To: | Creative Tech Textile Co., Ltd. (info@thelawfirm.cc) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 90061662 - ECO-CONSCIOUS SEAWOOL FROM OYSTER - MAME200765 |
Sent: | February 19, 2021 03:38:41 PM |
Sent As: | ecom101@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 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 90061662
Mark: ECO-CONSCIOUS SEAWOOL FROM OYSTER
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
Applicant: Creative Tech Textile Co., Ltd.
|
|
Reference/Docket No. MAME200765
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: February 19, 2021
This application was approved for publication on 11/12/20. See 37 C.F.R. §2.80. However, approval of the application has been withdrawn to address the issue(s) below. See TMEP §706.01. The trademark examining attorney apologizes for any inconvenience this may cause applicant.
SECTION 2(a) REFUSAL
A term is deceptive when all three of the following criteria are met:
(1) Is the term misdescriptive of the character, quality, function, composition or use of the goods [and/or services]?
(2) If so, are prospective purchasers likely to believe that the misdescription actually describes the goods [and/or services]?
(3) If so, is the misdescription likely to affect the purchasing decision of a significant portion of relevant consumers?
In re Tapco Int’l Corp., 122 USPQ2d 1369, 1371 (TTAB 2017) (citing In re Budge Mfg. Co., 857 F.2d 773, 775, 8 USPQ2d 1259, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 1988)); TMEP §1203.02(b); see also In re Spirits Int’l, N.V., 563 F.3d 1347, 1353, 1356, 90 USPQ2d 1489, 1492-93, 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (holding that the test for materiality incorporates a requirement that a “significant portion of the relevant consumers be deceived”).
In this case, applicant’s mark includes the wording “WOOL”, indicating that the goods contain woolen fibers. However, according to the evidence of record, applicant’s goods do not in fact have or exhibit this feature or characteristic.
Consumers would be likely to believe this misdescription in the mark, because the attached evidence shows that it is common for clothing to be made of WOOL, and consumers have come to expect such feature or characteristic.
A misdescriptive feature or characteristic would be material to the purchasing decision of a significant portion of the relevant consumers when the evidence demonstrates that the misdescription would make the product or service more appealing or desirable to prospective purchasers. In re White Jasmine LLC, 106 USPQ2d 1385, 1392 (TTAB 2013) (citing In re Juleigh Jeans Sportswear Inc., 24 USPQ2d 1694, 1698-99 (TTAB 1992)); TMEP §1203.02(d).
In the present case, the attached evidence shows that WOOL renders the goods more appealing or desirable because it is naturally waterproof, breathable, and environmentally friendly. Thus, the misdescription is likely to affect a significant portion of the relevant consumers’ decision to purchase applicant’s goods.
If accurate, the identification of goods may be amended to properly indicate the woolen content of the goods, as applicant had previously done in its prior registration RN 5094693.
INFORMATION REQUEST
(1) A written statement explaining whether the goods do or will contain/consist of/comprise wool.
(2) A sample of advertisements or promotional materials featuring the goods and/or a photograph of the identified goods.
(3) A written statement describing in detail the nature, purpose, and channels of trade of the goods.
See 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b); TMEP §§814, 1402.01(e).
Failure to comply with a request for information is grounds for refusing registration. In re Harley, 119 USPQ2d 1755, 1757-58 (TTAB 2016); TMEP §814. Merely stating that information about the goods or services is available on applicant’s website is an insufficient response and will not make the relevant website information of record. See In re Planalytics, Inc., 70 USPQ2d 1453, 1457-58 (TTAB 2004).
Applicant is advised that, if applicant’s response to the request for information indicates that the goods identified in the application do not or will not contain/consist of/comprise wool, registration may be refused on the ground that the applied-for mark is deceptive. Trademark Act Section 2(a), 15 U.S.C. §1052(a); see In re Budge Mfg. Co., 857 F.2d 773, 775-77, 8 USPQ2d 1259, 1260-62 (Fed. Cir. 1988); In re ALP of S. Beach Inc., 79 USPQ2d 1009, 1010 (TTAB 2006); TMEP §1203.02-02(e).
How to respond. Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action.
/Samuel R. Paquin/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 101
United States Patent & Trademark Office
(571) 272-2514
spaquin@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE