[E-trademarks] [EXT] Must a genericy refusal be finalized?
Pamela Chestek
pamela at chesteklegal.com
Tue Oct 22 15:30:41 UTC 2024
This is clearly a shot across the bow that they consider it generic. And
maybe already have the evidence.
"Even if it appears that the mark is generic, the proper basis for the
initial refusal is §2(e)(1) descriptiveness. */If there is strong
evidence that the proposed mark is generic, the examining attorney
should include a statement that the subject matter appears to be a
generic name/* for the goods or services in conjunction with the refusal
on the ground that the matter is merely descriptive. ... /*If, on the
other hand, the mark appears to be capable, the examining attorney
should provide appropriate advice concerning a possible amendment to the
Supplemental Register*/ or assertion of a claim of acquired
distinctiveness. ... /*If the record is unclear as to whether the
designation is capable of functioning as a mark, the examining attorney
must refrain from giving any advisory statement.*/"
TMEP 1209.02(a).
Pam
Pamela S. Chestek
Chestek Legal
300 Fayetteville St.
Unit 2492
Raleigh, NC 27602
+1 919-800-8033
pamela at chesteklegal.com
www.chesteklegal.com
On 10/22/2024 11:09 AM, Edward Timberlake via E-trademarks wrote:
> There is another way to read the Trademark Examining Attorney stating
> that they “cannot recommend that applicant amend the application to
> proceed … on the Supplemental Register as possible response options to
> this refusal,” and that is that amending to the Supplemental Register
> is only possible when the application for registration is currently
> based on use.
>
> If no proof of use has been provided (and accepted), then the
> Supplemental Register is not currently an option.
>
> https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/current#/current/TMEP-800d1e2649.html
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Ed Timberlake
> /Board Certified Specialist in Trademark Law
> <https://www.nclawspecialists.gov/for-the-public/find-a-board-certified-specialist/results/detail/?id=29473>/
>
> *Timberlake Law* <http://timberlakelaw.com/>
> Chapel Hill, NC
>
> Schedule a call on Clarity <https://clarity.fm/edtimberlake>
> ed at timberlakelaw.com
> 919.960.1950
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 10:52 AM Laura Geyer <lgeyer at ndgallilaw.com>
> wrote:
>
> Dear Alex:
>
> Much appreciated! I wish I could say I were a junior attorney
> first looking at this issue from this angle, hechk, I’ve even
> written an article recently about the slightly pointless no-man's
> land that is the SR
> <https://ndgallilaw.com/2024/08/27/supplemental-registration-whats-the-point/>
> (“Supplemental Registration: What’s the Point?”) .
>
> What threw me was something I genuinely hadn’t seen once in the 25
> years of doing this. Not just a genericy advisory (seen some of
> those despite best efforts to get clients to /pick actual
> trademarks please/ for the love of G-d) but a further “sort of”
> pre-finding of genericy” in the “don’t even try that” about
> attempting amendment to the SR. There’s not really a different way
> to read the Examiner’s addition about how that because of the
> genericy possibility, they “*cannot recommend that applicant amend
> the application to proceed … on the Supplemental Register as
> possible response options to this refusal”. *That is a backhanded
> warning that the genericy issue has already been worked out when,
> as you say, there’s actually no reason to touch it substantively.**
>
> **
>
> I will hypothetically advise the client that this is officially a
> roll the dice situation with possibly slightly weighted dice. It
> may be that by the time the amendments are filed and the dust
> settles, they may overcome that issue. Or they may crap out with a 2.
>
> Kindly,
>
> Laura
>
> *Laura Talley Geyer*| *Of Counsel*
>
> **
>
> *ND Galli Law LLC*
>
> 1200 G Street, N.W., Ste 800
>
> Washington, DC 20005
>
> Tel: (202) 599-9019 (direct)
>
> https://ndgallilaw.com/laura-geyer/
>
> https://ndgallilaw.com/
>
> *From:*Alex Butterman <abutterman at dbllawyers.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 22, 2024 1:43 AM
> *To:* For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to
> seek legal advice. <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> *Cc:* Laura Geyer <lgeyer at ndgallilaw.com>; Edward Timberlake
> <ed at timberlakelaw.com>
> *Subject:* RE: [EXT] [E-trademarks] Must a genericy refusal be
> finalized?
>
> *EXTERNAL EMAIL*
>
> Laura:
>
> I agree with you that this “genericy” determination is one of the
> most unintuitive, complicated processes in application examination
> that I have experienced, and I have regularly seen experienced TM
> attorneys and inexperienced TM examiners (including myself) get
> this wrong. I am not sure how this process developed, i.e. if it
> is a matter of statutory interpretation or based upon the
> particular language of the Lanham Act, but the TMEP explains the
> examination procedure at Section 1209.02(a) (“The examining
> attorney must not initially issue a refusal in an application for
> registration on the Principal Register on the ground that a mark
> is a generic name for the goods or services, */unless the
> applicant asserted that the mark has acquired distinctiveness
> under §2(f) in the application itself/*.”)
>
> Essentially, the determination of the examiner as to whether or
> not a mark is generic boils down to the determination of whether
> or not *the mark can acquire distinctiveness*. And the definition
> of a mark on the Supplemental Register is a mark “/capable/ of
> acquiring distinctiveness.” The Supplemental Register is
> effectively a holding pattern for a mark in “no man’s land”
> because the mark is technically not sufficiently distinctive to be
> considered an enforceable mark, but the mark could be on its way
> there. Consequently, a genericy determination cannot be made until
> the applicant either requests registration on the Supplemental
> Register or claims 2(f). So as you note, this becomes
> approximately a 4-plus step process if the application is based
> upon ITU and a 3-step process if based upon use: 1)
> descriptiveness refusal; 2) allegation of use and SR registration
> amendment (or just SR amendment if already in use); 3) initial
> refusal of the SR amendment or 2(f) claim; 4) final refusal of the
> SR or 2(f) amendment. The 2(f) amending process can even extend
> across several office actions if the refusals initially argue the
> particular level of evidence required to claim 2(f) for the
> particular mark. There may also be times when this determination
> is made in the ITU context, such as an application based upon
> Section 44e which can also be amended to the SR.
>
> Therefore, the fastest way to force this issue in examination is
> to seek SR registration or claim 2(f) and it probably is most cost
> effective to do so with minimal argument after the descriptiveness
> refusal has initially been argued. Then, once the examiner
> contends that SR and 2(f) registration are not available because
> the mark is allegedly generic, all resources can be devoted to
> arguing that the mark is capable of or has actually acquired
> distinctiveness. This is why this process is probably better
> suited to marks which have been in use and need to better protect
> the use rights that have accrued. If the mark has not yet been in
> use, the genericy determination seems less impactful because the
> applicant has less invested in the mark and may be content knowing
> that the applicant cannot be prevented from using the term even
> though it cannot be considered a mark and the applicant cannot
> exclude others from use of the term.
>
> I got this wrong in one of the first cases I examined which I
> refused because of descriptiveness and which ended up being the
> only refusal I had to defend on appeal. My mistake was initially
> issuing the genericy warning which set the tone and substance of
> subsequent arguments to be whether or not the mark was generic.
> Then, when it came time to defend the refusal, my mentor had
> explained that the genericy issue was not yet ripe because the
> applicant had not sought an SR registration. So the appeal
> proceeded with me needing only to defend that the mark was merely
> descriptive, which it clearly was. I keep seeing examiners make
> this same error. This was the reason why a couple of years ago, I
> prosecuted an application that received about six office actions
> arguing whether a 2(f) or SR registration could issue and when the
> 4^th OA was declared “final,” it really was not. We finally
> registered the mark with a lot of it being disclaimed and the
> appeal we initiated was dropped by a new examiner being reassigned
> to the case and reconsidering the refusal.
>
> I guess this is a long non-answer and commiseration.
>
> *Alex Butterman*
>
> Partner****
>
> *DUNLAP **BENNETT **& LUDWIG*
>
> /211 Church St., SE; Leesburg, VA 20175/
>
> T: 703-777-7319– *BIO*
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.dbllawyers.com%2fattorney%2falex-butterman%2f&c=E,1,T3fmbVo7MWmiIcJvLr0vx-U9lJ_2AXEckc-aqYIJ1KBeG48Cc0ICCr5xwNW9XmY9Evl2LmNAz8Ou3IRYaNAB2F9nvm59pTUyC1MbDlG9DpL-xHEBqGdq-a2D&typo=1>
>
> A blue and white logo Description automatically generated
>
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.dbllawyers.com%2fempowering-innovators%2f&c=E,1,Z-vaG-waAdGmESU4ivqyPD-oXQVsTArwP4GM8uLIY_29My7tf8cHYv8Zr46AnRZE0n8N7aDoa4uWE-FsJpFSt4nWktQ6DkGWHL9YnkIBc7Om1JoGb1g,&typo=1>
>
> This electronic message contains information from Dunlap Bennett &
> Ludwig PLLC and may be confidential or privileged. If you are not
> the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, or use of the
> contents is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error,
> please notify us and delete the message without copying or
> disclosing it.
>
> *From:*E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> *On
> Behalf Of *Laura Geyer via E-trademarks
> *Sent:* Monday, October 21, 2024 12:34 PM
> *To:* For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to
> seek legal advice. <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> *Cc:* Laura Geyer <lgeyer at ndgallilaw.com>
> *Subject:* [EXT] [E-trademarks] Must a genericy refusal be finalized?
>
> Honored colleagues:
>
> So, let’s say hypothetically one had a final refusal to register
> based on mere descriptiveness. However, that refusal also added a
> genericy* “advisory” concluding that “… the trademark examining
> attorney *cannot recommend that applicant amend the application to
> proceed … on the Supplemental Register as possible response
> options to this refusal*.”
>
> Setting aside the mere decriptiveness issue, it appears (based on
> the hypothetical clarification that one might have requested prior
> to throwing away client $$ on a response, an AAU, and lawyer time
> for that stuff) that although refusal based on genericy is one
> based on overlapping but ultimately different grounds, there is no
> need to make that determination final. That builds a grenade into
> an OA -- the only way to find out whether the mark will be
> ultimately refused as generic is to pull the pin and file the AAU
> (blowing the filing fee and lawyer time to do that) and only at
> that point will the mystery be revealed either in an approval or
> the kablooey of a new final refusal. This seems absurd. Why is a
> genericy refusal not (like any ground for refusal) one that must
> be made final with other grounds for refusal in such an OA, since
> there is no need for the evidence of use to be examined in order
> to make that ruling?
>
> And if the grenade is indeed correctly included, what’s the
> betting on ultimate chances of refusal? 95%? 85% 75%?
>
> *[I will persist in using this term – with apologies to Gilbert
> and Sullivan]
>
> /“Genericy, genericy”/
>
> /The OED cries “heresy”/
>
> /But other terms are awkward, see/
>
> /So let’s all use “genericy”/
>
> *Laura Talley Geyer*| *Of Counsel*
>
> **
>
> *ND Galli Law LLC*
>
> 1200 G Street, N.W., Ste 800
>
> Washington, DC 20005
>
> Tel: (202) 599-9019 (direct)
>
> https://ndgallilaw.com/laura-geyer/
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fndgallilaw.com%2flaura-geyer%2f&c=E,1,3F_1EkoAbmE6FpzwthqH6oEUCk0nfEzvUubrmPuWFzZMIiVtrIqlyHidn_5KgKyaAVrmxmEC2zrKWRKjeVduv09vGuO7r7UC_cBlgUmgNLIP9w,,&typo=1&ancr_add=1>
>
> https://ndgallilaw.com/
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fndgallilaw.com%2f&c=E,1,SEuwx6soIcaz8xNxlEOLohOMHBlyl7096dQkvDYlQFxddc7FsS4fiJC2VSPwnwK7lZWkQScDDk6n1eQj1zsm7B-Aytd-qYezFIlZ4uBbi0OF3Js,&typo=1&ancr_add=1>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20241022/a19c71d5/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 34793 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20241022/a19c71d5/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 160153 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20241022/a19c71d5/attachment-0001.png>
More information about the E-trademarks
mailing list