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 25, 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.

 

 

SEARCH OF OFFICE’S DATABASE OF MARKS

 

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).

 

 

 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES:

 

• Section 2(e)(1) Refusal – Merely Descriptive

 

 

 

SECTION 2(e)(1) REFUSAL - MERELY DESCRIPTIVE

Registration is refused because the applied-for mark merely describes a feature of applicant’s goods and/or services.  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 and/or services.  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)). 

 

Determining the descriptiveness of a mark is done in relation to an applicant’s goods and/or services, the context in which the mark is being used, and the possible significance the mark would have to the average purchaser because of the manner of its use or intended use.  See In re The Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 1300, 102 USPQ2d 1217, 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, 488 F.3d 960, 963-64, 82 USPQ2d 1828, 1831 (Fed. Cir. 2007)); TMEP §1209.01(b).  Descriptiveness of a mark is not considered in the abstract.  In re Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, 488 F.3d at 963-64, 82 USPQ2d at 1831.

 

When a mark consists of the “e” prefix coupled with a descriptive word or term for electronic goods and/or services, then the entire mark may be considered merely descriptive under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1).  See In re SPX Corp., 63 USPQ2d 1592 (TTAB 2002) (holding E-AUTODIAGNOSTICS merely descriptive of an electronic engine analysis system comprised of a hand-held computer and related computer software); In re Styleclick.com Inc., 57 USPQ2d 1445 (TTAB 2000) (holding E FASHION merely descriptive of software for consumer use in shopping via a global computer network and of electronic retailing services); TMEP §1209.03(d).

 

Further, the term “smart” has been held merely descriptive of devices that employ automated technology.  See In re Cannon Safe, Inc., 116 USPQ2d 1348, 1350 (TTAB 2015) (holding SMART SERIES merely descriptive of metal safes specifically designed to store firearms); In re Cryomedical Scis. Inc., 32 USPQ2d 1377, 1378 (TTAB 1994) (holding SMARTPROBE merely descriptive of disposable cryosurgical probes); see also In re Tower Tech, Inc., 64 USPQ2d 1314, 1317-18 (TTAB 2002) (holding SMARTTOWER merely descriptive of commercial and industrial cooling towers and accessories therefor, sold as a unit).

 

Applicant is seeking registration for the following goods:  “massage apparatus and instruments; massage chairs,” in International Class 10 in connection with the mark “ESMART”.  Here, the applied-for mark is merely descriptive of a feature of applicant’s goods. 

 

According to Wikipedia, “smart products” are a category of hybrid products that recognize and process situational contexts, tailor some functionality of said products to buyers/consumers specific needs, generally change according to buyer/consumer responses/input, and are often pro-active in anticipating certain consumer needs and the like.  Please see attached evidence, also available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_products.  “Smart” massage chairs, i.e., massage chairs that feature some sort of technology to fit and/or personalize consumer needs, are a common type of smart product.  Please see attached evidence from Smart Massage Chairs, Infinity and eMassageChair, also available at http://smartmassagechair.com/, http://smartmassagechair.com/the-smart-massage-chair/, http://infinitymassagechairs.com/massage-chairs/details/smart-chair and http://www.emassagechair.com/eblog/top-ten-best-selling-massage-chairs-for-2018/.  

 

Further, the attached evidence shows that the letter “e” used as a prefix has become commonly recognized as a designation for goods and/or services that are electronic in nature or are sold or provided electronically.  Specifically, the evidence consists of evidence from The American Heritage Dictionary and TheFreeDictionary by Farlex, which shows the e- prefix often stands for “electronic” and when applied to various words, indicates that a product is, or features some portion, that is electronic in nature.  Please see attached evidence, also available at http://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=e- and http://www.thefreedictionary.com/e-.  In addition to the evidence above, the trademark examining attorney submits that electronic massage chairs are a common category of massage chairs and related products.  Please see additional attached evidence from Incorporate Massage, Alibaba.com and Pure Bliss Day Spa, also available at http://www.incorporatemassage.com/blog/pros-cons-massage-therapists-vs.-massage-chairs, http://www.alibaba.com/showroom/electronic-massage-chairs.html and http://purebliss-massage.com/.  Applicant provides massage apparatus, instruments and chairs.  Please reference applicant’s application record. 

 

Therefore, the applied-for mark “ESMART” is merely descriptive of a feature of applicant’s goods because applicant provides a variety of electronic massage apparatus, instruments and chairs that presumably feature “smart” type functionality. 

 

Based on the foregoing, applicant's mark is merely descriptive of the goods identified in its application and the application is refused under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act. 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

SUPPLEMENTAL REGISTER - Advisory

 

The applied-for mark has been refused registration on the Principal Register.  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.  See 15 U.S.C. §1091; 37 C.F.R. §§2.47, 2.75(a); TMEP §§801.02(b), 816.  Amending to the Supplemental Register does not preclude applicant from submitting evidence and arguments against the refusal(s).  TMEP §816.04.

 

 

 

RESPONSE GUIDELINES

 

Please call or email the assigned trademark examining attorney with questions about this Office action.  Although the trademark examining attorney cannot provide legal advice or statements about applicant’s rights, the trademark examining attorney can provide applicant with additional explanation about the refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) in this Office action.  See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06.  Although the USPTO does not accept emails as responses to Office actions, emails can be used for informal communications and will be included in the application record.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(c), 2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05. 

 

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  

 

 

/Erin Z. Dyer/

Erin Zaskoda Dyer

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 103

(571) 272-9740

erin.zaskoda@uspto.gov (preferred)

 

 

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 25, 2019 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88504424

 

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. 

 

 

/Erin Z. Dyer/

Erin Zaskoda Dyer

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 103

(571) 272-9740

erin.zaskoda@uspto.gov (preferred)

 

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 25, 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.”