To: | Digital Experts, LLC (gnehra@comcast.net) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88640248 - BRAND INCUBATOR - N/A |
Sent: | January 15, 2020 04:28:41 PM |
Sent As: | ecom124@uspto.gov |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 Attachment - 6 Attachment - 7 Attachment - 8 Attachment - 9 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88640248
Mark: BRAND INCUBATOR
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
Applicant: Digital Experts, 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: January 15, 2020
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).
REFUSAL UNDER SECTION 2(e)(1) – MARK IS MERELY DESCRIPTIVE
Applicant’s mark is BRAND INCUBATOR for “Marketing and branding services, namely, providing customized communication programs to obtain consumer insights and develop branding strategies” (emphasis added). The term “brand” is defined as a “product or service” identified by a “trademark or distinctive name” and “incubator” refers to “an organization or place that aids the development of new business ventures.” See the attached dictionary definitions. Additionally, the attached evidence from andascend.com, goingultraviolet.com, ecomengine.com, digiday.com, and beautyindependent.com shows that “brand incubator” is commonly used in connection with services for aiding businesses with developing a new product or service. In connection with applicant’s services, BRAND INCUBATOR would be perceived by consumers as describing the purpose of the applicant’s services, specifically, to assist businesses with branding strategies for new products. Accordingly, the proposed mark is merely descriptive, and registration is refused on the Principal Register under Section 2(e)(1).
Advisory: Applied-For Mark is Possibly Generic
In addition to being merely descriptive, the applied-for mark appears to be generic in connection with the identified services and, therefore, incapable of functioning as a source-identifier for applicant’s services. In re The Am. Acad. of Facial Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, 64 USPQ2d 1748 (TTAB 2002); In re A La Vieille Russie, Inc., 60 USPQ2d 1895 (TTAB 2001); see TMEP §§1209.01(c) et seq., 1209.02(a). Under these circumstances, neither an amendment to proceed under Trademark Act Section 2(f) nor an amendment to the Supplemental Register can be recommended. See TMEP §1209.01(c).
Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal(s) by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration. If applicant responds to the refusal(s), applicant must also respond to the requirement(s) set forth below.
ADVISORY: Unnecessary Disclaimer
Therefore, applicant may request to withdraw this disclaimer from the application.
Responding to this Office Action
Response guidelines. For this application to proceed, applicant must explicitly address each refusal and/or requirement in this Office action. For a refusal, applicant may provide written arguments and evidence against the refusal, and may have other response options if specified above. For a requirement, applicant should set forth the changes or statements. Please see “Responding to Office Actions” and the informational video “Response to Office Action” for more information and tips on responding.
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.
/April Reeves/
April E. Reeves
Examining Attorney
Law Office 124
(571) 272-3681
april.reeves@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE