To: | SaniKey USA Inc. (kbush@bushlaw.us) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 90359335 - BOCCHI - bocchi tm3 |
Sent: | May 25, 2021 08:48:18 PM |
Sent As: | ecom107@uspto.gov |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 Attachment - 6 Attachment - 7 Attachment - 8 Attachment - 9 Attachment - 10 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 90359335
Mark: BOCCHI
|
|
Correspondence Address: BUSH INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW
|
|
Applicant: SaniKey USA Inc.
|
|
Reference/Docket No. bocchi tm3
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 25, 2021
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.
· Section 2(e)(4) Refusal
· Section 2(f) Advisory
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.
However, applicant should note the following grounds for refusal.
SECTION 2(e)(4) REFUSAL – PRIMARILY MERELY A SURNAME
An applicant’s mark is primarily merely a surname if the surname, when viewed in connection with the applicant’s recited goods and/or services, “‘is the primary significance of the mark as a whole to the purchasing public.’” Earnhardt v. Kerry Earnhardt, Inc., 864 F.3d 1374, 1377, 123 USPQ2d 1411, 1413 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting In re Hutchinson Tech. Inc., 852 F.2d 552, 554, 7 USPQ2d 1490, 1492 (Fed. Cir. 1988)); TMEP §1211.01.
The applicant’s mark is BOCCHI for “Sinks; Sink pedestals; Kitchen sinks; Lavatory bowls; Faucets; Toilets.”
The following five inquiries are often used to determine the public’s perception of a term’s primary significance:
(1) Whether the surname is rare;
(2) Whether anyone connected with applicant uses the term as a surname;
(3) Whether the term has any recognized meaning other than as a surname;
(4) Whether the term has the structure and pronunciation of a surname; and
(5) Whether the term is sufficiently stylized to remove its primary significance from that of a surname.
In re Colors in Optics, Ltd., 2020 USPQ2d 48321, at *1-2 (TTAB 2020) (citing In re Benthin Mgmt. GmbH, 37 USPQ2d 1332, 1333-34 (TTAB 1995) for the Benthin inquiries/factors)); TMEP §1211.01; see also In re Etablissements Darty et Fils, 759 F.2d 15, 16-18, 225 USPQ 652, 653 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
These inquiries or factors are not exclusive, and any of these circumstances – singly or in combination – and any other relevant circumstances may be considered when making this determination. In re Colors in Optics, Ltd., 2020 USPQ2d 48321, at *2 (citing Azeka Bldg. Corp. v. Azeka, 122 USPQ2d 1477, 1480 (TTAB 2017)); TMEP §1211.01. For example, when the applied-for mark is not stylized, it is unnecessary to consider the fifth inquiry. In re Yeley, 85 USPQ2d 1150, 1151 (TTAB 2007); TMEP §1211.01.
Please see the attached evidence from LexisNexis®, establishing the surname significance of BOCCHI. This evidence shows the applied-for mark appearing 251 times as a surname in the LEXISNEXIS® surname database, which is a weekly updated directory of cell phone and other phone numbers (such as voice over IP) from various data providers. See also the attached from http://www.houseofnames.com/bocchi-family-crest.
The mark has the appearance and sound of a surname, and lacks any stylization that would remove its primary significance from that of a surname. Accordingly, based on the foregoing factors, registration of the proposed mark is refused under Section 2(e)(4) of the Trademark Act.
Section 2(f) Advisory
To amend the application to Section 2(f) based on five years’ use, applicant should request that the application be amended to assert a claim of acquired distinctiveness under Section 2(f) and submit the following written statement claiming acquired distinctiveness, if accurate:
The mark has become distinctive of the goods and/or services through the applicant’s substantially exclusive and continuous use of the mark in commerce that the U.S. Congress may lawfully regulate for at least the five years immediately before the date of this statement.
TMEP §1212.05(d); see 15 U.S.C. §1052(f); 37 C.F.R. §2.41(a)(2); TMEP §1212.08. This statement must be verified with an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20. 37 C.F.R. §2.41(a)(2); TMEP §1212.05(d); see 37 C.F.R. §2.193(e)(1).
How to respond. Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action.
/Yatsye I. Lee/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 107
Phone: 571-272-3897
yatsye.lee@uspto.gov (for informal inquiries)
RESPONSE GUIDANCE