To: | Fridababy, LLC (TMAtlanta@seyfarth.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 90708149 - 111301.00002 |
Sent: | October 01, 2021 10:59:04 AM |
Sent As: | ecom116@uspto.gov |
Attachments: |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 90708149
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
Applicant: Fridababy, LLC
|
|
Reference/Docket No. 111301.00002
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: October 01, 2021
The office action dated September 23, 2021, inadvertently omitted a refusal. This action corrects that error. All attachments to the original office action hereby are incorporated by reference. The applicant will have six months from the date of this action in which to respond.
Search Results
Registration Refused – Functional
The evidence need not establish that the configuration at issue is the very best design for the particular product or product packaging. A configuration can be held functional when the evidence shows that it provides a specific utilitarian advantage that makes it one of a few superior designs available. See In re Bose Corp., 772 F.2d 866, 227 USPQ 1 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (holding shape of a loudspeaker system enclosure functional because it conforms to the shape of the sound matrix and is thereby an efficient and superior design); In re Dietrich, 91 USPQ2d 1622 (TTAB 2009) (holding particular spoke arrangement of a bicycle wheel functional because it is more stable and provides better performance than wheels with other spoke arrangements featuring the same or greater number of spokes); In re Am. Nat’l Can Co., 41 USPQ2d 1841 (TTAB 1997) (holding metal beverage containers with vertical fluting functional because vertical fluting is one of a limited number of ways to strengthen can sidewalls and it allows for an easier way to grip and hold the can); TMEP §1202.02(a)(v), (a)(v)(C).
On the other hand, where the evidence shows that the specific product or container configuration at issue provides no real utilitarian advantages to the user, but is one of many equally feasible, efficient and competitive designs, then it may be registrable. See In re Morton-Norwich Prods., Inc., 671 F.2d 1332, 213 USPQ 9 (C.C.P.A. 1982). However, a product configuration cannot be registered on the Principal Register without a showing of acquired distinctiveness. See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Bros., Inc., 529 U.S. 205, 54 USPQ2d 1065 (2000); TMEP §1202.02(b)-(b)(i).
In the present case, the applicant’s specimen explains in detail the function each aspect of the applicant’s device performs. The specimen includes the following phrases, each with a pointer that connects it to a part of the applicant’s device:
Disposable booger catcher
Natural, safe snot straw
Nose hose
BPA+ phthalate-free mouthpiece
The specimen further states:
HYGIENIC: Disposable filters are clinically proven to prevent the transfer of mucus or bacterial germs to the snot sucker when clearing stuffy noses. Replace filter after every use.
COMFORTABLE + NON-INVASIVE: NoseFrida creates a seal with the outside of the baby's nostril for gentle snotsucking.
DISHWASHER SAFE: The blue nasal tube, red mouthpiece, and filter cap are top-rack dishwasher safe for easy cleaning.
PEDIATRICIAN RECOMMENDED: BPA + Phthalate-free. Safe for all ages.
Thus, in the applicant’s own words, the device specifically was designed to achieve certain functional advantages, namely, that is it hygienic, comfortable, and dishwasher safe.
As a result, the design is functional and registration on the Principal Register must be refused.
Non-Distinctive Product Design
A product design can never be inherently distinctive as a matter of law; consumers are aware that such designs are intended to render the goods more useful or appealing rather than identify their source. See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Bros., 529 U.S. at 212-13, 54 USPQ2d at 1068-69; In re Slokevage, 441 F.3d at 962, 78 USPQ2d at 1399. Thus, consumer predisposition to equate a product design with its source does not exist. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Bros., 529 U.S. at 213, 54 USPQ2d at 1069.
Applicant may respond by providing 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. See 37 C.F.R. §2.41(a)(3); TMEP §§1212.02(g), 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 1293, 1300, 75 USPQ2d 1420, 1424 (Fed. Cir. 2005); 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. This evidence must demonstrate that the relevant public understands the primary significance of the mark as identifying the source of applicant’s service. Id. at 1297, 75 USPQ2d at 1422. However, “[t]he evidence must relate to the promotion and recognition of the specific configuration embodied in the applied-for mark and not to the goods in general.” In re Change Wind Corp., 123 USPQ2d 1453, 1467 (TTAB 2017) (citing Inwood Labs., Inc. v. Ives Labs., Inc., 456 U.S. 844, 851 n.11, 214 USPQ 1, 4 n.11 (1982)).
To establish acquired distinctiveness, an applicant may rely only on use in commerce that may be regulated by the U.S. Congress. See 15 U.S.C. §§1052(f), 1127. Use solely in a foreign country or between two foreign countries is not evidence of acquired distinctiveness in the United States. TMEP §§1010, 1212.08; see In re Rogers, 53 USPQ2d 1741, 1746-47 (TTAB 1999).
As an alternative to claiming acquired distinctiveness, applicant may amend the application to the Supplemental Register. 15 U.S.C. §1091; see 37 C.F.R. §§2.47, 2.75(a); TMEP §§816, 1202.02(b)(i).
Description of the Mark
The description of the mark includes the statement, “Broken lines are used to show positioning and three-dimensional nature and are not claimed as part of the mark.” The drawing, however, does not include any broken lines. The applicant must explain this discrepancy. TMEP §§808 et seq.
General Information
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.
/Doritt Carroll/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 116
571-272-9138
doritt.carroll@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE