To: | Boutique Rugs, LLC (alichy@lichylaw.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88658579 - BOUTIQUERUGS - N/A |
Sent: | January 23, 2020 01:46:00 PM |
Sent As: | ecom118@uspto.gov |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 Attachment - 6 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88658579
Mark: BOUTIQUERUGS
|
|
Correspondence Address: |
|
Applicant: Boutique Rugs, 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 23, 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).
Applicant must provide a disclaimer of the unregistrable part(s) of the applied-for mark even though the mark as a whole appears to be registrable. See 15 U.S.C. §1056(a); TMEP §§1213, 1213.03(a). A disclaimer of an unregistrable part of a mark will not affect the mark’s appearance. See Schwarzkopf v. John H. Breck, Inc., 340 F.2d 978, 979-80, 144 USPQ 433, 433 (C.C.P.A. 1965).
In this case, applicant must disclaim the wording “BOUTIQUERUGS” because it is not inherently distinctive. These unregistrable term(s) at best are merely descriptive of characteristics 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); TMEP §§1213, 1213.03(a).
The attached evidence from Lexico.com shows the term “boutique” refers to a business establishment. Applicant is a business establishment featuring rugs, therefore the wording “BOUTIQUERUGS” merely describes a characteristic of the services.
Additionally, see attached evidence from Hyde Park Fine Rugs, Rug News, Erik Lindstrom, and Behnam Rugs, showing descriptive use of the term “BOUTIQUE”, for services similar to applicant’s, featuring rugs. For purposes of evaluating a trademark, material obtained from the Internet is generally accepted as competent evidence. See In re Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, 488 F.3d 960, 966, 82 USPQ2d 1828, 1833 (Fed. Cir. 2007); In re Reed Elsevier Props., Inc., 482 F.3d 1376, 1380, 82 USPQ2d 1378, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2007); TBMP §1208.03; TMEP §710.01(b).
Applicant may respond to this issue by submitting a disclaimer in the following format:
No claim is made to the exclusive right to use “BOUTIQUE RUGS” 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.
PLEASE NOTE: All issues raised in this office action may be resolved by E-mailing the examining attorney (Gretta.Yao@uspto.gov). Applicant is encouraged to email or call the assigned trademark examining attorney below to resolve the issues in this Office action. Although the USPTO will not accept an email as a response to an Office action, an applicant can communicate by phone or email to agree to a proposed amendment to the application that will immediately place the application in condition for publication, registration, or suspension. See 37 C.F.R. §2.62(c); TMEP §707.
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.
/Gretta Yao/
Attorney
United States Patent & Trademark Office
Law Office 118
571.272.9313
gretta.yao@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE