To: | Ripple Labs Inc. (tmadmin@kilpatricktownsend.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88884557 - ON-DEMAND LIQUIDITY - 1179637 |
Sent: | July 20, 2020 09:11:36 AM |
Sent As: | ecom121@uspto.gov |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 Attachment - 6 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88884557
Mark: ON-DEMAND LIQUIDITY
|
|
Correspondence Address: KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP |
|
Applicant: Ripple Labs Inc.
|
|
Reference/Docket No. 1179637
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: July 20, 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.
SEARCH OF USPTO DATABASE OF MARKS
PRIOR-FILED APPLICATION – ADVISORY
In response to this Office action, applicant may present arguments in support of registration by addressing the issue of the potential conflict between applicant’s mark and the mark in the referenced application. Applicant’s election not to submit arguments at this time in no way limits applicant’s right to address this issue later if a refusal under Section 2(d) issues.
Applicant should note the following additional ground for refusal.
SECTION 2(e)(1) REFUSAL – MERELY DESCRIPTIVE
Here, the applied-for mark is “ON-DEMAND LIQUIDITY” for use in conjunction with “electronic financial services, namely, monetary services for receiving and disbursing payments and gifts in fiat currencies and virtual currencies over a computer network and exchanging fiat currencies and virtual currencies over a computer network;” “electronic financial services, namely, receiving and disbursing payments and gifts in fiat currencies and virtual currencies over a computer network;” “financial services, namely, providing a virtual currency for exchange over a computer network;” “currency exchange services, namely, exchanging fiat currencies and virtual currencies over a computer network;” “payment verification services, namely, delivering payments and gifts from a source to a destination;” and “financial management and administration services, namely, facilitating transfers of digital currency, transmission of digital currency via electronic communication networks, and electronic transmission of digital currency” in International Class 36 and “peer-to-peer network computer services, namely, electronic transmission of financial data over electronic communications networks” in International Class 38. As the attached evidence from the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language shows, “on-demand” is defined as “when needed or asked for” and “liquidity” is defined as “available cash or the capacity to obtain it on demand.” As such, “ON-DEMAND” in the applied-for mark is merely descriptive of the as‑“needed” or as‑“asked for” nature of the availability of applicant’s services and “LIQUIDITY” in the applied-for mark is merely descriptive of what is received, disbursed, delivered, transferred, transmitted, or exchanged, namely, “currency,” “cash” or one’s “liquidity.” As such, each of the individual elements of the applied-for mark is merely descriptive of the purpose, function, or use of the identified services.
Only where the combination of descriptive terms creates a unitary mark with a unique, incongruous, or otherwise nondescriptive meaning in relation to the services is the combined mark registrable. See In re Colonial Stores, Inc., 394 F.2d 549, 551, 157 USPQ 382, 384 (C.C.P.A. 1968); In re Positec Grp. Ltd., 108 USPQ2d 1161, 1162-63 (TTAB 2013).
In this case, both the individual components, as described above, and the composite result are descriptive of applicant’s services and do not create a unique, incongruous, or nondescriptive meaning in relation to the services. Specifically, the composite mark merely describes the purpose or function of applicant’s services, which have all been identified as relating to currency exchange, payment receiving, disbursing, transfer, and verification, and financial data exchange, as these services are broad enough to encompass such services focused on allowing applicant’s consumers to obtain, send, or transfer their “available cash” at the moment it is “needed or asked for.” These services allow consumers to access their “available cash” or “liquidity” “on-demand” or at the time it is “needed or asked for.” No new, unique, or incongruous meaning is created.
Therefore, because both the individual elements of the applied-for mark and the composite mark as a whole are merely descriptive of the purpose, function, or use of applicant’s identified services, registration of the applied-for mark must be refused on the Principal Register under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act.
SUPPLEMENTAL REGISTER – ADVISORY
RESPONSE GUIDELINES
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.
/Timothy J. Callery/
Timothy J. Callery
Examining Attorney
Law Office 121
(571) 270-1987
tim.callery@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE