To: | Dulcich, Inc. (trademarks@schwabe.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88625602 - JOLLY GIANT - 113023204431 |
Sent: | December 26, 2019 07:56:11 PM |
Sent As: | ecom116@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 Attachment - 12 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88625602
Mark: JOLLY GIANT
|
|
Correspondence Address: SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT, P.C.
|
|
Applicant: Dulcich, Inc.
|
|
Reference/Docket No. 113023204431
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 26, 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.
Summary of Issues that the Applicant Must Address
1) Significance of the Wording in the Mark is Required
2) Disclaimer of Descriptive Wording in the Mark is Required
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE WORDING IN THE MARK IS REQUIRED
(1) Explain whether the wording in the mark “JOLLY GIANT” has any meaning or significance in the trade or industry in which applicant’s goods are manufactured, any meaning or significance as applied to applicant’s goods, or if such wording is a term of art within applicant’s industry.
(2) Explain whether the wording in the mark “JOLLY GIANT” identifies a geographic place. If so, the applicant must provide the location of this place and indicate whether oysters or shellfish are harvested from this geographic location.
See 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b); TMEP §814.
Failure to comply with a request for information is grounds for refusing registration. In re Harley, 119 USPQ2d 1755, 1757-58 (TTAB 2016); TMEP §814.
DISCLAIMER OF DESCRIPTIVE WORDING IN THE MARK IS REQUIRED
In this case, applicant must disclaim the wording “GIANT” because it is not inherently distinctive. This unregistrable term(s) at best is merely descriptive of a characteristic, function, feature, purpose, or use of the applicant’s goods. 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). Specifically, the applicant is using the descriptive term “GIANT” on live oysters and live shellfish. The term “giant” is defined as “extremely large.” MacMillan Dictionary. A copy of the entry is attached. The live oysters and shellfish upon which the mark will be used may be extremely large. See the attached web pages which clearly reference giant oysters. These web pages were found during an Internet search conducted on December 26, 2019.
Applicant may respond to this issue by submitting a disclaimer in the following format:
No claim is made to the exclusive right to use “GIANT” 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.
ASSISTANCE
SEARCH RESULTS
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).
RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION
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.
/Tina L Snapp/
Examining Attorney
Law Office 116
571-272-9224
Informal Email Tina.Snapp@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE