Offc Action Outgoing

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

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

 

 

 

FINAL 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) and/or Electronic System for Trademark Trials and Appeals (ESTTA).  A link to the appropriate TEAS response form and/or to ESTTA for an appeal appears at the end of this Office action. 

 

 

Issue date:  July 14, 2020

 

 

The refusal under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(4) is now made FINAL for the reasons set forth below.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(4); 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b). 

 

 

SECTION 2(e)(4) REFUSAL – 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.

 

(1)   The surname SANTANA is not rare as evidenced by the 138,302 times it appeared in the LEXIS ADVANCE surname database.

 

Please see the attached evidence from LEXIS ADVANCE, establishing the surname significance of SANTANA.  This evidence shows the applied-for mark appearing 138,302 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.

 

(2)   Carlos Santana is connected to the applicant and this application. The applicant has stated that “The SANTANA mark is uniquely associated with the legendary musical artist Carlos Santana and his band, Santana.

 

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).

 

 

(3)   The applicant has argued that SANTANA does have a recognized meaning other than as a surname and is the name of the band SANTANA. However, the applicant has also stated that the name of the band is named after Carlos Santana. This other recognized meaning further reinforces that the term SANTANA is primarily merely a surname.

 

The existence of other non-surname meanings of a mark does not preclude the mark from being held primarily merely a surname.  Miller v. Miller, 105 USPQ2d 1615, 1620-21 (TTAB 2013); see In re Harris-Intertype Corp., 518 F.2d 629, 631, 186 USPQ2d 238, 239 (C.C.P.A. 1975); In re Hamilton Pharms. Ltd., 27 USPQ2d 1939, 1942 (TTAB 1993).  The issue is not whether a mark that has surname significance might also have a non-surname significance, but whether, in the context of an applicant’s goods or services, the non-surname significance is the mark’s primary significance to the purchasing public.  Miller v. Miller, 105 USPQ2d at 1621; see In re Harris-Intertype Corp., 518 F.2d at 631, 186 USPQ2d at 239; In re Hamilton Pharms. Ltd., 27 USPQ2d at 1942.

 

 

(4)   The word SANTANA does have the structure and appearance of a surname. The website (http://namecensus.com/surnames_S.htm) shows numerous surnames from the U.S. Census that start with SAN, SANT, and SANTA. The examples from the census website include Santacroce, Santacruce, Santaella, Santagata, Santago, Santaloci, Santalucia, Santamaria, Santamarina, Santangelo, Santee, Santibanez, Santillan, and Santino.

 

Evidence that a term has the structure and pronunciation of a surname may contribute to a finding that the primary significance of the term is that of a surname.  In re Eximius Coffee, LLC, 120 USPQ2d 1276, 1280 (TTAB 2016); see In re Giger, 78 USPQ2d 1405, 1409 (TTAB 2006); In re Gregory, 70 USPQ2d 1792, 1796 (TTAB 2004); TMEP §1211.01(a)(vi).

 

 

(5)   The applicant’s mark has no stylization because the mark was applied for as a standard character mark. Therefore, the term is not sufficiently stylized to remove its primary significance from that of a surname

 

The applicant has not made an affirmative claim of acquired distinctiveness with a registration that is “on the Principal Register of the same mark for goods and/or services that are sufficiently similar to those named in the pending application.”

 

A mark deemed primarily merely a surname may be registered on the Principal Register under Trademark Act Section 2(f) based on a claim of acquired distinctiveness.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(f); 37 C.F.R. §2.41(a); TMEP §§1211, 1212.  Applicant may respond by asserting a claim of acquired distinctiveness based on one or more of the following:

 

Other Evidence:  Applicant may submit other evidence of acquired distinctiveness (such as verified statements of long term use, advertising and sales expenditures, examples of advertising, affidavits and declarations of consumers, customer surveys), with the following statement, if accurate:  “The evidence shows that the mark has become distinctive of the goods and/or services.”  See 37 C.F.R. §2.41; TMEP §§1212.06 et seq.  When determining whether the evidence shows the mark has acquired distinctiveness, the trademark examining attorney will consider the following six factors:  (1) association of the mark with a particular source by actual purchasers (typically measured by customer surveys linking the name to the source); (2) length, degree, and exclusivity of use; (3) amount and manner of advertising; (4) amount of sales and number of customers; (5) intentional copying; and (6) unsolicited media coverage.  See Converse, Inc. v. ITC, 909 F.3d 1110, 1120, 128 USPQ2d 1538, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“the Converse factors”).  “[N]o single factor is determinative.”  In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d at 1300, 75 USPQ2d at 1424; see TMEP §§1212.06 et seq.  Rather, all factors are weighed together in light of all the circumstances to determine whether the mark has acquired distinctiveness.  In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d at 1300, 75 USPQ2d at 1424. 

 

If applicant cannot satisfy one of the above, applicant may respond by amending the application to seek registration on the Supplemental Register.  See 15 U.S.C. §1091; 37 C.F.R. §§2.47, 2.75(a).

 

The examining attorney has attached the SANTANA TESORO owned registrations that are registered on the principal register with Section 2(f) U.S. Registration Nos. 3866562, 2996432, 2581308, and 2211379, and a third party registration for SANTANA mark registered on the supplemental register with U.S. Registration No. 2333957.

 

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 the wording COFFEE COMPANY does not alter the primary significance of the mark as a whole from that of a surname. The addition of the generic word COFFEE for “coffee” and an entity designation of COMPANY does not diminish the surname significance of SANTANA.  The addition of a common and nondistinctive entity designation, such as “Inc.” or “Co.,” or wording that identifies a family business, such as “Bros.” or “& Sons,” does not diminish the surname significance of a term that is otherwise primarily merely a surname.  See In re I. Lewis Cigar Mfg. Co., 205 F.2d 204, 206, 98 USPQ 265, 267 (C.C.P.A. 1953) (S. SEIDENBERG & CO’S.); In re Integrated Embedded, 120 USPQ2d 1504, 1507 (TTAB 2016) (BARR GROUP); In re P.J. Fitzpatrick, Inc., 95 USPQ2d 1412, 1412 (TTAB 2010) (P.J. FITZPATRICK, INC.); In re Piano Factory Grp. Inc., 85 USPQ2d 1522, 1526-27 (TTAB 2007) (VOSE & SONS).

 

 

SUPPLEMENTAL REGISTER - ITU

 

Although an amendment to the Supplemental Register would normally be an appropriate response to this refusal(s), 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.

 

 

How to respond.  Click to file a request for reconsideration of this final Office action that fully resolves all outstanding requirements and refusals and/or click to file a timely appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) with the required filing fee(s).

 

 

/Warren L. Olandria/

Trademark Examining Attorney

U.S. Patent & Trademark Office

Law Office 112

Phone: 571-272-9718

Warren.Olandria@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 July 14, 2020 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88625712

 

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. 

 

 

/Warren L. Olandria/

Trademark Examining Attorney

U.S. Patent & Trademark Office

Law Office 112

Phone: 571-272-9718

Warren.Olandria@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 July 14, 2020, 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.”