To: | UHS of Delaware, Inc. (charles.smouse@uhsinc.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88635609 - SOUTH TEXAS HEALTH SYSTEM CLINICS - N/A |
Sent: | January 03, 2020 03:19:47 PM |
Sent As: | ecom107@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 Attachment - 13 Attachment - 14 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88635609
Mark: SOUTH TEXAS HEALTH SYSTEM CLINICS
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
Applicant: UHS of Delaware, 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: January 03, 2020
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.
No Conflicting Marks Noted
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).
Disclaimer of Geographic and Descriptive Wording
In this case, applicant must disclaim all the wording in the mark because it is not inherently distinctive. These unregistrable terms are at best merely descriptive and primarily geographically descriptive of applicant’s services.
The nondistinctive wording “HEALTH SYSTEM” merely describes a quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose, or use of applicant’s 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). Applicant has voluntarily disclaimed “CLINICS”, which, along with “HEALTH SYSTEM”, is believed to be generic.
In addition, the nondistinctive wording “SOUTH TEXAS” is primarily geographically descriptive of the origin of applicant’s services. See 15 U.S.C. §§1052(e)(2); In re Societe Generale des Eaux Minerales de Vittel S.A., 824 F.2d 957, 959, 3 USPQ2d 1450, 1451-52 (Fed. Cir. 1987); TMEP §§1210.01(a), 1210.06(a), 1213.03(a).
The attached evidence from Wikipeida shows that South Texas is a generally known geographic place or location. See TMEP §§1210.02 et seq. The services for which applicant seeks registration originate in this geographic place or location as shown by the specimen of record. See TMEP §1210.03. Because the services originate in this place or location, a public association of the services with the place is presumed. See In re Hollywood Lawyers Online, 110 USPQ2d 1852, 1858 (TTAB 2014) (citing In re Spirits of New Merced, LLC, 85 USPQ2d 1614, 1621 (TTAB 2007)); TMEP §§1210.02(a) 1210.04.
Applicant may respond to this issue by amending the disclaimer of record as follows:
No claim is made to the exclusive right to use “SOUTH TEXAS HEALTH SYSTEM CLINICS” 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.
In this case, the Office will acceept a disclaimer in the following format:
No claim is made to the exclusive right to use “HEALTH SYSTEM CLINICS” apart from the mark as shown.
TMEP §1213.08(a)(i).
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.
/Michael Engel/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 107
Michael.Engel@uspto.gov
(571) 272-9338
RESPONSE GUIDANCE