To: | Fewell, Christopher (christopherfewell@yahoo.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88594677 - 17 - N/A |
Sent: | November 28, 2019 10:51:54 AM |
Sent As: | ecom109@uspto.gov |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88594677
Mark: 17
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
Applicant: Fewell, Christopher
|
|
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: November 28, 2019
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.
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.
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).
Disclaimer
Applicant must provide a disclaimer of the unregistrable part(s) 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 design of the state of ALABAMA because it is not inherently distinctive. This unregistrable design at best is primarily geographically descriptive of the origin of applicant’s goods and/or services. See 15 U.S.C. §§1052(e)(2); In re Societe Generale des Eaux Minerales de Vittel S.A., 824 F.2d 957, 959, 3 USPQ2d 1450, 1451-52 (Fed. Cir. 1987); In re Joint-Stock Co. “Baik”, 80 USPQ2d 1305, 1309 (TTAB 2006); TMEP §§1210.01(a), 1213, 1213.03(a), (c).
An accurate design of geographically descriptive matter and the word or words which describe the design are legal equivalents; therefore, a design must be disclaimed the same as the primarily geographically descriptive wording See In re Can. Dry Ginger Ale, Inc., 86 F.2d 830, 832, 32 USPQ 49, 50 (C.C.P.A. 1936); TMEP §1210.02(a).
The design of ALABAMA is the legal equivalent of the geographic place or location named ALABAMA. TMEP §1210.02(a). The attached evidence from Columbia Gazetteer shows that ALABAMA is a generally known geographic place or location. See TMEP §§1210.02 et seq. The goods for which applicant seeks registration originate in this geographic place or location as shown by applicant’s address. See TMEP §1210.03. Because the goods originate in this place or location, a public association of the goods with the place is presumed. See In re Hollywood Lawyers Online, 110 USPQ2d 1852, 1858 (TTAB 2014) (citing In re Spirits of New Merced, LLC, 85 USPQ2d 1614, 1621 (TTAB 2007)); TMEP §§1210.02(a) 1210.04.
Applicant may respond to this issue by submitting a disclaimer in the following format:
No claim is made to the exclusive right to use “THE PICTORIAL REPRESENTATION OF THE STATE OF ALABAMA” 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.
The description of the mark is accurate, but describes the mark twice. Applications for marks not in standard characters must include concise description of the entire mark that identifies literal elements as well as any design elements. See 37 C.F.R. §2.37; TMEP §§808 et seq.
Therefore, applicant must provide a more complete description of the applied-for mark. The following is suggested:
The mark consists of the number 17 inside the pictorial representation of the state of Alabama.
How to respond. Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action.
/Christina M Sobral/
Christina Sobral
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 109
Christina.Sobral@uspto.gov
571.272.5703
RESPONSE GUIDANCE