To: | CAC Holdings, LLC (preid@burr.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88537521 - CAC - 0002286.74.3 |
Sent: | October 16, 2019 05:37:57 PM |
Sent As: | ecom109@uspto.gov |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 Attachment - 6 Attachment - 7 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88537521
Mark: CAC
|
|
Correspondence Address: 201 N. FRANKLIN STREET, SUITE 3200
|
|
Applicant: CAC Holdings, LLC
|
|
Reference/Docket No. 0002286.74.3
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 16, 2019
The assigned trademark examining attorney has reviewed the referenced application and has determined the following:
Search
The Office records have been searched and no similar registered or pending mark has been found that would bar registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d). TMEP §704.02.
Section 2(e)(1) Descriptiveness Refusal
The Applicant intends to use the mark “CAC” in International Class 36 for “insurance services”. The letters “CAC” is an abbreviation of the wording “combined additional coverage”. According to the website screenshot from Progressive ®, CAC is used in connection with fire and theft insurance and is intended to cover hazards other than fire and theft. Fire and theft with combined additional coverage (CAC) is intended to provide comprehensive coverage for insured vehicles. Please see the applicant’s attached website, which demonstrates that the applicant provides automobile insurance, as well as the attached website from Progressive ® as evidence.
The attached articles found in the examining attorney's search of the Internet using the GOOGLE® search engine are a representative sample of the articles in which applicant’s mark is used descriptively in connection with the goods/services. Printouts of articles downloaded from the Internet are admissible as evidence of information available to the general public, and may be used to demonstrate and establish the manner in which a term is used and understood by the public. TMEP §710.01(b). In re Total Quality Group Inc., 51 USPQ2d 1474, 1475-76 (TTAB 1999); Raccioppi v. Apogee Inc., 47 USPQ2d 1368, 1370-1 (TTAB 1998). Search results summaries are of probative value since both search engine results and Web site contents are equally accessible to consuming public and both constitute evidence that public may be exposed to the terms at issue. See In re Fitch IBCA Inc., 64 USPQ2d 1058 (TTAB 2002).
Accordingly, since the mark merely describes a feature of applicant’s services, registration must be refused on the Principal Register under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act.
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 chooses to respond to the refusal to register, then applicant must also respond to the following requirements.
Recitation of Services
The recitation of services is unacceptable as indefinite because the services listed were not specific enough and may be classified in several different International Classes. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.
Applicant may adopt the following identification, if accurate:
Class 35: “Insurance {specify, e.g., claims auditing} services”;
Class 36: “Insurance {specify, e.g., underwriting} services {for all types of insurance}; Insurance services, {namely, writing property and casualty insurance}”
For assistance with identifying and classifying goods and/or services in trademark applications, please see the online searchable Manual of Acceptable Identifications of Goods and Services at http://tess2.gov.uspto.report/netahtml/tidm.html.
Please note that, while the identification of services may be amended to clarify or limit the services, adding to the services or broadening the scope of the services is not permitted. 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06. Therefore, applicant may not amend the identification to include services that are not within the scope of the services set forth in the present identification.
Significance of Letters
Response
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
/David Collier/
Examining Attorney
Law Office 109
(571) 272-8859
david.collier@uspto.gov (not for formal responses)
RESPONSE GUIDANCE