To: | TUGLOW, LLC (tremaklus@whe-law.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88575174 - LAB PRIVE - TUGLOW-3 |
Sent: | November 15, 2019 02:50:01 PM |
Sent As: | ecom127@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 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88575174
Mark: LAB PRIVE
|
|
Correspondence Address: |
|
Applicant: TUGLOW, LLC
|
|
Reference/Docket No. TUGLOW-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: November 15, 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.
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).
SUMMARY OF ISSUES
DISCLAIMER REQUIRED FOR CLASS 3
Applicant must provide a disclaimer of the unregistrable part of the applied-for mark even though the mark as a whole appears to be registrable. See 15 U.S.C. §1056(a); TMEP §§1213, 1213.03(a). A disclaimer of an unregistrable part of a mark will not affect the mark’s appearance. See Schwarzkopf v. John H. Breck, Inc., 340 F.2d 978, 979-80, 144 USPQ 433, 433 (C.C.P.A. 1965).
In this case, applicant must disclaim the term “LAB” as to Class 3 because it is not inherently distinctive. This unregistrable term is at best is merely descriptive of a feature of applicant’s goods. See 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1251, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2012); TMEP §§1213, 1213.03(a). Specifically, the Collins English Dictionary defines “LAB” as the same as a laboratory (see http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/lab). The attached sampling of Internet evidence from Earth Lab Cosmetics, Glamour Lab Cosmetics, and SkinLab shows this wording is commonly used in connection with similar goods, namely, applicant’s cleansers and cosmetics, to refer to the origin of the products, specifically, from a lab or laboratory. Thus, the wording merely describes applicant’s goods and must be disclaimed.
· Earth Lab Cosmetics: http://www.earthlabcosmetics.us/
· Glamour Lab Cosmetics: http://www.glamourlabcosmetics.com/
· SkinLab cleansers: http://www.earthlabcosmetics.us/
Applicant may respond to this issue by submitting a disclaimer in the following format:
No claim is made to the exclusive right to use “LAB” for class 3 apart from the mark as shown.
For an overview of disclaimers and instructions on how to satisfy this issue using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), see the Disclaimer webpage.
ENGLISH TRANSLATION REQUIRED
To permit proper examination of the application, applicant must submit an English translation of the foreign wording in the mark “PRIVE.” 37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(9), 2.61(b); see TMEP §809. The following English translation is suggested: The English translation of “PRIVE” in the mark is “PRIVATE”. TMEP §809.03. See attached translation evidence.
RESPONSE GUIDELINES
For this application to proceed, applicant must explicitly address each requirement in this Office action. 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.
ASSISTANCE
Please call or email the assigned trademark examining attorney with questions about this Office action. Although the trademark examining attorney cannot provide legal advice or statements about applicant’s rights, the trademark examining attorney can provide applicant with additional explanation about the refusal in this Office action. See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06. Although the USPTO does not accept emails as responses to Office actions, emails can be used for informal communications and will be included in the application record. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(c), 2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05.
How to respond. Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action
Byron S. Barahona, Esq.
/Byron Steve Barahona/
Examining Attorney
Law Office 127
Phone: (571)-270-5579
Byron.Barahona@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE