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)(6 pages)
`
`The table below presents the data as entered.
`
`Entered
`
`86568886
`
`LAW OFFICE 117
`
`http://tmng-al.uspto.gov/resting2/api/img/86568886/large
`
`DOGEMOJI
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`The mark consists of standard characters, without claim to any particular font style, size
`or color.
`
`evi_21616456213-20150714140510238489_._DOGEMOJI_Office_Action_Resonse.pdf
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\865\688\86568886\xml5\ROA0002.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\865\688\86568886\xml5\ROA0003.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\865\688\86568886\xml5\ROA0004.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\865\688\86568886\xml5\ROA0005.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\865\688\86568886\xml5\ROA0006.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\865\688\86568886\xml5\ROA0007.JPG
`
`NEW ATTORNEY SECTION
`
`NAME
`
`FIRM NAME
`
`THOMAS DUNLAP
`
`DUNLAP, BENNET & LUDWIG PLLC
`
`OTHER APPOINTED ATTORNEY
`
`All Associates of Dunlap, Bennett Ludwig
`
`STREET
`
`CITY
`
`STATE
`
`ZIP/POSTAL CODE
`
`COUNTRY
`
`PHONE
`
`EMAIL
`
`211 Church Street SE
`
`Leesburg
`
`Virginia
`
`20175
`
`United States
`
`703.777.7319
`
`ip@dbllawyers.com
`
`AUTHORIZED EMAIL COMMUNICATION
`
`Yes
`
`CORRESPONDENCE SECTION
`
`(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)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`

`

`ORIGINAL ADDRESS
`
`NEW CORRESPONDENCE SECTION
`
`CALORIES LLC
`2030 Penstock Ct
`Bethlehem
`Pennsylvania (PA)
`US
`18015-5097
`
`NAME
`
`FIRM NAME
`
`STREET
`
`CITY
`
`STATE
`
`ZIP/POSTAL CODE
`
`COUNTRY
`
`PHONE
`
`EMAIL
`
`THOMAS DUNLAP
`
`DUNLAP, BENNET & LUDWIG PLLC
`
`211 Church Street SE
`
`Leesburg
`
`Virginia
`
`20175
`
`United States
`
`703.777.7319
`
`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
`
`07/14/2015
`
`YES
`
`Tue Jul 14 14:11:43 EDT 2015
`
`USPTO/ROA-XXX.XXX.XX.XXX-
`20150714141143600185-8656
`8886-540572bd530194fa4fa7
`38b834d7b2f0e5e1d88cd322a
`1b26d918a01ced3863e-N/A-N
`/A-20150714140510238489
`
`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. 86568886(cid:160)DOGEMOJI(Standard Characters, see http://tmng-al.uspto.gov/resting2/api/img/86568886/large) has been
`amended as follows:
`
`EVIDENCE
`
`

`

`Original PDF file:
`evi_21616456213-20150714140510238489_._DOGEMOJI_Office_Action_Resonse.pdf
`Converted PDF file(s) ( 6 pages)
`Evidence-1
`Evidence-2
`Evidence-3
`Evidence-4
`Evidence-5
`Evidence-6
`
`ATTORNEY ADDRESS
`Applicant proposes to amend the following:
`Proposed:
`THOMAS 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
`The Other Appointed Attorney(s): All Associates of Dunlap, Bennett Ludwig.
`
`CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS CHANGE
`Applicant proposes to amend the following:
`Current:
`CALORIES LLC
`2030 Penstock Ct
`Bethlehem
`Pennsylvania (PA)
`US
`18015-5097
`
`Proposed:
`THOMAS 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
`
`SIGNATURE(S)
`Response Signature
`Signature: /khardley/(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)Date: 07/14/2015
`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 owner's/holder'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 owner/holder in this matter: (1) the owner/holder 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 owner/holder has filed a power of attorney appointing him/her in this matter; or (4) the owner's/holder'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)THOMAS 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: 86568886
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`

`

`Internet Transmission Date: Tue Jul 14 14:11:43 EDT 2015
`TEAS Stamp: USPTO/ROA-XXX.XXX.XX.XXX-201507141411436
`00185-86568886-540572bd530194fa4fa738b83
`4d7b2f0e5e1d88cd322a1b26d918a01ced3863e-
`N/A-N/A-20150714140510238489
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Applicant:
`Serial No.:
`
`Filed:
`
`Calories LLC
`86568886
`
`03/18/2015
`
`Trademark Atty: Eric Sable
`TradeMark:
`DOGEMOJI
`
`RESPONSE TO JUNE 22, 2015 OFFICE ACTION
`
`Applicant Calories LLC respectfully submits this response in reply to the Office
`
`Action e-mailed on June 22, 2015. Applicant contends that the above-identified
`
`trademark application for DOGEMOJI meets the requirements for allowance to
`
`publication in the Principal Register.
`
`POTENTIAL SECTION 2(e)(1) REFUSAL—MARK IS MERELY DESCRIPTIVE
`
`Applicant submits a preliminary response to the potential section 2(e)(1) refusal;
`
`Applicant, however, reserves all rights to provide a detailed and more descriptive
`
`response if Examining Attorney Eric Sable raises a section 2(e)(1) refusal in a subsequent
`
`Office Action.
`
`APPLICANT’S MARK IS AT MOST SUGGESTIVE
`
`Applicant respectfully submits that the mark DOGEMOJI for “computer
`
`application software for mobile phones and handheld computing devices namely for
`
`providing dog emojis” is at most suggestive and not merely descriptive of Applicant’s
`
`goods. Thus, the mark is deserving of registration on the Principal Register.
`
`A mark may be categorized as merely descriptive only if it “immediately
`
`describes” the Applicant’s goods or services. In re Econoheatlna, 218 U.S.P.Q. 381,
`
`

`

`383 (TTAB 1983); In re Gyulay, 3 U.S.P.Q.2d 1009 (Fed. Cir. 1987). 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). 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, however, then the mark is
`
`considered suggestive, not descriptive. Id.; see also Glamorene Products Corp. v. Boyle-
`
`Midway, Inc., 188 U_S_P.Q_ 145 (S.D.N.Y. 1975) (finding 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 services provided
`
`under the mark. Thus, Applicant contends its mark is suggestive and capable of
`
`registration on the Principal Register. Applicant’s mark does not immediately or directly
`
`inform the consumer’s expectation. See TMEP § l209.01(a) (“a descriptive term...
`
`immediately tells something about the goods or services"). As discussed below, the mark
`
`requires imagination to understand the scope and function of the goods and thus does not
`
`immediately describe the goods. Additionally, the composite nature of the mark elevates
`
`the individually descriptive components to a holistically suggestive mark.
`
`

`

`Imagination Required
`
`A mark is suggestive, and therefore registrable, 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 determine What product or service
`
`characteristics the term indicates, the term is suggestive rather than merely
`
`descriptive.” In re Tennis in the Round, Inc. , 199 USPQ 496, 497 (TTAB 1978).
`
`Consequently, an applicant may overcome a merely descriptive refusal under section
`
`2(e)(1) by making Well—formed arguments that consumers’ associations of the mark
`
`with the goods or services requires a multi—stage reasoning process. In this case, the
`
`mark DOGEMOJI requires a cognitive process in which the consumer recalls various
`
`canine species and subsequently animates their digital likeness with humanlike
`
`emotions. This thought process similarly requires extensive use of imagination, as the
`
`goods are not the natural state of dogs or related animals.
`
`Composite Marks
`
`A composite mark consisting of two or more descriptive Words may be
`
`suggestive or fanciful and, therefore, registrable. See, 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); WG. 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." J. THOMAS MCCARTHY,
`
`MCCARTHY ON TRADEMARKS AND UNFAIR COMPETITION §1 1:19 at 1 1-28 (4th ed.
`
`2001); see Blisscmfi‘ 0fH0llywo0d v. United Plastics Co., 294 F.2d 694, l3l 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. See In re Diet Tabs, Inc., 231 U.S.P.Q. 587 (T.T.A.B. l986)
`
`(refusal of registration reversed because the mark had two possible interpretations).
`
`Applicant’s mark as a whole has no meaning and thus, is not descriptive of any
`
`goods. While the terms “Dog” and “emjoi” may have common meaning separately,
`
`combining the terms has no known significance and creates a unique impression
`
`which is inventive. As the Examining Attorney has noted, “Dog” is defined as a
`
`“highly variable domestic mammal. .
`
`however, there are several other definitions of
`
`the word “dog.” Among these definitions include, a hot dog, an unattractive person, a
`
`fellow, and a worthless or contemptable person (See Exhibit A). Associating the
`
`coined tenn with Applicant°s goods requires imagination and a leap of logic.
`
`Therefore, the mark is suggestive, not merely descriptive. As noted in McCarthy, if a
`
`composite mark is not 100 percent descriptive, then the mark as a whole is not merely
`
`descriptive. Applicant’s mark, when viewed as a whole, is not totally descriptive in all
`
`

`

`its parts. Therefore, the overall mark does not immediately tell the consumer What to
`
`expect. Moreover, the term DOGEMOJI is not a common term used by consumers or
`
`competitors in the industry. Lack of such evidence indicates that the proposed mark is
`
`not merely descriptive in the context of such goods and services.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`To the extent the Examining Attorney finds Applicant's DOGEMOJI mark to
`
`fall Within the "gray area" between obviously descriptive and suggestive marks, all
`
`doubts must be resolved in Applicant's favor. See, e.g., 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 Pennwalt 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). For the foregoing reasons, the Applicant respectfully requests that the
`
`Examining Attorney reconsider the Applicant’s mark for registration and Withdraw
`
`the potential section 2(e)(1) refusal.
`
`

`

`Respectfully submitted,
`/Keisha M. Hard1ey/
`Keisha M. Hardley (MD Bar)
`Attorney of Record for the Applicant
`
`Exhibit A
`
`iowords that used to
`mean srirnething uifi'ei'e_-nt
`
`’ Yes, "lrregardless" is a word.
`Wnyynu snriulan‘r use it
`
`Q—
`-
`‘. '
`
`Dictionary
`
`‘dog 1»)
`noun, often atrrirmtive
`Definition of D06
`
`luog ‘dagl
`
`SHE mmLAN.”
`it
`| Cite! M 3+1 iyrwaei
`
`0' 0|’ relating (O the summer
`
`Ge‘ me Wm“ “me Day “aw Ema"!
`
`1 a : CANlDI especially: a highly variable domestic mammal (Cams familiarrs) closely related to the
`
`“W”
`I1 : a male dog‘ also: a male usually carnivorous mammal
`2 a: a worthless urcontemplible person
`I: : FELLOW. cm: 4a lazy dog> <you lucky dog>
`
`Improve your SCRABBLE5 game with our
`official Word finder Tool Ward Finder Tool ii
`
`3 a 3 any Oi V3|'iOU5 USUBIIY 5lI'l'lD3E mecnanical UEWCES [Of HOIOIFIQ, gripping. Ol lasiening that CUIISISI
`UT a spike. DEL OF HOOK
`II I ANDIRON
`
`$5 00 OFF
`W”:H FREE S&H
`settmt mi RODUC min
`
`ElENEFlCl_AL Wild
`F|BRq’LW'G
`ORDER TDim
`Mom
`
`4 : uncharacteristic or affected stylisliness or dignity <put on the dog»
`5 capitalized I Eltilel Of the COHSIEEIGIIOHS Cams M3]!!! OI‘ Canis MIOOI
`
`6 plural : FEl:T
`
`7 plural: Rum <going to tne dogs:
`
`8 : one interior 01 its kind ctne movie was a dog>. as
`
`a : an investment notwonn its price
`I: : an undesirable piece 0! mercnanaise
`
`9 : an unattractive person; especially : an unattractive girl or woman
`
`10! HOT DOG 1
`
`—dog-Iikell)
`
`l.‘t1og-lTK‘~
`
`ad,-ective
`
`L§,“i°“. Here‘s How
`'
`Q-
`;.\-‘T’ Leximgraphers Like to
`.*“«3».*ta'».‘:’.‘f~’£= Party
`Athlelsu re
`
`O
`$5,
`SPECIAL mi izonucioin
`WITH FREE 55”
`
`