To: | Masson, Marcos V. (mail@emsip.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88587749 - ROC RECONSTRUCTIVE ORTHOPEDIC - 1985-76 |
Sent: | November 27, 2019 01:34:02 PM |
Sent As: | ecom108@uspto.gov |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88587749
Mark: ROC RECONSTRUCTIVE ORTHOPEDIC
|
|
Correspondence Address: EGBERT, MCDANIEL & SWARTZ, PLLC
|
|
Applicant: Masson, Marcos V.
|
|
Reference/Docket No. 1985-76
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
NONFINAL OFFICE ACTION
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 27, 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).
In this case, applicant must disclaim the wording “RECONSTRUCTIVE ORTHOPEDIC CENTER” because it is not inherently distinctive. These unregistrable term(s) at best are merely descriptive of an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose, or use of applicant’s goods and/or services. 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).
The attached evidence from applicant’s website shows this wording refers to the reconstructive orthopedic services applicant performs. Thus, the wording merely describes applicant’s services because it describes the purpose of applicant’s medical services.
Applicant may respond to this issue by submitting a disclaimer in the following format:
No claim is made to the exclusive right to use RECONSTRUCTIVE ORTHOPEDIC CENTER” 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.
§2(F) IN PART ADVISORY
(1) Prior Registrations: Applicant may claim ownership of one or more active prior registrations on the Principal Register of that portion of the mark for goods and/or services that are sufficiently similar to those named in the pending application. TMEP §1212.02(f)(i); see 37 C.F.R. §2.41(a)(1). Applicant may do so by submitting the following statement, if accurate: “The wording “RECONSTRUCTIVE ORTHOPEDIC CENTER” in the mark has become distinctive of the goods and/or services as evidenced by the ownership of active U.S. Registration No(s). 975770, 4546221, and 4562342. on the Principal Register for the same mark for sufficiently similar goods and/or services.” TMEP §1212.04(e).
(2) Five Years’ Use: Applicant may submit a verified statement that that portion of the mark has become distinctive of applicant’s goods and/or services through the applicant’s substantially exclusive and continuous use of the mark in commerce that the U.S. Congress may lawfully regulate for the five years before the date when the claim of distinctiveness is made. TMEP §1212.02(f)(i); see 37 C.F.R. §2.41(a)(2). Applicant may do so by submitting the following statement, if accurate: “The wording “RECONSTRUCTIVE ORTHOPEDIC CENTER” in the mark has become distinctive of the goods and/or services through the applicant’s substantially exclusive and continuous use of the mark in commerce that the U.S. Congress may lawfully regulate for at least the five years immediately before the date of this statement.” TMEP §1212.05(d).
(3) Other Evidence: Applicant may submit other evidence of acquired distinctiveness of that portion of the mark, which may include “advertising expenditures, sales success, length and exclusivity of use, unsolicited media coverage, and consumer studies (linking the name to a source).” In re Change Wind Corp., 123 USPQ2d 1453, 1467 (TTAB 2017) (quoting In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293, 1300, 75 USPQ2d 1420, 1424 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). In addition to the evidence, applicant should submit the following statement, if accurate: “The evidence shows that the wording “RECONSTRUCTIVE ORTHOPEDIC CENTER” in the mark has become distinctive of the goods and/or services.”
Applicant may submit a disclaimer in the following format:
No claim is made to the exclusive right to use “CENTER” apart from the mark as shown.
TMEP §1213.08(a)(i).
For an overview of disclaimers and instructions on how to satisfy this issue using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), see the Disclaimer webpage.
MARK DESCRIPTION AMENDMENT REQUIRED
A complete description must identify all the literal and design elements in the mark and specify where the colors appear in those elements. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.37, 2.52(b)(1); TMEP §§807.07(a) et seq. If black, white, and/or gray are not being claimed as a color feature of the mark, applicant must exclude them from the color claim and include in the description a statement that black, white, and/or gray represent background, outlining, shading, and/or transparent areas and are not part of the mark. See TMEP §807.07(d).
The following description is suggested, if accurate:
Color claim: “The colors blue and white are claimed as a feature of the mark
The mark consists of the wording “ROC” in stylized blue font over the wording “RECONSTRUCTIVE ORTHOPEDIC CENTER” in blue font. Inside of the “R” in the “ROC” is a stylized image of a closed fist.
RESPONSE GUIDELINES
For this application to proceed further, applicant must explicitly address each refusal and/or requirement raised in this Office action. If the action includes a refusal, applicant may provide arguments and/or evidence as to why the refusal should be withdrawn and the mark should register. Applicant may also have other options specified in this Office action for responding to a refusal and should consider those options carefully. To respond to requirements and certain refusal response options, applicant should set forth in writing the required changes or statements. For more information and general tips on responding to USPTO Office actions, response options, and how to file a response online, see “Responding to Office Actions” on the USPTO’s website.
If applicant does not respond to this Office action within six months of the issue/mailing date, or responds by expressly abandoning the application, the application process will end and the trademark will fail to register. See 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.65(a), 2.68(a); TMEP §§718.01, 718.02. Additionally, the USPTO will not refund the application filing fee, which is a required processing fee. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(1)(i)-(iv), 2.209(a); TMEP §405.04.
When an application has abandoned for failure to respond to an Office action, an applicant may timely file a petition to revive the application, which, if granted, would allow the application to return to active status. See 37 C.F.R. §2.66; TMEP §1714. The petition must be filed within two months of the date of issuance of the notice of abandonment and may be filed online via the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) with a $100 fee. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(15)(ii), 2.66(b)(1).
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. Further, although the trademark examining attorney may provide additional explanation pertaining to the refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) 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 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.
/Ryan Lavoie/
Ryan Lavoie
Examining Attorney
Law Office 108
571-272-6774
Ryan.Lavoie@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE