Offc Action Outgoing

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

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

 

 

 

FINAL 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) and/or Electronic System for Trademark Trials and Appeals (ESTTA).  A link to the appropriate TEAS response form and/or to ESTTA for an appeal appears at the end of this Office action. 

 

 

Issue date:  November 27, 2020

 

 

INTRODUCTION

 

This Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on October 19, 2020.

 

In a previous Office action(s) dated April 21, 2020, the trademark examining attorney refused registration of the applied-for mark based on the following:  Sections 1, 2, 3, and 45 for incapable informational matter.  In addition, applicant was required to satisfy the following requirement(s):  disclaim descriptive wording in the mark, sign the application using an authorized method, and amend the identification of goods.

 

Based on applicant’s response, the trademark examining attorney notes that the following requirement(s) have been satisfied: disclaim descriptive wording in the mark, sign the application using an authorized method, and amend the identification of goods.  See TMEP §§713.02, 714.04. 

 

The trademark examining attorney maintains and now makes FINAL the refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) in the summary of issues below.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b); TMEP §714.04.

 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES MADE FINAL that applicant must address:

• FINAL REFUSAL Under Sections 1, 2, 3, and 45 – Incapable Informational Matter

 

 

FINAL REFUSAL Under Sections 1, 2, 3, and 45 – Incapable Informational Matter

 

For the reasons set forth below, the refusal is now made FINAL under Trademark Act Sections 1, 2, 3, and 45 for failure to function as a trademark.  See 15 U.S.C. §§1051-1053, 1127; 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b).

 

Registration is refused because the applied-for mark does not function as a trademark or service mark to indicate the source of applicant’s goods and to identify and distinguish them from others.  Trademark Act Sections 1, 2, 3, and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051-1053, 1127.  In this case, the applied-for mark is a National Drug Code which, despite being unique to a particular packaging of the goods, is of a type which widely used in the marketplace to merely convey information about applicant’s goods.  See In re Boston Beer Co., 198 F.3d 1370, 1372-74, 53 USPQ2d 1056, 1058-59 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding THE BEST BEER IN AMERICA for beer and ale a common claim of superiority and incapable of registration); In re Melville Corp., 228 USPQ 970, 971 (TTAB 1986) (holding BRAND NAMES FOR LESS for retail clothing store services a common promotional phrase and incapable of registration); TMEP §1202.04(a). 

 

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, ndclist.com, idmedicaid.com, bcbstx.com, aappublications.org, medlibrary.org, akorn.com, and healthgrades.com, shows that National Drug Codes are assigned by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as three-segment numbers used as universal product identifiers for drugs. These codes are commonly used in insurance billing.  Because consumers are accustomed to seeing these codes used in this manner, when a code in the same format is applied to applicant’s goods, consumers would perceive it merely as informational matter indicating the FDA’s assigned number for the product.  Thus, this code would not be perceived as a mark that distinguishes applicant’s goods from those of others and identifies the source of applicant’s goods.

 

Applicant argues that NDC 70350-2615-01 “uniquely identifies both the goods of the Applicant and the source of the goods” because the first segment of the code corresponds to the applicant as the labeler of the product. However, being unique to a packaging for a product and containing a number that corresponds to the applicant does not make the applied-for designation a source indicator. Whether a designation functions as a mark depends on the commercial impression it makes on the relevant public; that is, whether purchasers would be likely to regard it as a source-indicator for the goods.  See In re Keep A Breast Found., 123 USPQ2d 1869, 1879 (TTAB 2017) (quoting In re Eagle Crest Inc., 96 USPQ2d 1227, 1229 (TTAB 2010)); TMEP §1202.  The specimen and any other relevant evidence of use is reviewed to determine whether an applied-for mark is being used as a trademark.  In re Bose Corp., 546 F.2d 893, 897, 192 USPQ 213, 216 (C.C.P.A. 1976); In re Volvo Cars of N. Am., Inc., 46 USPQ2d 1455, 1459 (TTAB 1998). 

 

Not every designation that appears on a product or its packaging functions as a trademark, even though it may have been adopted with the intent to do so.  See In re Peace Love World Live, LLC, 127 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Pro-Line Corp., 28 USPQ2d 1141, 1142 (TTAB 1993)).  A designation can only be registered when purchasers would be likely to regard it as a source-indicator for the goods.  See In re Manco, Inc., 24 USPQ2d 1938, 1941 (TTAB 1992) (citing In re Remington Prods. Inc., 3 USPQ2d 1714, 1715 (TTAB 1987)); TMEP §1202.

 

In this case, the attached and previously attached evidence shows that NDC codes are ubiquitous on drug product packaging and are widely understood to be assigned by the FDA for a particular labeler and packaging for a particular drug. Because the codes are commonly seen on drug product packaging and understood to represent an assigned designation from the FDA, purchasers would not regard applicant’s NDC code as a source-indicator for the goods. Accordingly, the refusal under Sections 1, 2, 3, and 45 is now made FINAL.  

 

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). 

 

 

 

Proper response to a final action – full refusal

 

How to respond.  Click to file a request for reconsideration of this final Office action that fully resolves all outstanding requirements and refusals and/or click to file a timely appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) with the required filing fee(s).

 

 

/April Reeves/

April E. Reeves

Examining Attorney

Law Office 124

(571) 272-3681

april.reeves@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 November 27, 2020 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88770948

 

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. 

 

 

/April Reeves/

April E. Reeves

Examining Attorney

Law Office 124

(571) 272-3681

april.reeves@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 November 27, 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.”