Offc Action Outgoing

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application

 

 

 

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 19, 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 Results

 

The trademark examining attorney searched the USPTO database of registered and pending marks and found no conflicting marks that would bar registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d).  15 U.S.C. §1052(d); TMEP §704.02.

 

Summary of Refusals and/or Requirements

 

The following is a summary of the requirements and/or refusals outlined below to which the applicant must respond.

 

n  Geographic refusal, Supplemental Register Advisory

n  Information requirements

 

 

SECTION 2(e)(2) REFUSAL – PRIMARILY GEOGRAPHICALLY DESCRIPTIVE

 

Registration is refused because the applied-for mark is primarily geographically descriptive of the origin of applicant’s goods and/or services.  Trademark Act Section 2(e)(2), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(2); see TMEP §§1210, 1210.01(a).

 

A mark is primarily geographically descriptive when the following is demonstrated:

 

(1)        The primary significance of the mark to the purchasing public is a generally known location;

 

(2)        The goods or services originate in the place identified in the mark; and

 

(3)        The purchasing public would be likely to believe that the goods or services originate in the geographic place identified in the mark; that is, to make a goods-place or services-place association.

 

TMEP §1210.01(a); see In re Societe Generale des Eaux Minerales de Vittel S.A., 824 F.2d 957, 959, 3 USPQ2d 1450, 1452 (Fed. Cir. 1987); In re Hollywood Lawyers Online, 110 USPQ2d 1852, 1853 (TTAB 2014); see also In re Newbridge Cutlery Co., 776 F.3d 854, 860-61, 113 USPQ2d 1445, 1448-49 (Fed. Cir. 2015). 

 

The primary significance of EVERGLADES is a region in South Florida.  See http://fcit.usf.edu/florida/lessons/everglades/everglades.htm and http://www.doi.gov/blog/10-things-you-didnt-know-about-everglades-national-park.   A term can be considered geographic even if it does not have exact geographic boundaries, i.e., if it refers to a “subdivision[] of the earth – regions, nations, counties, town[s], rivers, lakes, and other natural and artificial geographical units.”  Burke-Parsons-Bowlby v. Appalachian Log Homes, Inc., 871 F.2d 590, 594, 10 USPQ2d 1443, 1445 (6th Cir. 1989) (quoting World Carpets, Inc. v. Dick Littrell’s New World Carpets, 438 F.2d 482, 485, 168 USPQ 609, 612 (5th Cir. 1971)) (finding the wording APPALACHIAN is a geographic term); see In re Pan-O-Gold Baking Co., 20 USPQ2d 1761, 1764 (TTAB 1991) (finding primary significance of the wording “New England” is geographic); TMEP §1210.02(a).

 

The goods will originate from the named place based on the fact that the applicant is located there as shown in the application.  Bonita Springs, Florida is located in close proximity to the EVERGLADES.  See http://www.google.com/maps/place/Everglades/@25.6643619,-81.3646979,9z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x88d9f5fa2b8bf7ff:0x6406cd8111950780!8m2!3d25.745929!4d-80.5549561. A product that is produced or a service that is provided near the geographic place named in the applied-for mark is sufficient to support a finding that the goods and/or services originate in that geographic location.  See, e.g., In re Spirits of New Merced, LLC, 85 USPQ2d 1614, 1621 (TTAB 2007) (holding YOSEMITE BEER primarily geographically descriptive of beer produced and sold in Merced, California, a city located 80 miles from Yosemite National Park, where the goods originated in an area “located near YOSEMITE”); In re Joint-Stock Co. "Baik," 80 USPQ2d 1305, 1310-11 (TTAB 2006) (holding BAIKALSKAYA, the Russian equivalent of “from Baikal” or “Baikal’s,” primarily geographically descriptive of vodka where applicant was located near Lake Baikal, and applicant did not dispute that it produced vodka from a location near and used water from Lake Baikal); see also Warwood v. Hubbard, 228 USPQ 702, 702-03 (Mont. 1985) (holding YELLOWSTONE OUTFITTERS primarily geographically descriptive of outfitting services offered "near Yellowstone Park").

 

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has stated that the purpose of Trademark Act Section 2(e)(2) is “to leave geographic names free for all businesses operating in the same area to inform customers where their goods or services originate.”  In re Spirits of New Merced, 85 USPQ2d at 1621 (citing In re MCO Props. Inc., 38 USPQ2d 1154, 1156 (TTAB 1995)).

 

To establish a goods-place or services-place association, the trademark examining attorney’s evidence need only show a “reasonable basis” for concluding that the public is likely to believe that the mark identifies the place from which the goods and/or services originate.  See In re JT Tobacconists, 59 USPQ2d 1080, 1083-84 (TTAB 2001) (finding that nothing in the record suggested that it would be incongruous or unexpected for the purchasing public to believe that applicant’s cigars, cigar cases and humidors, “manufactured products which could have their origin practically anywhere,” came from the place named in the mark, as applicant was located in the place and the goods were packaged and shipped from the location, such that consumers would have a reasonable basis to believe the goods came from the place named in the mark); In re Cambridge Digital Sys., 1 USPQ2d 1659, 1661-62 (TTAB 1986) (finding that the location named in the mark was renowned for educational institutions and the record demonstrated the location was a manufacturing and commercial center producing related goods such that purchasers of applicant’s goods would reasonably believe they emanate from the place named in the mark); see also TMEP §1210.04; In re Loew’s Theatres, Inc., 769 F.2d 764, 768, 226 USPQ 865, 868 (Fed. Cir. 1985).

 

The area in and around the EVERGLADES is recognized for a high concentration of mosquitos and other insects. Therefore, it is common for consumers to use or purchase insect repellants for use in that area. See http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/article93824997.html.

 

The examining attorney has also attached sample registrations from the Office’s database of registered marks wherein EVERGLADES was disclaimed or registered on the Supplemental Register for various goods/services that originate in or near the named area. This shows that others use this term to denote the geographic origin of the associated goods and services. 

 

Therefore, registration is refused on the Principal Register.

 

 

Supplemental Register Advisory

 

 A mark in an application under Trademark Act Section 1(b) is not eligible for registration on the Supplemental Register until an acceptable amendment to allege use under 37 C.F.R. §2.76 has been filed.  37 C.F.R. §§2.47(d), 2.75(b); TMEP §§815.02, 1102.03.  When a Section 1(b) application is successfully amended to the Supplemental Register, the application effective filing date will be the date applicant met the minimum filing requirements under 37 C.F.R. §2.76(c) for the amendment to allege use.  TMEP §§816.02, 1102.03; see 37 C.F.R. §2.75(b).

 

Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal(s) by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.  However, if applicant responds to the refusal(s), applicant must also respond to the requirement(s) set forth below.

 

INFORMATION REQUIRED

 

Applicant must provide a written statement explaining whether the goods will be manufactured, packaged, shipped from, sold in or will have any other connection with the geographic location named in the mark.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b); TMEP §§814, 1210.03.  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. 

 

 

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.    

 

 

 

/Elissa Garber Kon/

Examining Attorney, Law Office 106

phone:  571-272-9181

email:  elissagarber.kon@uspto.gov

 

 

RESPONSE GUIDANCE

• Missing the response deadline to this letter will cause the application to abandon.  A response or notice of appeal must be received by the USPTO before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period.  TEAS and ESTTA maintenance or unforeseen circumstances could affect an applicant’s ability to timely respond.  

 

• Responses signed by an unauthorized party are not accepted and can cause the application to abandon.  If applicant does not have an attorney, the response must be signed by the individual applicant, all joint applicants, or someone with legal authority to bind a juristic applicant.  If applicant has an attorney, the response must be signed by the attorney.

 

• If needed, find contact information for the supervisor of the office or unit listed in the signature block.

 

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

 

USPTO OFFICIAL NOTICE

 

Office Action (Official Letter) has issued

on November 19, 2020 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 90082648

 

Your trademark application has been reviewed by a trademark examining attorney.  As part of that review, the assigned attorney has issued an official letter that you must respond to by the specified deadline or your application will be abandoned.  Please follow the steps below.

 

(1)  Read the official letter.

 

(2)  Direct questions about the contents of the Office action to the assigned attorney below. 

 

 

 

/Elissa Garber Kon/

Examining Attorney, Law Office 106

phone:  571-272-9181

email:  elissagarber.kon@uspto.gov

 

Direct questions about navigating USPTO electronic forms, the USPTO website, the application process, the status of your application, and/or whether there are outstanding deadlines or documents related to your file to the Trademark Assistance Center (TAC).

 

(3)  Respond within 6 months (or earlier, if required in the Office action) from November 19, 2020, using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS).  The response must be received by the USPTO before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period.  See the Office action for more information about how to respond

 

 

 

GENERAL GUIDANCE

·         Check the status of your application periodically in the Trademark Status & Document Retrieval (TSDR) database to avoid missing critical deadlines.

 

·         Update your correspondence email address, if needed, to ensure you receive important USPTO notices about your application.

 

·         Beware of misleading notices sent by private companies about your application.  Private companies not associated with the USPTO use public information available in trademark registrations to mail and email trademark-related offers and notices – most of which require fees.  All official USPTO correspondence will only be emailed from the domain “@uspto.gov.”