Offc Action Outgoing

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

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

 

 

 

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 21, 2019

 

 

Introduction

 

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

 

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)(4) – Primarily Merely a Surname
• Requirement:  Identification of Services

 

Section 2(e)(4) – Primarily Merely a Surname

 

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. 

 

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.

 

“There is no rule as to the kind or amount of evidence necessary to show that [a] mark would be perceived as primarily merely a surname.”  In re Eximius Coffee, LLC, 120 USPQ2d 1276, 1278 (TTAB 2016); see TMEP §1211.01.  Each case is decided on its own facts, based on the evidence of record.  TMEP §1211.01; see In re Eximius Coffee, LLC, 120 USPQ2d at 1278 (citing In re Etablissements Darty et Fils, 759 F.2d 15, 17, 225 USPQ 652, 653 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). 

 

The following are examples of evidence that is generally considered to be relevant to such a determination:  telephone directory listings, excerpted listings and articles from computerized research databases, applicant’s website, evidence in the application record showing the term used as a surname, the manner of use on specimens, dictionary definitions of the term and evidence from dictionaries showing no definition of the term.  See TMEP §1211.02(b)(i)-(b)(iii), (b)(v)-(b)(vi).

 

Please see the attached evidence from advance.lexis.com, establishing the surname significance of “VINIK”.  This evidence shows the applied-for mark appearing 219 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. 

 

Further, the issue of determining whether a surname is common or rare is not determined solely by comparing the number of listings of the surname to the total number of listings in a computerized database, because even the most common surname would represent only a small fraction of the database.  In re Gregory, 70 USPQ2d 1792, 1795 (TTAB 2004).  Rather, if a surname appears routinely in news reports or articles and receives media publicity so as to be broadly exposed to the general public, then such surname is not rare and its primary significance to purchasers would be that of a surname, such as in this case.  See In re Beds & Bars Ltd., 122 USPQ2d 1546, 1551 (TTAB 2017); In re Gregory, 70 USPQ2d at 1795; TMEP §1211.01(a)(v).  Please see the attached evidence from cnbc.com, wsj.com, and usf.edu showing that “VINIK” is a highly publicized surname.

 

Additionally, a term that is the surname of an individual applicant or that of an officer, founder, owner, or principal of applicant’s business is probative evidence of the term’s surname significance.  TMEP §1211.02(b)(iv); see, e.g., In re Etablissements Darty et Fils, 759 F.2d 15, 16, 225 USPQ 652, 653 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (holding DARTY primarily merely a surname where “Darty” was the surname of applicant’s corporate president); In re Eximius Coffee, LLC, 120 USPQ2d 1276, 1278-80 (TTAB 2016) (holding ALDECOA primarily merely a surname where ALDECOA was the surname of the founder and individuals continuously involved in the business); In re Integrated Embedded, 120 USPQ2d 1504, 1507 (TTAB 2016) (holding BARR GROUP primarily merely a surname where BARR was the surname of the co-founder and applicant’s corporate officer and GROUP was found “incapable of lending source-identifying significance to the mark”); Miller v. Miller, 105 USPQ2d 1615, 1620, 1622-23 (TTAB 2013) (holding MILLER LAW GROUP primarily merely a surname where “Miller” was the surname of the applicant and the term “law group” was found generic).  The attached evidence from gousfbulls.com, nhl.com, and forbes.com shows that Jeffrey VINIK controls Tampa Bay Entertainment Properties, LLC, the applicant.

 

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.com and columbiagazetteer.org shows that “VINIK” does not appear in the dictionary or gazetteer.  Thus, this term appears to have no recognized meaning or significance other than as a surname. 

 

As to the phrase “SPORTS GROUP” in applicant’s mark, if the mark combines a surname with an additional term, the mark will be evaluated to determine if the primary significance of the mark as a whole in connection with applicant’s goods and/or services is still that of a surname.  See Earnhardt v. Kerry Earnhardt, Inc., 864 F.3d 1374, 1377, 123 USPQ2d 1411, 1413 (Fed. Cir. 2017); TMEP §1211.01(b).  A key element in this determination is the relative distinctiveness of the additional term in the mark.  Earnhardt v. Kerry Earnhardt, Inc., 864 F.3d at 1377, 123 USPQ2d at 1413 (citing In re Hutchinson Tech. Inc., 852 F.2d 552, 554-55, 7 USPQ2d 1490, 1492 (Fed. Cir. 1988)); TMEP §1211.01(b)(vi). 

 

A nondistinctive term is typically accorded less weight and is not likely to detract from the primary surname significance of the mark.  See Azeka Bldg. Corp. v. Azeka, 122 USPQ2d 1477, 1481 n.9, 1482 (TTAB 2017) (construing In re Hutchinson Tech. Inc., 852 F.2d at 554, 7 USPQ2d at 1492-93); TMEP §1211.01(b)(vi).  Although individual components of a mark may be weighed to determine the mark’s overall commercial impression, the combination of the individual parts must be viewed as a whole to determine if the additional term alters the primary significance of the mark to the purchasing public.  Earnhardt v. Kerry Earnhardt, Inc., 864 F.3d at 1378-79, 123 USPQ2d at 1414 (quoting In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 1174-75, 71 USPQ2d 1370, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). 

 

In this case, the addition of “SPORTS GROUP” does not alter the primary significance of the mark as a whole from that of a surname.  Combining a surname with a term that is merely descriptive or generic of an applicant’s services typically does not “detract from the primary surname significance” of the mark.  Azeka Bldg. Corp. v. Azeka, 122 USPQ2d 1477, 1481-82, 1481 n.9 (TTAB 2017) (construing In re Hutchinson Tech. Inc., 852 F.2d 552, 554, 7 USPQ2d 1490, 1492-93 (Fed. Cir. 1988)); see TMEP §1211.01(b)(vi). 

 

Specifically, the phrase “SPORTS GROUP” merely describes a characteristic or feature of applicant’s services.  The attached definition from merriam-webster.com defines “SPORTS” as “a source of diversion”.  Additionally, the attached definition from merriam-webster.com defines “GROUP” as “a number of individuals assembled together or having some unifying relationship”.  Moreover, this wording is commonly used in connection with similar services to mean refer to a company that provides business or management services in the field of sports.  See the attached evidence from blackbearsportsgroup.com, legendarysportsgroup.com, and fidelitysportsgroup.com.  Further, “SPORTS” and words relating to “SPORTS” are in applicant’s identification:  “Business management and operation of professional sports teams; Business management services, namely, administration of competitions for sporting and athletic events; Management of event ticketing for others; Promoting sports competitions and events of others; Business operation of general purpose facilities for others, namely, general purpose facilities for sporting events, concerts, conventions, exhibitions and other entertainment events that feature hospitality and food and beverage services” in International Class 35, “Entertainment in the nature of organizing, conducting and providing facilities for sports events, namely, hockey games, concerts, cultural events, athletic and eSports competitions, and athletic and musical festivals; ticket reservation and booking services for the foregoing events” in International Class 41, and “Arena and venue services, namely, providing general purpose facilities for sporting events, concerts, conventions, e-sports competitions, exhibitions and other entertainment events that feature hospitality and food and beverage services; consulting and event planning services in the field of hospitality” in International Class 43.  Therefore, “SPORTS GROUP” describes a characteristic or feature of applicant’s services, namely, applicant’s services have to do with sources of diversion in the nature of sports and are provided by a number of individuals.  Thus, “SPORTS GROUP” does not alter the primary significance of applicant’s mark, which is that of a surname.

 

For the foregoing reasons, applicant’s mark is primarily merely a surname and registration is refused pursuant to Section 2(e)(4) of the Trademark Act.

 

Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal(s) by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.

 

Supplemental Register Advisory

 

Although an amendment to the Supplemental Register would normally be an appropriate response to this refusal, such a response is not appropriate in the present case.  The instant application was filed under Trademark Act Section 1(b) and is not eligible for registration on the Supplemental Register until an acceptable amendment to allege use meeting the requirements of 37 C.F.R. §2.76 has been timely filed.  37 C.F.R. §2.47(d); TMEP §§816.02, 1102.03.

 

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.

 

Generic Advisory

 

Applicant is advised that, if an acceptable allegation of use and an amendment to the Supplemental Register are filed, applicant will be required to disclaim “SPORTS GROUP” because such wording appears to be generic in the context of applicant’s goods and/or services.  See 15 U.S.C. §1056(a); In re Wella Corp., 565 F.2d 143, 144, 196 USPQ 7, 8 (C.C.P.A. 1977); In re Creative Goldsmiths of Wash., Inc., 229 USPQ 766, 768 (TTAB 1986); TMEP §1213.03(b).

 

Applicant may submit a disclaimer in the following format:

 

No claim is made to the exclusive right to use “SPORTS GROUP” apart from the mark as shown.

 

TMEP §1213.08(a)(i).

 

For an overview of disclaimers and instructions on how to satisfy this issue using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), see the Disclaimer webpage.

 

If applicant responds to the refusal(s), applicant must also respond to the requirement(s) set forth below.

 

Identification of Services

 

The wording “consulting and event planning services in the field of hospitality” in the identification of services for International Class 43 must be clarified because it is too broad and could include services in other international classes.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03.  In particular, this wording could encompass special event planning in the field of hospitality for business purposes in International Class 35, special event planning in the field of hospitality for social entertainment purposes in International Class 41, and consulting services in the field of hospitality in International Class 43.

 

Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate: 

 

International Class 35:  Business management and operation of professional sports teams; Business management services, namely, administration of competitions for sporting and athletic events; Management of event ticketing for others; Promoting sports competitions and events of others; Business operation of general purpose facilities for others, namely, general purpose facilities for sporting events, concerts, conventions, exhibitions and other entertainment events that feature hospitality and food and beverage services; special event planning in the field of hospitality for business purposes.

 

International Class 41:  Entertainment in the nature of organizing, conducting and providing facilities for sports events, namely, hockey games, concerts, cultural events, athletic and eSports competitions, and athletic and musical festivals; ticket reservation and booking services for the foregoing events; special event planning in the field of hospitality for social entertainment purposes.

 

International Class 43:  Arena and venue services, namely, providing general purpose facilities for sporting events, concerts, conventions, e-sports competitions, exhibitions and other entertainment events that feature hospitality and food and beverage services; consulting services in the field of hospitality.

 

Applicant may amend the identification to clarify or limit the goods and/or services, but not to broaden or expand the goods and/or services beyond those in the original application or as acceptably amended.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06.  Generally, any deleted goods and/or services may not later be reinserted.  See TMEP §1402.07(e).

 

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 Options

 

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.  

 

Please call or email the assigned trademark examining attorney with questions about this Office action.  Although the trademark examining attorney cannot provide legal advice or statements about applicant’s rights, the trademark examining attorney can provide applicant with additional explanation about the refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) in this Office action.  See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06.  Although the USPTO does not accept emails as responses to Office actions, emails can be used for informal communications and will be included in the application record.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(c), 2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05. 

 

How to respond.  Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action.    

 

 

/Shelby Niemann/

Shelby Niemann

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 125

(571) 270-7330

shelby.niemann@uspto.gov

 

 

RESPONSE GUIDANCE

• Missing the response deadline to this letter will cause the application to abandon.  A response or notice of appeal must be received by the USPTO before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period.  TEAS and ESTTA maintenance or unforeseen circumstances could affect an applicant’s ability to timely respond.  

 

• Responses signed by an unauthorized party are not accepted and can cause the application to abandon.  If applicant does not have an attorney, the response must be signed by the individual applicant, all joint applicants, or someone with legal authority to bind a juristic applicant.  If applicant has an attorney, the response must be signed by the attorney.

 

• If needed, find contact information for the supervisor of the office or unit listed in the signature block.

 

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

 

USPTO OFFICIAL NOTICE

 

Office Action (Official Letter) has issued

on December 21, 2019 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88625190

 

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. 

 

 

/Shelby Niemann/

Shelby Niemann

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 125

(571) 270-7330

shelby.niemann@uspto.gov

 

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 December 21, 2019, 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.”