Reconsideration Letter

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application

 

 

 

REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

AFTER FINAL ACTION

DENIED

 

 

Issue date:  March 22, 2020

 

 

Applicant’s request for reconsideration is denied.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b)(3).  The trademark examining attorney has carefully reviewed applicant’s request and determined the request did not:  (1) raise a new issue, (2) resolve all the outstanding issue(s), (3) provide any new or compelling evidence with regard to the outstanding issue(s), or (4) present analysis and arguments that were persuasive or shed new light on the outstanding issue(s).  TMEP §§715.03(a)(ii)(B), 715.04(a). 

 

Applicant has introduced into the record evidence of geographic significance of Sinton, which is a city in Texas, as well as having some geographical significance in Europe.  Applicant also argues that the surname SINTON is rare.

 

Applicant’s arguments have been considered and found unpersuasive for the reason(s) set forth below.

 

A term’s primary significance as a surname may not be lessened even if it also has some minor significance as a geographical term.  See In re Hamilton Pharm. Ltd., 27 USPQ2d 1939, 1943 (TTAB 1993); In re Picone, 221 USPQ 93, 95 (TTAB 1984); TMEP §1211.01(a)(iii).  The attached evidence from Wikipedia® shows that even Sinton, Texas is named after David Sinton, and the geographical significance of SINTON in total is minor.  The evidence attached to the 03/13/2020 office action shows that the Sinton dairy was founded by two brothers with the surname Sinton and operated by Sinton family members for decades.  The mark SINTON was previously registered under Section 2(f) as No. 3762074 (cancelled in October 2016), to what is believed to be a predecessor in interest to applicant.  Regardless, consumers of these goods are aware of the surname significance of SINTON, as the specimens and other evidence submitted in Reg. No. 3762074 detailed the 19^th Century origins of the Sinton brothers who founded Sinton dairy, regardless of whether anyone connected with applicant now has the surname.

 

Despite the alleged rareness, the term SINTON has consistently been treated as a surname by the Office in recent years, as shown by the attached third-party registrations on the Supplemental Register or registered under Section 2(f).  As all five marks with the term SINTON in them have been required to register under Section 2(f) or been placed on the Supplemental Register, and the term appears to be known as the surname of two brothers named Sinton who started a dairy over 100 years ago, its primary significance in this context is as a surname, which requires a showing of acquired distinctiveness to be registered on the Principal Register.      

 

Although “SINTON” appears to be a relatively rare surname, the statute makes no distinction between rare and commonplace surnames and even a rare surname may be unregistrable under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(4) if its primary significance to purchasers is that of a surname.  See In re Etablissements Darty et Fils, 759 F.2d 15, 16-18, 225 USPQ 652, 653 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Beds & Bars Ltd., 122 USPQ2d 1546, 1551 (TTAB 2017); In re Eximius Coffee, LLC, 120 USPQ2d 1276, 1281 (TTAB 2016) (citing In re E. Martinoni Co., 189 USPQ 589, 590-91 (TTAB 1975)); TMEP §1211.01(a)(v).  There is no minimum amount of evidence needed to establish that a mark is primarily merely a surname.  See In re Etablissements Darty et Fils, 759 F.2d at 17, 225 USPQ at 653; In re Beds & Bars Ltd., 122 USPQ2d at 1548; TMEP §1211.02(b)(i).

 

The existence of other non-surname meanings of a mark does not preclude the mark from being held primarily merely a surname.  Miller v. Miller, 105 USPQ2d 1615, 1620-21 (TTAB 2013); see In re Harris-Intertype Corp., 518 F.2d 629, 631, 186 USPQ2d 238, 239 (C.C.P.A. 1975); In re Hamilton Pharms. Ltd., 27 USPQ2d 1939, 1942 (TTAB 1993).  The issue is not whether a mark that has surname significance might also have a non-surname significance, but whether, in the context of an applicant’s goods, the non-surname significance is the mark’s primary significance to the purchasing public.  Miller v. Miller, 105 USPQ2d at 1621; see In re Harris-Intertype Corp., 518 F.2d at 631, 186 USPQ2d at 239; In re Hamilton Pharms. Ltd., 27 USPQ2d at 1942. 

 

Applicant claims that there is no person connected with it that uses “SINTON” as a surname and argues this proves the term has no surname significance.  However, the fact that “a proposed mark is not applicant’s surname, or the surname of an officer or employee, does not tend to establish one way or the other whether the proposed mark would be perceived as a surname.”  In re Thermo LabSystems Inc., 85 USPQ2d 1285, 1287 (TTAB 2007) (quoting In re Gregory, 70 USPQ2d 1792, 1795 (TTAB 2004)); see In re Adlon Brand GmbH & Co. KG, 120 USPQ2d 1717, 1724 (TTAB 2016).  In a surname analysis, the absence of a person connected with applicant that has this term as a surname is a neutral factor.  In re Thermo LabSystems Inc., 85 USPQ2d at 1287.

 

In weighing all the evidence of record, the primary significance of SINTON is as a famous and long-used surname in the dairy business, and presentation of a surname in its plural or possessive form does not diminish its surname significance.  TMEP §1211.01(b)(v); see, e.g., In re Bed & Bars Ltd., 122 USPQ2d 1546, 1551 (TTAB 2017); In re Binion, 93 USPQ2d 1531, 1537 (TTAB 2009).

 

Accordingly, the following refusal made final in the Office action dated March 13, 2020 is maintained and continued: 

 

            •  Registration is refused because the applied-for mark is primarily merely a surname.  Trademark Act Section 2(e)(4), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(4); see TMEP §1211.  

 

See TMEP §§715.03(a)(ii)(B), 715.04(a). 

 

If applicant has already filed an appeal with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, the Board will be notified to resume the appeal.  See TMEP §715.04(a).

 

If applicant has not filed an appeal and time remains in the six-month response period, applicant has the remainder of that time to (1) file another request for reconsideration that complies with and/or overcomes any outstanding final requirement(s) and/or refusal(s), and/or (2) file a notice of appeal to the Board.  TMEP §715.03(a)(ii)(B).  Filing a request for reconsideration does not stay or extend the time for filing an appeal.  37 C.F.R. §2.63(b)(3); see TMEP §715.03(c). 

 

 

 

 

/Michael Engel/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 107

Michael.Engel@uspto.gov

(571) 272-9338

 

 

 

 

 

 

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

 

USPTO OFFICIAL NOTICE

 

Office Action (Official Letter) has issued

on March 22, 2020 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88611702

 

Your trademark application has been reviewed by a trademark examining attorney.  As part of that review, the assigned attorney has issued an official letter that you must respond to by the specified deadline or your application will be abandoned.  Please follow the steps below.

 

(1)  Read the official letter.

 

(2)  Direct questions about the contents of the Office action to the assigned attorney below. 

 

 

Engel, Michael

/Michael Engel/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 107

Michael.Engel@uspto.gov

(571) 272-9338

 

 

 

 

Direct questions about navigating USPTO electronic forms, the USPTO website, the application process, the status of your application, and/or whether there are outstanding deadlines or documents related to your file to the Trademark Assistance Center (TAC).

 

(3)  Respond within 6 months (or earlier, if required in the Office action) from March 22, 2020, using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS).  The response must be received by the USPTO before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period.  See the Office action for more information about how to respond

 

 

 

GENERAL GUIDANCE

·         Check the status of your application periodically in the Trademark Status & Document Retrieval (TSDR) database to avoid missing critical deadlines.

 

·         Update your correspondence email address, if needed, to ensure you receive important USPTO notices about your application.

 

·         Beware of misleading notices sent by private companies about your application.  Private companies not associated with the USPTO use public information available in trademark registrations to mail and email trademark-related offers and notices – most of which require fees.  All official USPTO correspondence will only be emailed from the domain “@uspto.gov.”