To: | Multipet International, Inc. (rfriedberg@whiteandwilliams.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88800222 - JUNGLE GYMS - N/A |
Sent: | March 19, 2020 04:10:27 PM |
Sent As: | ecom108@uspto.gov |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 Attachment - 6 Attachment - 7 Attachment - 8 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88800222
Mark: JUNGLE GYMS
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
Applicant: Multipet International, Inc.
|
|
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: March 19, 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.
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) Descriptive Refusal
The determination of whether a mark is merely descriptive is made in relation to an applicant’s goods, 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).
“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). The question is not whether someone presented only with the mark could guess what the goods and/or services are, but “whether someone who knows what the goods and[/or] services are will understand the mark to convey information about them.” DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1254, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Tower Tech, Inc.,64 USPQ2d 1314, 1316-17 (TTAB 2002)); In re Mueller Sports. Med., Inc., 126 USPQ2d 1584, 1587 (TTAB 2018).
In this case, applicant’s mark is JUNGLE GYMS (standard character) for goods listed as “Pet toys” in International Class 28. The wording “JUNGLE GYMS” is the plural form of the term “jungle gym,” which is defined by the online version of The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language as “A structure of poles and bars for children to climb and play on.” Please see attached dictionary evidence. Although applicant’s goods are “Pet toys” in International Class 28, the applied-for mark JUNGLE GYMS is the plural form of a term of art in applicant’s industry to denote play structures for pets, which are encompassed by applicant’s goods listed as “Pet toys” in International Class 28. Please see attached third-party website evidence obtained from Exotic Nutrition, PetSmart, PetsWelcome, Lowe’s, WikiHow and ModernCat showing the highly descriptive or potentially generic nature of the applied-for mark in the context of applicant’s goods. As such, the applied-for mark merely describes a characteristic and/or feature of the applied-for goods, namely, that applicant’s goods are characterized as jungle gyms for pets.
Accordingly, registration is refused on the Principal Register under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1).
Section 2(f)/Supplemental Register Cannot Be Recommended – Possibly Generic (Advisory)
In addition to being merely descriptive, the applied-for mark appears to be generic in connection with the identified goods. “A generic mark, being the ‘ultimate in descriptiveness,’ cannot acquire distinctiveness” and thus is not entitled to registration on either the Principal or Supplemental Register under any circumstances. In re La. Fish Fry Prods., Ltd., 797 F.3d 1332, 1336, 116 USPQ2d 1262, 1264 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting H. Marvin Ginn Corp. v. Int’l Ass’n of Fire Chiefs, Inc., 782 F.2d 987, 989, 228 USPQ 528, 530 (Fed. Cir. 1986)); see TMEP §§1209.01(c) et seq., 1209.02(a). Therefore, the trademark examining attorney cannot recommend that applicant amend the application to proceed under Trademark Act Section 2(f) or on the Supplemental Register as possible response options to this refusal. See TMEP §1209.01(c).
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.
Furthermore, if applicant has an amendment that does not require the payment of a fee, submission of a specimen, response to a statutory refusal or declaration signature, applicant is encouraged to telephone the examining attorney to expedite the processing of the application.
How to respond. Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action.
/Brian P. Callaghan/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 108
Phone: (571) 272-4906
Email: brian.callaghan@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE