To: | Laura Escude Enterprises (stuart@carrollaw.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 90070581 - MASTERTRACK - File # 6470 |
Sent: | November 09, 2020 03:18:49 PM |
Sent As: | ecom111@uspto.gov |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 Attachment - 6 Attachment - 7 Attachment - 8 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 90070581
Mark: MASTERTRACK
|
|
Correspondence Address: LAW OFFICES OF STUART L. CARROLL 400 CONTINENTAL BLVD., SUITE 600
|
|
Applicant: Laura Escude Enterprises
|
|
Reference/Docket No. File # 6470
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 09, 2020
The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney. Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issue(s) below. 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(a), 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.
SEARCH OF USPTO DATABASE OF MARKS
SECTION 2(e)(1) REFUSAL- MERELY DESCRIPTIVE
Registration is refused because the applied-for mark merely describes a feature, characteristic, purpose, function and intended audience of applicant’s services. Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); see TMEP §§1209.01(b), 1209.03 et seq.
Here, the applied-for mark is “MASTERTRACK” for “Education services, namely, providing on-line workshops in the field of live musical performance technology” in International Class 41.
Only where the combination of descriptive terms creates a unitary mark with a unique, incongruous, or otherwise nondescriptive meaning in relation to the services is the combined mark registrable. See In re Colonial Stores, Inc., 394 F.2d 549, 551, 157 USPQ 382, 384 (C.C.P.A. 1968); In re Positec Grp. Ltd., 108 USPQ2d 1161, 1162-63 (TTAB 2013). In this instance, the applied-for mark is comprised of the words “MASTER” and “TRACK” compressed into one word. This does not obviate the descriptive meaning of the mark as the attached evidence from Loop Community at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rf638MMCtK8 states that “master tracks are the original multitracks from the artists” and the attached evidence from Game FAQs at http://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/949926-rock-band-2/44004135#:~:text=The%20master%20track%20is%20the,artist%20before%20being%20mixed%20down.&text=A%20common%20technique%20for%20recording,whatever%20volume%20you%20need%20it shows that “master track” refers to “the original recording by an artist before being mixed down”. As shown, the compressed nature of the applied-for mark retains the same meaning as “master track” and consumers would understand it as such” See In re Petroglyph Games, Inc., 91 USPQ2d 1332, 1341 (TTAB 2009) (holding BATTLECAM merely descriptive of computer game software with a feature that involve battles and provides the player with the option to utilize various views of the battlefield); In re Cox Enters., 82 USPQ2d 1040, 1043 (TTAB 2007) (holding THEATL merely descriptive of publications featuring news and information about Atlanta where THEATL was the equivalent of the nickname THE ATL for the city of Atlanta); In re Tower Tech, Inc., 64 USPQ2d 1314, 1317-18 (TTAB 2002) (holding SMARTTOWER merely descriptive of highly automated cooling towers); In re Sun Microsystems, Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1084, 1085 (TTAB 2001) (holding AGENTBEANS merely descriptive of computer software for use in developing and deploying application programs on a global computer network).
When the applied-for mark is used in connection with the applied-for services, consumers would automatically understand that that the mark refers to educational services that teach them how to utilize musical performance technology master tracks and create master tracks. The attached evidence from MusicTech at http://www.musictech.net/tutorials/studio-one/how-to-master-your-tracks-with-studio-one/ shows the use of music technology to master tracks
In this case, both the individual components and the composite result are descriptive of applicant’s goods and do not create a unique, incongruous, or nondescriptive meaning in relation to the services.
Thus, based on applicant’s responses, it is clear that the applied-for mark, MASTERTRACK immediately conveys to consumers that the services involve mastering music tracks and creating master music tracks. As such, the mark is merely descriptive of the services.
How to respond. Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action.
/Claudia Garcia/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 111
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Office: (571) 272-6939
Claudia.garcia@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE