To: | Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. (erubi@rccl.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88881222 - EMUSTER - N/A |
Sent: | July 20, 2021 06:35:14 AM |
Sent As: | ecom122@uspto.gov |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 Attachment - 6 Attachment - 7 Attachment - 8 Attachment - 9 Attachment - 10 Attachment - 11 Attachment - 12 Attachment - 13 Attachment - 14 Attachment - 15 Attachment - 16 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88881222
Mark: EMUSTER
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
Applicant: Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd.
|
|
Reference/Docket No. N/A
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
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: July 20, 2021
This Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on March 11, 2021.
In a previous action dated June 29, 2020, the examining attorney refused registration of the applied-for mark as merely descriptive pursuant to Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1). Additionally, the examining attorney required applicant to provide additional information about its services.
Based on applicant’s response, the examining attorney notes that the additional information requirement has satisfied.
For the reasons stated below, the refusal to register under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1) is maintained and now made FINAL. See 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b).
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 MADE FINAL:
· Section 2(e)(1) Refusal – Merely Descriptive
SECTION 2(e)(1) REFUSAL - MERELY DESCRIPTIVE
The examining attorney has carefully considered applicant’s arguments, but has found them unpersuasive for the reasons set forth below. Accordingly, the refusal to register under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1) is maintained and now made FINAL. See 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b).
Applicant is seeking registration for the mark EMUSTER (in standard character form) for “cruise ship services; transportation of passengers by cruise ship” in International Class 39.
In this case, the examining attorney previously evidence showing that the letter “e” used as a prefix has become commonly recognized as a designation for services that are electronic in nature or are sold or provided electronically, and that the term “MUSTER” is commonly used on cruise ships to describe safety drills wherein passengers practice gathering at designated “muster” stations in the event of an emergency.
When a mark consists of the “e” prefix coupled with a descriptive word or term for electronic services, then the entire mark may be considered merely descriptive under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1). See In re SPX Corp., 63 USPQ2d 1592 (TTAB 2002) (holding E-AUTODIAGNOSTICS merely descriptive of an electronic engine analysis system comprised of a hand-held computer and related computer software); In re Styleclick.com Inc., 57 USPQ2d 1445 (TTAB 2000) (holding E FASHION merely descriptive of software for consumer use in shopping via a global computer network and of electronic retailing services); TMEP §1209.03(d).
Furthermore, the examining attorney has here attached evidence from Royal Caribbean, Cruise Radio, and Cruise Critic showing that applicant’s “EMUSTER” services entail a streamlining of the classic muster drill by enabling consumers to conduct “key elements of the drill” through use of their personal electronic devices. Additional attached evidence from Royal Caribbean Blog, Cruise Critic, Aronfeld Trial Attorneys, and Cruise Ship Crayz shows that this services is specifically described as an “electronic muster drill.”
Considering the above, when considered as a composite whole and in the context of applicant’s identified services, consumers will immediately understand the applied-for mark as merely communicating the knowledge that they will be able to partake in applicant’s muster drills electronically through use of personal electronic devices. In other words, applicant provides “e-muster” drills.
Applicant contends that the mark is not merely descriptive because “cruise ship services are not electronic in nature” and because consumers will still be required to physically visit the designated muster station in order to complete the drill. The examining attorney is unpersuaded.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, the refusal to register pursuant to Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1) is maintained and now made FINAL.
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).
/Kyle D. Simcox/
Trademark Examining Attorney
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Law Office 122
(571) 272-7851
Kyle.Simcox@USPTO.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE