To: | Thomas & Darden Inc. (uspt@polsinelli.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88537174 - KUBE SOUND - 090831623415 |
Sent: | October 25, 2019 06:36:42 PM |
Sent As: | ecom103@uspto.gov |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88537174
Mark: KUBE SOUND
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
Applicant: Thomas & Darden Inc.
|
|
Reference/Docket No. 090831623415
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 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).
SECTION 2(e)(1) REFUSAL - MERELY DESCRIPTIVE
Applicant seeks to register KUBE SOUND, for, “Audio systems, namely, audio speakers and audio electronic components; stereo enclosures” in Class 009, and “Retail store services and online retail store services featuring audio systems, stereo speakers, and portable beverage coolers” in Class 035.
The examining attorney notes that applicant’s mark is comprised of two merely descriptive words.
Specifically, the wording “KUBE” is the phonetic equivalent of “cube,” which is defined as “an object like a box with six square sides that are all the same size.” See attached evidence from http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/cube_1. A term that describes the shape or form of a product is merely descriptive. In re Metcal Inc., 1 USPQ2d 1334 (TTAB 1986) (holding SOLDER STRAP merely descriptive of self regulating heaters in the form of flexible bands or straps); In re H.U.D.D.L.E., 216 USPQ 358 (TTAB 1982) (holding TOOBS merely descriptive of bathroom and kitchen fixtures in the shape of tubes).
The examining attorney notes that a novel spelling or an intentional misspelling that is the phonetic equivalent of a merely descriptive word or term is also merely descriptive if purchasers would perceive the different spelling as the equivalent of the descriptive word or term. See In re Quik-Print Copy Shop, Inc., 616 F.2d 523, 526 & n.9, 205 USPQ 505, 507 & n.9 (C.C.P.A. 1980) (holding “QUIK-PRINT,” phonetic spelling of “quick-print,” merely descriptive of printing and photocopying services); In re Calphalon Corp., 122 USPQ2d 1153, 1163 (TTAB 2017) (holding “SHARPIN”, phonetic spelling of “sharpen,” merely descriptive of cutlery knife blocks with built-in sharpeners); In re Carlson, 91 USPQ2d 1198, 1203 (TTAB 2009) (holding “URBANHOUZING,” phonetic spelling of “urban” and “housing,” merely descriptive of real estate services); TMEP §1209.03(j). This wording is merely descriptive because it describes a feature or characteristic, namely, the approximate shape of applicant’s goods. The examining attorney notes that the registrations claimed by applicant disclaim the wording “CUBE,” which is essentially a concession that the wording is not inherently distinctive. See Alcatraz Media Inc. v. Chesapeake Marine Tours Inc., 107 USPQ2d 1750, 1762 (TTAB 2013), aff’d, 565 Fed. Appx. 900 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Bass Pro Trademarks LLC v. Sportsman’s Warehouse Inc. 89 USPQ2d 1844, 1851 (TTAB 2008).
In regards to the wording “SOUNDS,” which is the plural form of the wording “sound,” which defined as “something that you can hear,” this wording is merely descriptive because it describes a purpose or use of applicant’s goods, namely, that applicant’s audio systems and stereo enclosures emit sounds and music. Terms that describe the function or purpose of a product or service may be merely descriptive. TMEP §1209.03(p); see, e.g., In re Hunter Fan Co., 78 USPQ2d 1474, 1477 (TTAB 2006) (holding ERGONOMIC merely descriptive of ceiling fans); In re Wallyball, Inc., 222 USPQ 87, 89 (TTAB 1984) (holding WALLYBALL merely descriptive of sports clothing and game equipment); In re Orleans Wines, Ltd., 196 USPQ 516, 517 (TTAB 1977) (holding BREADSPRED merely descriptive of jams and jellies).
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. Specifically, the mark merely describes an object shaped like a box that emits sounds, or something you can hear.
Thus, registration must be refused under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act.
Applicant should note the below advisory.
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.
IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS—AMENDMENT REQUIRED
The wording “Audio systems, namely, audio speakers and audio electronic components” is unacceptable as indefinite because the wording “audio electronic components” could refer to a wide variety of goods. Applicant must amend the wording to specify the particular type(s) of components. See id. See suggested amendment below.
The wording “stereo enclosures” is unacceptable as vague because it is unclear whether applicant is referring to speaker enclosures or some other type of goods. Applicant must amend the wording to clarify the nature of the goods. See id. See suggested amendment below.
SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS
Applicant may adopt the following identification, if accurate:
Class 009
Audio systems, namely, audio speakers and audio electronic components in the nature of_______________{specify audio electronic components, e.g., surround sound systems}; stereo enclosures being audio speaker enclosures.
Class 035 (no changes)
Retail store services and online retail store services featuring audio systems, stereo speakers, and portable beverage coolers
For assistance with identifying and classifying goods and services in trademark applications, please see the USPTO’s online searchable U.S. Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual. See TMEP §1402.04.
Response guidelines. For this application to proceed, applicant must explicitly address each refusal and/or requirement in this Office action. For a refusal, applicant may provide written arguments and evidence against the refusal, and may have other response options if specified above. 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.
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
/Michael FitzSimons/
Michael FitzSimons
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 103
(571) 272-0619
michael.fitzsimons@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE