To: | Hahaas Comedy, LLC (childebrandt@robertslawgroup.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88633687 - STONER FOOD CRITIC - N/A |
Sent: | December 31, 2019 02:40:21 PM |
Sent As: | ecom105@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. 88633687
Mark: STONER FOOD CRITIC
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
Applicant: Hahaas Comedy, LLC
|
|
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 31, 2019
The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney. Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issue below. 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(a), 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.
SUMMARY OF ISSUES:
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).
SECTION 2(e)(1) REFUSAL - MERELY DESCRIPTIVE
Standard of Analysis for Section 2(e)(1) Refusal
“Whether consumers could guess what the product [or service] is from consideration of the mark alone is not the test.” In re Am. Greetings Corp., 226 USPQ 365, 366 (TTAB 1985).
Application of Section 2(e)(1) Standard
In this case, applicant has applied to register the mark STONER FOOD CRITIC for “Audio and video recordings featuring comedic sounds, one-liners, stand-up routines, and parodies; Digital materials, namely, downloadable audio recordings featuring comedic sounds, one-liners, stand-up routines, and parodies; Downloadable ringtones, digital sound files, digital audio recordings, webcasts, podcasts and graphics featuring comedic sounds, one-liners, stand-up routines, and parodies via the internet and wireless devices” in International Class 9.
According to the Urban Dictionary website, the term “STONER FOOD” is defined as “a food whose taste that, when consumed while stoned, is considered by the stoned individual to represent the pinnacle of gastronomic delights.” See attached. According to the Wikipedia website, a “FOOD CRITIC” is “a writer who analyzes food or restaurants and then publishes the results of their findings.” See attached. Therefore, the wording STONER FOOD CRITIC is merely descriptive of characteristics of the goods, namely that applicant’s audio and video recordings feature an analysis of food or restaurants consumed while stoned or high on marijuana. This is supported by the applicant’s website which indicates that the provider of the services has “eaten almost 1500 mostly fine dining restaurant meals in the last 3 years high on legal marijuana.” See attached.
Only where the combination of descriptive terms creates a unitary mark with a unique, incongruous, or otherwise nondescriptive meaning in relation to the goods and/or 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 goods and do not create a unique, incongruous, or nondescriptive meaning in relation to the goods. Specifically, when combined, the phrase STONER FOOD CRITIC immediately describes to consumers characteristics of applicant’s goods because it indicates that applicant’s audio and video recordings feature an analysis of food or restaurants consumed while stoned or high on marijuana. The combination does not create a commercial impression that differs from that of the individual words.
Accordingly, registration of the applied-for mark is refused on the Principal Register because the applied-for mark merely describes characteristics of applicant’s goods. Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); see TMEP §§1209.01(b), 1209.03 et seq.
ADVISORY: SUPPLEMENTAL REGISTER
RESPONSE GUIDELINES
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.
Joanna E. H. Fiorelli
/Joanna E. H. Fiorelli/
Examining Attorney
Law Office 105
571-272-4245
joanna.fiorelli@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE