To: | Solutech Pharmaceuticals, LLC (steven@etehadlaw.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88770948 - NDC 70350-2615-01 - 0022-0001 |
Sent: | April 21, 2020 03:22:07 PM |
Sent As: | ecom124@uspto.gov |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 Attachment - 6 Attachment - 7 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88770948
Mark: NDC 70350-2615-01
|
|
Correspondence Address: 9454 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 711
|
|
Applicant: Solutech Pharmaceuticals, LLC
|
|
Reference/Docket No. 0022-0001
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: April 21, 2020
The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney. Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issue(s) below. 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(a), 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.
SUMMARY OF ISSUES:
SEARCH RESULTS
Refusal Under Sections 1, 2, 3, and 45 – Incapable Informational Matter
Terms that are merely informational in nature are not registrable. See In re Eagle Crest, Inc., 96 USPQ2d 1227, 1229 (TTAB 2010). Determining whether the slogan or term functions as a trademark or service mark depends on how it would be perceived by the relevant public. In re Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 129 USPQ2d 1148, 1150 (TTAB 2019) (citing D.C. One Wholesaler, Inc. v. Chien, 120 USPQ2d 1710, 1713 (TTAB 2016)); In re Eagle Crest, Inc., 96 USPQ2d at 1229; TMEP §1202.04. “The more commonly a [slogan or term] 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 FDA.gov and drugs.com shows that “NDC” is an abbreviation for “national drug code”; national drug codes are three-segment codes which serve as universal product identifiers for drugs. Additionally, the attached text from 21 C.F.R. §201.2 and product packaging samples from Google images show that displaying national drug codes is encouraged on prescription drug packaging, and these codes are commonly found on prescription drug packaging. Because consumers are accustomed to seeing national drug codes used in this manner, when such code is applied to applicant’s goods, consumers would perceive it merely as informational matter indicating the universal product identifier of the drugs. Thus, NDC 70350-2615-01 would not be perceived as a mark that identifies the source of applicant’s goods.
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).
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.
Applicant must disclaim “NDC” because it is merely descriptive of a feature of applicant’s goods. 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).
An abbreviation, initialism, or acronym is merely descriptive when it is generally understood as “substantially synonymous” with the descriptive words it represents. See In re Thomas Nelson, Inc., 97 USPQ2d 1712, 1715 (TTAB 2011) (citing Modern Optics, Inc. v. Univis Lens Co., 234 F.2d 504, 506, 110 USPQ 293, 295 (C.C.P.A. 1956)) (holding NKJV substantially synonymous with merely descriptive term “New King James Version” and thus merely descriptive of bibles); In re BetaBatt Inc., 89 USPQ2d 1152, 1155 (TTAB 2008) (holding DEC substantially synonymous with merely descriptive term “direct energy conversion” and thus merely descriptive of a type of batteries and battery related services); TMEP §1209.03(h).
The attached evidence from FDA.gov and drugs.com shows that “NDC” is a substantially synonymous abbreviation for “national drug code,” which is a type of universal product identifier for drug products. Thus, the wording merely describes applicant’s goods because applicant’s goods are drug products that feature an assigned national drug code.
Applicant may respond to this issue by submitting a disclaimer in the following format:
No claim is made to the exclusive right to use “NDC” apart from the mark as shown.
For an overview of disclaimers and instructions on how to provide one using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), see the Disclaimer webpage.
Application signed using unauthorized method
Application signed using an unauthorized method. The application was verified with a signature made with document-signing software. The USPTO cannot accept this verification because applicant signed it using a method other than one authorized by 37 C.F.R. §2.193(a), (c) (see below in the “Authorized methods for signing a TEAS response” for acceptable methods). A signature created by document-signing software is not a designated signing method; therefore, the USPTO cannot accept the verification. See 37 C.F.R. §2.193(a), (c); TMEP §§611.01(b), 718.03.
Applicant must properly sign and therefore verify the application in an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.2(n), 2.33(a)-(b)(1), (c), 2.34(a)(1)(i); TMEP §804.02.
The following statements must be verified: That applicant believes applicant is the owner of the mark; that the mark is in use in commerce and was in use in commerce as of the application filing date; that to the best of the signatory’s knowledge and belief, no other persons, except, if applicable, concurrent users, have the right to use the mark in commerce, either in the identical form or in such near resemblance as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods/services of such other persons, to cause confusion or mistake, or to deceive; that the specimen shows the mark as used on or in connection with the goods or services as of the application filing date; and that the facts set forth in the application are true. 37 C.F.R. §§2.33(b)(1), (c), 2.34(a)(1)(i), 2.59(a). For more information about this, see the Verified statement webpage.
Applicant must use one of the following methods for signing Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) forms:
(1) Electronic typed signature. In the TEAS signature block, the signer personally types any combination of letters, numbers, spaces, and/or punctuation marks that the signer has adopted as a signature, placed between two forward slash (/) symbols (e.g., /john doe/). And if the filer is not the actual signer of the form, the filer may email the completed unsigned form from within TEAS to the signer to personally type his or her e-signature, after which the form will be automatically returned to the filer for submission.
(2) Pen-and-ink traditional handwritten signature. The filer prints out the completed form in text format and mails or faxes it to the signer who reviews and personally signs and dates it in the usual pen-and-ink manner. The signature and date portion, together with the wording of a declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20, if required, is then scanned by the filer as a jpg or pdf image file and attached to the form for submission.
See 37 C.F.R. §2.193(a); TMEP §§611.01(c), 804.03.
In addition, the name of the signer must be clearly printed or typed near the signature. 37 C.F.R. §2.193(d); TMEP §611.01(c). The signer’s particular title or position should also be specified. See TMEP §804.04.
To provide these verified statements. After opening the correct TEAS response form, answer “yes” to wizard question #10, and follow the instructions within the form for signing. In this case, the form will require two signatures: one in the “Declaration Signature” section and one in the “Response Signature” section.
International Class 5: Pre-moistened topical medicated silicone gel sheeting in the form of a pad for treatment of scars.
For assistance with identifying and classifying goods and services in trademark applications, please see the USPTO’s online searchable U.S. Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual. See TMEP §1402.04.
Responding to this Office action
Response guidelines. 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.
How to respond. Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action.
/April Reeves/
April E. Reeves
Examining Attorney
Law Office 124
(571) 272-3681
april.reeves@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE