To: | Acra Machinery, Inc. (tm@lzlegalservices.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88530644 - REGENT - L532922605 |
Sent: | October 21, 2019 08:40:40 AM |
Sent As: | ecom123@uspto.gov |
Attachments: |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88530644
Mark: REGENT
|
|
Correspondence Address: JOHN COOK, TX BAR NO. 24103739 LEGALZOOM LEGAL SERVICES, LTD. 101 N. BRAND BLVD., 11TH FLOOR
|
|
Applicant: Acra Machinery, Inc.
|
|
Reference/Docket No. L532922605
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
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 21, 2019
The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned Trademark Examining Attorney. Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issues 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 TO WHICH APPLICANT MUST RESPOND:
AMENDED IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS REQUIRED
Portions of wording in the identification of goods are unacceptable because they contain indefinite language. Thus, the nature of the goods is unclear, as set forth below. The USPTO has the discretion to determine the degree of particularity needed to clearly identify goods covered by a mark. In re Fiat Grp. Mktg. & Corp. Commc’ns S.p.A , 109 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (TTAB 2014) (citing In re Omega SA , 494 F.3d 1362, 1365, 83 USPQ2d 1541, 1543-44 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). Accordingly, the USPTO requires the description of goods in a U.S. application to be specific, definite, clear, accurate, and concise. TMEP §1402.01; see In re Fiat Grp. Mktg. & Corp. Commc’ns S.p.A , 109 USPQ2d at 1597-98; Cal. Spray-Chem. Corp. v. Osmose Wood Pres. Co. of Am . , 102 USPQ 321, 322 (Comm’r Pats. 1954).
The following guidelines are provided for amending the identification:
· Use common commercial or generic names for the goods whenever possible. If there is no common commercial or generic name, describe the product and intended consumer as well as the main purpose and intended uses of the goods (TMEP § 1402.01);
· Use “namely” after broad terms (e.g., “accessories,” “apparatus,” “components,” “devices,” “equipment,” “materials,” “parts,” “systems” or “products”) followed by a list of the specific goods, e.g., “accessories, namely, [list specific goods]” (TMEP §§ 1402.01, 1402.03(a));
· Use commas (1) to separate a series of related items identified within a particular category of goods, (2) before and after “namely,” and (3) between each item in a list of goods or services (TMEP § 1402.01(a));
· Use semicolons to separate a distinct category of goods within an International Class (TMEP § 1402.01(a)).
Overall Identification
Applicant may adopt the following form of identification, if accurate:
Class 7 – Grinders being power tools; Lathes; Band saws; Milling Machines; Machines for electrical
discharge machining (EDM) of work pieces; Cold saw Metal working machines in the nature of cold saws; Power tools, namely, drill presses;
Milling-drilling machines; Drilling machines; Brakes for machines; Rolling machines for rolling metals; Metal working machines, namely, manual power-operated hand-held and electronic notchers; Metal working machines, namely, manual power-operated hand-held and electronic
ironworkers; Metal working machines, namely, manual power-operated hand-held and electronic shearing machines; Metalworking
machines, namely, machining centers
Scope Advisory
ID Manual Online
For assistance with identifying and classifying goods in trademark applications, please see the USPTO’s online searchable U.S. Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual. See TMEP §1402.04. Applicant is strongly encouraged to consult the ID Manual.
INQUIRY – SIGNIFICANCE OF WORDING
HOW TO RESPOND
For this application to proceed, Applicant must explicitly address each requirement in this Office action. For a requirement, Applicant should set forth the changes or statements. Please see “Responding to Office Actions” and the informational video “Response to Office Action” for more information and tips on responding.
Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action
ASSISTANCE
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 requirements 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.
/Samantha Sherman/
Examining Attorney
Law Office 123
571-270-0903
samantha.sherman@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE