To: | GreenWELL Brands, Inc. (justin.mcnaughton@gmlaw.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88602563 - GREENWELL - 55314.0004 |
Sent: | December 06, 2019 05:03:03 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 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88602563
Mark: GREENWELL
|
|
Correspondence Address: 1401 Lawrence Street, Suite 1900
|
|
Applicant: GreenWELL Brands, Inc.
|
|
Reference/Docket No. 55314.0004
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 06, 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.
PRIOR-FILED APPLICATION MAY POSE BAR TO REGISTRATION
In response to this Office action, applicant may present arguments in support of registration by addressing the issue of the potential conflict between applicant’s mark and the mark in the referenced application. Applicant’s election not to submit arguments at this time in no way limits applicant’s right to address this issue later if a refusal under Section 2(d) issues.
SECTION 2(e)(4) REFUSAL – PRIMARILY MERELY A SURNAME
In the present case, applicant applied to register the mark GREENWELL for use in connection with the following goods in International Class 3: “Non-medicated body care products, namely, washes, moisturizers, gels, lotions, salves, serums, creams, oils, mists, and toners; hemp-derived body oils; hemp-derived massage oils”.
An applicant’s mark is primarily merely a surname if the surname, when viewed in connection with the applicant’s recited goods and/or services, “‘is the primary significance of the mark as a whole to the purchasing public.’” Earnhardt v. Kerry Earnhardt, Inc., 864 F.3d 1374, 1377, 123 USPQ2d 1411, 1413 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting In re Hutchinson Tech. Inc., 852 F.2d 552, 554, 7 USPQ2d 1490, 1492 (Fed. Cir. 1988)); TMEP §1211.01.
The following five inquiries are often used to determine the public’s perception of a term’s primary significance:
(1) Whether the surname is rare;
(2) Whether anyone connected with applicant uses the term as a surname;
(3) Whether the term has any recognized meaning other than as a surname;
(4) Whether the term has the structure and pronunciation of a surname; and
(5) Whether the term is sufficiently stylized to remove its primary significance from that of a surname.
In re Eximius Coffee, LLC, 120 USPQ2d 1276, 1278 & n.2, 1282-83 (TTAB 2016) (citing In re Benthin Mgmt. GmbH, 37 USPQ2d 1332, 1333-34 (TTAB 1995) for the Benthin inquiries/factors); TMEP §1211.01; see also In re Etablissements Darty et Fils, 759 F.2d 15, 16-18, 225 USPQ 652, 653 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
These inquiries are not exclusive, and any of these circumstances – singly or in combination – and any other relevant circumstances may be considered when making this determination. In re Eximius Coffee, LLC, 120 USPQ2d at 1277-78; TMEP §1211.01. For example, when the applied-for mark is not stylized, it is unnecessary to consider the fifth inquiry. In re Yeley, 85 USPQ2d 1150, 1151 (TTAB 2007); TMEP §1211.01.
In the present case, GREENWELL would be readily perceived by the purchasing public as a surname. The attached evidence from Wikipedia and LEXISNEXIS® establishes the surname significance of GREENWELL. For example, the applied-for mark appears over 12,000 times as a surname in the LEXISNEXIS® surname database, which is a weekly updated directory of cell phone and other phone numbers (such as voice over IP) from various data providers. See attached evidence from LEXISNEXIS® showing the first 50 results. Additionally, the attached evidence from Wikipedia notes that “Greenwell” is a surname and provides a list notable people with that surname. See attached evidence from Wikipedia.
Further, evidence that a term has no recognized meaning or significance other than as a surname is relevant to determining whether the term would be perceived as primarily merely a surname. See In re Weiss Watch Co., 123 USPQ2d 1200, 1203 (TTAB 2017); In re Eximius Coffee, LLC, 120 USPQ2d 1276, 1280 (TTAB 2016); TMEP §1211.02(b)(vi). The attached evidence from Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the American Heritage Dictionary, and the Columbia Gazetteer shows that GREENWELL does not appear in the dictionary or gazetteer. Thus, this term appears to have no recognized meaning or significance other than as a surname.
In sum, the foregoing considerations result in the determination that the applied-for mark is primarily merely a surname. Therefore, registration is refused under Section 2(e)(4) of the Trademark Act.
Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.
ADVISORY - Response Option: Applicant may amend to the Supplemental Register after filing an acceptable Amendment to Allege Use
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.
Applicant must also respond to the requirement set forth below.
IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS – CLARIFICATION REQUIRED
The following is an example of wording the applicant may substitute for the identification of goods in International Class 3, if accurate (changes in bold):
Non-medicated body care products, namely, washes, moisturizers, shower gels, lotions, salves, skin serums, creams, oils, mists, and skin toners; hemp-derived body oils; hemp-derived massage oils; all of the foregoing solely derived from hemp with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more than 0.3% on a dry weight basis
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 M. Adorno Santos/
Trademark Examining Attorney
U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, Law Office 111
571-272-4902
Luz.AdornoSantos@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE