To: | TX Fly Co., LLC (info@txflyco.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88592708 - TX FLY CO. - N/A |
Sent: | December 02, 2019 12:14:00 PM |
Sent As: | ecom123@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. 88592708
Mark: TX FLY CO.
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
Applicant: TX Fly Co., LLC
|
|
Reference/Docket No. N/A
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: December 02, 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).
SECTION 2(e)(2) REFUSAL – PRIMARILY GEOGRAPHICALLY DESCRIPTIVE
A mark is primarily geographically descriptive when the following is demonstrated:
(1) The primary significance of the mark is a generally known geographic place or location;
(2) The goods for which applicant seeks registration originate in the geographic place identified in the mark; and
(3) Purchasers would be likely to make a goods-place association; that is, purchasers would be likely to believe that the goods originate in the geographic place identified in the mark.
TMEP §1210.01(a); see In re Societe Generale des Eaux Minerales de Vittel S.A., 824 F.2d 957, 959, 3 USPQ2d 1450, 1452 (Fed. Cir. 1987); In re Hollywood Lawyers Online, 110 USPQ2d 1852, 1853 (TTAB 2014).
The attached evidence from Acronym Finder shows that TX is an abbreviation for Texas, and evidence from The Columbia Gazetteer of the World shows Texas is a generally known geographic place or location, as it is the second largest state in the United States.
Here, applicant as added FLY CO. to the geographic term TX. However, the addition of generic or highly descriptive wording to a geographic word or term does not diminish that geographic word or term’s primary geographic significance. TMEP §1210.02(c)(ii); see, e.g., In re Hollywood Lawyers Online, 110 USPQ2d 1852, 1853-54 (TTAB 2014) (holding HOLLYWOOD LAWYERS ONLINE primarily geographically descriptive of attorney referrals, online business information, and an online business directory); In re Cheezwhse.com, Inc., 85 USPQ2d 1917, 1920 (TTAB 2008) (holding NORMANDIE CAMEMBERT primarily geographically descriptive of cheese). The wording CO. refers to “company”, and such business designations have no source-indicating capacity. The American Heritage Dictionary, co.; TMEP §1213.03(d); see, e.g., Goodyear’s India Rubber Glove Mfg. Co. v. Goodyear Rubber Co., 128 U.S. 598, 602-03 (1888); In re Piano Factory Grp., Inc., 85 USPQ2d 1522, 1526 (TTAB 2006); In re Patent & Trademark Servs., Inc., 49 USPQ2d 1537, 1539-40 (TTAB 1998). The wording FLY merely indicates the industry in which applicant’s company operates, thereby indicating the goods are suitable for fly fishing. Evidence from Worley-Bugger Fly Co., Florida Fly Co., Forgotten Coast Fly Company, and TN FLY CO shows the wording FLY CO., or its equivalent, is commonly used in the industry.
Evidence from applicant’s website confirms that applicant’s goods originate in Texas because they are sold there.
Based on the foregoing, registration is refused based on Section 2(e)(2) because the mark is primarily geographically descriptive of applicant’s goods.
OPTIONS FOR RESPONDING TO REFUSAL UNDER SECTION 2(e)(2):
(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).
A claim of acquired distinctiveness may be based on evidence of “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)). A showing of acquired distinctiveness need not consider all of these types of evidence; no single factor is determinative. In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d at 1300, 75 USPQ2d at 1424; see TMEP §§1212.06 et seq. A claim of acquired distinctiveness may also be based on use of the mark for a significant period of time in commerce that may lawfully be regulated by the U.S. Congress. See 15 U.S.C. §§1052(f), 1127; In re Etablissments Darty et Fils, 759 F.2d 15, 17, 225 USPQ 652, 653 (Fed. Cir. 1985); TMEP §1212.08. In this case, however, applicant first used the mark in commerce on May 18, 2015; because applicant has not been using the mark in commerce for at least five years, the mark is not presently eligible for a claim of acquired distinctiveness based on the amount of time applicant has used the mark. See TMEP §1212.05
Disclaimer Advisory
Applicant may submit a disclaimer in the following format:
No claim is made to the exclusive right to use “CO.” 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.
The wording “Bottoms” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified because the nature of the goods is unclear. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01; see also US Identification Manual, Entry No. 025-806 and notes. Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate (changes in bold):
Class 025: Clothing, namely, Hats; T-shirts; Baseball caps and hats; Bottoms as clothing; Shorts; Graphic T-shirts; Jackets; Short-sleeved or long-sleeved t-shirts; Sports caps and hats; Hoodies; Button-up Shirts
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.
For this application to proceed, applicant must explicitly address each refusal and/or requirement in this Office action. For a refusal, applicant may provide written arguments and evidence against the refusal, and may have other response options if specified above. 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.
Missing the response deadline to this letter will cause the application to abandon. A response or notice of appeal must be received by the USPTO before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period. TEAS and ESTTA maintenance or unforeseen circumstances could affect an applicant’s ability to timely respond.
Responses signed by an unauthorized party are not accepted and can cause the application to abandon. If applicant does not have an attorney, the response must be signed by the individual applicant, all joint applicants, or someone with legal authority to bind a juristic applicant. If applicant has an attorney, the response must be signed by the attorney.
How to respond: Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action.
QUESTIONS:
If needed, find contact information for the supervisor of the office or unit listed in the signature block.
· /John LaMont/
· Examining Attorney
· Law Office 123
· (571) 270-0404
· john.lamont@uspto.gov