trademark Act Section 2(d).

 

 

 

Applicant may respond to the refusals/requirements set forth below.

 

 

 

SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

Registration of the applied-for mark, PREMIER in standard characters, is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks:

 

 

#1.       PREMIER LEAGUE with design in U.S. Registration No. 3715340 with a disclaimer of “LEAGUE”;

 

#2.       PREMIER WOVE in standard characters in U.S. Registration No. 5515749;

 

#3.       PASTEL PREMIER in stylized form in U.S. Registration No. 4954292 with a disclaimer of “PASTEL”;

 

 

#4.       PREMIER LEAGUE with design in U.S. Registration No. 5577934 with a disclaimer of “LEAGUE”;

 

 

#5.       SPX VELOCITY PREMIER in stylized form in U.S. Registration No. 4953783;

 

 

#6.       SHIELDPLUS PREMIER in standard characters in U.S. Registration No. 5440678 with a disclaimer of “PREMIER”;

 

 

#7.       MUNDO PREMIER with design in U.S. Registration No. 2330136;

 

 

#8.       MUNDO PREMIER in typed drawing format in U.S. Registration No. 2330135;

 

 

Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registrations.

 

Legal Standard

 

In any likelihood of confusion determination, two key considerations are similarity of the marks and similarity or relatedness of the goods and/or services.  Syndicat Des Proprietaires Viticulteurs De Chateauneuf-Du-Pape v. Pasquier DesVignes, 107 USPQ2d 1930, 1938 (TTAB 2013) (citing Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co., 544 F.2d 1098, 1103, 192 USPQ 24, 29 (C.C.P.A. 1976)); In re Iolo Techs., LLC, 95 USPQ2d 1498, 1499 (TTAB 2010); see TMEP §1207.01.  That is, the marks are compared in their entireties for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression.  In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973)); TMEP §1207.01(b)-(b)(v).  Additionally, the goods and/or services are compared to determine whether they are similar or 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, (a)(vi).

 

Analysis

 

 

Comparison Of The Marks

 

In the present case, applicant’s mark consists of the literal element PREMIER in standard characters. 

 

The cited registration marks are:

 

 

#1.       PREMIER LEAGUE with design in U.S. Registration No. 3715340 with a disclaimer of “LEAGUE”;

 

 

#2.       PREMIER WOVE in standard characters in U.S. Registration No. 5515749;

 

 

#3.       PASTEL PREMIER in stylized form in U.S. Registration No. 4954292 with a disclaimer of “PASTEL”;

 

 

 

#4.       PREMIER LEAGUE with design in U.S. Registration No. 5577934 with a disclaimer of “LEAGUE”;

 

 

 

#5.       SPX VELOCITY PREMIER in stylized form in U.S. Registration No. 4953783;

 

 

 

#6.       SHIELDPLUS PREMIER in standard characters in U.S. Registration No. 5440678 with a disclaimer of “PREMIER”;

 

 

 

#7.       MUNDO PREMIER with design in U.S. Registration No. 2330136;

 

 

 

#8.       MUNDO PREMIER in typed drawing format in U.S. Registration No. 2330135;

 

 

Marks must be compared in their entireties and should not be dissected; however, a trademark examining attorney may weigh the individual components of a mark to determine its overall commercial impression.  In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1305, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“[Regarding the issue of confusion,] there is nothing improper in stating that . . . more or less weight has been given to a particular feature of a mark, provided the ultimate conclusion rests on consideration of the marks in their entireties.” (quoting In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 1058, 224 USPQ 749, 751 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). 

 

 

 

The remaining wording in several of the cited marks is disclaimed.  Disclaimed matter that is descriptive of or generic for a party’s goods and/or services is typically less significant or less dominant when comparing marks.  In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1305, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re Dixie Rests., Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 1407, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533-34 (Fed. Cir. 1997)); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii).

 

 

Although applicant’s mark does not contain the entirety of the registered marks, applicant’s mark is likely to appear to prospective purchasers as a shortened form of registrants’ marks.  See In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 1348, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting United States Shoe Corp., 229 USPQ 707, 709 (TTAB 1985)).  Thus, merely omitting some of the wording from a registered mark may not overcome a likelihood of confusion.  See In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 94 USPQ2d 1257; In re Optica Int’l, 196 USPQ 775, 778 (TTAB 1977); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii).  In this case, applicant’s mark does not create a distinct commercial impression from the registered mark because it contains some of the wording in the registered mark and does not add any wording that would distinguish it from that mark.

 

 

With regard to the cited marks that include design elements, when evaluating a composite mark consisting of words and a design, the word portion is normally accorded greater weight because it is likely to make a greater impression upon purchasers, be remembered by them, and be used by them to refer to or request the goods and/or services.  In re Aquitaine Wine USA, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1181, 1184 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii).  Thus, although marks must be compared in their entireties, the word portion is often considered the dominant feature and is accorded greater weight in determining whether marks are confusingly similar, even where the word portion has been disclaimed.  In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d at 1366-67, 101 USPQ2d at 1911 (citing Giant Food, Inc. v. Nation’s Foodservice, Inc., 710 F.2d 1565, 1570-71, 218 USPQ2d 390, 395 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).

 

 

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).

 

 

Marks may be confusingly similar in appearance where similar terms or phrases or similar parts of terms or phrases appear in the compared marks and create a similar overall commercial impression.  See Crocker Nat’l Bank v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 228 USPQ 689, 690-91 (TTAB 1986), aff’d sub nom. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 811 F.2d 1490, 1495, 1 USPQ2d 1813, 1817 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (finding COMMCASH and COMMUNICASH confusingly similar); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65, 66 (TTAB 1985) (finding CONFIRM and CONFIRMCELLS confusingly similar); In re Pellerin Milnor Corp., 221 USPQ 558, 560 (TTAB 1983) (finding MILTRON and MILLTRONICS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii).

 

 

Generally, the greater degree of similarity between the applied-for mark and the registered mark, the lesser the degree of similarity between the goods and/or services of the parties is required to support a finding of likelihood of confusion.  In re C.H. Hanson Co., 116 USPQ2d 1351, 1353 (TTAB 2015) (citing In re Opus One Inc., 60 USPQ2d 1812, 1815 (TTAB 2001)); In re Thor Tech, Inc., 90 USPQ2d 1634, 1636 (TTAB 2009). 

 

 

 

 

Comparison Of The Goods

 

 

The goods and/or services 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 and/or services 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).

 

 

In the present case, applicant’s mark PREMIER is for use on or in connection with “Copy paper” in Class 16.

 

The cited registration marks (as to relevant classes) are:

 

 

 

#1.       PREMIER LEAGUE with design in U.S. Registration No. 3715340 is for use on or in connection with “Paper and cardboard; printed matter, namely, publications in the nature of books, articles, newsletters, magazines, brochures, catalogues and journals relating to sport; book binding material; photographs; stationery; adhesives for stationery or household purposes; artists' materials, namely, paint brushes, painting canvas, painting palettes, artists' printing blocks, drawing pens, drawing ink, pastels, crayons and easels; typewriters; printed instructional and teaching material in the field of sport; plastic materials for packaging in the nature of air cushioning materials, plastics film, not for commercial or industrial use; plastic bags; printers' type; printing blocks; blank travelers' checks; banking cards, not magnetically encoded, greeting cards, gift cards, business cards, postcards, discount cards that are not magnetically encoded, identity cards that are not magnetically encoded, membership cards that are not magnetically encoded, trading cards and telephone calling cards, not magnetically encoded, all of cardboard or plastic; money order forms; blank checks; booklets in the field of sport; posters; bookmarks; paper flags; paper banners; heat transfer paper; decalcomanias; adhesive labels; wrapping and packaging materials, namely, gift wrapping paper and paper for packaging; printed periodical publications in the field of sport; newspapers; books in the field of sport; photographs; albums for coins, photographs and stamps; pens, pencils, drawing rulers, pencil cases and writing paper; stickers; vehicle stickers; writing and drawing instruments; printed instructional and teaching material in the field of sport; calendars; diaries; address books; folders; document files; writing instruments of precious metal; check book holders” in Class 16;

 

 

#2.       PREMIER WOVE in standard characters in U.S. Registration No. 5515749 is for use on or in connection with “Business cards; Envelopes; Stationery” in Class 16;

 

 

#3.       PASTEL PREMIER in stylized form in U.S. Registration No. 4954292 is for use on or in connection with “Art paper” in Class 16;

 

 

#4.       PREMIER LEAGUE with design in U.S. Registration No. 5577934 is for use on or in connection with “Book binding material; photographs; stationery; adhesives for stationery or household purposes; artists' materials, namely, artists' pastels, artists' pencils, artists' pens, artists' brushes, artists' watercolour saucers, canvases for painting, crayons; paint brushes; typewriters; printed instructional, educational, and teaching materials in the field of sports, soccer and football; printers' type; printing blocks; travellers cheques; bank checks; posters; bookmarks; paper flags, paper banners; paper; cardboard; decalcomanias; labels, namely, address labels, adhesive labels and bar code labels; trading cards; newspapers; albums for coins, photographs, trading cards and stamps; pens; pencils; drafting rulers; pencil cases; writing paper; compact disc holders; stickers; vehicle stickers; writing and drawing instruments; greeting cards; calendars; diaries; address books; folders; files, namely, file folders, and card files; writing instruments of precious metal; cheque book holders; paper coasters; coasters of cardboard; printed publications, namely, booklets journals, periodical publications, books, magazines brochures, leaflets, catalogues, circulars, manuals, directories, annuals, and prospectuses in the field of sports, soccer and football; programs in the nature of souvenir programs in the field of sports, soccer and football; temporary tattoo transfers; note pads; paper pennants; postcards; printed tickets to sports games and events; collectible cards; collectible cards and memorabilia holders made of paper and plastic; souvenir programs for sports events; passport cases” in Class 16;

 

 

#5.       SPX VELOCITY PREMIER in stylized form in U.S. Registration No. 4953783 is for use on or in connection with “Kraft paper” in Class 16;

 

 

#6.       SHIELDPLUS PREMIER in standard characters in U.S. Registration No. 5440678 is for use on or in connection with “Paper and cardboard; garbage bags of paper for household purposes; paper for use in the manufacture of packages for foodstuffs and consumer goods” in Class 16;

 

 

 

#7.       MUNDO PREMIER with design in U.S. Registration No. 2330136 is for use on or in connection with “publications, namely, magazines, newspapers, bulletins, catalogs and unmounted photographs, all relating to the airline industry; playing cards; writing paper; office supplies, namely, pens, pencil cases, pencils, notepads, notebooks, erasers, file folders for documents, cardboard and paper boxes, decals, calendars, pocket notebooks, posters, paper napkins, maps, paper and cardboard pouches for packaging” in Class 16;  and

 

 

#8.       MUNDO PREMIER in typed drawing format in U.S. Registration No. 2330135 is for use on or in connection with “publications, namely, magazines, newspapers, bulletins, catalogs and unmounted photographs, all relating to the airline industry; playing cards; writing paper; office supplies, namely, pens, pencil cases, pencils, notepads, notebooks, erasers, file folders for documents, cardboard and paper boxes, decals, calendars, pocket notebooks, posters, paper napkins, maps, paper and cardboard pouches for packaging” in Class 16

 

 

Applicant’s and registrants’ goods are for use in or in connection with the paper industry. Consequently, applicant’s and registrant’s goods would typically be available and marketed to consumers via the same trade channels.

 

Where the goods and/or services of an applicant and registrant are “similar in kind and/or closely related,” the degree of similarity between the marks required to support a finding of likelihood of confusion is not as great as in the case of diverse goods and/or services.  In re J.M. Originals Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1393, 1394 (TTAB 1987); see Shen Mfg. Co. v. Ritz Hotel Ltd., 393 F.3d 1238, 1242, 73 USPQ2d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2004); TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

 

Any goods or services in the registrant’s normal fields of expansion should be considered when determining whether the registrant’s goods and/or services are related to the applicant’s goods and/or services.  TMEP §1207.01(a)(v); see In re 1st USA Realty Prof’ls, Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1581 1584 (TTAB 2007).  Evidence that third parties offer the goods and/or services of both the registrant and applicant suggest that it is likely that the registrant would expand their business to include applicant’s goods and/or services.  In that event, customers are likely to believe the goods and/or services at issue come from or, are in some way connected with, the same source.  In re 1st USA Realty Prof’ls, 84 USPQ2d at 1584 n.4; see TMEP §1207.01(a)(v).

 

A determination of whether there is a likelihood of confusion is made solely on the basis of the goods and/or services identified in the application and registration, without limitations or restrictions that are not reflected therein.  In re Dakin’s Miniatures, Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593, 1595 (TTAB 1999); TMEP §1207.01(a)(iii).  If the cited registration describes the goods and/or services broadly and there are no limitations as to their nature, type, channels of trade or classes of purchasers, then it is presumed that the registration encompasses all goods and/or services of the type described, that they move in all normal channels of trade, and that they are available to all potential customers.  In re Linkvest S.A., 24 USPQ2d 1716, 1716 (TTAB 1992); In re Elbaum, 211 USPQ 639, 640 (TTAB 1981); TMEP §1207.01(a)(iii).

 

The overriding concern is not only to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods and/or services, 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).

 

 

Conclusion

 

Accordingly, the applicant’s proposed mark, PREMIER, is refused for likelihood of confusion under Trademark Act Section 2(d). 

 

 

Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.

 

 

Applicant should note the following additional ground for refusal.

 

2(e)(1) REFUSAL - MARK IS MERELY DESCRIPTIVE

Registration is refused because the wording in the proposed mark, PREMIER, merely is a laudatory term and describes a quality of applicant’s paper goods.  Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); TMEP §§1209 et seq. 

Legal Standard

A mark is merely descriptive under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1), if it describes an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose or use of the relevant goods and/or services.  In re Gyulay, 820 F.2d 1216, 3 USPQ2d 1009 (Fed. Cir. 1987);  In re Bed & Breakfast Registry, 791 F.2d 157, 229 USPQ 818 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re MetPath Inc., 223 USPQ 88 (TTAB 1984); In re Bright-Crest, Ltd., 204 USPQ 591 (TTAB 1979); TMEP §1209.01(b).  A mark that describes an intended user of a product or service is also merely descriptive within the meaning of Section 2(e)(1).  Hunter Publishing Co. v. Caulfield Publishing Ltd., 1 USPQ2d 1996 (TTAB 1986); In re Camel Mfg. Co., Inc., 222 USPQ 1031 (TTAB 1984); In re Gentex Corp., 151 USPQ 435 (TTAB 1966).

Analysis

The applicant’s proposed mark PREMIER, merely is a laudatory term and describes a quality of applicant’s paper goods. 

According to the online OneLook ® Dictionary Search,

The term “PREMIER” means, among other things:    <1.  First in status or importance; principal or chief: an architect of premier rank.

http://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=premier

 

 

Therefore, “PREMIER” is laudable of applicant’s paper products, suggesting that it is first in quality.

 

Specifically, PREMIER is laudable of applicant’s warranties, as the word is defined as “First in importance, order, or position; leading.” Words that are “merely laudatory and descriptive of the alleged merit of a product [or service] are . . . regarded as being descriptive” because “[s]elf-laudatory or puffing marks are regarded as a condensed form of describing the character or quality of the goods [or services].”  DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1256, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1759 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re The Boston Beer Co., 198 F.3d 1370, 1373, 53 USPQ2d 1056, 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1999)); TMEP §1209.03(k). 

 

 

“Marks that are merely laudatory and descriptive of the alleged merit of a product [or service] are . . . regarded as being descriptive” because “[s]elf-laudatory or puffing marks are regarded as a condensed form of describing the character or quality of the goods [or services].”  DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1256, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1759 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re The Boston Beer Co., 198 F.3d 1370, 1373, 53 USPQ2d 1056, 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1999)); see In re Nett Designs, Inc., 236 F.3d 1339, 1342, 57 USPQ2d 1564, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (holding THE ULTIMATE BIKE RACK merely laudatory and descriptive of applicant’s bicycle racks being of superior quality); In re The Boston Beer Co., 198 F.3d at 1373-74, 53 USPQ2d at 1058-59 (holding THE BEST BEER IN AMERICA merely laudatory and descriptive of applicant’s beer and ale being of superior quality); TMEP §1209.03(k).  In fact, “puffing, if anything, is more likely to render a mark merely descriptive, not less so.”  DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d at 1256, 103 USPQ2d at 1759.

 

In re Duvernoy & Sons, Inc., 212 F.2d 202, 204, 101 USPQ 288, 289 (C.C.P.A. 1954) (holding CONSISTENTLY SUPERIOR merely laudatory and descriptive of applicant’s bakery products always being of superior quality); In re The Place, Inc., 76 USPQ2d 1467, 1468 (TTAB 2006) (holding THE GREATEST BAR merely laudatory and descriptive of applicant’s restaurant being markedly superior in character or quality to other restaurants and bars); In re Dos Padres, Inc., 49 USPQ2d 1860, 1862 (TTAB 1998) (holding QUESO QUESADILLA SUPREME merely laudatory and descriptive of applicant’s cheese being of superior quality); In re Inter-State Oil Co., 219 USPQ 1229, 1230 (TTAB 1983) (holding PREFERRED merely laudatory and descriptive of applicant’s bird and squirrel repellant being liked better than other similar products).

 

The determination of whether a mark is merely descriptive is considered in relation to the identified goods and/or services, not in the abstract.  In re Abcor Dev. Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 814, 200 USPQ 215, 218 (CCPA 1978); see, e.g., In re Polo Int’l Inc., 51 USPQ2d 1061 (TTAB 1999) (DOC in DOC-CONTROL would be understood to refer to the “documents” managed by applicant’s software, not “doctor” as shown in dictionary definition); In re Digital Research Inc., 4 USPQ2d 1242 (TTAB 1987) (CONCURRENT PC-DOS found merely descriptive of “computer programs recorded on disk” where relevant trade uses the denomination “concurrent” as a descriptor of this particular type of operating system).  “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); see TMEP §1209.01(b).

For the purpose of a Section 2(e)(1) analysis, a term need not describe all of the purposes, functions, characteristics or features of the goods and/or services to be merely descriptive.  In re Dial-a-Mattress Operating Corp., 240 F.3d 1341, 1346, 57 U.S.P.Q.2d 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2001).  It is enough if the term describes only one significant function, attribute or property.  In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 1173, 71 USPQ2d 1370, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[A] mark may be merely descriptive even if it does not describe the ‘full scope and extent’ of the applicant’s goods or services.”) (quoting In re Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp., 240 F.3d 1341, 1346, 57 USPQ2d 1807, 1812 (Fed. Cir. 2001)).

 

Descriptiveness is considered in relation to the relevant goods and/or services.  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)).

 

 

Two major reasons for not protecting descriptive marks are (1) to prevent the owner of a descriptive mark from inhibiting competition in the marketplace and (2) to avoid the possibility of costly infringement suits brought by the trademark or service mark owner.  In re Abcor Dev. Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 813, 200 USPQ 215, 217 (C.C.P.A. 1978); TMEP §1209.  Businesses and competitors should be free to use descriptive language when describing their own goods and/or services to the public in advertising and marketing materials.  See In re Styleclick.com Inc., 58 USPQ2d 1523, 1527 (TTAB 2001).

 

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the proposed mark, PREMIER, is refused under Section 2(e)(1).

 

Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.

 

 

 

RESPONSE OPTION TO SECTION 2(e)(1) REFUSAL

Amendment to the Supplemental Register Suggested

The applied-for mark has been refused registration on the Principal Register.  However, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration and/or by amending the application to seek registration on the Supplemental Register.  Trademark Act Section 23, 15 U.S.C. §1091; 37 C.F.R. §§2.47 and 2.75(a); TMEP §§801.02(b), 815 and 816 et seq.  Please note that amending to the Supplemental Register does not preclude applicant from submitting evidence and arguments against the refusal(s).

Although Supplemental Register registration does not afford all the benefits of registration on the Principal Register, it does provide the following advantages:

• The registrant may use the registration symbol ®;
• The registration is protected against registration of a confusingly similar mark under §2(d) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §1052(d);
• The registrant may bring suit for infringement in federal court; and
• The registration may serve as the basis for a filing in a foreign country under the Paris Convention and other international agreements.

 

 

Applicant should note the following potential additional ground for refusal.

 

 

SEARCH OF OFFICE'S DATABASE OF MARKS

 

The trademark examining attorney has searched the USPTO’s database of registered and pending marks and has also found marks in prior-filed pending applications that may present a bar to registration of applicant’s mark under Trademark Act Section 2(d).  TMEP §704.02; see 15 U.S.C. §1052(d). 

 

Prior-Filed Pending Application

 

The filing dates of pending U.S. Application Serial Nos. 79263434 and 79259915 precede applicant’s filing date.  See attached referenced applications.  If the marks in the referenced applications register, applicant’s mark may be refused registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d) because of a likelihood of confusion between the marks.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §§1208 et seq.  Therefore, upon receipt of applicant’s response to this Office action, action on this application may be suspended pending final disposition of the earlier-filed referenced applications.

 

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 marks in the referenced applications.  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.

 

 

 

 

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 response to this nonfinal Office action  

 

 

RESPONSE  GUIDELINES

 

 

Because of the legal technicalities and strict deadlines of the trademark application process, applicant may wish to hire a private attorney who specializes in trademark matters to assist in the process.  The assigned trademark examining attorney can provide only limited assistance explaining the content of an Office action and the application process.  USPTO staff cannot provide legal advice or statements about an applicant’s legal rights.  TMEP §§705.02, 709.06.  See Hiring a U.S.-licensed trademark attorney for more information.

 

 

U.S. Counsel Rules Changes Advisory

 

On August 3, 2019, changes to the federal trademark regulations became effective that require trademark applicants, registrants, and parties to Trademark Trial and Appeal Board proceedings who are foreign-domiciled (have a permanent legal residence or a principal place of business outside of the United States), including Canadian filers, to have an attorney who is licensed to practice law in the United States represent them at the USPTO. In addition, U.S.-licensed attorneys representing a trademark applicant, registrant, or party will generally be required to provide their bar membership information, a statement attesting to their good standing in that bar, and their postal/email addresses in trademark-related submissions.  All U.S.-licensed attorneys who practice before the USPTO are subject to the rules in 37 C.F.R. Part 11 governing representation of others, including the USPTO’s Rules of Professional Conduct. 

 

These changes are being made to increase customer compliance with federal trademark law, improve the accuracy of trademark submissions to the USPTO, and safeguard the integrity of the U.S. trademark register.  See the U.S. Counsel Rule change webpage for more information.

 

 

Response guidelines.  For this application to proceed, applicant must explicitly address each refusal and/or requirement in this Office action.  For a refusal, applicant may provide written arguments and evidence against the refusal, and may have other response options if specified above.  For a requirement, applicant should set forth the changes or statements.  Please see “Responding to Office Actions” and the informational video “Response to Office Action” for more information and tips on responding.

 

 

Persons Who May Sign Responses - (Advisory)

 

Responses to Office actions must be properly signed.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(b), 2.193(e)(2); TMEP §§712, 712.01.  If an applicant is not represented by a U.S.-licensed attorney, the response must be signed by the individual applicant or someone with legal authority to bind a juristic applicant (e.g., a corporate officer or general partner).  See 37 C.F.R. §2.193(e)(2)(ii); TMEP §§611.03(b), 611.06(b)-(h), 712.01.  In the case of joint applicants, all must sign.  37 C.F.R. §2.193(e)(2)(ii); TMEP §611.06(a). 

 

If an applicant is represented by a U.S.-licensed attorney authorized to practice before the USPTO, the attorney must sign the response.  37 C.F.R. §2.193(e)(2)(i); TMEP §§611.03(b), 712.01.  The only attorneys who may sign responses are (1) attorneys in good standing with a bar of the highest court of any U.S. state or territory, or (2) Canadian trademark attorneys or agents reciprocally recognized by the USPTO’s Office of Enrollment and Discipline (OED) who are appointed in connection with a U.S.-licensed attorney.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.17(a), 11.14(a), (c), (e).  Foreign attorneys, other than recognized Canadian trademark attorneys or agents, do not have authority to sign responses.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.17(e), 11.14(c)(1), (e). 

 

Where an applicant is represented by an attorney, and then later retains a different attorney from a different firm, the newly retained attorney may not sign responses until applicant files a new power and/or revocation of attorney.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.18(a)(7); TMEP §604.03.

 

Where an applicant is not represented by an attorney, the response must be signed by the individual applicant or someone with legal authority to bind a juristic applicant (e.g., a corporate officer or general partner).  See 37 C.F.R. §2.193(e)(2)(ii); TMEP §§611.03(b), 611.06 et seq., 712.01.  In the case of joint applicants, all must sign.  37 C.F.R. §2.193(e)(2)(ii); TMEP §611.06(a).

 

 

Electronic Signature

 

Applicant must use one of the following methods for signing Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) forms:

 

(1)        Electronic typed signature.  In the TEAS signature block, the signer personally types any combination of letters, numbers, spaces, and/or punctuation marks that the signer has adopted as a signature, placed between two forward slash (/) symbols (e.g., /john doe/).  And if the filer is not the actual signer of the form, the filer may email the completed unsigned form from within TEAS to the signer to personally type his or her e-signature, after which the form will be automatically returned to the filer for submission.

 

(2)        Pen-and-ink traditional handwritten signature.  The filer prints out the completed form in text format and mails or faxes it to the signer who reviews and personally signs and dates it in the usual pen-and-ink manner.  The signature and date portion, together with the wording of a declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20, if required, is then scanned by the filer as a jpg or pdf image file and attached to the form for submission. 

 

See 37 C.F.R. §2.193(a); TMEP §§611.01(c), 804.03. 

 

In addition, the name of the signer must be clearly printed or typed near the signature.  37 C.F.R. §2.193(d); TMEP §611.01(c).  The signer’s particular title or position should also be specified.  See TMEP §804.04.

 

 

 

If applicant has questions regarding this Office action, please telephone or e-mail the assigned trademark examining attorney.  All relevant e-mail communications will be placed in the official application record; however, an e-mail communication will not be accepted as a response to this Office action and will not extend the deadline for filing a proper response.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05.  Further, although the trademark examining attorney may provide additional explanation pertaining to the refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) in this Office action, the trademark examining attorney may not provide legal advice or statements about applicant’s rights.  See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06.

 

 

/Ronald E. DelGizzi/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 107

Phone - (571) 272-2754

ronald.delgizzi@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 27, 2019 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88495133

 

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. 

 

 

/Ronald E. DelGizzi/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 107

Phone - (571) 272-2754

ronald.delgizzi@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 27, 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.”