From: Yontef, David
`
`
`
`Sent: 6/13/2016 5:39:11 PM
`
`
`
`To: TTAB EFiling
`
`
`
`CC:
`
`
`
`Subject: U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 86499954 - FLIGHTLINK - 004T - Request for
`Reconsideration Denied - Return to TTAB - Message 1 of 2
`
`
`
`*************************************************
`
`Attachment Information:
`
`Count: 13
`
`Files: AS1-1.jpg, AS1-2.jpg, AS2-1.jpg, AS2-2.jpg, AS3-1.jpg, AS3-2.jpg, AS3-3.jpg, AS3-4.jpg, AS4-1.jpg,
`AS4-2.jpg, AS5-1.jpg, AS5-2.jpg, 86499954.doc
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
`OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
`
`
`U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 86499954
`
`
`
`MARK: FLIGHTLINK
`
`
`
`
`
`*86499954*
`
`CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS:
` BRIAN FURRER
`
`
`
`GENERAL TRADEMARK INFORMATION:
`
` PANASONIC AVIONICS CORPORATION
`
`http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/index.jsp
`
` 26200 ENTERPRISE WAY
`
` LAKE FOREST, CA 92630-8400
`
`
`
`APPLICANT: Panasonic Avionics Corporation
`
`
`
`CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO:
`
` 004T
`
`CORRESPONDENT E-MAIL ADDRESS:
`
` brian.furrer@panasonic.aero
`
`
`
`VIEW YOUR APPLICATION FILE
`
`
`
`
`
`REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED
`
`
`
`
`
`ISSUE/MAILING DATE: 6/13/2016
`
`
`This letter confirms applicant’s response filed May 23, 2016.
`
`The trademark examining attorney has carefully reviewed applicant’s request for reconsideration
`and is denying the request for the reasons stated below. See 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b)(3); TMEP
`§§715.03(a)(ii)(B), 715.04(a). The following refusal made final in the Office action dated
`November 30, 2015 is maintained and continued: Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C.
`§1052(e)(1) based on the descriptive nature of the proposed mark. See TMEP §§715.03(a)(ii)(B),
`715.04(a).
`
`

`
`In the present case, applicant’s request has not resolved the outstanding issue, nor does it raise a new
`issue or provide any new or compelling evidence with regard to the outstanding issue in the final Office
`action. In addition, applicant’s analysis and arguments are not persuasive nor do they shed new light on
`the issues.
`
`
`
`Specifically, applicant contends that “FLIGHTLINK does not convey or describe an ingredient, quality,
`characteristic, function, feature, purpose, or use of weather-related services. Nor does the mark
`FLIGHTLINK immediately convey to an average prospective purchaser that Applicant offers services in
`meteorological forecasting, weather information reporting, or weather-related services.”
`
`
`
`However, as noted throughout the prosecution of the present application, the determination of
`whether a mark is merely descriptive is made in relation to an applicant’s services, not in the abstract.
`DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1254, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1757
`(Fed. Cir. 2012); 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, e.g., In re Polo Int’l Inc., 51 USPQ2d 1061, 1062-63 (TTAB
`1999) (finding DOC in DOC-CONTROL would refer to the “documents” managed by applicant’s software
`rather than the term “doctor” shown in a dictionary definition); In re Digital Research Inc., 4 USPQ2d
`1242, 1243-44 (TTAB 1987) (finding CONCURRENT PC-DOS and CONCURRENT DOS merely descriptive of
`“computer programs recorded on disk” where the relevant trade used the denomination “concurrent”
`as a descriptor of a particular type of operating system).
`
`“Whether consumers could guess what the product [or service] is from consideration of the mark
`alone is not the test.” In re Am. Greetings Corp., 226 USPQ 365, 366 (TTAB 1985).
`
`Rather, the question is “whether someone who knows what the goods and[/or] services are will
`understand the mark to convey information about them.” 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). In this case, the evidence of record unequivocally supports the stated refusal. More
`sample Internet printouts from applicant’s website are hereby attached to supplement the record.
`
`Applicant further alleges that the stated refusal should be withdrawn because the examiner improperly
`dissected the wording in the mark. However, a trademark examining attorney may consider the
`significance of each element separately in the course of evaluating the mark as a whole. See DuoProSS
`Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1253, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1756-57 (Fed. Cir.
`2012) (reversing Board’s denial of cancellation for SNAP! with design for medical syringes as not merely
`descriptive when noting that the Board “to be sure, [could] ascertain the meaning and weight of each of
`the components that ma[de] up the mark”); In re Hotels.com, L.P., 573 F.3d 1300, 1301, 1304, 1306, 91
`USPQ2d 1532, 1533, 1535, 1537 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (holding HOTELS.COM generic for information and
`reservation services featuring temporary lodging when noting that the Board did not commit error in
`considering “the word ‘hotels’ for genericness separate from the ‘.com’ suffix”).
`
`

`
`Additionally, applicant posits that the stated refusal is unwarranted because “FLIGHTLINK epitomizes an
`incongruous mark because . . . the term ‘LINK’ relates to a traditional definition of ‘connection,’ and
`there is neither traditional ‘FLIGHTLINK’ nor any definitions explaining that such a concept exists.”
`
`However, the fact that an applicant may be the first or only user of a merely descriptive designation
`does not render a word or term incongruous or distinctive. 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). Furthermore, unlike the mark URBAN SAFARI, the individual components “FLIGHT” and
`“LINK” and the composite result are descriptive of applicant’s services and do not create a unique,
`incongruous, or nondescriptive meaning in relation to the services. TMEP §1209.03(d).
`
`Finally, in response to applicant’s comments regarding third-party registrations previously made of
`record by the examiner, applicant is respectfully advised that some of its comments are unfounded and
`misplaced. In particular, applicant’s asserts that “the third-party registrations cited by the Examiner [do
`not] demonstrate that the terms ‘FLIGHT’ or ‘LINK’ are merely descriptive of weather-related services . .
`. [o]therwise, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) would have not registered the cited third-
`party marks on the Principal Register, or at least, the USPTO would have rejected them as ‘merely
`descriptive,’ which did not occur.”
`
`However, upon a closer review of the cited registrations, the word “FLIGHT” is disclaimed from the
`registered marks FLIGHT SENTINEL and SPIRE FLIGHT SOLUTIONS while the now abandoned mark TIMEX
`DATA LINK was registered on the Supplemental Register.
`
`Third-party registrations featuring goods and services the same as or similar to applicant’s services are
`probative evidence on the issue of descriptiveness where the relevant word or term is disclaimed,
`registered under Trademark Act Section 2(f) based on acquired distinctiveness, or registered on the
`Supplemental Register. See Inst. Nat’l des Appellations D’Origine v. Vintners Int’l Co., 958 F.2d 1574,
`1581-82, 22 USPQ2d 1190, 1196 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Box Solutions Corp., 79 USPQ2d 1953, 1955 (TTAB
`2006); In re Finisar Corp., 78 USPQ2d 1618, 1621 (TTAB 2006).
`
`Moreover third-party registrations are similar to dictionaries showing how language is generally used.
`See, e.g., Tektronix, Inc. v. Daktronics, Inc., 534 F.2d 915, 917, 189 USPQ 693, 694-95 (C.C.P.A. 1976); In
`re J.M. Originals Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1393, 1394 (TTAB 1987); United Foods Inc. v. J.R. Simplot Co., 4 USPQ2d
`1172, 1174 (TTAB 1987). TMEP §1207.01(d)(iii).
`
`As for the third-party registrations relied upon by applicant to dispel the refusal at issue, the marks
`QUIKLINK, ACULINK, NULINK! FLIGHTGUARDIAN and FLIGHTMAX all create vastly different, non-
`descriptive, commercial impressions than the applied-for mark. What’s more, the fact that third-party
`registrations exist for marks allegedly similar to applicant’s mark is not conclusive on the issue of
`descriptiveness. See In re Scholastic Testing Serv., Inc., 196 USPQ 517, 519 (TTAB 1977); TMEP
`§1209.03(a). An applied-for mark that is merely descriptive does not become registrable simply because
`other seemingly similar marks appear on the register. In re Scholastic Testing Serv., Inc., 196 USPQ at
`519; TMEP §1209.03(a).
`
`

`
`It is well settled that each case must be decided on its own facts and the Trademark Trial and Appeal
`Board is not bound by prior decisions involving different records. See In re Nett Designs, Inc., 236 F. 3d
`1339, 1342, 57 USPQ2d 1564, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re Datapipe, Inc., 111 USPQ2d 1330, 1336 (TTAB
`2014); TMEP §1209.03(a). The question of whether a mark is merely descriptive is determined based on
`the evidence of record at the time each registration is sought. In re theDot Commc’ns Network LLC, 101
`USPQ2d 1062, 1064 (TTAB 2011); TMEP §1209.03(a); see In re Nett Designs, Inc., 236 F.3d at 1342, 57
`USPQ2d at 1566.
`
`Based on the foregoing remarks, applicant’s request is denied.
`
`
`
`If applicant has already filed a timely notice of appeal with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, the
`Board will be notified to resume the appeal. See TMEP §715.04(a).
`
`
`
`If no appeal has been filed and time remains in the six-month response period to the final Office action,
`applicant has the remainder of the response period to (1) comply with and/or overcome any
`outstanding final requirement(s) and/or refusal(s), and/or (2) file a notice of appeal to the Board. TMEP
`§715.03(a)(ii)(B); see 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b)(1)-(3). The filing of a request for reconsideration does not stay
`or extend the time for filing an appeal. 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b)(3); see TMEP §§715.03, 715.03(a)(ii)(B), (c).
`
`
`Miscellaneous
`
`
`If applicant has questions about its application or needs further assistance, please telephone the
`assigned trademark examining attorney directly at the number below.
`
`Advisory Regarding E-mail Communications
`
`If applicant has questions regarding this Office action, please telephone or e-mail the assigned
`trademark examining attorney. 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. See 37 C.F.R. §2.191; TMEP
`§§709.04-.05. 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. See TMEP §§705.02,
`709.06.
`
`
`
`

`
`/David Yontef/
`
`Trademark Attorney Advisor
`
`Law Office 118
`
`(571) 272-8274
`
`david.yontef@uspto.gov
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`hrp /iwww pensmonm .=zx=,rnII\ln,wm'Am sh=r.!FAmI:nnnnAmnnmsI mL«9PenA:nr:Ar1war\ne1F\:nhr am»:
`2015 [I5 32 44 PM
`[ISM
`
`
`Panasum: Aworuts Corpurahun
`Panasonnc
`
`AEUUT LS
`
`:'~‘:J_L-I1-JN5
`
`w~" PAN/\5:N|L
`
`*~|FL|<';H SVSTEM5 'VNEL"|“’\’
`
`SE?‘-.‘ LES
`
`Panasonic Avlomcs LIDKS PenAIr to Advanced Fhght Tracking and
`S51: 29
`-
`-
`#w:sdtr
`2015 C0ckpItC0mmumcalIons
`u ;:
`usuc A
`mm '|F'aHd
`
` :1‘
`
`-a‘ h:I1F‘u~fF\nI'w
`.-
`‘V n<.~-. m. M
`mu
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`._« 51‘
`u
`.--- um: ‘I
`V-"_V‘
`
`.H VIN ‘ “
`um .
`V.
`x u \ HLHLJ ..
`-N. m
`w= r-\;.‘-mm lrm)‘. 1--w
`mgnm 1.
`
`
`
`-M5 am ,-‘rveri m 1’ he 2.; er \r; n. a cent: :1 mm
`
`
`‘x,‘5,':<mw,\
`
`“
`
`

`
`I1'a/mnnm pranvrnuz ranrw/I\lv~,wm'fArt wv./I1a'vmnn:r/mammal xnw,F7or./‘mt-Arrzrwe'1F\:nhr mm
`[|'3M3{201B [IE 4 PM
`
`"ch "2
`~~ur:.r
`.
`<1I‘|Hv‘-113 |'»< wn.
`\
`r']'W
`221 n
`: Mu
`
`.1:-re‘. =.»:Iw=x. un=u ‘-
`\H:I‘.=.\.\
`
`I\>.<1\;mx
`
`
`
`
`~_~ —:r W: vmnm Ir
`-1+ —wq~,r—~ aw:
`:.~ 1" a.
`-.".""rn'
`,w-'3
`-V,
`' ms wn:
`-EE|' w:
`u ta’
`
`
`
`,-In. ‘gal: I.
`mm mm
`
`
`
`
`Annu!Panasnm: Avlnnlcs Cnrpnmhan
`.'\1<|*11r“.<I mm
`mm *r”
`x E-n r.
`
`
`.:1.1:‘ m.1e<~ma- ran “fits awe: ‘ul. H...“ae~ 43-; s. r =r:*
`mmw.
`H mm H
`: A mm:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`.u.
`:1
`Dd )4-,u.
`HLHNHCLV n-
`
`.'
`:1 amnu‘
`
`I: y“‘,"\:|
`— .-.‘4u,< x: -u.
`..y.
`, Hman
`.
`.»
`.~: 44-.-..'g"v"' -;--
`‘ M. pl
`“
`.
`“M m, w -
`‘
`\
`u
`w
`-Hw ,
`u
`rm
`:
`
`.'-v-.\Hm'-‘‘w‘'.Il‘1‘
`-
`-
`r “ww
`.-
`n_m mm I‘ m«.:-
` m’ "H :|c- WM mm .4q~~>
`- mm ',1"“'Vvrr‘.
`
` M." W’ M’. x
`u r.
`. wr 71
`
`‘
`
`
`
`
`
`n ma: arm n .r
`-an "m~'11rl|',
`conI:u:LEa.