Statement of Use Refusals
(These are actual USPTO trademark application refusals (office actions) with some redactions)
Trademark Act Sections 1, 2 and 45 – Title of Single Work Refusal
Registration is refused because the applied-
Single creative works include works in which the featured content does not change significantly, whether that work is in printed, recorded, or electronic form. TMEP §1202.08(a); see Mattel, Inc. v. Brainy Baby Co., 101 USPQ2d 1140, 1143-
Applicant may respond to this refusal by submitting evidence that the applied-
Applicant may not withdraw the statement of use. 37 C.F.R. §2.88(g); TMEP §1109.17.
The title of a single work, even an arbitrary title, is considered descriptive of the contents of the work itself “and is not associated in the public mind with the publisher, printer or bookseller;” whereas “[t]he name for a series, at least while it is still being published, has a trademark function in indicating that each [work] of the series comes from the same source as the others.” In re Cooper, 254 F. 2d 611, 615, 117 USPQ 396, 400 (C.C.P.A. 1958).
Mark does not appear on Specimen
The specimen is not acceptable because the applied-
INTENT TO USE OFFICE ACTION
A statement of use is required to be filed within six months following the issuance of a notice of allowance or during an existing extension period. 15 U.S.C. §1051(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.88(a); TMEP §1109.04. In this case, the statement of use was due on or before January 31, 2013. However, the statement of use was filed on February 1, 2013.
APPLICANT’S OPTIONS: Applicant has the option to (1) file a petition to revive this application under 37 C.F.R. §2.66 before expiration of the two month period after the issuance date of the notice of abandonment (the notice of abandonment will issue shortly after this Office action) or (2) file a new application.
MARK DOES NOT FUNCTION AS A TRADEMARK: IMPROPER SPECIMEN OF USE FOR SERVICES
Registration is refused because the proposed mark, as used on the specimen of record, does not function as a service mark to indicate the source of the services. Trademark Act Sections 1, 2, 3 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1053 and 1127; In re Moody’s Investors Service Inc., 13 USPQ2d 2043 (TTAB 1989); In re Signal Companies, Inc., 228 USPQ 956 (TTAB 1986); In re Hughes Aircraft Co., 222 USPQ 263 (TTAB 1984); TMEP §§1301.02 et seq.
The specimen is unacceptable as evidence of actual service mark use because it does not show use of the mark in relation to the identified services. The specimen shows the mark on a bag, but does not show use of the mark in connection with applicant’s actual advertising and marketing services. The applicant must submit a specimen showing the mark as it is used in commerce in relation to the services. 37 C.F.R Section 2.56. Examples of acceptable specimens are signs, brochures or advertisements that show the mark used in the sale or advertising of the services provided for others. TMEP section 1301.04 et seq.
The trademark examining attorney will reconsider this refusal if applicant submits both (1) a substitute specimen showing use as a service mark, and (2) a written statement that “the substitute specimen was in use in commerce at least as early as the application filing date,” verified with a notarized affidavit or a signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20. 37 C.F.R. §2.59(a); TMEP §904.09.
If an amendment of the dates-
SUBSTANTIVE REFUSAL – MARK DOES NOT FUNCTION AS A TRADEMARK
Registration is refused because the proposed mark, as used on the specimen of record, does not function as a trademark to identify and distinguish applicant’s goods from those of others and to indicate their source. Trademark Act Sections 1, 2 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051-
The proposed mark, as used on the specimen, does not function as a trademark because it appears in one of several circles on the front of the packaging. The wording in each of the circles does not appear with a TM or any other designation indicating traditional trademark use. It is unlikely that consumers would view wording in a series of circles on applicant’s packaging as a trademark for goods.
§Examples of acceptable specimens for goods are tags, labels, instruction manuals, containers, photographs that show the mark on the goods or packaging, or displays associated with the goods at their point of sale. TMEP §§904.03 et seq.
The specimen is not acceptable because it consists of advertising material for goods. Trademark Act Section 45 requires use of the mark “on the goods or their containers or the displays associated therewith or on the tags or labels affixed thereto.” 15 U.S.C. §1127; see 37 C.F.R. §2.56(b)(1); TMEP §§904.03, 904.04(b), (c). In the instant matter, the wording DOUBLE TORNADO WAVE does not appear prominently in the catalog and is not easily recognized as a source indicator for the identified goods. See TMEP §904.03(h).
Material that functions merely to tell prospective purchasers about the goods, or to promote the sale of the goods, is not acceptable to show trademark use. TMEP §904.04(b). Leaflets, handbills, brochures, advertising circulars and other printed advertising material, while normally acceptable for showing use in connection with services, generally are not acceptable specimens for showing trademark use in connection with goods. See In re MediaShare Corp., 43 USPQ2d 1304, 1307 (TTAB 1997); In re Schiapparelli Searle, 26 USPQ2d 1520, 1522 (TTAB 1993); TMEP §§904.04(b), (c), 1301.04.
A statement of use must include a specimen showing the applied-
Answering Office Actions
There are no canned answers on how to answer office actions for the rejections received because there are no typical rejections, registration of a mark is specific to the facts involved. (See Function As A Mark for more Office Actions.) Some rejections are dependent not only on the trademark being proposed (very fact specific) but also on how the application is filled out, especially the specimens submitted. Sometimes just a better specimen is all it takes. Sometimes a better identification of goods and services. Sometimes parts of the trademark must be disclaimed. Sometimes the applicable law must be examined and arguments made that are very specific to the actual words and designs being proposed. It depends on what is being rejected and why.
Not every office action has an answer, some proposed trademarks just do not comply with U.S. Trademark Law and do not qualify for common law protection because they lack distinctiveness or lack acquired secondary meaning or the capability of acquiring secondary meaning.
If your trademark has value and you want to preserve the trade identity rights that you have already invested and secure more rights through federal registration, it may be best to hire a legal representative to answer your office action as prescribed within the USPTO Trademark Rules and Procedures. The cost of having a Not Just Patents ® Legal Services provide your Response to Office Action (ROA) and/or Amendment to Allege Use (AAU)(after an Intent-
Not Just Patents ® Legal Services can assist your business in identifying, creating and managing your Intellectual Property Rights from the ground up. Call us at (651) 500-
Intellectual Property may be one of the best ways to invest in your business, at the end of the day getting the right help may make a huge difference.
Not Just Patents®
© Not Just Patents LLC, PO Box 18716, Minneapolis, MN 55418, (651) 500-