To: | American Technology Network, Corp (jmunn@atncorp.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88892401 - THERMAL FEVER DETECTOR - N/A |
Sent: | July 27, 2020 05:11:28 PM |
Sent As: | ecom114@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. 88892401
Mark: THERMAL FEVER DETECTOR
|
|
Correspondence Address: AMERICAN TECHNOLOGY NETWORK, CORP AMERICAN TECHNOLOGY NETWORK, CORP
|
|
Applicant: American Technology Network, Corp
|
|
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: July 27, 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 OFFICE’S DATABASE OF MARKS
SUMMARY OF ISSUES:
SECTION 2(e)(1) REFUSAL - MERELY DESCRIPTIVE
Registration is refused because the applied-for mark merely describes a characteristic, feature, or purpose of applicant’s goods and/or services. Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); see TMEP §§1209.01(b), 1209.03 et seq.
Applicant has applied to register the mark “Thermal Fever Detector” for thermal imaging cameras.
The term thermal is defined as: of, relating to, using, producing, or caused by heat. See attached definition from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. In connection with the goods, the term “Thermal” in the applied-for mark clearly describes the type of cameras. This is particularly true given that this exact term is used in the application identification to indicate the type of cameras, namely, thermal imaging cameras.
The term fever is defined as: abnormally high body temperature. The term detector is defined as: one that detects, especially a mechanical, electrical, or chemical device that automatically identifies and records or registers a stimulus, such as an environmental change in pressure or temperature, an electric signal, or radiation from a radioactive material. See attached definitions from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. In connection with applicant’s cameras, the wording “Fever Detector” in the applied-for mark describes the characteristic, feature or purpose of the cameras which are an electrical device that detects an abnormally high body temperature.
In the present case, the applied-for mark, namely, “Thermal Fever Detector”, is a combination of words which describes the exact characteristic, feature, or purpose of the cameras as an electronic device relating to heat for detecting an abnormally high temperature.
Generally, if the individual components of a mark retain their descriptive meaning in relation to the goods and/or services, the combination results in a composite mark that is itself descriptive and not registrable. In re Fat Boys Water Sports LLC, 118 USPQ2d 1511, 1516 (TTAB 2016) (citing In re Tower Tech, Inc., 64 USPQ2d 1314, 1317-18 (TTAB (2002)); TMEP §1209.03(d); see, e.g., Apollo Med. Extrusion Techs., Inc. v. Med. Extrusion Techs., Inc., 123 USPQ2d 1844, 1851 (TTAB 2017) (holding MEDICAL EXTRUSION TECHNOLOGIES merely descriptive of medical extrusion goods produced by employing medical extrusion technologies); In re Cannon Safe, Inc., 116 USPQ2d 1348, 1351 (TTAB 2015) (holding SMART SERIES merely descriptive of metal gun safes); In re King Koil Licensing Co., 79 USPQ2d 1048, 1052 (TTAB 2006) (holding THE BREATHABLE MATTRESS merely descriptive of beds, mattresses, box springs, and pillows).
Only where the combination of descriptive terms creates a unitary mark with a unique, incongruous, or otherwise nondescriptive meaning in relation to the goods and/or 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 and the composite result are descriptive of applicant’s goods and/or services and do not create a unique, incongruous, or nondescriptive meaning in relation to the goods and/or services. Specifically, both the individual components and the composite result are descriptive of applicant’s goods which are an electronic device relating to heat for detecting an abnormally high body temperature and do not create a unique, incongruous, or nondescriptive meaning in relation to the goods.
Thus, registration is refused because the applied-for mark merely describes this particular aspect of the goods accordingly.
Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.
SUPPLEMENTAL REGISTER
Moreover, the examining attorney notes that amending the application to the Supplemental Register will not obviate any issues related to the noted prior pending application below.
PRIOR PENDING APPLICATION
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.
PRO SE APPLICANT MAY WISH TO SEEK TRADEMARK COUNSEL
Because of the legal technicalities and strict deadlines of the trademark application process, applicant is encouraged to hire a private attorney who specializes in trademark matters to assist in this process. The assigned trademark examining attorney can provide only limited assistance explaining the content of an Office action and the application process. USPTO staff cannot provide legal advice or statements about an applicant’s legal rights. TMEP §§705.02, 709.06. See Hiring a U.S.-licensed trademark attorney for more information.
RESPONDING TO THIS OFFICE ACTION
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.
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.
/Brendan McCauley/
Brendan McCauley
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 114
571-272-9459
Brendan.McCauley@USPTO.GOV
RESPONSE GUIDANCE