To: | Bemis Manufacturing Company (docket@markerylaw.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88521561 - SNAP 2 SECURE - US-BEMIS099A |
Sent: | October 11, 2019 06:03:04 PM |
Sent As: | ecom120@uspto.gov |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88521561
Mark: SNAP 2 SECURE
|
|
Correspondence Address: |
|
Applicant: Bemis Manufacturing Company
|
|
Reference/Docket No. US-BEMIS099A
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
COMBINED EXAMINER’S AMENDMENT/PRIORITY ACTION 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: October 11, 2019
USPTO database searched; no conflicting marks found. The trademark examining attorney searched the USPTO database of registered and pending marks and found no conflicting marks that would bar registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d). 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); TMEP §704.02.
Applicant must address issues shown below. On October 10, 2019, the examining attorney and Katrina G. Hull discussed the issues below. Applicant must timely respond to these issues. See 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §2.62(a); TMEP §708.05.
· Section 2(e)(1) Refusal - Merely Descriptive
SECTION 2(e)(1) REFUSAL - MERELY DESCRIPTIVE
As amended, applicant has applied for the mark SNAP 2 SECURE for “toilet seats” and “toilet seat installation systems comprised of toilet seat structural parts in the nature of non-metal toilet seat hinges and hardware for connecting toilet seat hinges to toilets and sold as an integral component of toilet seats”.
Registration is refused because the applied-for mark merely describes a feature and 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.
“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).
In this case, applicant provides “toilet seats” and “toilet seat installation systems comprised of toilet seat structural parts in the nature of non-metal toilet seat hinges and hardware for connecting toilet seat hinges to toilets and sold as an integral component of toilet seats”.
SNAP and SECURE are respectively defined in the attached Merriam Webster dictionary as “to close or fit in place with an abrupt movement or sharp sound” and “to make fast”, as in to “secure a door”. This shows the term SNAP TO SECURE describes the goods because the goods are toilet seat and toilet seat installation systems that snaps in order to secure in place
The additional evidence shows that the terms SNAP and SECURE are used to describe toilet seats by third parties:
Finally, applicant’s own promotional materials shows that the terms SNAP and SECURE are used to describe the very functionality of the product.
For purposes of evaluating a trademark, material obtained from the Internet is generally accepted as competent evidence. See In re Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, 488 F.3d 960, 966, 82 USPQ2d 1828, 1833 (Fed. Cir. 2007); In re Reed Elsevier Props., Inc., 482 F.3d 1376, 1380, 82 USPQ2d 1378, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2007); TBMP §1208.03; TMEP §710.01(b).
Only where the combination of descriptive terms creates a unitary mark with a unique, incongruous, or otherwise nondescriptive meaning in relation to the goods 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 do not create a unique, incongruous, or nondescriptive meaning in relation to the goods. Specifically, the terminology used here clearly implies a toilet seat installation that is snapped on in order to secure the seat.
For the reasons stated above, applicant’s mark is merely descriptive of the applied-for goods and registration is refused.
Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.
ADVISORY: SUPPLEMENTAL REGISTER
ASSISTANCE
Application has been amended as shown below. As agreed to by the individual identified in the Priority Action section, the examining attorney has amended the application as shown below. Please notify the examining attorney immediately of any objections. TMEP §707. In addition, applicant is advised that amendments to the goods are permitted only if they clarify or limit them; amendments that add to or broaden the scope of the goods are not permitted. 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a).
IDENTIFICATION:
The identification of goods is amended to read as follows:
Class 11 toilet seats; toilet seat installation systems comprised of toilet seat structural parts in the nature of non-metal toilet seat hinges and hardware for connecting toilet seat hinges to toilets and sold as an integral component of toilet seats
See TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.01(e).
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. 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.
/benjaminrosen/
Benjamin Rosen
Examining Attorney
Law Office 120
(571) 272-8425
benjamin.rosen@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE