To: | The Sugar Art Inc. FORMERLY ECG Supplies ETC. (afrys1987@gmail.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88717482 - LEMON - N/A |
Sent: | September 14, 2020 07:40:41 PM |
Sent As: | ecom114@uspto.gov |
Attachments: |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88717482
Mark: LEMON
|
|
Correspondence Address: The Sugar Art Inc. FORMERLY ECG Supplies
|
|
Applicant: The Sugar Art Inc. FORMERLY ECG Supplies ETC.
|
|
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: September 14, 2020
In a previous Office action(s) dated March 6, 2020, the trademark examining attorney refused registration of the applied-for mark based on the following: Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1).
The following is a SUMMARY OF ISSUES that applicant must address:
Applicant must respond to all issues raised in this Office action and the previous Office action, within six (6) months of the date of issuance of this Office action. 37 C.F.R. §2.62(a); see TMEP §711.02. If applicant does not respond within this time limit, the application will be abandoned. 37 C.F.R. §2.65(a).
Section 2(f) Claim Unacceptable
Applicant may respond by providing additional evidence of acquired distinctiveness, such as verified statements of long term use, advertising and sales expenditures, examples of advertising, affidavits and declarations of consumers, customer surveys. See 37 C.F.R. §2.41(a)(3); TMEP §§1212.02(g), 1212.06 et seq.
When determining whether the evidence shows the mark has acquired distinctiveness, the trademark examining attorney will consider the following six factors: (1) association of the mark with a particular source by actual purchasers (typically measured by customer surveys linking the name to the source); (2) length, degree, and exclusivity of use; (3) amount and manner of advertising; (4) amount of sales and number of customers; (5) intentional copying; and (6) unsolicited media coverage. See Converse, Inc. v. ITC, 909 F.3d 1110, 1120, 128 USPQ2d 1538, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“the Converse factors”). “[N]o single factor is determinative.” In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d at 1300, 75 USPQ2d at 1424; see TMEP §§1212.06 et seq. Rather, all factors are weighed together in light of all the circumstances to determine whether the mark has acquired distinctiveness. In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d at 1300, 75 USPQ2d at 1424. This evidence must demonstrate that the relevant public understands the primary significance of the mark as identifying the source of applicant’s product or service rather than identifying the product or service itself. In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d at 1297, 75 USPQ2d at 1422.
As well as submitting additional evidence, applicant may respond to the refusal by arguing in support of registration and/or amending the application to seek registration on the Supplemental Register. See 15 U.S.C. §1091(a); 37 C.F.R. §§2.47, 2.75(a); TMEP §816. If applicant amends the application to the Supplemental Register, applicant is not precluded from submitting evidence and arguments against this refusal. TMEP §816.04.
Section 2(e)(1) Refusal – Mark is Merely Descriptive
Registration was refused because the applied-for mark merely describes a characteristic of applicant’s goods and/or services. Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); see TMEP §§1209.01(b), 1209.03 et seq. Examining attorney has considered applicants argument and has found them unpersuasive, therefore, the refusal is continued and maintained. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed if and when the refusal is made final.
Response Guidelines
If applicant has questions regarding this Office action, applicant may call or email the assigned trademark examining attorney. Although the trademark examining attorney cannot provide legal advice or statements about applicant’s rights, the trademark examining attorney can provide applicant with additional explanation about the refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) in this Office action. See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06. Although the USPTO does not accept emails as responses to Office actions, emails can be used for informal communications and will be 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.
John Sullivan
/John Sullivan/
Examining Attorney
Law Office 114
(571) 272-9519
john.sullivan@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE