United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
|
U.S. Application Serial No. 88648166
Mark: THE LAB MODULAR SYSTEM
|
|
|
Correspondence Address: |
|
|
Applicant: CENTRO STYLE S.P.A.
|
|
|
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 14, 2020
SEARCH
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
“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).
In the present case, applicant’s goods are “small items of metal hardware, namely screws, bolts, nuts, rivets, washers, hinges” in International Class 006; “hand tools, namely screwdrivers, nutdrivers, pliers” in International Class 008; and “frames for spectacles; frames for sunglasses; sports eyewear; safety goggles; nose pads for eyewear” in International Class 009.
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/or services and do not create a unique, incongruous, or nondescriptive meaning in relation to the goods and/or services. Specifically, the attached evidence from the American Heritage Dictionary defines “LAB” as “a laboratory.” The attached evidence from Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines “MODULAR” as “of, relating to, or based on a module or a modulus; constructed with standardized units or dimensions for flexibility and variety in use.” The American Heritage Dictionary defines “SYSTEM” as “a group of interacting, interrelated, or interdependent elements forming a complex whole, especially a group of interacting mechanical or electrical components; an organized and coordinate method; a procedure.” The attached evidence from The Builder Supply, the New German Performance, Nobel Biocare, Bodyshop Solutions, RSP Supply.com, New Atlas, Amazon, Gearbest, Swissflex Eyewear, Amazon, Thor Labs, Diamo Dent, and Amcon demonstrates that the words “LAB” and “MODULAR” are used to describe goods that are similar to applicant’s goods, namely, screws, nuts, hinges, hand tools, eyeglasses, and eyeglass frames. The attached evidence from applicant’s website demonstrates that applicant’s detached parts such as screws and rivets as well as applicant’s tools are for a laboratory. A feature of applicant’s goods is that they are goods that are used in or are a part of a “SYSTEM.” Therefore, the individual components and the composite result are descriptive of applicant’s goods.
Accordingly, the applied-for mark is merely descriptive of applicant’s goods and/or services and registration is refused under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1).
Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal(s) by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration. However, if applicant responds to the refusal(s), applicant must also respond to the requirement(s) set forth below.
ADVISORY: SUPPLEMENTAL REGISTER – INTENT TO USE APPLICATION
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.
INFORMATION ABOUT GOODS REQUIRED
(1) Fact sheets, instruction manuals, brochures, advertisements and pertinent screenshots of applicant’s website as it relates to the goods and/or services in the application, including any materials using the terms in the applied-for mark. Merely stating that information about the goods and/or services is available on applicant’s website is insufficient to make the information of record.;
(2) If these materials are unavailable, applicant should submit similar documentation for goods and services of the same type, explaining how its own product or services will differ. If the goods and/or services feature new technology and information regarding competing goods and/or services is not available, applicant must provide a detailed factual description of the goods and/or services. Factual information about the goods must make clear how they operate, salient features, and prospective customers and channels of trade. For services, the factual information must make clear what the services are and how they are rendered, salient features, and prospective customers and channels of trade. Conclusory statements will not satisfy this requirement.; and
(3) Applicant must respond to the following questions:
1. Are applicant’s goods part of a system or made specifically for a particular system or machine? If yes, provide information about the function and purpose of the system or machine.
2. Are applicant’s goods used in a laboratory or made specifically for use in a laboratory?
3. Do applicant’s goods have the ability to be flexible or change the variety of their use such as interchanging functions or parts? If yes, provide information about these flexibilities or interchanging parts or functions of the goods.
See 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b); TMEP §§814, 1402.01(e).
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.
FOREIGN REGISTRATION REQUIRED
The application specifies Trademark Act Section 44(d) as the sole filing basis for International Classes 008 and 009 and indicates that applicant intends to rely on Section 44(e) as a basis for registration; however no copy of a foreign registration was provided. See 15 U.S.C. §1126(d), (e).
An application with a Section 44(e) basis must include a true copy, photocopy, certification, or certified copy of a foreign registration from an applicant’s country of origin. 15 U.S.C. §1126(e); 37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(3)(ii); TMEP §§1004, 1004.01, 1016. In addition, the applicant’s country of origin must be a party to a convention or treaty relating to trademarks to which the United States is also a party, or must extend reciprocal registration rights to nationals of the United States by law. 15 U.S.C. §1126(b); TMEP §§1002.01, 1004.
Therefore, applicant must provide a copy of the foreign registration from applicant’s country of origin when it becomes available. TMEP §1003.04(a). A copy of a foreign registration must consist of a document issued to an applicant by, or certified by, the intellectual property office in applicant’s country of origin. TMEP §1004.01. If applicant’s country of origin does not issue registrations or Madrid Protocol certificates of extension of protection, the applicant may submit a copy of the Madrid Protocol international registration that shows that protection of the international registration has been extended to applicant’s country of origin. TMEP §1016. In addition, applicant must also provide an English translation if the foreign registration is not written in English. 37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(3)(ii); TMEP §1004.01(a)-(b). The translation should be signed by the translator. TMEP §1004.01(b).
If the foreign registration is not yet available, applicant should inform the trademark examining attorney that the foreign application is still pending and request that the U.S. application be suspended until a copy of the foreign registration is available. TMEP §§716.02(b), 1003.04(a).
If applicant cannot satisfy the requirements of the Section 44(e) basis, applicant may amend the basis to Section 1(a) or 1(b), if applicant can satisfy the requirements for the new basis. See 15 U.S.C. §§1051(a)-(b), 1126(e); TMEP §806.03. Please note that, if the U.S. application satisfied the requirements of Section 44(d) as of the U.S. application filing date, applicant may retain the priority filing date under Section 44(d) without perfecting the Section 44(e) basis, provided there is a continuing valid basis for registration. See 37 C.F.R. §2.35(b)(3)-(4); TMEP §§806.02(f), 806.03(h).
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.
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.
Please note that foreign attorneys, other than authorized Canadian attorneys, are not permitted to represent applicants before the USPTO (e.g., file written communications, authorize an amendment to an application, or submit legal arguments in response to a requirement or refusal). See 37 C.F.R. §§2.17(e), 11.14(c), (e); TMEP §602.03-.03(c).
The only attorneys who may practice before the USPTO in trademark matters are as follows:
(1) Attorneys in good standing with a bar of the highest court of any U.S. state, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and other U.S. commonwealths or U.S. territories; and
(2) Canadian agents/attorneys who represent applicants located in Canada and (a) are registered with the USPTO and in good standing as patent agents or (b) have been granted reciprocal recognition by the USPTO.
See 37 C.F.R. §§2.17(a), (e), 11.1, 11.14(a), (c); TMEP §602.
/Tricia L. Brown/
Examining Attorney
Law Office 121
(571) 270-7892
tricia.brown@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE
