| To: | Espro, Inc. (trademark@winthrop.com) |
| Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 90023734 - 22959.207 |
| Sent: | May 13, 2021 03:22:43 PM |
| Sent As: | ecom105@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 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
|
U.S. Application Serial No. 90023734
|
|
|
Correspondence Address: 225 SOUTH SIXTH STREET, SUITE 3500
|
|
|
Applicant: Espro, Inc.
|
|
|
Reference/Docket No. 22959.207
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: May 13, 2021
This Office action is supplemental to the previous Office action(s) issued in connection with this application. Based on information and/or documentation in applicant’s response, the trademark examining attorney now issues the following new refusal(s) and/or requirement(s): Section 2(e)(5) Refusal – Mark is Overall Functional; Section 2(f) Refusal – Insufficient Acquired Distinctiveness Claim; Additional Request for Information – Functionality; Request for Information – 2(f) Claim; Applicant’s Domicile Address Required. See TMEP §§706, 711.02.
In the previous Office action(s), the examining attorney issued the following refusal(s) and/or requirement(s): Sections 1, 2, and 45 Refusal – Non-Distinctive Product Design; Request for Information; Identification of Goods Requirement.
Based on applicant’s response, the examining attorney notes that the following refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) have been satisfied, obviated, and/or withdrawn: Request for Information. See TMEP §713.02.
The following refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) are continued and maintained: Sections 1, 2, and 45 Refusal – Non-Distinctive Product Design; Identification of Goods Requirement. See id.
Thus, the following is an updated SUMMARY OF ISSUES that applicant must address:
• NEW ISSUE: Section 2(e)(5) Refusal – Mark is Overall Functional
• NEW ISSUE: Section 2(f) Refusal – Insufficient Acquired Distinctiveness Claim
• NEW ISSUE: Additional Request for Information – Functionality
• NEW ISSUE: Request for Information – 2(f) Claim
• NEW ISSUE: Applicant’s Domicile Address Required
• Sections 1, 2, and 45 Refusal – Non-Distinctive Product Design
• Identification of Goods Requirement
Applicant must respond to 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).
NEW ISSUE: SECTION 2(e)(5) REFUSAL – MARK IS OVERALL FUNCTIONAL
Registration is refused because the applied-for mark, which consists of a three-dimensional configuration of the goods or feature of the goods, appears to be a functional design for such goods. Trademark Act Section 2(e)(5), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(5); see TMEP §1202.02(a)-(a)(ii). A feature is functional if it is “‘essential to the use or purpose of the [product]’” or “‘it affects the cost or quality of the [product].’” TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Mktg. Displays, Inc., 532 U.S. 23, 33, 58 USPQ2d 1001, 1006 (2001) (quoting Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Prods. Co., 514 U.S. 159, 165, 34 USPQ2d 1161, 1163-64 (1995)); Inwood Labs., Inc., v. Ives Labs., Inc., 456 U.S. 844, 850 n.10, 214 USPQ 1, 4 n.10 (1982); TMEP §1202.02(a)(iii)(A).
The evidence need not establish that the configuration at issue is the very best design for the particular product or product packaging. A configuration can be held functional when the evidence shows that it provides a specific utilitarian advantage that makes it one of a few superior designs available. See In re Bose Corp., 772 F.2d 866, 227 USPQ 1 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (holding shape of a loudspeaker system enclosure functional because it conforms to the shape of the sound matrix and is thereby an efficient and superior design); In re Dietrich, 91 USPQ2d 1622 (TTAB 2009) (holding particular spoke arrangement of a bicycle wheel functional because it is more stable and provides better performance than wheels with other spoke arrangements featuring the same or greater number of spokes); In re Am. Nat’l Can Co., 41 USPQ2d 1841 (TTAB 1997) (holding metal beverage containers with vertical fluting functional because vertical fluting is one of a limited number of ways to strengthen can sidewalls and it allows for an easier way to grip and hold the can); TMEP §1202.02(a)(v), (a)(v)(C).
On the other hand, where the evidence shows that the specific product or container configuration at issue provides no real utilitarian advantages to the user, but is one of many equally feasible, efficient and competitive designs, then it may be registrable. See In re Morton-Norwich Prods., Inc., 671 F.2d 1332, 213 USPQ 9 (C.C.P.A. 1982). However, a product configuration cannot be registered on the Principal Register without a showing of acquired distinctiveness. See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Bros., Inc., 529 U.S. 205, 54 USPQ2d 1065 (2000); TMEP §1202.02(b)-(b)(i).
(1) The existence of a utility patent disclosing the utilitarian advantages of the design sought to be registered.
(2) Advertising materials of the applicant that tout the design’s utilitarian advantages.
(3) The availability to competitors of alternative designs.
(4) Facts indicating that the design results in a comparatively simple or inexpensive method of manufacture.
In re Becton, Dickinson & Co., 675 F.3d 1368, 1374-75, 102 USPQ2d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Morton-Norwich Prods., Inc., 671 F.2d 1332, 1340-41, 213 USPQ 9, 15-16 (C.C.P.A. 1982); TMEP §1202.02(a)(v). It is not required that all four factors be proven in every case, nor do all four factors have to weigh in favor of functionality to support a functionality refusal. Poly-America, LP v. Ill. Tool Works, Inc., 124 USPQ2d 1508, 1514 (TTAB 2017) (citing In re Change Wind Corp., 123 USPQ2d 1453, 1456 (TTAB 2017); In re Heatcon, Inc., 116 USPQ2d 1366, 1370 (TTAB 2015)); TMEP §1202.02(a)(v).
In this case, applicant seeks to trademark the three-dimensional design of the handle of an espresso tamper. The applied-for mark is unregistrable because it is a feature of applicant’s goods that is essential to their use or purpose and/or affects their cost or quality. TrafFix Devices, Inc., 532 U.S. at 33.
The most relevant portions of the patent relating to the applied-for mark are as follows:
“What is claimed is:
1. A handheld espresso tamper for the precisely repeatable application of a tamping force comprising a handle adapted for holding said tamper in the hand of a user, ….
…
5. The handheld espresso tamper of claim 4 wherein said desired magnitude of the tamping force is set at the point of manufacture, and is not able to be modified by said user of said tamper without at least partial disassembly of said tamper.
6. The handheld espresso tamper of claim 1, wherein said handle is formed in a shape suitable for accurate manual application of the tamping force to the handle by a user of the tamper and for preventing said user's fingers from resting on the base during operation.
…
8. The handheld espresso tamper of claim 1, wherein said handle is formed in a shape suitable for preventing the fingers of said user of said tamper from being pinched between said handle and said base during use.
…
15. A tamper comprising a base with a substantially flat bottom and an upper portion extending Substantially vertically from said base and comprising a handle adapted for holding said tamper in the hand of a user, said tamper further comprising a mechanical tamping force calibration device disposed within said upper portion, wherein the mechanical tamping force calibration device comprises a mechanical tactile tamping force indicator, wherein said mechanical tamping force calibration device is operable such that upon activation, a discrete tactile signal corresponding to the application of a desired precisely repeatable tamping force magnitude is generated by the mechanical tactile tamping force indicator and is detectable by a user holding said handle, and wherein said base is rotationally fixed to said handle such that rotation of said handle by said user results in corresponding rotation of said base.
16. The tamper of claim 15 wherein said tamper is a hand held espresso tamper.
17. The tamper of claim 15 wherein said upper portion is rotationally fixed in relation to said base.
18. The tamper of claim 15 wherein said upper portion comprises a flange adapted to abut the fingers of a user.
19. The tamper of claim 15 wherein said upper portion comprises said handle disposed about a moveable plunger, said plunger depressible by a user upon application of a desired tamping force, wherein when said desired tamping force is applied, said mechanical tamping force calibration device, comprising a signal dome, Snaps from a first position to a second position generating at least one of a tactile signal and an audible signal detectable by said user.
20. The tamper of claim 19 wherein said handle comprises an obstruction adapted to inhibit a users hand from sliding down said handle.
April 5, 2021 Response at 32-33 (emphasis added).
Moreover, the abstract explains that “[t]he tamper handle includes an anti-rotation feature” and “is flared to avoid pinching the user’s fingers during operation and to stop the user’s fingers sliding down the handle or in any way touching the base, thereby rendering the tamper more effective and safe.” Id. at 20; see also id. at 29 (“Tamper base 2, including upper handle portion 3 is functional for compressing the coffee grounds during a tamping procedure prior to brewing of espresso coffee”); id. at 53 (a reviewer touts the tamper’s “ergonomic handle”); http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ergonomics (defining “ergonomics” as “an applied science concerned with designing and arranging things people use so that the people and things interact most efficiently and safely”).
Accordingly, this evidence shows that the tamper handle serves the functions of preventing rotation during the tamping process and also preventing a user’s fingers from sliding down to the base, thereby avoiding injury to the user and/or disrupting the amount of pressure exerted on the espresso. Thus, applicant’s assertion that “[t]he flare at the bottom of the handle was chosen for ornamental reasons” does not appear to be supported by the record. See April 5, 2021 Response at 8.
Accordingly, the examining attorney has established a prima facie case that the applied-for mark is functional and the burden of proof now shifts to applicant to show nonfunctionality. See TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Mktg. Displays, Inc., 532 U.S. at 29-30, 58 USPQ2d at 1005; In re Howard Leight Indus., LLC, 80 USPQ2d 1507, 1515 (TTAB 2006); see TMEP §1202.02(a)(iv), (a)(v)(A). Applicant must meet this burden by providing “competent evidence” of the applied-for mark’s nonfunctionality. See In re Becton, Dickinson & Co., 675 F.3d at 1374, 102 USPQ2d at 1376; In re R.M. Smith, Inc., 734 F.2d 1482, 1484, 222 USPQ 1, 3 (Fed. Cir. 1984); TMEP §1202.02(a)(iv). The “competent evidence” standard requires proof by a preponderance of the evidence. In re Becton, Dickinson & Co., 675 F.3d at 1374, 102 USPQ2d at 1377.
When functionality is found based on other considerations, there is “no need to consider the [third Morton-Norwich factor regarding] availability of alternative designs, because the feature cannot be given trade dress protection merely because there are alternative designs available.” In re Becton, Dickinson & Co., 675 F.3d 1368, 1376, 102 USPQ2d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Valu Eng’g Inc. v. Rexnord Corp., 278 F.3d 1268, 1276, 61 USPQ2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 2002)); TMEP §1202.02(a)(v)(C). “The availability of alternative designs does not convert a functional design into a non-functional design.” Kohler Co. v. Honda Giken Kogyo KK, 125 USPQ2d 1468, 1502 (TTAB 2017) (quoting Kistner Concrete Prods. Inc. v. Contech Arch Techs. Inc., 97 USPQ2d 1912 (TTAB 2011)). Further, an applicant’s assertion that its design is more expensive or more difficult to make does not establish that the configuration is not functional. AS Holdings, Inc. v. H & C Milcor, Inc., 107 USPQ2d 1829, 1836 (TTAB 2013) (citing In re Dietrich, 91 USPQ2d 1622, 1637 (TTAB 2009) (“[E]ven at a higher manufacturing cost, applicant would have a competitive advantage for what is essentially . . . a superior quality wheel.”)); In re Pingel Enter. Inc., 46 USPQ2d 1811, 1821 (TTAB 1998) (“That applicant, despite the inherent advantages of a design which is simple and less expensive to manufacture than other petcocks, has, however, deliberately chosen a more complex and expensive manner in which to manufacture its product does not mean that the configuration thereof is not de jure functional.”); TMEP §1202.02(a)(v)(D).
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, the applied-for mark is essential to the use or purpose of applicant’s goods and/or affects the cost or quality of applicant’s goods, and registration is therefore refused under Section 2(e)(5) of the Trademark Act.
However, please note that determination that an applied-for configuration mark is functional constitutes an absolute bar to registration on the Principal or Supplemental Registers, regardless of any evidence of acquired distinctiveness. Trademark Act Sections 2(e)(5) and 23, 15 U.S.C. §§1052(e)(5), 1091; see TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Mktg. Displays, Inc., 532 U.S. 23, 29, 58 USPQ2d 1001, 1006 (2001); In re Controls Corp. of Am., 46 USPQ2d 1308, 1311 (TTAB 1998); TMEP §1202.02(a)(iii)(A).
SECTION 2(f) REfusal – INSUFFICIENT acquired distinctiveness CLAIM
An applicant’s evidentiary burden of showing acquired distinctiveness increases with the level of descriptiveness of the mark sought to be registered; as in this case, a more descriptive term requires more evidence. Royal Crown Co. v. Coca-Cola Co., 892 F.3d 1358, 1365, 127 USPQ2d 1041, 1045 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293, 1300, 75 USPQ2d 1420, 1424 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). As the mark in this case is highly descriptive, applicant’s evidence is not sufficient to show acquired distinctiveness.
A product design can never be inherently distinctive as a matter of law; consumers are aware that such designs are intended to render the goods more useful or appealing rather than identify their source. See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Bros., 529 U.S. at 212-13, 54 USPQ2d at 1068-69; In re Slokevage, 441 F.3d at 962, 78 USPQ2d at 1399. Thus, consumer predisposition to equate a product design with its source does not exist. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Bros., 529 U.S. at 213, 54 USPQ2d at 1069.
The amount and type of evidence necessary to prove acquired distinctiveness depends on the facts of each case and the nature of the mark sought to be registered. TMEP §1212.01; see In re Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 774 F.2d 1116, 1125, 227 USPQ 417, 422 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In this case, the burden is extremely high, if not insurmountable, given the highly common and basic shape of applicant’s espresso tamper handle.
Applicant’s submitted evidence has not established that consumers would recognize applicant’s mark as a source identifier for its goods, as applicant’s mark appears very similar to other similar products on the market. See attached marketplace evidence; April 5, 2021 Response at 10-11. Therefore, consumers are unlikely to recognize applicant’s design as a source indicator for the applied-for goods, and instead are likely to view the design as a feature commonly found on similar products.
Establishing acquired distinctiveness by actual evidence was explained by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the Owens-Corning Fiberglas case, as follows:
An evidentiary showing of secondary meaning, adequate to show that a mark has acquired distinctiveness indicating the origin of the goods, includes evidence of the trademark owner’s method of using the mark, supplemented by evidence of the effectiveness of such use to cause the purchasing public to identify the mark with the source of the product.
In re Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 774 F.2d 1116, 1125, 227 USPQ 417, 422 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Here, the evidence of purported acquired distinctiveness submitted by applicant is not persuasive. First, applicant’s assertions of advertising and marketing expenditures for applicant’s goods do not move the needle. See 15 U.S.C. §1052(f). Applicant’s extensive promotion may demonstrate the commercial success of applicant’s goods, but this does not show that relevant consumers view the shape of applicant’s espresso tamper handle as a mark for these goods. See In re Boston Beer Co., 198 F.3d 1370, 1371-73, 53 USPQ2d 1056, 1057-58 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Busch Entm’t Corp., 60 USPQ2d 1130, 1132-34 (TTAB 2000). Similarly, applicant’s advertising expenditures are merely indicative of its efforts to develop distinctiveness; not evidence that the mark has acquired distinctiveness. See In re Pennzoil Prods. Co., 20 USPQ2d 1753, 1757-58 (TTAB 1991). Moreover, generalized sales and advertising figures by themselves will usually be insufficient proof of secondary meaning. See Grote Indus, Inc. v. Truck-Lite Co., LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1197, 1213 (TTAB 2018)
Further, the declaration from applicant’s former lead designer is not persuasive, as affidavits and declarations of an applicant’s employees, officers, and attorneys are usually self-serving and entitled to little weight. See In re David Crystal, Inc., 296 F.2d 771, 773, 132 USPQ 1, 2 (C.C.P.A. 1961); In re Gray Inc., 3 USPQ2d 1558, 1560 (TTAB 1987); In re Cent. Counties Bank, 209 USPQ 884, 888 (TTAB 1981); TMEP §1212.06(c). Moreover, none of the assertions in the declaration establish that consumers view applicant’s tamper handle shape as a source indicator.
In addition, none of the trade publications and/or reviews submitted by applicant show that consumers view the shape of the handle as a source indicator. Indeed, applicant even notes that these publications “may not single out the flared design as a feature”. See April 5, 2021 Response at 12. In short, none of these publications establishes a “nexus” that would tie together use of the design and the public’s perception of the design as an indicator of source. Cf. In re Soccer Sport Supply Co., 507 F.2d 1400, 184 USPQ 345, 348 (CCPA 1975).
Finally, applicant’s claims of intentional copying is not persuasive, as evidence of intentional copying of a product design is not probative of acquired distinctiveness. “Where the proposed mark is a product design, the copier may be attempting to exploit a desirable product feature, rather than seeking to confuse customers as to the source of the product.” In re Van Valkenburgh, 97 USPQ2d 1757, 1768 (TTAB 2011).
In response to this refusal, applicant may submit additional evidence purporting that the applied-for mark has acquired distinctiveness under Trademark Act Section 2(f). Such evidence may include “advertising expenditures, sales success, length and exclusivity of use, unsolicited media coverage, and consumer studies (linking the name to a source).” In re Change Wind Corp., 123 USPQ2d 1453, 1467 (TTAB 2017) (quoting In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293, 1300, 75 USPQ2d 1420, 1424 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). A showing of acquired distinctiveness need not consider all of these types of evidence; no single factor is determinative. In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d at 1300, 75 USPQ2d at 1424; see TMEP §§1212.06 et seq. Rather, the determination involves assessing all of the circumstances involving the use of the mark. See In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d at 1300, 75 USPQ2d at 1424 (citing Thompson Med. Co., Inc. v. Pfizer Inc., 753 F.2d 208, 217, 225 USPQ2d 124, 131-32 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). Further, “[t]he evidence must relate to the promotion and recognition of the specific configuration embodied in the applied-for mark and not to the goods in general.” In re Change Wind Corp., 123 USPQ2d at 1467 (citing Inwood Labs., Inc. v. Ives Labs., Inc., 456 U.S. 844, 851 n.11, 214 USPQ 1, 4 n.11 (1982)).
Lastly, please note that given the highly common and basic shape of applicant’s espresso tamper handle, amendment to the Supplemental Register cannot be recommended. See TMEP 1202.02(b)(1); see also See Stuart Spector Designs, 94 USPQ2d at 1555 (noting that a design may be deemed incapable where it is, “at a minimum, so common in the industry that it cannot be said to identify a particular source.”).
NEW ISSUE: Additional Request for Information – Functionality
Please further explain the nature of the “anti-rotation feature” of the tamper handle referenced in applicant’s utility patent: “[t]he tamper handle includes an anti-rotation feature”. See April 5, 2021 Response at 20; 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b).
NEW ISSUE: Request for Information – 2(f) Claim
Please clarify for the record whether applicant is making a formal claim of acquired distinctiveness and that applicant is seeking registration on the Principal Register under Section 2(f). See 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b); TMEP §1212.07.
NEW ISSUE: Applicant’s Domicile Address Required
An individual applicant’s domicile is the place a person resides and intends to be the person’s principal home. 37 C.F.R. §2.2(o); Examination Guide 4-19, at I.A. A juristic entity’s domicile is the principal place of business, i.e., headquarters, where a juristic entity applicant’s senior executives or officers ordinarily direct and control the entity’s activities. 37 C.F.R. §2.2(o); Examination Guide 4-19, at I.A. An applicant whose domicile is located outside of the United States or its territories is foreign-domiciled and must be represented at the USPTO by a U.S.-licensed attorney qualified to practice before the USPTO under 37 C.F.R. §11.14. 37 C.F.R. §2.11(a).
The application record lists applicant as a juristic entity and specifies applicant’s domicile as a post office box or mail forwarding service instead of a street address. See http://www.google.com/maps/place/The+UPS+Store/@49.2551971,-123.115735,17.85z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x6318416f5654887a!8m2!3d49.2551879!4d-123.115336 (attached); http://www.theupsstore.ca/177/ (attached). In most cases, a post office box or mail forwarding service is not acceptable as a domicile address because it does not identify the location of applicant’s headquarters where the entity’s senior executives or officers ordinarily direct and control the entity’s activities. See37 C.F.R. §§2.2(o)-(p), 2.189; Examination Guide 4-19, at I.A.3. Thus, applicant must provide its domicile street address. See 37 C.F.R. §2.189. Alternatively, an applicant may demonstrate that the listed address is, in fact, the applicant’s domicile. Examination Guide 4-19, at I.A.3.
To provide documentation supporting applicant’s domicile. Open the correct TEAS response form and enter the serial number, answer “yes” to wizard question #3, and on the “Additional Statement(s)” page, below the “Miscellaneous Statement” field, click the button below the text box to attach documentation to support the address.
To provide applicant’s domicile street address. After opening the correct TEAS response form and entering the serial number, answer “yes” to wizard question #5, and provide applicant’s street address on the “Owner Information” page. Information provided in the TEAS response form will be publicly viewable.
If applicant wants to hide its domicile address from public view because of privacy or other concerns, applicant must have a mailing address that can be made public and differs from its domicile address. In this case, applicant must follow the steps below in the correct order to ensure the domicile address will be hidden:
(1) First submit a TEAS Change Address or Representation (CAR) form. Open the form, enter the serial number, click “Continue,” and
(a) Use the radio buttons to select “Attorney” for the role of the person submitting the form;
(b) Answer “Yes” to the wizard question asking, “Do you want to UPDATE the mailing address, email address, phone or fax number(s) for the trademark owner/holder?” and click “Continue;”
(c) On the “Owner Information” page, if the previously provided mailing address has changed, applicant must enter its new mailing address in the “Mailing Address” field, which will be publicly viewable;
(d) On the “Owner Information” page, uncheck the box next to “Domicile Address” and enter the new domicile address in the text box immediately below the checkbox.
(2) Then submit a TEAS response form to indicate the domicile address has been changed. Open the form and
(a) Answer “yes” to wizard question #3 and click “Continue;”
(b) Click on the “Miscellaneous Statement” box on the “Additional Statement(s)” page, and enter a statement in the text box immediately below the checkbox that the domicile address was previously changed in the CAR form.
Note Regarding Identification of Goods
The following amendment would satisfy the outstanding identification of goods requirement:
Class 21: Coffee tampers, namely, non-electric kitchen utensils used for preparing coffee; espresso tampers, namely, non-electric
kitchen utensils used for preparing espresso; non-electric kitchen utensils used for preparing espresso coffee, namely, espresso tamper for use in the preparation of espresso
coffee; non-electric kitchen utensils, namely, coffee and espresso tamper for compressing coffee grounds when making coffee and espresso; non-electric kitchen utensils, namely, espresso hand operated espresso tampers for use in the preparation of espresso coffee; non-electric kitchen utensils, namely, calibrated hand operated espresso tampers for use in
the preparation of espresso coffee; non-electric kitchen utensils, namely, espresso tampers for use in the preparation of espresso coffee that provide tactile feedback;
non-electric kitchen utensils, namely, espresso tampers for use in the preparation of espresso coffee that provide auditory feedback.
* * * * *
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.
/Matthew Tully/
Matthew Tully
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 105
(571) 270-5943
RESPONSE GUIDANCE
