To: | Tilevera LLC (rrowen@twsglaw.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88900305 - MALIBU - N/A |
Sent: | February 24, 2021 11:18:37 AM |
Sent As: | ecom127@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 Attachment - 17 Attachment - 18 Attachment - 19 Attachment - 20 Attachment - 21 Attachment - 22 Attachment - 23 Attachment - 24 Attachment - 25 Attachment - 26 Attachment - 27 Attachment - 28 Attachment - 29 Attachment - 30 Attachment - 31 Attachment - 32 Attachment - 33 Attachment - 34 Attachment - 35 Attachment - 36 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88900305
Mark: MALIBU
|
|
Correspondence Address: |
|
Applicant: Tilevera LLC
|
|
Reference/Docket No. N/A
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
PRIORITY ACTION
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: February 24, 2021
Applicant must address issues shown below. On 17 February 2021, the examining attorney and Russell F. Rowen, applicant’s attorney, discussed the issues below. Applicant must timely respond to these issues. See 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §2.62(a); TMEP §708.05.
This Office action is supplemental to and supersedes the previous Office action issued on 15 June 2020, in connection with this application. The assigned trademark examining attorney inadvertently omitted a refusal of registration relevant to the mark in the subject application. See TMEP §§706, 711.02. Specifically, the mark is merely descriptive of the applied-for goods.
The trademark examining attorney apologizes for any inconvenience caused by the delay in raising this issue.
Applicant must address all issue raised in this Office action.
Further, the following refusal raised in the 15 June 2020, Office action has been satisfied: acceptable specimen provided. See TMEP §713.02.
The following is a SUMMARY OF ISSUES that applicant must address:
• NEW ISSUE: Section 2(e)(1) Refusal – Merely Descriptive
Applicant must respond to all issues raised in this Office action within six (6) months of the date of issuance of this Office action. 37 C.F.R. §2.62(a); see TMEP §711.02. If applicant does not respond within this time limit, the application will be abandoned. 37 C.F.R. §2.65(a).
SECTION 2(e)(1) REFUSAL – MERELY DESCRIPTIVE
Applicant’s applied-for mark is MALIBU in standard character form for “Non-metal building materials, namely, tile made of stone, cement, brick and terracotta” in International Class 19.
The attached evidence from the Los Angeles Times, Adamson House, and Wikipedia shows that Malibu tiles reflect a style of design reminiscent of the tiles produced by Malibu Potteries in the early 1920s by using contrasting glaze colors and geometric patterns. Accordingly, consumers will understand that the mark MALIBU describes tiles with contrasting glaze colors and geometric patterns inspired by Malibu Potteries’ tiles. In fact, applicant’s own website states that its tiles are “inspired by the tile making craft of turn-of-the-century malibu, california.”
MALIBU describes a characteristic of the applied-for goods and is therefore a word that providers of these goods need to be able to use to describe and advertise them.
Conclusion
Based on the evidence and analysis above, applicant’s applied-for mark is merely descriptive and must be refused under Section 2(e)(1) of the Lanham Act.
Supplemental Register Advisory
Response guidelines. 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.
How to respond. Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action.
/Douglas A. Mondell/
Douglas A. Mondell, Esq.
Law Office 127
(571) 272-0120
douglas.mondell@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE