To: | Chicago Music, Inc. (DocketLA@fulpat.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88622277 - CHICAGO - CMI-98578 |
Sent: | December 19, 2019 05:05:47 PM |
Sent As: | ecom114@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. 88622277
Mark: CHICAGO
|
|
Correspondence Address: |
|
Applicant: Chicago Music, Inc.
|
|
Reference/Docket No. CMI-98578
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 19, 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).
SUMMARY OF ISSUES
1. Section 2(e)(2) Refusal – Primarily Geographically Descriptive
4. Amended Identification of Services Required
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 and/or services 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 or services-place association; that is, purchasers would be likely to believe that the goods and/or services 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 Google shows that the primary significance of the term Chicago in the mark is the name of a geographic location, specifically Chicago, Illinois. Purchasers are likely to believe the services will originate in that geographic location because the members of applicant’s band are from Chicago; see applicant’s specimen and attached evidence from applicant’s webpage.
The Trademark Trial and Appel Board has stated that the purpose of Trademark Act Section 2(e)(2) is “to leave geographic names free for all businesses operating in the same are to inform customers where their goods or services originate.” In re Spirits of New Merced, 85 USPQ2d at 1621 (citing In re MCO Props. Inc., 38 USPQ2d 1154, 1156 (TTAB1995)).
As such, applicant’s mark is primarily geographically descriptive and registration on the Principal Register is refused. Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal(s) by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.
ADVISORY – OVERCOMING A SECTION 2(e)(2) REFUSAL BY AMENDING TO THE SUPPLEMENTAL REGISTER
SPECIMEN REFUSAL
Registration is refused because the specimen does not show the applied-for mark in use in commerce in International Class 038. Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a), 1301.04(g)(i). Specifically, the specimen shows a webpage screenshot of Amazon.com Music advertising streaming of applicant’s album. Based on this specimen, applicant is not providing the streaming services and instead is the creator of the content being streamed.
An application based on Trademark Act Section 1(a) must include a specimen showing the applied-for mark in use in commerce for each international class of services identified in the application or amendment to allege use. 15 U.S.C. §1051(a)(1); 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a).
Examples of specimens for services include advertising and marketing materials, brochures, photographs of business signage and billboards, and webpages that show the mark used in the actual sale, rendering, or advertising of the services. See TMEP §1301.04(a), (h)(iv)(C). Specimens comprising advertising and promotional materials must show a direct association between the mark and the services. TMEP §1301.04(f)(ii).
Applicant may respond to this refusal by satisfying one of the following for each applicable international class:
(1) Submit a different specimen (a verified “substitute” specimen) that (a) was in actual use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application or prior to the filing of an amendment to allege use and (b) shows the mark in actual use in commerce for the services identified in the application or amendment to allege use. A “verified substitute specimen” is a specimen that is accompanied by the following statement made in a signed affidavit or supported by a declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20: “The substitute (or new, or originally submitted, if appropriate) specimen(s) was/were in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application or prior to the filing of the amendment to allege use.” The substitute specimen cannot be accepted without this statement.
(2) Amend the filing basis to intent to use under Section 1(b), for which no specimen is required. This option will later necessitate additional fee(s) and filing requirements such as providing a specimen.
For an overview of both response options referenced above and instructions on how to satisfy either option online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, please go to http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/law/specimen.jsp.
AMENDED IDENTIFICATION OF SERVICES REQUIRED
The identification of services requires clarification in several respects.
The identification is indefinite and must be clarified because it fails to identify specific services. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.
Applicant may adopt the following wording, if accurate:
Note that proposed changes are indicated in bold. Wording that should be deleted is shown with a line through it as follows: strikethrough. Some items require applicant to include more complete information. These are designated with a blank space ______ followed by bold braces
{ } and italicized explanatory text. The information in the braces is suggested as an example for applicant to follow, not to merely
be “cut and pasted”. Applicant should enter amendments in standard font, not in bold, italics or strikethrough. Furthermore, no braces should be included in applicant’s amended identification.
Applicant should also note that the above identification is merely a suggestion and applicant is responsible for providing an accurate and acceptable identification.
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.
RESPONSE ADVISORIES
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.
/Breanna Freeman/
Examining Attorney
Law Office 114
571-272-7099
breanna.freeman@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE