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:  April 16, 2020

 

 

The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney.  Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issues below.  15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(a), 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.

 

Search of USPTO Database of 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.

 

Summary of issues:

• Section 2(e)(2) refusal – primarily geographically descriptive
• Advisory – Supplemental Register
• Information about the goods requirement
• Entity information requirement

 

Section 2(e)(2) Refusal – Primarily Geographically Descriptive

 

Registration is refused because the applied-for mark “THE ORIGINAL CALIFORNIA ARTICHOKE” is primarily geographically descriptive of the origin of applicant’s goods.  Trademark Act Section 2(e)(2), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(2); see TMEP §§1210, 1210.01(a).

 

A mark is primarily geographically descriptive when the following is demonstrated:

 

(1)        The primary significance of the mark to the purchasing public is a generally known location;

 

(2)        The goods originate in the place identified in the mark; and

 

(3)        The purchasing public would be likely to believe that the goods originate in the geographic place identified in the mark; that is, to make a goods-place association.

 

TMEP §1210.01(a); see In re Societe Generale des Eaux Minerales de Vittel S.A., 824 F.2d 957, 959, 3 USPQ2d 1450, 1452 (Fed. Cir. 1987); In re Hollywood Lawyers Online, 110 USPQ2d 1852, 1853 (TTAB 2014); see also In re Newbridge Cutlery Co., 776 F.3d 854, 860-61, 113 USPQ2d 1445, 1448-49 (Fed. Cir. 2015). 

 

The attached evidence from columbiagazetteer.org and wikipedia.org shows that “CALIFORNIA” is a generally known location; namely, a state in the Pacific Region of the United States.

 

The addition of generic or highly descriptive wording to a geographic word or term does not diminish that geographic word or term’s primary geographic significance.  TMEP §1210.02(c)(ii); see, e.g., In re Hollywood Lawyers Online, 110 USPQ2d 1852, 1853-54 (TTAB 2014) (holding HOLLYWOOD LAWYERS ONLINE primarily geographically descriptive of attorney referrals, online business information, and an online business directory); In re Cheezwhse.com, Inc., 85 USPQ2d 1917, 1920 (TTAB 2008) (holding NORMANDIE CAMEMBERT primarily geographically descriptive of cheese). 

 

In the present case, the term “THE ORIGINAL” is highly descriptive and the term “ARTICHOKE” is generic and thus this wording does not diminish the geographic word’s primary geographic significance. 

 

“Marks that are merely laudatory and descriptive of the alleged merit of a product [or service] are . . . regarded as being descriptive” because “[s]elf-laudatory or puffing marks are regarded as a condensed form of describing the character or quality of the goods [or services].”  DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1256, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1759 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re The Boston Beer Co., 198 F.3d 1370, 1373, 53 USPQ2d 1056, 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1999)); TMEP §1209.03(k). 

 

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has held that the word “ORIGINAL” used alone or paired with descriptive wording is merely laudatory and descriptive of goods being the first of their kind.  See In re Ervin, 1 USPQ2d 1665, 1666 (TTAB 1986) (holding THE “ORIGINAL” merely laudatory and descriptive of applicant’s scorer for playing euchre as the first of its kind); Gen. Foods Corp. v. Ralston Purina Co., 220 USPQ 990, 994 (TTAB 1984) (holding ORIGINAL BLEND merely laudatory and descriptive of applicant’s cat food comprising a first-of-its-kind combination of ingredients).  The attached evidence from lexico.com shows that “ORIGINAL” means “Present or existing from the beginning; first or earliest” and, similarly, the attached evidence from merriam-webster.com shows that “ORIGINAL” means “being the first instance or source from which a copy, reproduction, or translation is or can be made”.  Therefore, the term “ORIGINAL” is merely laudatory and highly descriptive of applicant’s goods being the first of their kind.

 

The attached evidence from collinsdictionary.com shows that “ARTICHOKE” means “round green vegetables that have fleshy leaves arranged like the petals of a flower” and, similarly, the attached evidence from macmillandictionary.com shows that “ARTICHOKE” means “a round green vegetable with thick pointed leaves arranged close together in layers. After cooking it, you pull off each leaf and eat the soft bottom part”.  Therefore, the term “ARTICHOKE” is generic for applicant’s goods of “Fresh vegetables, namely, artichokes”.

 

Therefore, the term “THE ORIGINAL” is highly descriptive and the term “ARTICHOKE” is generic and thus this wording does not diminish the geographic word’s primary geographic significance. 

 

Goods are considered to originate from a geographic location when the record shows that the goods are sold there, manufactured or produced there, packaged and shipped from there, and/or contain a main ingredient or component derived from there.  See In re Jacques Bernier Inc., 894 F.2d 389, 391-92, 13 USPQ2d 1725, 1727 (Fed. Cir. 1990), opposition sustained sub nom. Fred Hayman Beverly Hills, Inc. v. Jacques Bernier Inc., 38 USPQ2d 1691 (TTAB 1996) (holding applicant’s perfume did not originate from RODEO DRIVE because, although goods did not have to be manufactured or produced at the geographic site and could “be sold there” to originate from the geographic location, there was insufficient evidence to show that perfume was sold on RODEO DRIVE); In re Joint-Stock Co. “Baik,” 80 USPQ2d 1305, 1310 (TTAB 2006) (holding applicant’s vodka originated from BAIKALSKAYA, a Russian word meaning “from Baikal,” because it was made from the water of Lake Baikal and applicant produced various vodkas from a location near Lake Baikal); In re JT Tobacconists, 59 USPQ2d 1080, 1083 (TTAB 2001) (holding applicant’s cigars, cigar cases, and humidors originated from MINNESOTA because they were packaged and shipped from MINNESOTA, and applicant’s business was located in MINNESOTA); In re Nantucket Allserve Inc., 28 USPQ2d 1144, 1145-46 (TTAB 1993) (holding applicant’s beverages originated from NANTUCKET because labels for applicant’s goods suggested a connection with NANTUCKET, additional evidence suggested that some ingredients came from NANTUCKET and that applicant’s goods were sold at applicant’s store located in NANTUCKET, and applicant’s corporate headquarters and research and development center were located in NANTUCKET); TMEP §1210.03.  In the present case, the application shows that applicant’s address is in “CALIFORNIA”.

 

The USPTO has long held that a goods-place is presumed where (1) the location in the mark is generally known to the purchasing public, (2) the term’s geographical significance is its primary significance, and (3) the goods do, in fact, originate from the named location in the mark.  TMEP §1210.04; see, e.g., In re Cal. Pizza Kitchen Inc., 10 USPQ2d 1704, 1705 (TTAB 1988) (finding a services-place association was presumed between applicant’s restaurant services and California because the services originated in California); In re Handler Fenton Ws., Inc., 214 USPQ 848, 850 (TTAB 1982) (finding a goods-place association was presumed between applicant’s t-shirts and Denver because the goods had their geographical origin in Denver); see also In re Nantucket, Inc., 677 F.2d 95, 102, 213 USPQ 889, 895 (C.C.P.A. 1982) (Nies, J., concurring) (“[W]e must start with the concept that a geographic name of a place of business is a descriptive term when used on the goods of that business.  There is a public goods/place association, in effect, presumed.” (internal footnote removed)).  In the present case, “CALIFORNIA” is a generally known geographic place, the geographic significance of “CALIFORNIA” is its primary significance, and the goods do originate from “CALIFORNIA”.

 

In consideration of the foregoing, the applied-for mark is refused because it is merely geographically descriptive.

Advisory – Supplemental Register

 

Although an amendment to the Supplemental Register would normally be an appropriate response to the Section 2(e)(2) refusal, such a response is not appropriate in the present case.  The instant application was filed under Trademark Act Section 1(b) and is not eligible for registration on the Supplemental Register until an acceptable amendment to allege use meeting the requirements of 37 C.F.R. §2.76 has been timely filed.  37 C.F.R. §2.47(d); TMEP §§816.02, 1102.03.

 

If applicant files an acceptable allegation of use and also amends 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 an amendment to allege use.  TMEP §§816.02, 1102.03; see 37 C.F.R. §2.75(b).  In addition, the undersigned trademark examining attorney will conduct a new search of the USPTO records for conflicting marks based on the later application filing date.  TMEP §§206.01, 1102.03.

 

Applicant is advised that, if the application is amended to seek registration on the Principal Register under Trademark Act Section 2(f) or on the Supplemental Register, applicant will be required to disclaim “ARTICHOKE” because such wording appears to be generic in the context of applicant’s goods.  See 15 U.S.C. §1056(a); In re Wella Corp., 565 F.2d 143, 144, 196 USPQ 7, 8 (C.C.P.A. 1977); In re Creative Goldsmiths of Wash., Inc., 229 USPQ 766, 768 (TTAB 1986); TMEP §1213.03(b).

 

Applicant may submit a disclaimer in the following format:

 

No claim is made to the exclusive right to use “ARTICHOKE” apart from the mark as shown.

 

TMEP §1213.08(a)(i).

 

For an overview of disclaimers and instructions on how to provide one using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), see the Disclaimer webpage.

 

Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.  However, if applicant responds to the refusal, applicant must also respond to the requirements set forth below.

 

Information About the Goods Requirement

 

Applicant must provide a written statement explaining whether the goods will be manufactured, packaged, shipped from, sold in or will have any other connection with the geographic location named in the mark.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b); TMEP §§814, 1210.03.  Failure to comply with a request for information is grounds for refusing registration.  In re Harley, 119 USPQ2d 1755, 1757-58 (TTAB 2016); TMEP §814. 

 

Entity Information Requirement

 

Applicant must specify the names, legal entities and national citizenship (for individuals) or the U.S. state or foreign country of organization or incorporation (for businesses) of all general partners.  37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(3)(iii); TMEP §§803.03(b), 803.04.

 

The following format should be used: 

 

“_____________________, a limited partnership organized under the laws of _______________, composed of _______________ (specify name, legal entity, and citizenship of each individual general partner; and/or name, legal entity, and state or foreign country of incorporation or organization of each juristic general partner).”

 

TMEP §803.03(b).

 

Response Guidelines

 

For this application to proceed, applicant must explicitly address each refusal and 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.

 

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 and requirements 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.    

 

 

Snabb, Sandra

/Sandra Snabb/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 120

571-272-4633

Sandra.Snabb@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 April 16, 2020 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88821483

 

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. 

 

 

Snabb, Sandra

/Sandra Snabb/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 120

571-272-4633

Sandra.Snabb@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 April 16, 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.”