To: | Juic, Inc. (tina-pto@lozaip.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88977313 - FREE POWER - JUIC-204 |
Sent: | April 23, 2020 06:46:28 PM |
Sent As: | ecom105@uspto.gov |
Attachments: |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88977313
Mark: FREE POWER
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
Applicant: Juic, Inc.
|
|
Reference/Docket No. JUIC-204
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: April 23, 2020
The statement of use has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney. Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issue below. 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(a), 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.
SECTIONS 1, 2, 3, AND 45 REFUSAL – FAILURE TO FUNCTION AS A MARK
The activities set forth as services in an application are reviewed using the following criteria to determine whether they constitute registrable services:
(1) A service is a real activity, not an idea, concept, process, or system.
(2) A service is performed primarily for the benefit of someone other than the applicant.
(3) A service is an activity that is sufficiently separate and qualitatively different from an applicant’s principal activity, i.e., it cannot be an activity that is merely incidental or necessary to an applicant’s larger business.
TMEP §1301.01(a); see In re Dr Pepper Co., 836 F.2d 508, 509-510, 5 USPQ2d 1207, 1208-1209 (Fed. Cir. 1987); In re Canadian Pac. Ltd., 754 F.2d 992, 994-95, 224 USPQ 971, 973 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In this case, the description set forth in the identification of services is as follows: “Licensing of intellectual property; patent and patent application licensing; trademark and trademark application licensing; consulting in the field of intellectual property licensing.” The specimen indicates that these activities are not registrable services because it is the licensing of applicant’s own intellectual property.
An applicant licensing its own intellectual property is not a registrable service because it is done primarily for applicant’s own benefit and not for the benefit of others. TMEP §1301.01.
ASSISTANCE
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.
/Kristin Williams/
Kristin Williams
Examining Attorney
Law Office 105
(571) 270-1942
kristin.williams@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE