To: | HYTTO PTE. LTD. (liz@olinerlaw.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 90807039 - RIDGE - N/A |
Sent: | November 18, 2021 07:51:07 PM |
Sent As: | ecom129@uspto.gov |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 90807039
Mark: RIDGE
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
Applicant: HYTTO PTE. LTD.
|
|
Reference/Docket No. N/A
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: November 18, 2021
The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney. Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issues below. 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(a), 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.
SEARCH OF USPTO DATABASE OF MARKS
SUMMARY OF ISSUES:
I. Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1) Refusal
II. Information About Goods Required
I. SECTION 2(e)(1) REFUSAL - MERELY DESCRIPTIVE
Here, the attached evidence shows that a ridge or ridges are a common feature of sex toys. The attached evidence from Le Wand’s website describes a feature of its sex toy as “the ridge along the bulbous end is designed to stimulate the most sensitive parts…” The attached evidence from Goop shows that one of its sex toys has “the added sensation of ridges that provide unique internal sensations…” Finally, the attached evidence from Amazon shows that CalExotics makes a sex toy that is “soft, comfortable to wear enhancer with pleasure ridges...
Therefore, the evidence shows that applicant’s mark, RIDGE is merely descriptive of applicant’s goods under Trademark Act Section 2(e)1.
Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.
Supplemental Register – Advisory
If applicant files an acceptable allegation of use and also amends 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 an amendment to allege use. TMEP §§816.02, 1102.03; see 37 C.F.R. §2.75(b). In addition, the undersigned trademark examining attorney will conduct a new search of the USPTO records for conflicting marks based on the later application filing date. TMEP §§206.01, 1102.03.
II. INFORMATION ABOUT GOODS REQUIRED
Factual information about the goods must clearly indicate how they operate, their salient features, and their prospective customers and channels of trade.
Specifically, applicant must answer the following question:
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. Merely stating that information about the goods and services is available on applicant’s website is an insufficient response and will not make the relevant information of record. See In re Planalytics, Inc., 70 USPQ2d 1453, 1457-58 (TTAB 2004).
How to respond. Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action.
/Elle Marino/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 129
Phone: (571) 270-3699
E-mail: elle.marino@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE