To: | Magna Imperio Systems, Corp. (TMDocket@mofo.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88545432 - CLEAN WATER. SAVE ENERGY. - 794836006000 |
Sent: | October 25, 2019 01:14:37 PM |
Sent As: | ecom120@uspto.gov |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 Attachment - 6 Attachment - 7 Attachment - 8 Attachment - 9 Attachment - 10 Attachment - 11 Attachment - 12 Attachment - 13 Attachment - 14 Attachment - 15 Attachment - 16 Attachment - 17 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88545432
Mark: CLEAN WATER. SAVE ENERGY.
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
Applicant: Magna Imperio Systems, Corp.
|
|
Reference/Docket No. 794836006000
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
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).
· Refusal under Trademark Act Sections 1, 2, and 45 – Failure to Function
· Refusal under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1) – Merely Descriptive
SECTIONS 1, 2, AND 45 REFUSAL - FAILURE TO FUNCTION
Slogans and terms that are merely informational in nature, such as statements or laudatory phrases about goods ordinarily used in business or in a particular trade or industry, are not registrable. See In re Eagle Crest, Inc., 96 USPQ2d 1227, 1229 (TTAB 2010). Determining whether the slogan or term functions as a trademark depends on how it would be perceived by the relevant public. In re Eagle Crest, Inc., 96 USPQ2d at 1229; In re Aerospace Optics, Inc., 78 USPQ2d at 1862; TMEP §1202.04. “The more commonly a [slogan or term] is used, the less likely that the public will use it to identify only one source and the less likely that it will be recognized by purchasers as a trademark [or service mark].” In re Hulting, 107 USPQ2d 1175, 1177 (TTAB 2013) (quoting In re Eagle Crest, Inc., 96 USPQ2d at 1229); TMEP §1202.04(b).
The attached evidence from third-party entities in the water-purification industry shows that these slogan or terms are commonly used by those in applicant’s particular trade or industry to indicate a common informational phrase. Because consumers are accustomed to seeing these slogan or terms used in this manner, when it is applied to applicant’s goods, they would perceive it merely as informational matter indicating that applicant goods provide a clear tasteless liquid that is free of impurities and conserves power. Thus, this slogan or term would not be perceived as a mark that identifies the source of applicant’s goods.
An applicant may not overcome this refusal by amending the application to seek registration on the Supplemental Register or asserting a claim of acquired distinctiveness under Section 2(f). TMEP §1202.04(d); see In re Eagle Crest, Inc., 96 USPQ2d at 1229. Nor will submitting a substitute specimen overcome this refusal. See TMEP §1202.04(d).
Applicant should note the following additional ground for refusal.
SECTION 2(e)(1) REFUSAL - MERELY DESCRIPTIVE
In this case, the mark is “CLEAN WATER. SAVE ENERGY.” and the applicant has identified its goods as “wastewater purification apparatus, installations and tanks; water purification and filtration apparatus; water purification units; wastewater treatment equipment, namely, ion separators” in International Class 11. The attached evidence from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines “CLEAN” as “[f]ree from foreign matter or pollution;” defines “WATER” as “[a] clear, colorless, odorless, and tasteless liquid;” defines “SAVE” as “[t]o prevent the waste or loss of; conserve;” and defines “ENERGY” as “[u]sable heat or power.” The phrase “CLEAN WATER” merely describes the function of applicant’s goods because they produce clear, colorless, odorless, and tasteless liquid that is free from pollution. The phrase “SAVE ENERGY” also merely describes a function of applicant’s goods because they are designed to conserve power. Accordingly, in the context of applicant’s goods, the applied-for mark merely describes goods that conserve power while producing clear, colorless, odorless, and tasteless liquid that is free from pollution. Thus, “CLEAN WATER. SAVE ENERGY.” merely describes a function of applicant’s goods.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the applied-for mark, “CLEAN WATER. SAVE ENERGY.”, is refused because it is merely descriptive of the applicant’s goods under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1).
RESPONSE GUIDANCE
How to respond. Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action
QUESTIONS
If applicant has questions regarding this Office action, please telephone or e-mail the assigned trademark examining attorney. All relevant e-mail communications will be placed in the official application record; however, an e-mail communication will not be accepted as a response to this Office action and will not extend the deadline for filing a proper response. See 37 C.F.R. §2.191; TMEP §§709.04-.05. Further, although the trademark examining attorney may provide additional explanation pertaining to the refusals in this Office action, the trademark examining attorney may not provide legal advice or statements about applicant’s rights. See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06.
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.
/Marco Wright/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 120
(571) 272-4918
marco.wright@uspto.gov