To: | NaturalShrimp Incorporated (nreithinger@eventusag.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88498493 - NATURALSHRIMP - N/A |
Sent: | March 17, 2020 09:50:58 AM |
Sent As: | ecom107@uspto.gov |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 Attachment - 6 Attachment - 7 Attachment - 8 Attachment - 9 Attachment - 10 Attachment - 11 Attachment - 12 Attachment - 13 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88498493
Mark: NATURALSHRIMP
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
Applicant: NaturalShrimp Incorporated
|
|
Reference/Docket No. N/A
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
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: March 17, 2020
This Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on February 13, 2020. Upon further review of the application, the examining attorney has discovered an additional refusal that must be issued. The examining attorney apologizes for any inconvenience.
Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1) Refusal
In the instant case, applicant seeks registration of “NATURALSHRIMP” for “raw shrimp featuring no pesticides, no antibiotics and no chemical additives, grown in self-contained recirculating bio-secure saltwater environment”. Generally, if the individual components of a mark retain their descriptive meaning in relation to the goods and/or services, the combination results in a composite mark that is itself descriptive and not registrable. In re Fat Boys Water Sports LLC, 118 USPQ2d 1511, 1516 (TTAB 2016) (citing In re Tower Tech, Inc., 64 USPQ2d 1314, 1317-18 (TTAB (2002)); TMEP §1209.03(d); see, e.g., Apollo Med. Extrusion Techs., Inc. v. Med. Extrusion Techs., Inc., 123 USPQ2d 1844, 1851 (TTAB 2017) (holding MEDICAL EXTRUSION TECHNOLOGIES merely descriptive of medical extrusion goods produced by employing medical extrusion technologies); In re Cannon Safe, Inc., 116 USPQ2d 1348, 1351 (TTAB 2015) (holding SMART SERIES merely descriptive of metal gun safes); In re King Koil Licensing Co., 79 USPQ2d 1048, 1052 (TTAB 2006) (holding THE BREATHABLE MATTRESS merely descriptive of beds, mattresses, box springs, and pillows).
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 “natural” is defined as “a: growing without human care; also: not cultivated; b: existing in or produced by nature : not artificial; c: relating to or being natural food.” See the attached evidence from www.merriam-webster.com. The term “shrimp” appears in the applicant’s recitation of goods and is the type of food the applicant provides. The mark merely describes a feature or characteristic of applicant’s shrimp; mainly, that the shrimp are in their natural state and not pumped or containing artificial preservatives.
Therefore, the proposed mark merely describes the applicant’s goods and registration on the Principal Register must be refused under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1).
Although the trademark examining attorney has refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal to register by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.
Assistance
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 §§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.
How to respond. Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action.
Jimmy Stein
/jws/
Jimmy Stein
Examining Attorney
United States Patent and Trademark Office
james.stein@uspto.gov
571-272-3056
RESPONSE GUIDANCE