To: | Valex Corp (jkim@valex.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 90460676 - ALLOY V22 - Alloy V22 |
Sent: | July 29, 2021 02:13:15 PM |
Sent As: | ecom112@uspto.gov |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 90460676
Mark: ALLOY V22
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
Applicant: Valex Corp
|
|
Reference/Docket No. Alloy V22
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: July 29, 2021
Trademark Lawyer: Because of the legal issues and strict deadlines of the trademark application process, the applicant is encouraged to hire a private attorney who specializes in trademark matters to assist in this process. The assigned trademark examining attorney can provide only limited assistance explaining the content of an Office action and the application process. USPTO staff cannot provide legal advice or statements about an applicant’s legal rights. TMEP §§705.02, 709.06. See Hiring a U.S.-licensed trademark attorney for more information.
Database Search: 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 Issues Applicant Must Address
Unclear Filing Basis
The applicant must (1) amend the application to specify clearly at least one filing basis, and (2) satisfy all the requirements for the basis or bases asserted. 37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(5), 2.34(a); TMEP §806.
An applicant may add one or more of the following four bases to an application after filing:
(1) Use of the mark in commerce under Trademark Act Section 1(a);
(2) A bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce under Section 1(b);
(3) A foreign registration of the same mark for the same goods and/or services in an applicant’s country of origin, under Section 44(e); and/or
(4) A claim of priority based on an earlier-filed foreign application of the same mark for the same goods and/or services, which is filed within six months after the filing date of the foreign application, under Section 44(d).
Although an applicant may assert more than one basis, an applicant may not assert both Section 1(a) for use and Section 1(b) for intent to use for identical goods and services. 37 C.F.R. §2.34(b); TMEP §806.02(b).
For more information about the different legal requirements for each basis, for submitting more than one basis, and for instructions on how to satisfy these requirements online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, please go to the Basis webpage.
Unacceptable Specimens of Use – Do Not Show the Mark
Examples of acceptable specimens. Specimens for goods include a photograph of (1) the actual goods bearing the mark; (2) an actual container, packaging, tag or label for the goods bearing the mark; or (3) a point-of-sale display showing the mark directly associated with the goods. See 37 C.F.R. §2.56(b)(1), (c); TMEP §904.03(a)-(m). A webpage specimen submitted as a display associated with the goods must show the mark in association with a picture or textual description of the goods and include information necessary for ordering the goods. TMEP §904.03(i); see 37 C.F.R. §2.56(b)(1), (c).
Any webpage printout or screenshot submitted as a specimen must include the webpage URL and the date it was accessed or printed on the specimen itself, within the TEAS form that submits the specimen, or in a verified statement under 37 C.F.R. §2.20 or 28 U.S.C. §1746 in a later-filed response. See 37 C.F.R. §2.56(c); TMEP §§904.03(i), 1301.04(a).
Response options. The applicant may respond to this refusal by satisfying one of the following for each applicable international class:
(1) Submit a different specimen (a verified “substitute” specimen) that (a) was in actual use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application or prior to the filing of an amendment to allege use and (b) shows the mark in actual use in commerce for the goods and/or services identified in the application or amendment to allege use. A “verified substitute specimen” is a specimen that is accompanied by the following statement made in a signed affidavit or supported by a declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20: “The substitute (or new, or originally submitted, if appropriate) specimen(s) was/were in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application or prior to the filing of the amendment to allege use.” The substitute specimen cannot be accepted without this statement.
(2) Amend the filing basis to intent to use under Section 1(b) (which includes withdrawing an amendment to allege use, if one was filed), as no specimen is required before publication. This option will later necessitate additional fee(s) and filing requirements, including a specimen.
For an overview of the response options referenced above and instructions on how to satisfy these options using the online Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, see the Specimen webpage.
Disclaimer
The applicant must disclaim the exclusive rights to use “ALLOY” because this word is merely descriptive of a feature of the applicant’s goods. See 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1251, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2012); TMEP §§1213, 1213.03(a).
The attached dictionary entry shows that “alloy” means “a metallic solid or liquid that is composed of a homogeneous mixture of two or more metals or of metals and nonmetal or metalloid elements, usually for the purpose of imparting or increasing specific characteristics or properties.” This evidence is linked to the goods at issue in that the evidence shows that “alloy” is descriptive of a feature of the goods. The description of the goods given by the applicant indicates that the goods include alloys.
Purchasers who encounter the word “alloy” with the identified goods would immediately understand that the applicant’s goods include alloys; therefore, the exclusive rights to use of the term “alloy” must be disclaimed.
The applicant may respond to this issue by submitting a disclaimer in the following format:
For an overview of disclaimers and instructions on how to provide one using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), see the Disclaimer webpage.
Deletion of Translation Statement
The application includes a statement that “the English translation of V in the mark is Valex.” However, this statement should be deleted from the application because the term “V” does not translate from a foreign language to the term “Valex.” See TMEP §809.01 et seq.
How to respond. Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action.
/Leigh Caroline Case/
Examining Attorney
Law Office 112
(571) 272-9140
leigh.case@uspto.gov
(800) 786-9199 (Trademark Assistance Center)
RESPONSE GUIDANCE