To:
`
`Subject:
`
`Sent:
`
`Parody Products LLC (Steve@Parodyproducts.net)
`
`U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 85715993 - CELL FLASK - N/A
`
`1/19/2013 3:01:52 PM
`
`Sent As:
`
`ECOM101@USPTO.GOV
`
`Attachments:
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
`OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS:
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160) (cid:160)(cid:160) PARODY PRODUCTS LLC
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160) (cid:160)(cid:160) PARODY PRODUCTS LLC
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160) (cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) 1700 7TH AVE
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160) (cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) SEATTLE, WA 98101-1397
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`*85715993*
`
`CLICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER:
`http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp
`
`(cid:160) (cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 85715993
`(cid:160) (cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) MARK: CELL FLASK
`(cid:160)(cid:160) (cid:160)(cid:160) (cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) APPLICANT: Parody Products LLC
`(cid:160) (cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO :(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`(cid:160) (cid:160) N/A
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) CORRESPONDENT E-MAIL ADDRESS:(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`(cid:160) (cid:160) Steve@Parodyproducts.net
`
`OFFICE ACTION
`
`STRICT DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER
`TO AVOID ABANDONMENT OF APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION, THE USPTO
`MUST RECEIVE APPLICANT’S COMPLETE RESPONSE TO THIS LETTER WITHIN 6 MONTHS
`OF THE ISSUE/MAILING DATE BELOW.
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`SSUE/MAILING DATE: 1/19/2013
`
`TEAS PLUS APPLICANTS MUST SUBMIT DOCUMENTS ELECTRONICALLY OR SUBMIT
`FEE:(cid:160) Applicants who filed their application online using the reduced-fee TEAS Plus application must
`continue to submit certain documents online using TEAS, including responses to Office actions.(cid:160) See 37
`C.F.R. §2.23(a)(1).(cid:160) For a complete list of these documents, see TMEP §819.02(b).(cid:160) In addition, such
`applicants must accept correspondence from the Office via e-mail throughout the examination process
`and must maintain a valid e-mail address.(cid:160) 37 C.F.R. §2.23(a)(2); TMEP §§819, 819.02(a).(cid:160) TEAS Plus
`applicants who do not meet these requirements must submit an additional fee of $50 per international
`
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`

`
`class of goods and/or services.(cid:160) 37 C.F.R. §2.6(a)(1)(iv); TMEP §819.04.(cid:160) In appropriate situations and
`where all issues can be resolved by amendment, responding by telephone to authorize an examiner’s
`amendment will not incur this additional fee.
`
`FINAL REFUSAL
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`his letter responds to the applicant's communication filed on December 28, 2012.
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`NTRODUCTION
`The applicant has argued against the refusal to register the mark under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark
`Act.(cid:160) The arguments are not acceptable.
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`HE MARK IS MERELY DESCRIPTIVE
`Registration was refused under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. Section 1052(e)(1), because the
`subject matter for which registration is sought is merely descriptive of the identified goods.
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he examining attorney has considered the applicant's arguments carefully but has found them
`unpersuasive.(cid:160) For the reasons set forth below, the refusal under Section 2(e)(1) is maintained and made
`FINAL.
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he applicant has applied to register the mark “CELL FLASK” for "flasks." (cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`In its response to the refusal to register, the applicant contends that the words “CELL” and “FLASK”
`
`together create a registrable mark.(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`A mark is merely descriptive if “it immediately conveys knowledge of a quality, feature, function, or
`characteristic of [an applicant’s] goods or services.” (cid:160) In re The Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 675
`F.3d 1297, 1300, 102 USPQ2d 1217, 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, 488
`F.3d 960, 963, 82 USPQ2d 1828, 1831 (Fed. Cir. 2007)); TMEP §1209.01(b); see DuoProSS Meditech
`Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1251, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
`(quoting In re Abcor Dev. Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 814, 200 USPQ 215, 218 (C.C.P.A. 1978)).
`
`(cid:160)D
`
`etermining the descriptiveness of a mark is done in relation to an applicant’s goods and/or services, the
`context in which the mark is being used, and the possible significance the mark would have to the average
`purchaser because of the manner of its use or intended use.(cid:160) See In re The Chamber of Commerce of the
`U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 1300, 102 USPQ2d 1217, 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Bayer
`Aktiengesellschaft, 488 F.3d 960, 963-64, 82 USPQ2d 1828, 1831 (Fed. Cir. 2007)); TMEP §1209.01(b).(cid:160)
`Descriptiveness of a mark is not considered in the abstract.(cid:160) In re Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, 488 F.3d at
`963-64, 82 USPQ2d at 1831.
`
`(cid:160)“
`
`Whether consumers could guess what the product [or service] is from consideration of the mark alone is
`not the test.” (cid:160) In re Am. Greetings Corp., 226 USPQ 365, 366 (TTAB 1985).(cid:160) The question is not whether
`someone presented only with the mark could guess what the goods and/or services are, but “whether
`someone who knows what the goods and [/or] services are will understand the mark to convey
`information about them.” (cid:160) DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1254,
`103 USPQ2d 1753, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Tower Tech, Inc., 64 USPQ2d 1314, 1316-17
`(TTAB 2002)); In re Franklin Cnty. Historical Soc’y , 104 USPQ2d 1085, 1087 (TTAB 2012).
`
`(cid:160)“
`
`A mark may be merely descriptive even if it does not describe the ‘full scope and extent’ of the
`
`(cid:160)
`

`
`applicant’s goods or services.” (cid:160) In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 1173, 71 USPQ2d 1370,
`1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing In re Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp., 240 F.3d 1341, 1346, 57 USPQ2d
`1807, 1812 (Fed. Cir. 2001)); TMEP §1209.01(b).(cid:160) It is enough if a mark describes only one significant
`function, attribute, or property.(cid:160) In re The Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 1300, 102
`USPQ2d 1217, 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2012); TMEP §1209.01(b); see In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d at
`1173, 71 USPQ2d at 1371.
`
`(cid:160)G
`
`enerally, if the individual components of a mark retain their descriptive meaning in relation to the goods
`and/or services, the combination results in a composite mark that is itself descriptive and not registrable.(cid:160)
`In re Phoseon Tech., Inc., 103 USPQ2d 1822, 1823 (TTAB 2012); TMEP §1209.03(d); see, e.g., In re
`King Koil Licensing Co., 79 USPQ2d 1048, 1052 (TTAB 2006) (holding THE BREATHABLE
`MATTRESS merely descriptive of beds, mattresses, box springs, and pillows where the evidence showed
`that the term “BREATHABLE” retained its ordinary dictionary meaning when combined with the term
`“MATTRESS” and the resulting combination was used in the relevant industry in a descriptive sense); In
`re Associated Theatre Clubs Co., 9 USPQ2d 1660, 1663 (TTAB 1988) (holding GROUP SALES BOX
`OFFICE merely descriptive of theater ticket sales services because such wording “is nothing more than a
`combination of the two common descriptive terms most applicable to applicant’s services which in
`
`combination achieve no different status but remain a common descriptive compound expression”). (cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`Only where the combination of descriptive terms creates a unitary mark with a unique, incongruous, or
`otherwise nondescriptive meaning in relation to the goods and/or services is the combined mark
`registrable.(cid:160) See In re Colonial Stores, Inc., 394 F.2d 549, 551, 157 USPQ 382, 384 (C.C.P.A. 1968).
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`n this case, both the individual components and the composite result are descriptive of applicant’s goods
`and/or services and do not create a unique, incongruous, or nondescriptive meaning in relation to the
`goods and/or services.(cid:160) Specifically, the mark describes FLASKS that are in the shape of a CELL phone.(cid:160)
`The combination of the terms as either a single term or side-by-side does not change the descriptive use
`of the marks.(cid:160) These terms are commonly used in this manner as indicated in the attachments in Office
`Action No. 1.
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`wo major reasons for not protecting descriptive marks are (1) to prevent the owner of a descriptive mark
`from inhibiting competition in the marketplace and (2) to avoid the possibility of costly infringement suits
`brought by the trademark or service mark owner.(cid:160) In re Abcor Dev. Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 813,
`200 USPQ 215, 217 (C.C.P.A. 1978); TMEP §1209.(cid:160) Businesses and competitors should be free to use
`descriptive language when describing their own goods and/or services to the public in advertising and
`marketing materials.(cid:160) See In re Styleclick.com Inc., 58 USPQ2d 1523, 1527 (TTAB 2001).
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he fact that an applicant may be the first and only user of a merely descriptive designation does not
`necessarily render a word or term incongruous or distinctive; as in this case, the evidence presented in
`Office Action No. 1 shows that “CELL FLASK” is merely descriptive. (cid:160) See In re Phoseon Tech., Inc.,
`103 USPQ2d 1822, 1826 (TTAB 2012); In re Sun Microsystems, Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1084, 1087 (TTAB
`2001); TMEP §1209.03(c).
`
`(cid:160)C
`
`ONCLUSION
`Based on the foregoing, the refusal to register under Section 2(e)(1) is continued and made FINAL.
`
`(cid:160)A
`
`PPLICANT'S OPTIONS
`Applicant must respond within six months of the date of issuance of this final Office action or the
`application will be abandoned.(cid:160) 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §2.65(a).(cid:160) Applicant may respond by
`
`

`
`providing one or both of the following:
`
`(1)(cid:160) A response that fully satisfies all outstanding requirements;
`
`(2)(cid:160) An appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, with the appeal fee of $100 per class.
`
`(cid:160)3
`
`7 C.F.R. §2.64(a); TMEP §714.04; see 37 C.F.R. §2.6(a)(18); TBMP ch. 1200.
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`n certain rare circumstances, an applicant may respond by filing a petition to the Director pursuant to 37
`C.F.R. §2.63(b)(2) to review procedural issues.(cid:160) 37 C.F.R. §2.64(a); TMEP §714.04; see 37 C.F.R.
`§2.146(b); TBMP §1201.05; TMEP §1704 (explaining petitionable matters).(cid:160) The petition fee is $100.(cid:160) 37
`C.F.R. §2.6(a)(15).
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`f applicant has questions regarding this Office action, please telephone or e-mail the assigned trademark
`examining attorney.(cid:160) All relevant e-mail communications will be placed in the official application record;
`however, an e-mail communication will not be accepted as a response to this Office action and will not
`extend the deadline for filing a proper response.(cid:160) See 37 C.F.R. §2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05.(cid:160)
`Further, although the trademark examining attorney may provide additional explanation pertaining to the
`refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) in this Office action, the trademark examining attorney may not provide
`legal advice or statements about applicant’s rights. (cid:160) See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06.
`
`/Alec Powers/
`Trademark Examining Attorney
`Trademark Law Office 101
`Direct: 571-272-9309
`Alexander.Powers@uspto.gov
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`O RESPOND TO THIS LETTER: (cid:160) Go to http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp. (cid:160) Please
`wait 48-72 hours from the issue/mailing date before using the Trademark Electronic Application System
`(TEAS), to allow for necessary system updates of the application.(cid:160) For technical assistance with online
`forms, e-mail TEAS@uspto.gov.(cid:160) For questions about the Office action itself, please contact the assigned
`trademark examining attorney.(cid:160) E-mail communications will not be accepted as responses to Office
`actions; therefore, do not respond to this Office action by e-mail.
`
`(cid:160)A
`
`ll informal e-mail communications relevant to this application will be placed in the official
`application record.
`
`(cid:160)W
`
`HO MUST SIGN THE RESPONSE:(cid:160) It must be personally signed by an individual applicant or
`someone with legal authority to bind an applicant (i.e., a corporate officer, a general partner, all joint
`
`applicants).(cid:160) If an applicant is represented by an attorney, the attorney must sign the response.(cid:160)(cid:160)
`PERIODICALLY CHECK THE STATUS OF THE APPLICATION: (cid:160) To ensure that applicant
`does not miss crucial deadlines or official notices, check the status of the application every three to
`four months using the Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) system at http://tsdr.uspto.gov/.
`
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`

`
`(cid:160) Please keep a copy of the TSDR status screen. (cid:160) If the status shows no change for more than six months,
`contact the Trademark Assistance Center by e-mail at TrademarkAssistanceCenter@uspto.gov or call
`1-800-786-9199. (cid:160) For more information on checking status, see
`http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/process/status/.
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`O UPDATE CORRESPONDENCE/E-MAIL ADDRESS:(cid:160) Use the TEAS form at
`http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/correspondence.jsp.
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`

`
`To:
`
`Subject:
`
`Sent:
`
`Parody Products LLC (Steve@Parodyproducts.net)
`
`U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 85715993 - CELL FLASK - N/A
`
`1/19/2013 3:01:52 PM
`
`Sent As:
`
`ECOM101@USPTO.GOV
`
`Attachments:
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
`
`IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING YOUR
`U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION
`
`USPTO OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) HAS ISSUED
`ON 1/19/2013 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 85715993
`
`Your trademark application has been reviewed.(cid:160) The trademark examining attorney assigned by the
`USPTO to your application has written an official letter to which you must respond.(cid:160) Please follow these
`steps:
`
`(cid:160)(
`
`1)(cid:160) READ THE LETTER by clicking on this link or going to http://tsdr.uspto.gov/, entering your U.S.
`application serial number, and clicking on “Documents.”
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he Office action may not be immediately viewable, to allow for necessary system updates of the
`
`application, but will be available within 24 hours of this e-mail notification.(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(2)(cid:160) RESPOND WITHIN 6 MONTHS (or sooner if specified in the Office action), calculated from
`1/19/2013, using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) response form located at
`
`http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp.(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`Do NOT hit “Reply” to this e-mail notification, or otherwise e-mail your response because the
`USPTO does NOT accept e-mails as responses to Office actions.(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(3)(cid:160) QUESTIONS about the contents of the Office action itself should be directed to the trademark
`examining attorney who reviewed your application, identified below.(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`/Alec Powers/
`Trademark Examining Attorney
`Trademark Law Office 101
`Direct: 571-272-9309
`Alexander.Powers@uspto.gov
`
`WARNING
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`

`
`Failure to file the required response by the applicable response deadline will result in the
`ABANDONMENT of your application.(cid:160)
`For more information regarding abandonment,
`see
`
`http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics/abandon.jsp.(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`PRIVATE COMPANY SOLICITATIONS REGARDING YOUR APPLICATION:(cid:160)
`Private
`companies not associated with the USPTO are using information provided in trademark applications to
`mail or e-mail trademark-related solicitations.(cid:160) These companies often use names that closely resemble
`the USPTO and their solicitations may look like an official government document.(cid:160) Many solicitations
`
`require that you pay “fees.” (cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`Please carefully review all correspondence you receive regarding this application to make sure that you
`are responding to an official document from the USPTO rather than a private company solicitation.(cid:160) All
`official USPTO correspondence will be mailed only from the “United States Patent and Trademark
`Office” in Alexandria, VA; or sent by e-mail from the domain “@uspto.gov.” (cid:160) For more information on
`how
`to
`handle
`private
`company
`solicitations,
`see
`http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/solicitation_warnings.jsp.
`
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)