PTO Form 1957 (Rev 9/2005)
`
`OMB No. 0651-0050 (Exp. 07/31/2017)
`
`Response to Office Action
`
`Input Field
`
`SERIAL NUMBER
`
`LAW OFFICE ASSIGNED
`
`MARK SECTION
`
`MARK
`
`LITERAL ELEMENT
`
`STANDARD CHARACTERS
`
`USPTO-GENERATED IMAGE
`
`MARK STATEMENT
`
`EVIDENCE SECTION
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)EVIDENCE FILE NAME(S)
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)ORIGINAL PDF FILE
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)CONVERTED PDF FILE(S)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(5 pages)
`
`NEW ATTORNEY SECTION
`
`NAME
`
`FIRM NAME
`
`STREET
`
`CITY
`
`STATE
`
`ZIP/POSTAL CODE
`
`COUNTRY
`
`PHONE
`
`FAX
`
`EMAIL
`
`The table below presents the data as entered.
`
`Entered
`
`86472983
`
`LAW OFFICE 101
`
`http://tsdr.uspto.gov/img/86472983/large
`
`1800CINCHERS
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`The mark consists of standard characters, without claim to any particular font style,
`size or color.
`
`evi_701095314-20150508145804646833_._1800CINCHERS_2e_response.pdf
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\864\729\86472983\xml5\ROA0002.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\864\729\86472983\xml5\ROA0003.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\864\729\86472983\xml5\ROA0004.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\864\729\86472983\xml5\ROA0005.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\864\729\86472983\xml5\ROA0006.JPG
`
`TOM DUNLAP
`
`DUNLAP, BENNET & LUDWIG PLLC
`
`211 Church street SE
`
`Leesburg
`
`Virginia
`
`20175
`
`United States
`
`703.777.7319
`
`703.777.3656
`
`ip@dbllawyers.com
`
`AUTHORIZED EMAIL COMMUNICATION
`
`Yes
`
`NEW CORRESPONDENCE SECTION
`
`NAME
`
`TOM DUNLAP
`
`(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)
`(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)
`

`

`FIRM NAME
`
`STREET
`
`CITY
`
`STATE
`
`ZIP/POSTAL CODE
`
`COUNTRY
`
`PHONE
`
`FAX
`
`EMAIL
`
`DUNLAP, BENNET & LUDWIG PLLC
`
`211 Church street SE
`
`Leesburg
`
`Virginia
`
`20175
`
`United States
`
`703.777.7319
`
`703.777.3656
`
`ip@dbllawyers.com;ip@dbllawyers.com
`
`AUTHORIZED EMAIL COMMUNICATION
`
`Yes
`
`SIGNATURE SECTION
`
`RESPONSE SIGNATURE
`
`SIGNATORY'S NAME
`
`SIGNATORY'S POSITION
`
`SIGNATORY'S PHONE NUMBER
`
`DATE SIGNED
`
`AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
`
`FILING INFORMATION SECTION
`
`SUBMIT DATE
`
`TEAS STAMP
`
`/khardley/
`
`KEISHA HARDLEY
`
`Associate Attorney, Dunlap, Bennett & Ludwig PLLC (MD Bar)
`
`703.777.7319
`
`05/08/2015
`
`YES
`
`Fri May 08 15:04:08 EDT 2015
`
`USPTO/ROA-XX.XXX.XX.XX-20
`150508150408412500-864729
`83-530dc2d3675b43bffb7a06
`3c75bacd0292810f621541d99
`2171144db4f3a3c3121-N/A-N
`/A-20150508145804646833
`
`PTO Form 1957 (Rev 9/2005)
`
`OMB No. 0651-0050 (Exp. 07/31/2017)
`
`To the Commissioner for Trademarks:
`
`Response to Office Action
`
`Application serial no. 86472983(cid:160)1800CINCHERS(Standard Characters, see http://tsdr.uspto.gov/img/86472983/large) has been amended as
`follows:
`
`EVIDENCE
`
`Original PDF file:
`evi_701095314-20150508145804646833_._1800CINCHERS_2e_response.pdf
`Converted PDF file(s) ( 5 pages)
`Evidence-1
`Evidence-2
`Evidence-3
`Evidence-4
`Evidence-5
`
`

`

`ATTORNEY ADDRESS
`Applicant proposes to amend the following:
`Proposed:
`TOM DUNLAP of DUNLAP, BENNET & LUDWIG PLLC, having an address of
`211 Church street SE Leesburg, Virginia 20175
`United States
`ip@dbllawyers.com
`703.777.7319
`703.777.3656
`
`CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS CHANGE
`Applicant proposes to amend the following:
`Proposed:
`TOM DUNLAP of DUNLAP, BENNET & LUDWIG PLLC, having an address of
`211 Church street SE Leesburg, Virginia 20175
`United States
`ip@dbllawyers.com;ip@dbllawyers.com
`703.777.7319
`703.777.3656
`
`SIGNATURE(S)
`Response Signature
`Signature: /khardley/(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)Date: 05/08/2015
`Signatory's Name: KEISHA HARDLEY
`Signatory's Position: Associate Attorney, Dunlap, Bennett & Ludwig PLLC (MD Bar)
`
`Signatory's Phone Number: 703.777.7319
`
`The signatory has confirmed that he/she is an attorney who is a member in good standing of the bar of the highest court of a U.S. state, which
`includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and other federal territories and possessions; and he/she is currently the applicant's attorney or an
`associate thereof; and to the best of his/her knowledge, if prior to his/her appointment another U.S. attorney or a Canadian attorney/agent not
`currently associated with his/her company/firm previously represented the applicant in this matter: (1) the applicant has filed or is concurrently
`filing a signed revocation of or substitute power of attorney with the USPTO; (2) the USPTO has granted the request of the prior representative to
`withdraw; (3) the applicant has filed a power of attorney appointing him/her in this matter; or (4) the applicant's appointed U.S. attorney or
`Canadian attorney/agent has filed a power of attorney appointing him/her as an associate attorney in this matter.
`
`Mailing Address: (cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)TOM DUNLAP
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)DUNLAP, BENNET & LUDWIG PLLC
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)211 Church street SE
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)Leesburg, Virginia 20175
`
`Serial Number: 86472983
`Internet Transmission Date: Fri May 08 15:04:08 EDT 2015
`TEAS Stamp: USPTO/ROA-XX.XXX.XX.XX-20150508150408412
`500-86472983-530dc2d3675b43bffb7a063c75b
`acd0292810f621541d992171144db4f3a3c3121-
`N/A-N/A-20150508145804646833
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Applicant:
`Serial No.:
`
`Filed:
`
`1 800cinchers
`86472983
`
`December 05, 2014
`
`Trademark Atty: Loksye Lee Riso
`TradeMark:
`l SOOCINCHERS
`
`RESPONSE TO MARCH 26, 2015 OFFICE ACTION
`
`This Response is filed in reply to the Office Action e-mailed on March 25, 2015. The
`
`Applicant respectfully submits the following response. Applicant submits that the above-
`
`identified trademark application for ISOOCINCERS is in condition for allowance to
`
`publication.
`
`POTENTIAL SECTION 2(e)(1) REFUSAL — MARK IS MERELY DESCRIPTIVE
`
`Applicant submits a preliminary response to the potential section 2(e)(1) refusal; however,
`
`Applicant reserves all rights to provide a detailed and more descriptive response if Examining
`
`Attorney Loksye Lee Riso raises a Section 2(e)(l) refusal in a subsequent Office Action.
`
`APPLICANT’S MARK IS AT MOST SUGGESTIVE
`
`Applicant respectfully submits that the mark ISOOCINCHERS for body shapers, namely waist
`
`cinchers, butt lifters, sports bras and corsets is at most suggestive and is not merely descriptive
`
`of Applicant’s goods. It is therefore deserving of registration on the Principal Register.
`
`

`

`A mark is merely descriptive only if it “immediately describes” the Applicant’s goods or
`
`services. In re Econoheat Inc. 218 U.S. P. Q. 381, 383 (TTAB l983)(emphasis in original).
`
`For a term to be classified as “merely descriptive,” the name must “immediately tell a potential
`
`customer what to expect in sum total of these concepts.” Holiday Inns Inc. V. Monolith Enter.,
`
`21 U_S_ P_Q_ 949, 952 (TTAB 1981). If the term used as a mark provides vague or indirect
`
`information about the goods or services, then the term is used in a “suggestive” manner. See J.
`
`McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition §ll.l9, at 11-26 (4th ed. 2002).
`
`To be deemed merely descriptive, a mark must directly provide the consumer with reasonably
`
`accurate knowledge of the characteristics of the product or service in connection with which it
`
`is used. If the information about the product or service is indirect or vague, then the mark is
`
`considered suggestive, not descriptive. E. See also Glarnorene Products Corp. V. Boyle-
`
`Midway Inc., 188 U.S.P.Q. 145 (S.D.N.Y. 1975) (finding that the mark SPRAY ‘N VAC is
`
`not merely descriptive of a no scrub rug cleaner and stating “a mark is not merely descriptive
`
`unless descriptiveness is its principle significance. A mark is not descriptive if it merely
`
`suggests the nature or class of the product on which it is used”.)
`
`Applicant’s mark does not immediately and directly describe the products provided under the
`
`mark, thus, Applicant submits that its mark is “suggestive” and capable of registration on the
`
`Principal Register. Applicant’s mark does not immediately or directly tell the consumer what
`
`to expect. The mark does not immediately convey the precise nature of the goods or exactly
`
`what is being offered by Applicant. In this case, while Applicant’s mark l80OCINCHERS may
`
`be suggestive in that it appeals to body shaping, yet, it is not merely descriptive. The term
`
`

`

`CINCHER refers to a broad class of body control products, included Within this class of
`
`products are stomach control, thigh control, and lifters. The term CINCHER does not tell
`
`consumers that the goods are sports bras, buttocks lifters or corsets. The consumer must
`
`engage in a multi—stage reasoning process and exercise imagination to associate the mark with
`
`the goods it identifies.
`
`Imagination Required
`
`A mark is suggestive, and therefore registerable, without evidence of acquired
`
`distinctiveness, if imagination, thought or perception is required to reach a conclusion on
`
`the nature of the goods or services. “[I]f one must exercise mature thought or follow a
`
`multi—stage reasoning process in order to detennine What product or service characteristics
`
`the term indicates, the term is suggestive rather than merely descriptive.” In re Tennis in
`
`the Round, Inc. , l99 USPQ 496, 497 (TTAB 1978). Consequently, an applicant can
`
`overcome a merely descriptive refusal under Section 2(e)(l) by making Well formed
`
`arguments that a multi—stage reasoning process is needed to associate the mark with the
`
`goods or services sold under the mark. The applicant in this case offers a multitude of
`
`goods that are not easily ascertainable by Applicant’s mark. Imagination must be used to
`
`detennine lifters, corsets, and sports bras are sold.
`
`

`

`Composite Mar/cs
`
`A composite mark consisting of two or more descriptive words may be suggestive or
`
`fanciful and therefore registrable. E.g., In re Colonial Stores, Inc., 394 F.2d 549, 552-53,
`
`157 U.S.P.Q. 382, 385 (C.C.P.A. 1968) (SUGAR & SPICE as a whole not merely
`
`descriptive for bakery products); W G. Reardon Laboratories, Inc. v. B. & B.
`
`Exterminators, Inc., 71 F.2d 515, 517, 22 U.S.P.Q. 22, 24 (4th Cir. 1934) (MOUSE SEED
`
`as a whole not descriptive for poisonous pellets used to kill mice). In fact, "a mark that
`
`connotes two meanings — one possibly descriptive, and the other suggestive of some other
`
`association — can be called suggestive, as the mark is not 'merely' descriptive." See J.
`
`McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition §1 1: 19, at 11-28 (4th ed. 2001). E.g.,
`
`Blisscraft ofHollywood v. United Plastics Co., 294 F.2d 694, 131 U.S.P.Q. 55, 60 (2nd
`
`Cir. 1961) (POLY PITCHER not merely descriptive because it connotes both a
`
`polyethylene pitcher and is suggestive of MOLLY PITCHER of Revolutionary time).
`
`Moreover, mere ambiguity is sufficient to overcome evidence that a mark is merely
`
`descriptive. E.g., In re Diet Tabs, Inc., 231 U.S.P.Q. 587 (T.T.A.B. 1986) (refusal of
`
`registration reversed because the mark had two possible interpretations). In the present case
`
`1800CINCHERS refers to various goods offered by the applicant and does not specifically
`
`indicate that corsets are included among the goods offered. Moreover, the numerals within
`
`the mark are not in fact used to contact the company to purchase the goods offered. Thus,
`
`there is different commercial impression.
`
`

`

`CONCLUSION
`
`To the extent the Examining Attomey finds Applicant's 1800CINCHERS mark to fall
`
`within the "gray area" between obviously descriptive and suggestive marks, all doubts
`
`must be resolved in Applicant's favor. In re Conductive Systems, Inc, 220 U.S.P.Q. 84, 86
`
`(TTAB 1983) (where combination of two merely descriptive terms creates a mark that
`
`might be either descriptive or suggestive, doubts are to be resolved in favor of applicants;
`
`refusal reversed); In re Pem/zwalt Corp, 173 U.S,P.Q. 317, 319 (TTAB 1972) (DRI-FOOT
`
`not merely descriptive for antiperspirant foot deodorant; doubts to be resolved in favor of
`
`publication; refusal reversed), Accordingly, the Examining Attorney should withdraw the
`
`refusal under Section 2(e)(1)_
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`/Keisha M. Hardley/
`Keisha M. Hardley (MD Bar)
`Attorney of Record for the Applicant
`
`