Offc Action Outgoing

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application

 

 

 

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:  February 26, 2020

 

The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney.  Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issues below.  15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(a), 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.

 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES:

• Section 2(e)(1) Descriptiveness Refusal
• Advisory: Supplemental Register Only When Use
• Request for Information Requirement

 

SEARCH OF USPTO DATABASE OF MARKS

 

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).

 

However, applicant must respond to the following refusal and requirements:

 

SECTION 2(e)(1) REFUSAL - MERELY DESCRIPTIVE

 

Registration is refused because the applied-for mark merely describes a feature, characteristic, purpose, or function of applicant’s goods.  Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); see TMEP §§1209.01(b), 1209.03 et seq.

 

A mark is merely descriptive if it describes an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose, or use of an applicant’s goods and/or services.  TMEP §1209.01(b); see, e.g., In re TriVita, Inc., 783 F.3d 872, 874, 114 USPQ2d 1574, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 1173, 71 USPQ2d 1370, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004)); In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293, 1297, 75 USPQ2d 1420, 1421 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Estate of P.D. Beckwith, Inc. v. Comm’r of Patents, 252 U.S. 538, 543 (1920)). 

 

The applicant’s mark is “HYDROSLURRY” for “ABRASIVE BLAST CLEANING MACHINES, NAMELY, ABRASIVE BLASTING CABINET FOR MACHINE PARTS; ABRASIVE BLASTING CABINETS, NAMELY, POWERED MACHINES FOR FINISHING METALS OR OTHER MATERIALS FOR MACHINE PARTS”.

 

The applied-for mark consists of a combination of descriptive terms that immediately describes features or characteristics of applicant’s goods.

 

The word “SLURRY” is defined in the American Heritage dictionary as “a watery mixture of insoluble matter (such as mud, lime, or plaster of paris)”. “A slurry is a thin sloppy mud or, any fluid mixture of a pulverized solid with a liquid (usually water)”. See entry from Wikipedia.  “HYDRO” is an abbreviation for “water”. Applicant’s goods are “abrasive blast cleaning machines” and the term “HYDRO” is used descriptively by third parties in the field to describe “hydroblasting”- a technique that uses high water pressure for cleaning. See attached Internet excerpts. Therefore “HYDRO” merely describes that applicant’s abrasive blast cleaning machines use hydro-blasting or water-based pressure. The term “SLURRY” describes use of a slurry mixture in the blasting process.  The attached internet excerpts shows third party descriptive use of “slurry” in connection with abrasive blasting, in particular, slurry blasting, “a form of wet abrasive technology”. See attached.

 

Generally, if the individual components of a mark retain their descriptive meaning in relation to the goods and/or services, the combination results in a composite mark that is itself descriptive and not registrable.  In re Fat Boys Water Sports LLC, 118 USPQ2d 1511, 1516 (TTAB 2016) (citing In re Tower Tech, Inc., 64 USPQ2d 1314, 1317-18 (TTAB (2002)); TMEP §1209.03(d); see, e.g., Apollo Med. Extrusion Techs., Inc. v. Med. Extrusion Techs., Inc., 123 USPQ2d 1844, 1851 (TTAB 2017) (holding MEDICAL EXTRUSION TECHNOLOGIES merely descriptive of medical extrusion goods produced by employing medical extrusion technologies); In re Cannon Safe, Inc., 116 USPQ2d 1348, 1351 (TTAB 2015) (holding SMART SERIES merely descriptive of metal gun safes); In re King Koil Licensing Co., 79 USPQ2d 1048, 1052 (TTAB 2006) (holding THE BREATHABLE MATTRESS merely descriptive of beds, mattresses, box springs, and pillows). 

 

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 do not create a unique, incongruous, or nondescriptive meaning in relation to the goods.  Specifically, HYDROSLURRY” describes that applicant’s abrasive blast cleaning machines utilize water and slurry in the abrasive blasting process.

 

Therefore, the applied-for mark is merely descriptive and registration is refused under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act.

 

Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.

 

ADVIORY: AMENDMENT TO SUPPLEMENTAL REGISTER ONLY WHEN USE

 

Although an amendment to the Supplemental Register would normally be an appropriate response to a descriptiveness refusal, such a response is not appropriate in the present case.  The instant application was filed under Trademark Act Section 1(b) and is not eligible for registration on the Supplemental Register until an acceptable amendment to allege use meeting the requirements of 37 C.F.R. §2.76 has been timely filed.  37 C.F.R. §2.47(d); TMEP §§816.02, 1102.03.

 

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.

 

Applicant must also respond to the requirement set forth below.

 

INFORMATION ABOUT GOODS REQUIRED

 

Due to the descriptive nature of the applied-for mark, applicant must provide the following information regarding the goods and wording appearing in the mark: See 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b); TMEP §§814, 1402.01(e).  Specifically, applicant must submit the following: 

 

Factual information about the goods that must clearly indicate how they operate, their salient features, and their prospective customers and channels of trade. Conclusory statements will not satisfy this requirement for information.

 

Further, applicant must provide additional information about the wording in the mark.  Specifically, applicant must respond to the following questions: 

 

1.     Does “HYDRO”, “SLURRY” and/or “HYDROSLURRY” describe any feature, quality, or characteristic of the applicant’s goods? If so, please specify meaning of these terms as applied to the goods in the application.

2.     Are the terms, “HYDRO”, “SLURRY” and/or “HYDROSLURRY marketed, advertised or described in applicant’s fact sheets, brochures or marketing information as having any meaning in relation to the applicant’s goods? If so, please provide copies of such materials.

3.     Do applicant’s abrasive blast cleaning machines utilize water or hydro-blasting in the abrasive blasting process?

4.     Do applicant’s abrasive blast cleaning machines utilize slurry or slurry blasting in the abrasive blasting process?

5.     Do the terms “HYDRO”, “SLURRY” and/or “HYDROSLURRY” have any meaning or significance in the industry in which the goods are provided? If so, please specify meaning in the relevant industry.

 

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.  Merely stating that information about the goods or services is available on applicant’s website is an insufficient response and will not make the relevant information of record.  See In re Planalytics, Inc., 70 USPQ2d 1453, 1457-58 (TTAB 2004).

 

RESPONSE

 

Please call or email the assigned trademark examining attorney with questions about this Office action.  Although an examining attorney cannot provide legal advice, the examining attorney can provide additional explanation about the refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) in this Office action.  See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06. 

 

The USPTO does not accept emails as responses to Office actions; however, emails can be used for informal communications and are included in the application record.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(c), 2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05. 

 

How to respond.  Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action.    

 

 

/Lee-Anne Berns/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 118

(571) 272 1168

Lee-anne.Berns@uspto.gov

 

 

RESPONSE GUIDANCE

• Missing the response deadline to this letter will cause the application to abandon.  A response or notice of appeal must be received by the USPTO before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period.  TEAS and ESTTA maintenance or unforeseen circumstances could affect an applicant’s ability to timely respond.  

 

• Responses signed by an unauthorized party are not accepted and can cause the application to abandon.  If applicant does not have an attorney, the response must be signed by the individual applicant, all joint applicants, or someone with legal authority to bind a juristic applicant.  If applicant has an attorney, the response must be signed by the attorney.

 

• If needed, find contact information for the supervisor of the office or unit listed in the signature block.

 

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

 

USPTO OFFICIAL NOTICE

 

Office Action (Official Letter) has issued

on February 26, 2020 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88694021

 

Your trademark application has been reviewed by a trademark examining attorney.  As part of that review, the assigned attorney has issued an official letter that you must respond to by the specified deadline or your application will be abandoned.  Please follow the steps below.

 

(1)  Read the official letter.

 

(2)  Direct questions about the contents of the Office action to the assigned attorney below. 

 

 

/Lee-Anne Berns/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 118

(571) 272 1168

Lee-anne.Berns@uspto.gov

 

Direct questions about navigating USPTO electronic forms, the USPTO website, the application process, the status of your application, and/or whether there are outstanding deadlines or documents related to your file to the Trademark Assistance Center (TAC).

 

(3)  Respond within 6 months (or earlier, if required in the Office action) from February 26, 2020, using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS).  The response must be received by the USPTO before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period.  See the Office action for more information about how to respond

 

 

 

GENERAL GUIDANCE

·       Check the status of your application periodically in the Trademark Status & Document Retrieval (TSDR) database to avoid missing critical deadlines.

 

·       Update your correspondence email address, if needed, to ensure you receive important USPTO notices about your application.

 

·       Beware of misleading notices sent by private companies about your application.  Private companies not associated with the USPTO use public information available in trademark registrations to mail and email trademark-related offers and notices – most of which require fees.  All official USPTO correspondence will only be emailed from the domain “@uspto.gov.”