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:  August 10, 2020

 

INTRODUCTION

 

This Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on July 13, 2020.

 

In a previous Office action dated April 25, 2020, the trademark examining attorney refused registration of the applied-for mark based on Trademark Act Section 2(d) for a likelihood of confusion with a registered mark and Sections 1 and 45 for failure to show the applied-for mark in use in commerce with any of the specified goods. 

 

Based on applicant’s response, the Section 2(d) refusal has been withdrawn.  See TMEP §§713.02, 714.04. 

 

The trademark examining attorney maintains and now makes FINAL the refusal 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:

 

• Sections 1 and 45 Refusal - Failure to Show Use in Commerce

 

SECTIONS 1 AND 45 REFUSAL - FAILURE TO SHOW USE IN COMMERCE

 

Applicant was previously refused registration in International Class 7 because the specimen is merely material used by applicant to conduct its internal business and does not show the applied-for mark as actually used in commerce.  Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); TMEP §§904, 904.04(b), 904.07(a). 

 

Material used by an applicant only to conduct its internal business is not an acceptable specimen for goods.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.56(a); In re Chi. Rawhide Mfg. Co., 455 F.2d 563, 565, 173 USPQ 8, 9 (C.C.P.A. 1972); In re Bright of Am., Inc., 205 USPQ 63, 71 (TTAB 1979); TMEP §904.04(b).  “These materials include all documents whose sole function is to carry out the applicant’s business dealings, such as invoices, bill heads, waybills, warranties, and business stationery.”  TMEP §904.04(b); see e.g., In re Chi. Rawhide Mfg. Co., 455 F.2d at 565, 173 USPQ at 9; In re Bright of Am., Inc., 205 USPQ at 65.

 

Response options for overcoming that refusal were set forth in the prior Office action.  Applicant, however, responded to such refusal by submitting arguments that are not persuasive for the reasons immediately stated below.

 

Thus, the refusal to register the applied-for mark in International Class 7 is now made final because applicant failed to provide evidence of use of the mark in commerce.  Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a), 2.63(b); TMEP §§904, 904.07, 1301.04(g)(i).

 

Specifically, applicant argues that the specimen of record is an “installation manual” that accompanies the goods for customers’ “internal use.”  However, the specimen indicates that the document is an installation “procedure,” rather than a “manual.”  Further, the form includes lines for indicating the “Job Identification” with a sales order number to which an “Installation Manger” is assigned.  Thus, it appears to be an installation procedure intended to be used by applicant’s installation managers, rather than a manual provided to customers for installing the goods themselves.  Lastly, the term “internal” when used on documents traditionally refers to internal use by the company that created the document.  Thus, the more reasonable interpretation is that the document is for applicant’s internal use, rather than applicant’s customers’ internal use.

 

Further, the specimen appears to be a printer’s proof and thus does not show the applied-for mark as actually used in commerce because the form contains lines for the “Job Identification” information, which have been left blank.  Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a), (c); TMEP §§904.04(a), 904.07(a), 1301.04(a), (g)(i).  Thus, the form appears to be a blank template intended for future use, rather than a copy of a form that has actually been used in commerce.  A printer’s proof is not a proper specimen for goods because it does not show the mark as actually used in commerce.  37 C.F.R. §2.56(c); see 15 U.S.C. §1127; In re The Signal Cos., 228 USPQ 956, 957-58 n.4 (TTAB 1986).  Printer’s proofs, generally, are preliminary copies of documents used to make corrections before publication and are not disseminated to the public.

 

Lastly, the specimen does not appear to show the mark in the drawing in use in commerce in International Class 7.  Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a), 1301.04(g)(i).  The mark appearing on the specimen and in the drawing must match; that is, the mark in the drawing “must be a substantially exact representation of the mark” on the specimen.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.51(a)-(b); TMEP §807.12(a).

 

In this case, the specimen displays the mark as “ALTUS ICEFILL MAX G”.  However, the drawing displays the mark as just “ICEFILL”.  The mark on the specimen and in the drawing do not match because the mark on the drawing is only a portion of the mark appearing on the specimen.  The applied-for mark “ICEFILL” is never used on its own; it only appears embedded in a phrase with the additional wording “ALTUS” and “MAX G,” which do not appear to be generic or merely informational terms.

 

A portion of a mark may be registered only “if that portion presents a separate and distinct commercial impression.”  In re Lorillard Licensing Co., 99 USPQ2d 1312, 1316 (TTAB 2011) (citing In re 1175854 Ontario Ltd., 81 USPQ2d 1446, 1448 (TTAB 2006)).  In this case, the drawing shows only a nonseparable part of the mark appearing on the specimen.  See In re Chem. Dynamics Inc., 839 F.2d 1569, 1571, 5 USPQ2d 1828, 1829-30 (Fed. Cir. 1988); In re Guitar Straps Online LLC, 103 USPQ2d 1745, 1751 (TTAB 2012); TMEP §807.12(a), (d).  Applicant has thus failed to provide the required evidence of use of the mark in commerce.  See TMEP §807.12(a).

 

An application based on Trademark Act Section 1(a) must include a specimen showing the applied-for mark as actually used in commerce for each international class of goods identified in the application.  15 U.S.C. §1051(a)(1); 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a). 

 

Examples of specimens.  Specimens for goods include a photograph of (1) the actual goods bearing the mark; (2) an actual container, packaging, tag or label for the goods bearing the mark; or (3) a point-of-sale display showing the mark directly associated with the goods.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.56(b)(1), (c); TMEP §904.03(a)-(m).  A webpage specimen submitted as a display associated with the goods must show the mark in association with a picture or textual description of the goods and include information necessary for ordering the goods.  TMEP §904.03(i); see 37 C.F.R. §2.56(b)(1), (c).  Any webpage printout or screenshot submitted as a specimen must include the webpage’s URL and the date it was accessed or printed.  37 C.F.R. §2.56(c).

 

Response options.  Applicant may respond to this refusal by satisfying one of the following for each applicable international class:

 

(1)       Submit a different specimen (a verified “substitute” specimen) that (a) was in actual use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application or prior to the filing of an amendment to allege use and (b) shows the mark in actual use in commerce for the goods identified in the application or amendment to allege use.  A “verified substitute specimen” is a specimen that is accompanied by the following statement made in a signed affidavit or supported by a declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20:  “The substitute (or new, or originally submitted, if appropriate) specimen(s) was/were in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application or prior to the filing of the amendment to allege use.”  The substitute specimen cannot be accepted without this statement.

 

(2)       Amend the filing basis to intent to use under Section 1(b) (which includes withdrawing an amendment to allege use, if one was filed), as no specimen is required before publication.  This option will later necessitate additional fee(s) and filing requirements, including a specimen.

 

For an overview of the response options referenced above and instructions on how to satisfy these options using the online Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, see the Specimen webpage.

 

ASSISTANCE

 

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 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 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).

 

 

/Monica L. Beggs/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 105

(571) 272-6614

monica.beggs@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 August 10, 2020 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88788065

 

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. 

 

 

/Monica L. Beggs/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 105

(571) 272-6614

monica.beggs@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 August 10, 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.”