To: | GRUMA CORPORATION (jmcdocket@fbfk.law) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88509557 - UNCOOKED - 5139.228.US |
Sent: | March 10, 2020 12:34:02 PM |
Sent As: | ecom101@uspto.gov |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 Attachment - 6 Attachment - 7 Attachment - 8 Attachment - 9 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88509557
Mark: UNCOOKED
|
|
Correspondence Address: FERGUSON BRASWELL FRASER KUBASTA PC 2500 DALLAS PARKWAY, SUITE 600
|
|
Applicant: GRUMA CORPORATION
|
|
Reference/Docket No. 5139.228.US
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
FINAL 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) and/or Electronic System for Trademark Trials and Appeals (ESTTA). A link to the appropriate TEAS response form and/or to ESTTA for an appeal appears at the end of this Office action.
Issue date: March 10, 2020
The Office has reassigned this application to the undersigned trademark examining attorney.
This Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on January 17, 2020.
In a previous Office action(s) dated July 20, 2019, the trademark examining attorney refused registration of the applied-for mark based on the following: Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1) for being merely descriptive.
SUMMARY OF ISSUES MADE FINAL that applicant must address:
Section 2(e)(1) Refusal—Merely Descriptive
Registration is refused because the applied-for mark merely describes a feature or characteristic of applicant’s goods. 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. 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)).
Here, applicant’s mark is UNCOOKED for “tortillas” in Class 30. The definition of UNCOOKED is “not cooked; raw.” See previously attached Lexico definition and attached definitions from The American Heritage Dictionary and Merriam-Webster Dictionary. This wording merely describes a feature or characteristic of applicant’s tortillas because it is immediately conveying to consumers that applicant’s tortillas are raw and not cooked.
Further, the previously attached evidence from Specialty Food Association, Kroger, and La Canasta, in addition to the attached evidence from MexGrocer, and Mission Foods demonstrates that UNCOOKED in the applicant’s mark is used to describe a feature or characteristic of the tortillas in that they are not cooked. Specifically, in the attached evidence applicant’s website, Mission Foods, applicant uses the wording UNCOOKED descriptively on the packaging of applicant’s goods (“UNCOOKED CORN TORTILLAS”). Additionally, in the attached evidence from applicant’s website, applicant’s product description references the goods not being cooked. Applicant’s product description states, “Our tortillas are fresh and ready to cook so that you can treat your family with the aroma and taste that only Mission freshly made organic corn tortillas can deliver.” Emphasis added. Therefore, the wording UNCOOKED is merely descriptive of applicant’s goods.
Applicant does not submit evidence showing that UNCOOKED is suggestive rather than descriptive, but merely asserts that it is. Websites and webpages and Dictionaries are generally a competent source for determining how the public perceives the mark in connection with applicant’s goods. See In re N.C. Lottery, 866 F.3d 1363, 1367-68, 123 USPQ2d 1707, 1709-10 (Fed. Cir. 2017); In re Nett Designs, Inc., 236 F.3d 1339, 1341, 57 USPQ2d 1564, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing In re Bed & Breakfast Registry, 791 F.2d 157, 160, 229 USPQ 818, 819 (Fed. Cir. 1986)); TMEP §1209.01(b).
Applicant argues that the identified tortillas are cooked, but are intended to be reheated before serving. This argument, however, is unpersuasive. “A mark may be merely descriptive even if it does not describe the ‘full scope and extent’ of the applicant’s goods or services.” In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 1173, 71 USPQ2d 1370, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing In re Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp., 240 F.3d 1341, 1346, 57 USPQ2d 1807, 1812 (Fed. Cir. 2001)); TMEP §1209.01(b). It is enough if a mark describes only one significant function, attribute, or property. In re The Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 1300, 102 USPQ2d 1217, 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2012); TMEP §1209.01(b); see In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d at 1173, 71 USPQ2d at 1371. Applicant’s identified goods, tortillas, presumably include both cooked and uncooked tortillas. Thus, the mark is merely descriptive.
Because applicant’s mark, UNCOOKED, is merely descriptive of the feature or characteristic of the applicant’s goods, registration must be refused on the Principal Register under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act.
Generic Advisory
In addition to being merely descriptive, the applied-for mark appears to be generic in connection with the identified goods and, therefore, incapable of functioning as a source-identifier for applicant’s goods. In re Gould Paper Corp., 834 F.2d 1017, 5 USPQ2d 1110 (Fed. Cir. 1987); In re Empire Tech. Dev. LLC, 123 USPQ2d 1544 (TTAB 2017); see TMEP §§1209.01(c) et seq. , 1209.02(a). Under these circumstances, neither an amendment to proceed under Trademark Act Section 2(f) nor an amendment to the Supplemental Register can be recommended. See TMEP §1209.01(c).
Applicant’s argument against the mark being generic is not relevant to the Section 2(e)(1) Refusal for descriptiveness, as the note that the applied-for mark appears to be generic is merely an advisory.
Assistance
The USPTO does not accept emails as responses to Office actions; however, emails can be used for informal communications and are included in the application record. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(c), 2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05.
How to respond. Click to file a request for reconsideration of this final Office action that fully resolves all outstanding requirements and refusals and/or click to file a timely appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) with the required filing fee(s).
/Catherine Caycedo/
Catherine Caycedo
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 101
(571) 272-7066
Catherine.Caycedo@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE