To: | Nimesh patel (jannet@latan.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88512315 - AGAVE BLEND - N/A |
Sent: | February 18, 2020 06:08:05 PM |
Sent As: | ecom112@uspto.gov |
Attachments: |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88512315
Mark: AGAVE BLEND
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
Applicant: Nimesh patel
|
|
Reference/Docket No. N/A
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: February 18, 2020
This letter responds to applicant’s communication filed on 12/19/2019. Questions regarding the Office Action should be directed to the trademark examining attorney at kyle.peete@uspto.gov.
Summary of Issues
The following requirement(s)/refusal(s) are now made FINAL:
Section 2(e)(1) - Descriptive Refusal – Final
Registration is refused because the applied-for mark merely describes an ingredient, feature and/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.
Here, applicant seeks to register the mark AGAVE BLEND for “Alcoholic cocktail mixes; Alcoholic cocktails containing milk; Alcoholic cocktails in the form of chilled gelatins; Alcoholic cocktails in the form of non-chilled gelatins; Alcoholic fruit cocktail drinks; Prepared cocktails consisting primarily of distilled spirits and also including beer; Prepared alcoholic cocktail; Prepared wine cocktails” in International Class 033.
As previously sent, AGAVE is an ingredient used to make alcohol/spirits which are the applicant’s goods. The term BLEND merely describes the blend of agave and other ingredients in applicant’s alcoholic cocktails, where BLEND is defined as “to combine (varieties or grades of the same substance) to obtain a mixture of a particular character, quality, or consistency: blend coffees.”
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.
Accordingly, registration is denied on the Principal Register.
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.
If applicant files an acceptable allegation of use and also amends to the Supplemental Register, the application effective filing date will be the date applicant met the minimum filing requirements under 37 C.F.R. §2.76(c) for an amendment to allege use. TMEP §§816.02, 1102.03; see 37 C.F.R. §2.75(b). In addition, the undersigned trademark examining attorney will conduct a new search of the USPTO records for conflicting marks based on the later application filing date. TMEP §§206.01, 1102.03.
(1) Use of the registration symbol ® with the registered mark in connection with the designated goods and/or services, which provides public notice of the registration and potentially deters third parties from using confusingly similar marks.
(2) Inclusion of the registered mark in the USPTO’s database of registered and pending marks, which will (a) make it easier for third parties to find it in trademark search reports, (b) provide public notice of the registration, and thus (c) potentially deter third parties from using confusingly similar marks.
(3) Use of the registration by a USPTO trademark examining attorney as a bar to registering confusingly similar marks in applications filed by third parties.
(4) Use of the registration as a basis to bring suit for trademark infringement in federal court, which, although more costly than state court, means judges with more trademark experience, often faster adjudications, and the opportunity to seek an injunction, actual damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs.
(5) Use of the registration as a filing basis for a trademark application for registration in certain foreign countries, in accordance with international treaties.
See 15 U.S.C. §§1052(d), 1091, 1094; J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks & Unfair Competition §§19:33, 19:37 (rev. 4th ed. Supp. 2017).
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).
/Kyle Christopher Peete/
Trademark Attorney [Law Office 112]
(571) 272-8275
kyle.peete@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE