To: | Shadecraft, Inc. (mark@shadecraft.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88567197 - SUN TABLE - SDT69 |
Sent: | November 05, 2019 03:03:49 PM |
Sent As: | ecom111@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 Attachment - 18 Attachment - 19 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88567197
Mark: SUN TABLE
|
|
Correspondence Address: KENDRICK INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW
|
|
Applicant: Shadecraft, Inc.
|
|
Reference/Docket No. SDT69
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 05, 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).
SECTION 2(e)(1) REFUSAL – MERELY DESCRIPTIVE
Applicant applied to register the mark SUN TABLE for use in connection with the following goods in International Class 20: “table to charge mobile communication devices; table to protect mobile communication devices; table with integrated speaker for playing music; table with integrated lighting assembly; table including solar cells.”
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 do not create a unique, incongruous, or nondescriptive meaning in relation to the goods. In this particular context, the wording comprising the mark is defined as follows:
SUN is defined as “[t]he radiant energy, especially heat and visible light, emitted by the sun; sunshine.”
TABLE is defined as “[a] piece of furniture usually supported by one or more legs and having a flat top surface on which objects can be placed.” It is noted that applicant provided a disclaimer for this wording.
See attached evidence from the American Heritage Dictionary.
Here, the combination of SUN TABLE is merely descriptive because the phrase conveys to consumers that applicant’s goods are furniture incorporating features that it allow it to derive energy emitted by the sun. As seen in the application’s identification of goods, applicant’s tables incorporate solar cells and can be used to charge mobile communication devices, play music through integrated speakers, and use lights, all presumably using electricity derived from solar power.
Moreover, the attached screenshots from third-party websites demonstrates the wide-spread use of “sun” and “table” to denote furniture in the nature of tables that feature solar panels or solar cells to draw energy from the sun. For example, in describing its SolarTable 60, GoSun states “[u]se the sun to charge laptops, tablets, cameras, phones, and lights”. See attached evidence from http://www.gosun.co/products/solartable-60. A website describing a solar panel charging table states “[t]his clever patio table’s glass top is actually a solar panel that absorbs the sun’s energy and converts it into electrical energy.” See attached evidence from http://www.thisiswhyimbroke.com/solar-panel-charging-table/. +SoSe describes its solar table by stating “+SoSe takes all the energy needed to charge your phone from the sun.” See attached evidence from http://solarsehpa.com/. Lastly, an article from Wired.com discussing a solar table states “[t]he best part if [sic] that you can plug in your gadgets and get them filled up with sun power.” See attached evidence from http://www.wired.com/2007/12/--sun-table-cha/.
Ultimately, when consumers encounter applicant’s goods using the mark SUN TABLE, they will immediately understand the mark as an indication of a characteristic and feature of applicant’s goods, namely, furniture in the nature of tables that incorporate features for deriving energy from the sun. Therefore, the mark is merely descriptive of applicant’s goods, and registration is refused pursuant to Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act.
Applicant must also respond to the requirements set forth below.
INFORMATION ABOUT THE GOODS REQUIRED
(1) Fact sheets, instruction manuals, brochures, advertisements and pertinent screenshots of applicant’s website as it relates to the goods in the application, including any materials using the terms in the applied-for mark. Merely stating that information about the goods is available on applicant’s website is insufficient to make the information of record.;
(2) If these materials are unavailable, applicant should submit similar documentation for goods of the same type, explaining how its own product will differ. If the goods feature new technology and information regarding competing goods is not available, applicant must provide a detailed factual description of the goods. Factual information about the goods must make clear how they operate, salient features, and prospective customers and channels of trade. Conclusory statements will not satisfy this requirement.; and
(3) Applicant must respond to the following questions:
a) Do applicant’s goods feature solar cells or solar panels to derive energy from the sun and convert it to electricity?
b) What power source do applicant’s tables use to charge mobile devices?
c) What power source do applicant’s tables use for the integrated speakers and light assembly?
d) Are the goods for outdoor use?
See 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b); TMEP §§814, 1402.01(e).
Failure to comply with a request for information is grounds for refusing registration. In re Harley, 119 USPQ2d 1755, 1757-58 (TTAB 2016); TMEP §814.
ADVISORY - Response Option for Section 2(e)(1) Refusal: Applicant may amend to the Supplemental Register after filing an acceptable Amendment to Allege Use
Note: 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 – CLARIFICATION REQUIRED
Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate (changes noted in bold font):
Table featuring built-in battery chargers for to charging mobile communication devices; Table
featuring mobile device holders for protecting mobile communication devices; Table with integrated speaker for playing music; Table with integrated
lighting assembly; Table including incorporating solar cells
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.
RESPONDING TO THIS OFFICE ACTION
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. §§2.62(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.
How to respond. Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action
/Luz Adorno Santos/
Trademark Examining Attorney
U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, Law Office 111
571-272-4902
Luz.Adorno@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE