To: | RequirementsLive LLC (craig@nodiplaw.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88554596 - ACTIVITYSTUDIO - 9500.302.US |
Sent: | November 04, 2019 01:51:27 PM |
Sent As: | ecom117@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 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88554596
Mark: ACTIVITYSTUDIO
|
|
Correspondence Address: |
|
Applicant: RequirementsLive LLC
|
|
Reference/Docket No. 9500.302.US
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: November 04, 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
In this case, applicant has applied to register “ACTIVITYSTUDIO” for “business consultation services, namely, providing computer programming templates, functional programming blocks, and preprogrammed links between functional programming blocks to users to enable user development and generation of computer software for use by the business' users (internal or external) for purposes of operations, sales, marketing, risk management, compliance, governance and collaboration; Software as a service services featuring software for providing user access to information concerning the development and generation of computer software for use in businesses as well as access to information concerning the functions and application of such business software”. The applied-for mark merely describes features of applicant’s services because applicant’s services feature or otherwise relate to actions of a particular kind and various software.
Attached to this Office action are definitions for the individual terms in the applied-for mark, i.e., “ACTIVITY” and “STUDIO”. Specifically, the wording “ACTIVITY” means “actions of a particular kind” and the wording “STUDIO” means “various software”. See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/activity; http://www.computerlanguage.com/results.php?definition=Studio. In its identification, applicant indicates that its services are the provision of computer programming templates, functional programming blocks and preprogrammed links to enables users to development and generate computer software as well as software as a service services featuring software for providing access to information relating to computer software development, generation, and the functions and application of software. Additionally, applicant’s specimen of record indicates that its services allow users to perform or execute specific actions. See Application pg. #12-13 (Applicant’s specimen of record providing that users of its services can “perform activities online or offline with native apps for IOS, Android, and Window”; and “Provide recommended actions and enforce timeframes”). Thus, the wording “ACTIVITY” merely describes a feature of applicant’s services because applicant’s services allow consumers to develop and generate computer software for performing particular types of actions and feature information about software for performing particular types of actions.. The wording “STUDIO” merely describes a feature of applicant’s services because applicant’s services pertain to various software. Therefore, the individual components of the applied-for mark merely describe features of applicant’s services.
Generally, if the individual components of a mark retain their descriptive meaning in relation to the goods and/or services, the combination results in a composite mark that is itself descriptive and not registrable. In re Fat Boys Water Sports LLC, 118 USPQ2d 1511, 1516 (TTAB 2016) (citing In re Tower Tech, Inc., 64 USPQ2d 1314, 1317-18 (TTAB (2002)); TMEP §1209.03(d); see, e.g.,In re Tower Tech, Inc., 64 USPQ2d 1314, 1317-18 (TTAB 2002) (holding SMARTTOWER merely descriptive of “commercial and industrial cooling towers and accessories therefor, sold as a unit”); In re Sun Microsystems, Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1084, 1087 (TTAB 2001) (holding AGENTBEANS merely descriptive of “computer software for use in the development and deployment of application programs on a global computer network”); In re Putnam Publ’g Co., 39 USPQ2d 2021, 2022 (TTAB 1996) (holding FOOD & BEVERAGE ON-LINE merely descriptive of “a news and information service updated daily for the food processing industry, contained in a database”); In re Copytele, Inc., 31 USPQ2d 1540, 1542 (TTAB 1994) (holding SCREEN FAX PHONE merely descriptive of “facsimile terminals employing electrophoretic displays”).
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, when taken together and applied to applicant’s services, the applied-for mark “ACTIVITYSTUDIO” immediately conveys some information about applicant’s services, namely, that they relate to actions of a particular kind and various software. Therefore, the individual components of a mark retain their descriptive meaning in relation to the services, resulting in a composite mark that is itself descriptive and not registrable.
Conclusion
Accordingly, the applied-for mark “ACTIVITYSTUDIO” is merely descriptive of applicant’s services and as a result, registration is refused under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act.
Applicant should note the following advisory.
ADVISORY – SUPPLEMENTAL REGISTER
(1) Use of the registration symbol ® with the registered mark in connection with the designated goods and/or services, which provides public notice of the registration and potentially deters third parties from using confusingly similar marks.
(2) Inclusion of the registered mark in the USPTO’s database of registered and pending marks, which will (a) make it easier for third parties to find it in trademark search reports, (b) provide public notice of the registration, and thus (c) potentially deter third parties from using confusingly similar marks.
(3) Use of the registration by a USPTO trademark examining attorney as a bar to registering confusingly similar marks in applications filed by third parties.
(4) Use of the registration as a basis to bring suit for trademark infringement in federal court, which, although more costly than state court, means judges with more trademark experience, often faster adjudications, and the opportunity to seek an injunction, actual damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs.
(5) Use of the registration as a filing basis for a trademark application for registration in certain foreign countries, in accordance with international treaties.
See 15 U.S.C. §§1052(d), 1091, 1094; J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks & Unfair Competition §§19:33, 19:37 (rev. 4th ed. Supp. 2017).
To amend the application to the Supplemental Register, applicant must provide a written statement requesting that the application be amended to the Supplemental Register. TMEP §816.01; see 15 U.S.C. §1091; 37 C.F.R. §2.47.
Applicant should note the following additional ground for refusal.
SPECIMEN UNACCEPTABL IN INTERNATIONAL CLASS 35
An application based on Trademark Act Section 1(a) must include a specimen showing the applied-for mark in use in commerce for each international class of goods and/or services identified in the application or amendment to allege use. 15 U.S.C. §1051(a)(1); 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a).
Examples of specimens for goods include tags, labels, instruction manuals, containers, photographs that show the mark on the actual goods or packaging, and displays associated with the actual goods at their point of sale. See TMEP §§904.03 et seq. Webpages may also be specimens for goods when they include a picture or textual description of the goods associated with the mark and the means to order the goods. TMEP §904.03(i). Examples of specimens for services include advertising and marketing materials, brochures, photographs of business signage and billboards, and webpages that show the mark used in the actual sale, rendering, or advertising of the services. See TMEP §1301.04(a), (h)(iv)(C). Specimens comprising advertising and promotional materials must show a direct association between the mark and the services. TMEP §1301.04(f)(ii).
Applicant may respond to this refusal by satisfying one of the following for each applicable international class:
(1) Submit a different specimen (a verified “substitute” specimen) that (a) was in actual use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application or prior to the filing of an amendment to allege use and (b) shows the mark in actual use in commerce for the goods and/or services identified in the application or amendment to allege use. A “verified substitute specimen” is a specimen that is accompanied by the following statement made in a signed affidavit or supported by a declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20: “The substitute (or new, or originally submitted, if appropriate) specimen(s) was/were in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application or prior to the filing of the amendment to allege use.” The substitute specimen cannot be accepted without this statement.
(2) Amend the filing basis to intent to use under Section 1(b), for which no specimen is required. This option will later necessitate additional fee(s) and filing requirements such as providing a specimen.
For an overview of both response options referenced above and instructions on how to satisfy either option online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, please go to http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/law/specimen.jsp.
REQUIREMENT – AMEND IDENTIFICATION OF SERVICES
For the reasons set forth below, specific wording in the identification of services is unacceptable as indefinite and must be clarified. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.
First, applicant should be aware that descriptions of goods and/or services found acceptable in earlier-filed applications and registrations do not always remain acceptable when adopted in later-filed applications. See TMEP §§702.03(a)(iv), 1402.14. Identifications of goods and/or services are examined in accordance with the Trademark Rules of Practice and the USPTO’s policies and procedures in effect on the date an application is filed (although an applicant may voluntarily choose to follow policies and procedures adopted after the application was filed). See 37 C.F.R. §2.85(e)(1)-(e)(2); TMEP §§1401.09, 1402.14.
The USPTO’s rules and policies with respect to identifications of goods and/or services are updated periodically to reflect changes in the marketplace and technology as well as changes to the international classification system. See TMEP §1402.14. For guidance on drafting acceptable identifications of goods and/or services, use the USPTO’s online U.S. Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual (ID Manual), which is continually updated in accordance with prevailing rules and policies. See TMEP §1402.04.
International Class 35
Additionally, the wording “…business' users (internal or external) for…” contains parentheses. Generally, applicants should not use parentheses and brackets in identifications in their applications so as to avoid confusion with the USPTO’s practice of using parentheses and brackets in registrations to indicate goods and/or services that have been deleted from registrations or in an affidavit of incontestability to indicate goods and/or services not claimed. See TMEP §1402.12. The only exception is that parenthetical information is permitted in identifications in an application if it serves to explain or translate the matter immediately preceding the parenthetical phrase in such a way that it does not affect the clarity or scope of the identification, e.g., “fried tofu pieces (abura-age).” Id.
Therefore, applicant must remove the parentheses from the identification and incorporate any parenthetical or bracketed information into the description of the goods and/or services.
Applicant may adopt the following wording, with suggested wording specified in bold, if accurate:
International Class 35: Business consultation services, namely, [clarify type of business-related consultation services classified in International Class 35, e.g., providing business information related to computer programming templates, functional programming blocks, and preprogrammed links between functional programming blocks that enable development and generation of computer software by internal and external business' users for the purposes of advising about business operations, sales, marketing, risk management, compliance, governance and collaboration; online retail store services featuring computer programming templates and functional programming blocks being computer software source code;
International Class 42: Software as a service services featuring software for providing user access to information concerning the development and generation of computer software for use in businesses as well as access to information concerning the functions and application of such business software; [clarify nature of services classified in International Class 42, e.g., providing a website featuring technology in the nature of computer programming templates, functional computer programming blocks, and preprogrammed links between functional computer programming blocks, that enables users to specify the task capable of being performed using the website technology, e.g., develop and generate computer software for indicate specific function(s) of software, e.g., performing audits, self-assessments, inspections, product evaluations and generating business surveys and business operations checklists] and intended for use by internal and external business' users for purposes of executing business operations, sales, marketing, risk management, compliance, governance and collaboration.
Scope Advisory
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.
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.
ASSISTANCE
How to respond. Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action
Rhoda Nkojo
/Rhoda Nkojo/
Examining Attorney
Law Office 117
(571) 272-8468
Rhoda.Nkojo@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE