United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88657433
Mark: BABY GIRL
|
|
Correspondence Address: |
|
Applicant: Mai, Cindy
|
|
Reference/Docket No. N/A
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
PRIORITY ACTION
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
USPTO database searched; no conflicting marks found. The trademark examining attorney searched the USPTO database of registered and pending marks and found no conflicting marks that would bar registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d). 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); TMEP §704.02.
On December 31, 2019, the examining attorney and Cindy Mai discussed the issues below. Applicant must timely respond to these issues. See 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §2.62(a); TMEP §708.05.
1. FAILURE TO FUNCTION AS A MARK – INFORMATIONAL MATTER
Terms and expressions that merely convey an informational message are not registrable. In re Eagle Crest, Inc., 96 USPQ2d 1227, 1229 (TTAB 2010). Determining whether the term or expression functions as a trademark or service mark depends on how it would be perceived by the relevant public. In re Eagle Crest, Inc., 96 USPQ2d at 1229; In re Aerospace Optics, Inc., 78 USPQ2d 1861, 1862 (TTAB 2006); TMEP §1202.04. “The more commonly a [term or expression] is used, the less likely that the public will use it to identify only one source and the less likely that it will be recognized by purchasers as a trademark [or service mark].” In re Hulting, 107 USPQ2d 1175, 1177 (TTAB 2013) (quoting In re Eagle Crest, Inc., 96 USPQ2d at 1229); TMEP §1202.04(b).
The attached evidence from various online sources shows that this term or expression is commonly used to refer to announce a birth or welcome a newborn and conveys information to the person confronted with the slogan. Because consumers are accustomed to seeing this term or expression commonly used in everyday speech by many different sources, they would not perceive it as a mark identifying the source of applicant’s goods and/or services but rather as only conveying an informational message.
An applicant may not overcome this refusal by amending the application to seek registration on the Supplemental Register or asserting a claim of acquired distinctiveness under Section 2(f). TMEP §1202.04(d); see In re Eagle Crest, Inc., 96 USPQ2d at 1229. Nor will submitting a substitute specimen overcome this refusal. See TMEP §1202.04(d).
2. SECTIONS 1, 2 AND 45 REFUSAL – MERELY ORNAMENTAL
Moreover, the applied-for mark appears incapable of functioning as a source-identifier for applicant’s goods. See In re The Original Red Plate Co., 223 USPQ 836, 839 (TTAB 1984) (holding the wording YOU ARE SPECIAL TODAY used on ceramic plates to have no source-indicating significance for the plates); TMEP §§1202.03 et seq.
In this case, the mark as shown on the specimen would be perceived as merely a decorative or ornamental feature of the goods because it is a slogan placed where ornamental/decorative features would normally be found on these goods rather than where an indicia of source would normally be found.
Under these circumstances, neither an amendment under Trademark Act Section 2(f) nor an amendment to the Supplemental Register can be recommended. See TMEP §1202.03-.03(a).
How to respond. Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action.
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.
/Matthew J. McDowell/
Examining Attorney
Law Office 101
United States Patent and Trademark Office
(571) 272-8263
matthew.mcdowell@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE