| To: | Bentley University (bulrich@archstonelaw.com) |
| Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 90673643 - BENTLEY - BENTLEY-35 |
| Sent: | September 30, 2021 08:36:35 AM |
| Sent As: | ecom121@uspto.gov |
| Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
|
U.S. Application Serial No. 90673643
Mark: BENTLEY
|
|
|
Correspondence Address: |
|
|
Applicant: Bentley University
|
|
|
Reference/Docket No. BENTLEY-35
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: September 30, 2021
This application was approved for publication on 8/27/21. 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 However, approval of the application has been withdrawn to address the issue(s) below.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(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 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 53784, 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 53784, 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 whitepages.com, establishing the surname significance of BENTLEY. This evidence shows the applied-for mark appearing tens of thousands of times as a surname in a nationwide phone directory of names, which is a weekly updated directory of cell phone and other phone numbers (such as voice over IP) from various data providers.
The attached evidence from applicant’s website and Wikipedia.com demonstrates that BENTLEY is the surname of a founder of the applicant’s organization. A term that is the surname of an individual applicant or that of an officer, founder, owner, or principal of applicant’s business is probative evidence of the term’s surname significance. TMEP §1211.02(b)(iv); see, e.g., In re Etablissements Darty et Fils, 759 F.2d 15, 16, 225 USPQ 652, 653 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (holding DARTY primarily merely a surname where “Darty” was the surname of applicant’s corporate president); In re Eximius Coffee, LLC, 120 USPQ2d 1276, 1278-80 (TTAB 2016) (holding ALDECOA primarily merely a surname where ALDECOA was the surname of the founder and individuals continuously involved in the business); In re Integrated Embedded, 120 USPQ2d 1504, 1507 (TTAB 2016) (holding BARR GROUP primarily merely a surname where BARR was the surname of the co-founder and applicant’s corporate officer and GROUP was found “incapable of lending source-identifying significance to the mark”); Miller v. Miller, 105 USPQ2d 1615, 1620, 1622-23 (TTAB 2013) (holding MILLER LAW GROUP primarily merely a surname where “Miller” was the surname of the applicant and the term “law group” was found generic).
(1) Prior Registrations: Applicant may claim ownership of one or more active prior registrations on the Principal Register of the same mark for goods and/or services that are sufficiently similar to those named in the pending application. 37 C.F.R. §2.41; TMEP §§1212, 1212.04. Applicant may do so by submitting the following statement, if accurate: “The mark has become distinctive of the goods and/or services as evidenced by the ownership of active U.S. Registration No(s). 2924929, 6402047, 3101224 on the Principal Register for the same mark for sufficiently similar goods and/or services.” TMEP §1212.04(e).
(2) Five Years’ Use: Applicant may submit the following statement, verified with an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20: “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.” 37 C.F.R. §2.41; TMEP §1212.05(d); see 37 C.F.R. §2.193(e)(1).
(3) Other Evidence: Applicant may submit other evidence of acquired distinctiveness (such as verified statements of long term use, advertising and sales expenditures, examples of advertising, affidavits and declarations of consumers, customer surveys), with the following statement, if accurate: “The evidence shows that the mark has become distinctive of the goods and/or services.” See 37 C.F.R. §2.41; TMEP §§1212.06 et seq. When determining whether the evidence shows the mark has acquired distinctiveness, the trademark examining attorney will consider the following six factors: (1) association of the mark with a particular source by actual purchasers (typically measured by customer surveys linking the name to the source); (2) length, degree, and exclusivity of use; (3) amount and manner of advertising; (4) amount of sales and number of customers; (5) intentional copying; and (6) unsolicited media coverage. See Converse, Inc. v. ITC, 909 F.3d 1110, 1120, 128 USPQ2d 1538, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“the Converse factors”). “[N]o single factor is determinative.” In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d at 1300, 75 USPQ2d at 1424; see TMEP §§1212.06 et seq. Rather, all factors are weighed together in light of all the circumstances to determine whether the mark has acquired distinctiveness. In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d at 1300, 75 USPQ2d at 1424.
If applicant cannot satisfy one of the above, applicant may respond by amending the application to seek registration on the Supplemental Register. See 15 U.S.C. §1091; 37 C.F.R. §§2.47, 2.75(a).
RESPONSE
Response guidelines. For this application to proceed, applicant must explicitly address each refusal and/or requirement in this Office action. For a refusal, applicant may provide written arguments and evidence against the refusal, and may have other response options if specified above. For a requirement, applicant should set forth the changes or statements. Please see “Responding to Office Actions” and the informational video “Response to Office Action” for more information and tips on responding.
How to respond. Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action.
Murray Jr., George
/George Murray/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 121
(571) 270-5101
George.Murray@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE
