To: | One Alarm Publishing, LLC (info@patlawfirm.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88622669 - HOCKEYDB - SLA-105 |
Sent: | December 19, 2019 05:16:21 PM |
Sent As: | ecom104@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. 88622669
Mark: HOCKEYDB
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
Applicant: One Alarm Publishing, LLC
|
|
Reference/Docket No. SLA-105
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
SECTION 2(e)(1) REFUSAL – MARK IS MERELY DESCRIPTIVE
In the present case, applicant seeks to register its mark HOCKEYDB in standard characters for “Providing a web site that provides sports league player statistics and related information” in International Class 041.
Only where the combination of descriptive terms creates a unitary mark with a unique, incongruous, or otherwise nondescriptive meaning in relation to the services is the combined mark registrable. See In re Colonial Stores, Inc., 394 F.2d 549, 551, 157 USPQ 382, 384 (C.C.P.A. 1968); In re Positec Grp. Ltd., 108 USPQ2d 1161, 1162-63 (TTAB 2013). In this case, both the individual components and the composite result are descriptive of applicant’s services and do not create a unique, incongruous, or nondescriptive meaning in relation to the services.
Specifically, the attached dictionary evidence establishes that the term HOCKEY means “a game played on ice by two teams of six players. The players use long sticks to try to hit a small round flat object called a puck into the opposite team’s goal.” Further, the attached evidence from AcronymFinder establishes that the acronym DB means “database,” which means “a large amount of information stored in a computer in an organized way that allows individual pieces of information to be found quickly.” Finally, the attached evidence from applicant’s website indicates that it offers a large amount of information available via a website in the field of hockey. See, e.g.:
“Welcome to hockeydb.com, the internet’s largest repository of hockey data!”
Thus, when viewed in connection with the services, the immediate commercial impression conveyed to consumers it that applicant offers an online hockey database.
Therefore the applied for mark merely describes a feature and characteristic of applicant’s services.
Generic Advisory
Informalities
Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration. If applicant responds to the refusal, applicant must also respond to the requirement set forth below.
IDENTIFICATION OF SERVICES
Applicant may adopt the following identification, if accurate (changes in bold):
Providing a website featuring sporting information, namely, sports league player statistics and related information
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.
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.
ASSISTANCE
/Hudson, Tamara/
Examining Attorney
Law Office 104
571.272.2575
tamara.hudson@uspto.gov
PROCEDURAL INFORMATION FOR RESPONSES