To: | DLF Pickseed USA, Inc. (mlivermore@eugenelaw.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88624627 - MATCHEDPLAY BENTGRASS BLEND - N/A |
Sent: | December 23, 2019 02:31:55 PM |
Sent As: | ecom101@uspto.gov |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88624627
Mark: MATCHEDPLAY BENTGRASS BLEND
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
Applicant: DLF Pickseed USA, Inc.
|
|
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: December 23, 2019
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.
SEARCH OF OFFICE’S DATABASE OF MARKS - PRIOR-FILED APPLICATION
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.
Varietal or cultivar names are designations used to identify cultivated varieties or subspecies of live plants or agricultural seeds. TMEP §1202.12. They are generic and cannot be registered as trademarks because they are the common descriptive names of plants or seeds by which such varieties are known to the U.S. consumer. Id. Moreover, a consumer “has to have some common descriptive name he can use to indicate that he wants one [particular] variety of apple tree, rose, or whatever, as opposed to another, and it is the varietal name of the strain which naturally and commonly serves this purpose.” In re Pennington Seed, Inc., 466 F.3d 1053, 1057, 80 USPQ2d 1758, 1761 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (quoting In re Hilltop Orchards & Nurseries, Inc., 206 USPQ 1034, 1036 (TTAB 1979)); see In re Delta & Pine Land Co., 26 USPQ2d 1157, 1159 n.4 (TTAB 1993).
In this case, applicant must disclaim the wording “BENTGRASS BLEND” in the mark because it is not inherently distinctive. These unregistrable term(s) at best are merely descriptive of an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose, or use of applicant’s goods and/or services. See 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1251, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2012); TMEP §§1213, 1213.03(a).
The attached evidence from the U.S. National Plant Germplasm System database shows “BENTGRASS” is a grass seed variety. See USDA/ARS National Laboratory for Genetic Resource Preservation. (2017). Animal Germplasm Resources Information Network (A-GRIN). USDA/ARS National Laboratory for Genetic Resources Preservation. http://data.nal.usda.gov/dataset/animal-germplasm-resources-information-network-grin. Accessed 2019-12-23.
The attached definition from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language defines the term “BLEND” as “[t]o combine (varieties or grades of the same substance) to obtain a mixture of a particular character, quality, or consistency: blend coffees.” Thus, the wording merely describes applicant’s goods because they are a combination of bentgrass seeds.
Applicant may respond to this issue by submitting a disclaimer in the following format:
No claim is made to the exclusive right to use “BENTGRASS BLEND” 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.
Applicant is encouraged to call or email the assigned trademark examining attorney below to resolve the issues in this Office action. Although the USPTO will not accept an email as a response to an Office action, an applicant can communicate by phone or email to agree to a proposed amendment to the application that will immediately place the application in condition for publication, registration, or suspension. See 37 C.F.R. §2.62(c); TMEP §707.
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.
/Aisha C. Johnson/
Examining Attorney
Law Office 101
United States Patent and Trademark Office
(571) 272-9295
aisha.johnson@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE