| To: | Tore, John (JeffMFurr@FurrLawFirm.com) |
| Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88673832 - PREMIUM DOMAIN NAME - N/A |
| Sent: | November 27, 2019 11:26:05 AM |
| Sent As: | ecom103@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 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
|
U.S. Application Serial No. 88673832
Mark: PREMIUM DOMAIN NAME
|
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
|
Applicant: Tore, John
|
|
|
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: November 27, 2019
The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney. Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issues 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
The trademark examining attorney has searched the Office’s database of registered and pending marks and has found no conflicting marks that would bar registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d). TMEP §704.02; see 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).
However, applicant must address the following issues.
SECTION 2(E)(1) REFUSAL – MERELY DESCRIPTIVE – International Classes 35, 42, And 45
The applied-for mark is “PREMIUM DOMAIN NAME” for “Advertising and marketing services provided by means of indirect methods of marketing communications, namely, social media, search engine marketing, inquiry marketing, internet marketing, mobile marketing, blogging and other forms of passive, sharable or viral communications channels; Brand development and evaluation services in the field of trademarks, trade names and domain names; Business information services and appraisals; Commercial administration of the licensing of the goods and services of others; Franchise services, namely, offering business management assistance in the establishment and operation of Retail Stores; Franchising, namely, consultation and assistance in business management, organization and promotion; Authentication, issuance and validation of digital certificates; Computer services, namely, domain forwarding services; Domain name search services, namely, conducting online computerized searches for the availability of domain names; Parking domain names for others, namely, providing computer servers for electronic storage of domain name addresses; Research services in the field of information and telecommunications technology; Copyright management; Domain name registration services, namely, conducting domain name searches for the purpose of providing legal advice on domain name registration; Leasing of internet domain names; Licensing of intellectual property rights; Licensing of intellectual property in the field of trademarks, copyrights and domain names; Trademark agent services”.
In this case, the attached Internet evidence demonstrates that a “domain name” is “A series of alphanumeric strings separated by periods, such as www.hmhbooks.com, that is an address of a computer network connection and that identifies the owner of the address” and the word “premium” means “of exceptional quality or amount”. See attached dictionary evidence at http://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=domain%20name; http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/domain-name; http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/premium; http://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=premium.
Furthermore, “premium domain names” are domain names, or website addresses, that have been previously registered but are available for sale at today’s market value, as demonstrated by the numerous third parties using the exact term “premium domain” or “premium domain name” to refer to their similar services, which demonstrates a consumer’s knowledge of the descriptiveness of the terms in the relevant industry.
Therefore, “PREMIUM DOMAIN NAME” would be perceived as describing a purpose or feature of applicant’s services, i.e. applicant’s advertising, marketing, business, computer and technology, and intellectual property services are all for selling website addresses, that have been previously registered but are available for sale at today’s market value. Applicant’s identification and specimen support the descriptive meaning, as applicant’s services include domain name appraisals, domain leases, domain searches, etc. See application of record. Accordingly, the proposed mark is merely descriptive and registration is refused on the Principal Register.
Option to Delete Classes or Divide Application - Advisory
(1) Deleting the classes to which the refusal pertains; or
(2) Filing a request to divide out the goods and/or services that have not been refused registration, so that the mark may proceed toward publication for opposition in the class to which the refusal does not pertain. See 37 C.F.R. §2.87. See generally TMEP §§1110 et seq. (regarding the requirements for filing a request to divide). If applicant files a request to divide, then to avoid abandonment, applicant must also file a timely response to all outstanding issues in this Office action, including the refusal. 37 C.F.R. §2.87(e).
DISCLAIMER REQUIRED – International Classes 16, 25, and 28
The stated requirement refers to International Classes 16, 25, and 28 only.
In this case, applicant must disclaim the wording “PREMIUM” because it is not inherently distinctive. These unregistrable term(s) at best are merely laudatory and descriptive of the alleged merit of applicant’s goods. See 15 U.S.C. §§1052(e)(1); DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1256, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1759 (Fed. Cir. 2012); TMEP §1209.03(k).
“Self-laudatory or puffing marks are regarded as a condensed form of describing the character or quality of the goods [or services].” DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d at 1256, 103 USPQ2d at 1759 (quoting In re The Boston Beer Co., 198 F.3d 1370, 1373, 53 USPQ2d 1056, 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Thus, wording such as “ultimate,” “best,” “greatest,” and the like are generally considered laudatory and descriptive of an alleged superior quality of the goods and/or services. See In re Nett Designs, Inc., 236 F.3d 1339, 1342, 57 USPQ2d 1564, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re The Boston Beer Co., 198 F.3d at 1373-74, 53 USPQ2d at 1058-59; TMEP §1209.03(k).
The attached dictionary evidence shows this wording “premium” means “of exceptional quality or amount”. See previously referenced dictionary definition above. In addition, the attached evidence demonstrates that the word is commonly used to refer to higher quality products similar to applicant’s applied-for Class 16, 25, and 28 goods. See attached third party evidence at http://www.primoprint.com/business-cards; http://www.vicegolf.com/us/all-balls?gclid=Cj0KCQiA2vjuBRCqARIsAJL5a-It2W-uAEh54SR-tpGXTEdP4qZZ9_CkUt8yzIsWGVwDb51KKddPPrMaAq9sEALw_wcB; http://www.levi.com/US/en_US/premium/men/c/levi_clothing_men_premium_us. Therefore, this wording is merely laudatory of the supposed superior quality of the goods.
Applicant may respond to this issue by submitting a disclaimer in the following format:
No claim is made to the exclusive right to use “PREMIUM” apart from the mark as shown.
For an overview of disclaimers and instructions on how to satisfy this issue using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), see the Disclaimer webpage.
SPECIMEN UNACCEPTABLE
The submitted specimens are unacceptable for the following reasons.
International Class 16 – Goods in Trade Refusal
“Goods in trade” are items that an applicant sells or transports in commerce for use by others. See Lens.com, Inc. v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc., 686 F.3d 1376, 1379-80, 103 USPQ2d 1672, 1675 (Fed. Cir. 2012); TMEP §1202.06. Incidental items that an applicant uses to conduct its business, such as letterhead, invoices, and business forms, are generally not “goods in trade,” because these items are only useful to the applicant and are not separately sold or distributed to consumers. TMEP §1202.06; see, e.g., Lens.com, Inc. v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc., 686 F.3d at 1380, 1382, 103 USPQ2d at 1675-76 (holding computer software used for ordering contact lenses not goods in trade where applicant solely provided online retail stores for eyewear products, and software was not sold separately and had no independent value apart from applicant’s primary service); In re S’holders Data Corp., 495 F.2d 1360, 1361, 181 USPQ 722, 723 (C.C.P.A. 1974) (holding reports on subscribers’ securities portfolios not goods in trade where applicant solely provided financial reporting services, and reports were not sold separately and had no independent value apart from applicant’s primary service).
Although determining whether an applicant’s goods are independent goods in trade, or merely incidental to the applicant’s services, is made on a case-by-case basis, factors to consider include whether:
(1) The goods are simply the conduit or necessary tool useful only to obtain applicant’s services;
(2) The goods are so inextricably tied to and associated with applicant’s services as to have no viable existence apart from them; and
(3) The goods are neither sold separately from nor have any independent value apart from applicant’s services.
In re Thomas White Int’l, Ltd., 106 USPQ2d 1158, 1161-62 (TTAB 2013) (citing Lens.com, Inc. v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc., 686 F.3d at 1382, 103 USPQ2d at 1676); TMEP §1202.06. None of these factors is necessarily dispositive. Lens.com, Inc. v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc., 686 F.3d at 1382, 103 USPQ2d at 1676; TMEP §1202.06.
In this case, applicant’s “Business cards; Printed certificates; Printed certificates for use as awards” are not independent goods in trade but rather are merely incidental to applicant’s services because the printed certificates shown in the specimen are merely issued by applicant in what appears to be applicant’s domain name registration related service once a domain name is purchased.
Applicant cannot overcome this refusal by submitting a claim of acquired distinctiveness under Trademark Act Section 2(f) or amending the application to the Supplemental Register. TMEP §1202.06(b).
International Classes 25 and 28 – Ornamental Refusal
Whether a designation functions as a mark depends on the commercial impression it makes on the relevant public; that is, whether purchasers would likely regard it as a source-indicator for the goods. See In re Keep A Breast Found., 123 USPQ2d 1869, 1879 (TTAB 2017) (quoting In re Eagle Crest Inc., 96 USPQ2d 1227, 1229 (TTAB 2010)); TMEP §1202. The specimen and any other relevant evidence of use is reviewed to determine whether an applied-for mark is being used as a trademark. In re Bose Corp., 546 F.2d 893, 897, 192 USPQ 213, 216 (C.C.P.A. 1976); In re Volvo Cars of N. Am., Inc., 46 USPQ2d 1455, 1459 (TTAB 1998).
In this case, the mark as shown on the specimen would be perceived as merely a decorative or ornamental feature of the goods because it is in large font in prominent placement of the product, i.e. the front center of a hat and across the golf ball, where decorative or design elements are typically found instead of being used in a more source identifying manner.
In appropriate circumstances, applicant may overcome this refusal by satisfying one of the following options:
(1) Submit a different specimen (a verified “substitute” specimen) that (a) was in actual use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application (or prior to the filing of an amendment to allege use) and (b) shows proper trademark use for each international class identified in the application or amendment to allege use.
(2) Amend to the Supplemental Register, which is a second trademark register for marks not yet eligible for registration on the Principal Register, but which may become capable over time of functioning as source indicators.
(3) Claim acquired distinctiveness under Trademark Act Section 2(f) by submitting evidence that the applied-for mark has become distinctive of applicant’s goods; that is, proof that applicant’s extensive use and promotion of the mark has allowed consumers now directly to associate the mark with applicant as the source of the goods.
(4) Submit evidence that the applied-for mark is an indicator of secondary source; that is, proof that the mark is already recognized as a source indicator for other goods or services that applicant sells/offers.
(5) Amend the filing basis to intent to use under Section 1(b). This option will later necessitate additional fee(s) and filing requirements.
For an overview of the response options above and instructions on how to satisfy each option online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, see the Ornamental Refusal webpage.
International Classes 16, 25, and 28 – Mock Up Specimen Refusal & Request for Information
An application based on Trademark Act Section 1(a) must include a specimen showing the applied-for mark in use in commerce for each international class of goods identified in the application or amendment to allege use. 15 U.S.C. §1051(a)(1); 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a). “Use in commerce” means (1) a bona fide use of the applied-for mark in the ordinary course of trade (and not merely to reserve a right in the mark), (2) the mark is placed in any manner on the goods, packaging, tags or labels affixed to the goods, or displays that directly associate the mark with the goods and have a point-of-sale nature, and (3) the goods are actually sold or transported in commerce. See 15 U.S.C. §1127.
An image of a product or packaging that has been digitally created or otherwise altered to include the mark does not show actual use of the mark in commerce. See 15 U.S.C. §1127; TMEP §§904.04(a), 904.07(a); cf. In re Chica, Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1845, 1848 (TTAB 2007) (holding that “a mere drawing of the goods with an illustration of how the mark may be displayed” was not an acceptable specimen because it did not show actual use in commerce); In re The Signal Cos., 228 USPQ 956, 957-58 n.4 (TTAB 1986) (noting that a printer’s proof of an advertisement would not be an acceptable specimen because it does not show actual use in commerce).
In this case, the specimens appear questionable because the mark appears in plain black font, without any other source identifying matter or product packaging, on a single product that appears to have been purchased from a third party printing website, and on the certificate the identification of services is listed verbatim, which is not common for similar certificate products in the industry. This results in the determination that the specimens submitted appears to have been created only for the purposes of submitting a trademark application to the USPTO. Therefore, the specimen does not support an allegation of use in commerce.
Additional information/documentation required. To permit proper examination of the application record for compliance with use in commerce requirements, applicant must respond to the following requests for information and documentation about the specimen(s). See 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b); TMEP §814. Answer for each specimen/photograph/image previously provided. For any website source submitted as supporting evidence, provide a digital copy of the entire webpage from top to bottom, as rendered in an Internet browser, that includes the URL and access or print date. TMEP §710.01(b) (citing In re I-Coat Co., 126 USPQ2d 1730, 1733 (TTAB 2018)).
(1) Identify the particular good(s) listed in the application for which the specimen(s) was submitted to show use of the mark.
(2) Was the specimen created for submission with this application? If so, specify the date each specimen was created. If applicant obtained the image(s) of the goods shown in the specimen(s) from a third-party website, provide the URL of the website and a digital copy of relevant webpage(s) for each image.
(3) Provide information about and examples of how applicant’s goods appear in the actual sales environment.
(a) If sold in stores, provide a representative sample of the name(s) of the stores and of photographs showing the goods for sale in the named stores, such as photographs of the sales displays or goods on shelves with the mark.
(b) If sold online, provide a representative sample of the name(s) of the online retailers, the website URL(s) for each named retailer, and a digital copy of the webpages showing the goods for sale on the named website.
(c) If sold in another type of sales environment (e.g., catalogs, trade shows), identify the environment and provide photographs and/or documentation showing the goods for sale in that environment.
(4) If the information in question (3) about how the goods appear in the actual sales environment is not available to applicant, please describe how applicant’s goods are sold or transported and provide photographs and other documentation showing how applicant’s mark appears on the goods and/or its packaging when the goods are sold or transported to or within the United States.
(5) For each category of sales environment specified in response to questions (3) and (4), specify when the goods bearing the mark were first available for purchase within the United States, the date of the first sale of the goods to or within the United States, and whether the goods are still for sale to or within the United States in that environment.
(6) For the goods identified in response to question (1), specify the dollar amount of sales with or within the United States and provide at least three invoices or other supporting documentation that show payments or other consideration made, redacting personal or private information of buyers as necessary.
Response options. Applicant may respond to the refusal of registration due to the specimen’s failure to show actual use in commerce by amending the filing basis to allege intent to use the mark in commerce, for which no specimen is required now. See 37 C.F.R. §2.34. This option will later necessitate additional fee(s) and filing requirements such as providing a specimen.
Alternatively, applicant may also respond to the refusal by submitting a different specimen (a “verified substitute specimen”) that (a) was in actual use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application or prior to the filing of an amendment to allege use and (b) shows the mark in actual use in commerce for the goods identified in the application or amendment to allege use. A “verified substitute specimen” is a specimen that is accompanied by the following statement made in a signed affidavit or supported by a declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20: “The substitute (or new, or originally submitted, if appropriate) specimen(s) was/were in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application or prior to the filing of the amendment to allege use.” The substitute specimen cannot be accepted without this statement.
For an overview of these response options and instructions on how to satisfy either option online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, see the Specimen webpage.
If applicant submits a verified substitute specimen, applicant must also fully respond to all the requirements for information and documentation. Failure to comply with a requirement to furnish information is grounds for refusing registration. In re Harley, 119 USPQ2d 1755, 1757-58 (TTAB 2016); TMEP §814. Merely stating that evidence is available on applicant’s or a third party website or providing a hyperlink of such a website is an insufficient response and will not make the additional information or materials of record. See In re Planalytics, Inc., 70 USPQ2d 1453, 1457-58 (TTAB 2004). However, amending the application filing basis to intent-to-use under Section 1(b) will resolve the requirements for information and documentation.
International Classes 35, 42, and 45 – Mock Up Specimen Refusal & Request for Information
An application based on Trademark Act Section 1(a) must include a specimen showing the applied-for mark in use in commerce for each international class of services identified in the application or amendment to allege use. 15 U.S.C. §1051(a)(1); 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a); 1301.01 et seq. “Use in commerce” means (1) a bona fide use of the applied-for mark in the ordinary course of trade (and not merely to reserve a right in the mark), (2) the mark is used in the sale, advertising, or rendering of the services, and (3) the services are actually rendered in commerce. See 15 U.S.C. §1127.
An image of business signage, such as on a storefront or delivery van that has been digitally created or otherwise altered to include the mark does not show actual use of the mark in commerce./A webpage that has been digitally created or otherwise altered to include the mark does not show actual use of the mark in commerce./A website showing the mark for the services that is not currently engaged in selling, advertising, or rendering the services does not show actual use of the mark in commerce.> See 15 U.S.C. §1127; TMEP §§904.04(a), 904.07(a); cf. In re Chica, Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1845, 1848 (TTAB 2007) (holding that “a mere drawing of the goods with an illustration of how the mark may be displayed” was not an acceptable specimen because it did not show actual use in commerce); In re The Signal Cos., 228 USPQ 956, 957-58 n.4 (TTAB 1986) (noting that a printer’s proof of an advertisement would not be an acceptable specimen because it does not show actual use in commerce).
In this case, the websites are questionable because they are plain, white backgrounds with the mark in plain black font and merely a basic list of services taken from the application’s identification of services. There is no other wording explaining the services being provided, other links on the webpage, or other font, colors, or designs as is common for advertising websites. This results in the determination that the specimen submitted appears to have been created only for the purposes of submitting a trademark application to the USPTO. Therefore, the specimen does not support an allegation of use in commerce.
Additional information/documentation required. To permit proper examination of the application record for compliance with use in commerce requirements, applicant must respond to the following requests for information and documentation. See 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b); TMEP §814. Answer for each specimen/photograph/image provided. For each webpage submission, either as a specimen or as supporting evidence, provide a digital copy of the entire webpage from top to bottom, as rendered in an Internet browser, that includes the URL and access or print date, to permit proper and complete examination of this application and an accurate record of the entirety of the webpage submission.
(1) Identify the particular service(s) listed in the application for which the specimen(s) was submitted to show use of the mark.
(2) Was the specimen created for submission with this application? If so, specify the date each specimen was created. If the applicant obtained the content of the webpage or image(s) of the mark in connection with the services shown in the specimen(s) from a third-party website, provide the URL for the website and a digital copy of relevant webpage(s).
(3) Provide information about how applicant advertises the services and representative examples from online or print sources showing how the mark appears in applicant’s advertising of the services. Provide the name of the online or print source and a complete copy of the webpage(s) or print page(s) showing the services advertised for sale. For each source, specify when the services were first advertised for sale and if the services are still advertised for sale in that environment.
(4) For the services identified in response to question (1), specify the date the services were first rendered or provided to or within the United States, the dollar amount of sales with or within the United States, and provide at least three invoices or other supporting documentation that show payments or other consideration made, redacting personal or private information of buyers as necessary.
Response options. Applicant may respond to the refusal of registration due to the specimen’s failure to show actual use in commerce by amending the filing basis to allege intent to use the mark in commerce, for which no specimen is required now. See 37 C.F.R. §2.34. This option will later necessitate additional fee(s) and filing requirements such as providing a specimen.
Alternatively, applicant may also respond to the refusal by submitting a different specimen (a “verified substitute specimen”) that (a) was in actual use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application or prior to the filing of an amendment to allege use and (b) shows the mark in actual use in commerce for the services identified in the application or amendment to allege use. A “verified substitute specimen” is a specimen that is accompanied by the following statement made in a signed affidavit or supported by a declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20: “The substitute (or new, or originally submitted, if appropriate) specimen(s) was/were in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application or prior to the filing of the amendment to allege use.” The substitute specimen cannot be accepted without this statement.
For an overview of these response options and instructions on how to satisfy either option online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, see the Specimen webpage.
If applicant submits a verified substitute specimen, applicant must also fully respond to all the requirements for information and documentation. Failure to comply with a requirement to furnish information is grounds for refusing registration. In re Harley, 119 USPQ2d 1755, 1757-58 (TTAB 2016); TMEP §814. Merely stating that evidence is available on applicant’s or a third party website or providing a hyperlink of such a website is an insufficient response and will not make the additional information or materials of record. See In re Planalytics, Inc., 70 USPQ2d 1453, 1457-58 (TTAB 2004). However, amending the application’s filing basis to intent-to-use under Section 1(b) will also moot the requirements for information and documentation.
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.
TEAS PLUS OR TEAS REDUCED FEE (TEAS RF) APPLICANTS – TO MAINTAIN LOWER FEE, ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS MUST BE MET, INCLUDING SUBMITTING DOCUMENTS ONLINE: Applicants who filed their application online using the lower-fee TEAS Plus or TEAS RF application form must (1) file certain documents online using TEAS, including responses to Office actions (see TMEP §§819.02(b), 820.02(b) for a complete list of these documents); (2) maintain a valid e-mail correspondence address; and (3) agree to receive correspondence from the USPTO by e-mail throughout the prosecution of the application. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.22(b), 2.23(b); TMEP §§819, 820. TEAS Plus or TEAS RF applicants who do not meet these requirements must submit an additional processing fee of $125 per class of goods and/or services. 37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(1)(v), 2.22(c), 2.23(c); TMEP §§819.04, 820.04. However, in certain situations, TEAS Plus or TEAS RF applicants may respond to an Office action by authorizing an examiner’s amendment by telephone or e-mail without incurring this additional fee.
How to respond. Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action.
/Heather Schubert/
Heather Schubert
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 103
571-272-5484
heather.schubert@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE
