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:  May 03, 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:

 

• Section 2(e)(1) refusal
• Supplemental Register
• Amendment to Allege Use
• Translation
• TEAS PLUS status lost

 

NO CONFLICTING MARKS:

 

The trademark examining attorney searched the USPTO database of registered and pending marks and found no conflicting marks that would bar registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d).  15 U.S.C. §1052(d); TMEP §704.02.

 

SECTION 2(e)(1) REFUSAL – MARK IS MERELY DESCRIPTIVE:

 

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

 

The determination of whether a mark is merely descriptive is made in relation to an applicant’s goods and/or services, not in the abstract.  DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1254, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re The Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 1300, 102 USPQ2d 1217, 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2012); TMEP §1209.01(b).  “Whether consumers could guess what the product [or service] is from consideration of the mark alone is not the test.”  In re Am. Greetings Corp., 226 USPQ 365, 366 (TTAB 1985).

 

In this case, the applicant applied to register the mark HAUS for banking; financial services, namely, money lending; financial services, namely, mortgage planning; financial services, namely, mortgage refinancing; financing of fractionally-owned real property; insurance information and consultancy; loan financing; loan origination services; mortgage banking; mortgage brokerage; underwriting warranty programs in the field of real estate; arranging finance for construction projects; credit and loan services; extended warranty services, namely, service contracts; home equity loans; insurance brokerage; mortgage financing services; mortgage lending; providing home warranty administration; providing information in the field of finance; real estate brokerage; real estate financing services; real estate insurance underwriting services; real estate lending services; real estate title insurance underwriting services.

 

The term HAUS translates to house.  The term house refers to a structure serving as a dwelling for one or more persons.  See attached definition.

 

As such, the proposed mark in connection with the specified services conveys information about the services to consumers, namely, that the applicant’s services include real estate services and financing services for purchasing houses.

 

In support thereof, the trademark examining attorney refers to the excerpted materials from the Google search engine that evidence the descriptiveness of the proposed mark in relation to the specified services by showing that the applicant’s services include real estate services and financing services for purchasing houses.  See attachments.

 

For purposes of evaluating a trademark, material obtained from the Internet is generally accepted as competent evidence.  See In re Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, 488 F.3d 960, 966, 82 USPQ2d 1828, 1833 (Fed. Cir. 2007); In re Reed Elsevier Props., Inc., 482 F.3d 1376, 1380, 82 USPQ2d 1378, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2007); TBMP §1208.03; TMEP §710.01(b).

 

Based on the evidence of record it is clear that the proposed mark merely describes a feature of the applicant’s services.  Therefore, the proposed mark is refused registration pursuant to Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act.

 

RESPONSE:

 

Although the examining attorney has refused registration, the applicant may respond to the refusal to register by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.  If the applicant chooses to respond to the refusal to register, the applicant must also respond to the following issues.

 

SUPPLEMENTAL REGISTER:

 

A mark in an application under Trademark Act Section 1(b) is not eligible for registration on the Supplemental Register until an acceptable amendment to allege use under 37 C.F.R. §2.76 has been filed.  37 C.F.R. §§2.47(d), 2.75(b); TMEP §§815.02, 1102.03.  When a Section 1(b) application is successfully amended 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 the amendment to allege use.  TMEP §§816.02, 1102.03; see 37 C.F.R. §2.75(b).

 

AMENDMENT TO ALLEGE USE:

 

Applicant is advised that, because the application is based on intent-to-use under Trademark Act Section 1(b), applicant must file an acceptable allegation of use (also called an amendment to allege use or a statement of use) before the applied-for mark can be registered.  37 C.F.R. §2.35(b)(8); TMEP §1103.  An allegation of use has various legal requirements, including providing verified dates of first use of the mark, a verified statement that the mark is in use in commerce, a specimen showing the mark as actually used in commerce for each international class, and a fee.  37 C.F.R. §§2.76, 2.88; TMEP §806.01(b).  In addition, certain time restrictions apply to filing an amendment to allege use or statement of use.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.76(a), 2.88(a); TMEP §§1104.03, 1109.04.  See the ITU basis webpage for more information about an amendment to allege use or statement of use.  To submit one, use the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) Allegation of Use form.

 

TRANSLATION:

 

To permit proper examination of the application, applicant must submit an English translation of the foreign wording in the mark.  37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(9), 2.61(b); see TMEP §809.  The following English translation is suggested:  The English translation of “HAUS” in the mark is “house”.  TMEP §809.03.  See attached translation evidence.

 

TEAS PLUS STATUS LOST:

 

Processing fee required.  Applicant must submit an additional processing fee of $125 per class because the application as originally filed did not meet the TEAS Plus application filing requirements.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.22(c); TMEP §§819.01-.01(q), 819.04.  Specifically, applicant failed to meet the following requirement:  a translation of all non-English wording in the mark was not provided.

 

The additional processing fee is required regardless of whether applicant satisfies this application requirement.

 

Accordingly, the application will no longer be treated as TEAS Plus; it is now considered a TEAS Standard application.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.22(c); TMEP §819.04.

 

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.    

 

 

/Marlene Bell/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 118

571-272-9291

marlene.bell@uspto.gov (for informal inquiries)

 

 

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 May 03, 2020 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88789894

 

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. 

 

 

/Marlene Bell/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 118

571-272-9291

marlene.bell@uspto.gov (for informal inquiries)

 

 

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 May 03, 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.”