To:
`
`Subject:
`
`Sent:
`
`Sent As:
`
`Attachments:
`
`Panasonic Corporation (docketingtm@hdp.com)
`
`U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 86467760 - CYCLONIC INVERTER - 9432-200569
`
`1/15/2015 6:58:46 AM
`
`ECOM114@USPTO.GOV
`
`Attachment - 1
`Attachment - 2
`Attachment - 3
`Attachment - 4
`Attachment - 5
`Attachment - 6
`Attachment - 7
`Attachment - 8
`Attachment - 9
`Attachment - 10
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
`OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
`
`(cid:160) (cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`(cid:160)M
`
`ARK: CYCLONIC INVERTER
`
`U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. (cid:160) 86467760
`
`CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS:
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160) (cid:160) (cid:160) GEOFFREY D. AURINI
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160) (cid:160) (cid:160) HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C.
`(cid:160) (cid:160) (cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`5445 CORPORATE DRIVE
`(cid:160) (cid:160) (cid:160)(cid:160) (cid:160) (cid:160) SUITE 200
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160) (cid:160) TROY, MI 48098
`APPLICANT: Panasonic Corporation
`
`*86467760*
`
`(cid:160)C
`
`LICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER:
`http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp
`
`VIEW YOUR APPLICATION FILE
`
`(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)
`CORRESPONDENT E-MAIL ADDRESS:(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`(cid:160) 9432-200569
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`docketingtm@hdp.com
`
`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.
`
`OFFICE ACTION
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`SSUE/MAILING DATE: 1/15/2015
`
`TEAS PLUS APPLICANTS – TO MAINTAIN REDUCED FEE, ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS MUST BE MET, INCLUDING
`SUBMITTING DOCUMENTS ONLINE:(cid:160) Applicants who filed their application online using the lower-fee TEAS Plus application form must
`(1) continue to submit certain documents online using TEAS, including responses to Office actions (see TMEP §819.02(b) for a complete list of
`these documents); (2) accept correspondence from the USPTO via e-mail throughout the examination process; and (3) maintain a valid e-mail
`address.(cid:160) See 37 C.F.R. §2.23(a)(1), (a)(2); TMEP §§819, 819.02(a).(cid:160) TEAS Plus applicants who do not meet these three requirements must
`submit an additional fee of $50 per international class of goods and/or services.(cid:160) 37 C.F.R. §2.6(a)(1)(iv); TMEP §819.04.(cid:160) However, in certain
`
`situations, authorizing an examiner’s amendment by telephone will not incur this additional fee. (cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney.(cid:160) Applicant must respond timely and completely to
`
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`

`

`the issue(s) below.(cid:160) 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(a), 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.
`
`SUMMARY OF ISSUES that applicant must address:
`
`Section 2(d) refusal.
`Section 2(e)(1) refusal.(cid:160)
`Information.
`
`SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
`
`Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 1622330.(cid:160) Trademark
`Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.(cid:160) See the enclosed registration.
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he applicant has applied to register the mark CYCLONIC INVERTER and design for microwave ovens.(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`The registered mark is CYCLONIC COOKING for a counter top oven.
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`rademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that so resembles a registered mark that it is likely a potential consumer
`would be confused, mistaken, or deceived as to the source of the goods and/or services of the applicant and registrant.(cid:160) See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).(cid:160)
`A determination of likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d) is made on a case-by case basis and the factors set forth in In re E. I. du Pont de
`Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973) aid in this determination.(cid:160) Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp., Inc., 637
`F.3d 1344, 1349, 98 USPQ2d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing On-Line Careline, Inc. v. Am. Online, Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1085, 56 USPQ2d
`1471, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2000)).(cid:160) Not all the du Pont factors, however, are necessarily relevant or of equal weight, and any one of the factors may
`control in a given case, depending upon the evidence of record.(cid:160) Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp., Inc., 637 F.3d at 1355, 98 USPQ2d at
`1260; In re Majestic Distilling Co., 315 F.3d 1311, 1315, 65 USPQ2d 1201, 1204 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476
`F.2d at 1361-62, 177 USPQ at 567.
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`n this case, the following factors are the most relevant:(cid:160) similarity of the marks, similarity and nature of the goods and/or services, and similarity
`of the trade channels of the goods and/or services.(cid:160) See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1361-62, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In
`re Dakin’s Miniatures Inc. , 59 USPQ2d 1593, 1595-96 (TTAB 1999); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he overriding concern is not only to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods and/or services, but to protect the registrant from
`adverse commercial impact due to use of a similar mark by a newcomer.(cid:160) See In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1208, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1690
`(Fed. Cir. 1993).(cid:160) Therefore, any doubt regarding a likelihood of confusion determination is resolved in favor of the registrant.(cid:160) TMEP
`§1207.01(d)(i); see Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1265, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2002); In re Hyper
`Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 464-65, 6 USPQ2d 1025, 1026 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
`
`Similarity of the Marks
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`n the present case, applicant’s proposed mark CYCLONIC INVERTER and design is similar to the registered mark CYCLONIC COOKING. (cid:160)
`When comparing marks, the test is not whether the marks can be distinguished in a side-by-side comparison, but rather whether the marks are
`sufficiently similar in terms of their overall commercial impression that confusion as to the source of the goods and/or services offered under the
`respective marks is likely to result.(cid:160) Midwestern Pet Foods, Inc. v. Societe des Produits Nestle S.A., 685 F.3d 1046, 1053, 103 USPQ2d 1435,
`1440 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Davia, 110 USPQ2d 1810, 1813 (TTAB 2014); TMEP §1207.01(b).(cid:160) The proper focus is on the recollection of the
`average purchaser, who retains a general rather than specific impression of trademarks.(cid:160) United Global Media Grp., Inc. v. Tseng, 112 USPQ2d
`1039, 1049, (TTAB 2014); L’Oreal S.A. v. Marcon , 102 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (TTAB 2012); TMEP §1207.01(b).
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`n this instance, the respective marks create the same general overall commercial impression because the marks share the same sound,
`appearance, and connotation because of the shared identical and dominant first term CYCLONIC.(cid:160) Consumers are generally more inclined to
`focus on the first word, prefix, or syllable in any trademark or service mark.(cid:160) See Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison
`Fondee En 1772, 396 F. 3d 1369, 1372, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1692 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Presto Prods., Inc. v. Nice-Pak Prods., Inc., 9 USPQ2d 1895,
`1897 (TTAB 1988) (“it is often the first part of a mark which is most likely to be impressed upon the mind of a purchaser and remembered”
`when making purchasing decisions).
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he applicant’s limited design element does not obviate the refusal. (cid:160) For a composite mark containing both words and a design, the word
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`

`

`portion may be more likely to be impressed upon a purchaser’s memory and to be used when requesting the goods and/or services. (cid:160) Joel Gott
`Wines, LLC v. Rehoboth Von Gott, Inc., 107 USPQ2d 1424, 1431 (TTAB 2013) (citing In re Dakin’s Miniatures, Inc. , 59 USPQ2d 1593, 1596
`(TTAB 1999)); TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii); see In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908, 1911 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing CBS
`Inc. v. Morrow, 708 F. 2d 1579, 1581-82, 218 USPQ 198, 200 (Fed. Cir 1983)).(cid:160) Thus, although such marks must be compared in their entireties,
`the word portion is often considered the dominant feature and is accorded greater weight in determining whether marks are confusingly similar,
`even where the word portion has been disclaimed.(cid:160) In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d at 1366, 101 USPQ2d at 1911 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing Giant
`
`Food, Inc. v. Nation’s Foodservice, Inc. , 710 F.2d 1565, 1570-71, 218 USPQ2d 390, 395 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`Nor does the fact that the remaining words in the marks are different obviate the refusal.(cid:160) Marks may be confusingly similar in appearance where
`similar terms or phrases or similar parts of terms or phrases appear in the compared marks and create a similar overall commercial impression.(cid:160)
`See Crocker Nat’l Bank v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce , 228 USPQ 689, 690-91 (TTAB 1986), aff’d sub nom. Canadian Imperial
`Bank of Commerce v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n , 811 F.2d 1490, 1495, 1 USPQ2d 1813, 1817 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (finding COMMCASH and
`COMMUNICASH confusingly similar); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65, 66 (TTAB 1985) (finding CONFIRM and
`CONFIRMCELLS confusingly similar); In re Pellerin Milnor Corp., 221 USPQ 558, 560 (TTAB 1983) (finding MILTRON and
`MILLTRONICS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii).
`
`Additionally, the likelihood of confusion in this case is increased because the goods are legally identical.(cid:160) Where the goods and/or services of an
`applicant and registrant are identical or virtually identical, the degree of similarity between the marks required to support a finding of likelihood
`of confusion is not as great as in the case of diverse goods and/or services.(cid:160) See United Global Media Grp., Inc. v. Tseng, 112 USPQ2d 1039,
`1049 (TTAB 2014) (quoting Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Century Life of Am., 970 F.2d 874, 877, 23 USPQ2d 1698, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 1992));
`TMEP §1207.01(b).
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`hus, upon encountering applicant’s proposed mark CYCLONIC INVERTER and design for microwave ovens and registrant’s mark
`CYCLONIC COOKING for a counter top oven, consumers are likely to be confused and mistakenly believe that the respective closely related
`goods emanate from a common source.
`
`Relatedness of the Goods and/or Services
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he respective goods of the parties are closely related.(cid:160) The goods and/or services of the parties need not be identical or even competitive to find
`a likelihood of confusion.(cid:160) See On-line Careline Inc. v. Am. Online Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1086, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1475 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Recot,
`Inc. v. Becton, 214 F.3d 1322, 1329, 54 USPQ2d 1894, 1898 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“[E]ven if the goods in question are different from, and thus not
`related to, one another in kind, the same goods can be related in the mind of the consuming public as to the origin of the goods.”); TMEP
`
`§1207.01(a)(i).(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`The respective goods and/or services need only be “related in some manner and/or if the circumstances surrounding their marketing [be] such
`that they could give rise to the mistaken belief that [the goods and/or services] emanate from the same source.” (cid:160) Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph
`Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting 7-Eleven Inc. v. Wechsler, 83 USPQ2d 1715, 1724
`(TTAB 2007)); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he applicant’s microwave ovens are closely related to the registrant’s counter top oven because the respective goods are marketed to the same
`type of customers in the same channels of trade.(cid:160) With respect to applicant’s and registrant’s goods and/or services, the question of likelihood
`of confusion is determined based on the description of the goods and/or services stated in the application and registration at issue, not on
`extrinsic evidence of actual use.(cid:160) See Stone Lion Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 1323, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1162 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2014) (quoting Octocom Sys. Inc. v. Hous. Computers Servs. Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 942, 16 USPQ2d 1783, 1787 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`In this case, the identification set forth in the application and registration(s) has no restrictions as to nature, type, channels of trade, or classes of
`purchasers.(cid:160) Therefore, it is presumed that these goods and/or services “travel in the same channels of trade to the same class of purchasers.” (cid:160) In
`re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d
`1261, 1268, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).(cid:160) Further, the registration uses broad wording to describe the goods and this wording is
`presumed to encompass all goods of the type described, including those in applicant’s more narrow identification. (cid:160) See In re Jump Designs, LLC,
`80 USPQ2d 1370, 1374 (TTAB 2006) (citing In re Elbaum, 211 USPQ 639, 640 (TTAB 1981)).(cid:160) For example, the registrant’s goods are
`presumed to include every type of oven that may be used on a counter top, including microwave ovens.
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`herefore, because the marks share the identical and dominant wording CYCLONIC and the goods are legally identical, there is a likelihood of
`confusion as to the source of applicant’s goods. (cid:160) Consequently, the applicant’s mark is not entitled to registration.
`
`(cid:160)A
`
`lthough applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal(s) by submitting evidence and arguments in
`support of registration.
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`

`

`ADDITIONAL REFUSAL: SECTION 2(e)(1) REFUSAL - MERELY DESCRIPTIVE
`
`Registration is refused because the applied-for mark merely describes a feature of applicant’s goods. (cid:160) Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C.
`§1052(e)(1); see TMEP §§1209.01(b), 1209.03 et seq.
`
`(cid:160)A
`
` mark is merely descriptive if it describes an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose, or use of an applicant’s goods
`and/or services.(cid:160) TMEP §1209.01(b); see, e.g., DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1251, 103 USPQ2d 1753,
`1755 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 1173, 71 USPQ2d 1370, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004)); In re
`Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293, 1297, 75 USPQ2d 1420, 1421 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Estate of P.D. Beckwith, Inc. v. Comm’r of Patents ,
`
`252 U.S. 538, 543 (1920)).(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`The determination of whether a mark is merely descriptive is made in relation to an applicant’s goods and/or services, not in the abstract. (cid:160)
`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). (cid:160)(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)T
`
`he applicant’s proposed mark is CYCLONIC INVERTER and design for microwave ovens. (cid:160) When considered in relation to the identified
`goods, the proposed mark immediately describes a feature of the goods.(cid:160) The registrations claimed by the applicant disclaim the term
`INVERTER which is evidence of the merely descriptive nature of the proposed mark in relation to the goods.(cid:160) The attached dictionary definition
`defines CYCLONIC as “any of various centrifugal devices for separating materials.” (cid:160) Therefore, the plain meaning of CYCLONIC INVERTER
`immediately tells the customer that the goods contain or use an inverter with a cyclonic feature.(cid:160) The attached internet evidence shows that
`CYCLONIC has a merely descriptive meaning in the relevant trade or industry and/or as applied to the applicant’s goods. (cid:160) Material obtained
`from the internet is generally accepted as competent evidence.(cid:160) See In re Davey Prods. Pty Ltd., 92 USPQ2d 1198, 1202-03 (TTAB 2009)
`(accepting internet evidence to show relatedness of goods in a likelihood of confusion determination); In re Rodale Inc., 80 USPQ2d 1696, 1700
`(TTAB 2006) (accepting Internet evidence to show genericness); In re White, 80 USPQ2d 1654, 1662 (TTAB 2006) (accepting internet evidence
`to show false suggestion of a connection); In re Joint-Stock Co. “Baik”, 80 USPQ2d 1305, 1308-09 (TTAB 2006) (accepting internet evidence to
`show geographic significance); In re Consol. Specialty Rests. Inc., 71 USPQ2d 1921, 1927-29 (TTAB 2004) (accepting internet evidence to show
`geographic location is well-known for particular goods); In re Gregory, 70 USPQ2d 1792, 1793, 1795 (TTAB 2004) (accepting internet evidence
`to show surname significance); In re Fitch IBCA Inc., 64 USPQ2d 1058, 1060-61 (TTAB 2002) (accepting internet evidence to show
`descriptiveness); TBMP §1208.03; TMEP §710.01(b).(cid:160) As such, the proposed mark is merely descriptive of the applicant’s goods.
`
`(cid:160)N
`
`or is the applicant’s limited design element sufficient to allow a disclaimer of the merely descriptive terms in the proposed mark. (cid:160) See In re
`Gear International Trading Company, Serial No. 75459796 (TTAB 2002) (not precedential) (“ . . . we agree with the examining attorney that the
`design consists of a common geometric shape and that it functions merely as a background carrier for the word portion of the proposed mark, we
`conclude that the design is not inherently distinctive.”)
`
`(cid:160)A
`
`lthough applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal(s) by submitting evidence and arguments in
`support of registration.
`
`A mark in an application under Trademark Act Section 1(b) is not eligible for registration on the Supplemental Register until an acceptable
`amendment to allege use under 37 C.F.R. §2.76 has been filed.(cid:160) 37 C.F.R. §§2.47(d), 2.75(b); TMEP §§815.02, 1102.03.(cid:160) When a Section 1(b)
`application is successfully amended to the Supplemental Register, the effective filing date of the application will be the date on which applicant
`met the minimum filing requirements of 37 C.F.R. §2.76(e) for the amendment to allege use.(cid:160) 37 C.F.R. §2.75(b); TMEP §§816.02, 1102.03.
`
`(cid:160)A
`
`lthough registration on the Supplemental Register does not afford all the benefits of registration on the Principal Register, it does provide the
`following advantages:
`
`The registrant may use the registration symbol ®;
`The registration is protected against registration of a confusingly similar mark under Trademark Act Section 2(d);
`The registrant may bring suit for infringement in federal court; and
`The registration may serve as the basis for a filing in a foreign country under the Paris Convention and other international agreements.
`
`(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)
`(cid:160)
`

`

`See 15 U.S.C. §§1052(d), 1091, 1094; TMEP §815.
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`o amend the application filing basis from an intent-to-use application under Trademark Act Section 1(b) to a use in commerce basis under
`Section 1(a), applicant must file, prior to approval of the mark for publication, an amendment to allege use that satisfies the requirements of 37
`C.F.R. §2.76.(cid:160) See 15 U.S.C. §1051(c); 37 C.F.R. §2.35(b)(8); TMEP §§806.01(b), 1103.
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he following must be submitted in an amendment to allege use in order to amend an application to use in commerce under Section 1(a):
`
`(1)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`The following statement:(cid:160) “ Applicant is believed to be the owner of the mark and that the mark is in use in commerce.”
`
`(2)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`The date of first use of the mark anywhere on or in connection with the goods and/or services.
`
`(3)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`The date of first use of the mark in commerce as a trademark or service mark.
`
`(4)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`A specimen showing actual use of the mark in commerce for each class of goods and/or services for which use is being asserted.(cid:160) If a
`single specimen supports multiple classes, applicant should indicate which classes the specimen supports rather than providing
`multiple copies of the same specimen.
`
`(5)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`A filing fee of $100 per class for each international class of goods and/or services for which use is being asserted (current fee
`information should be confirmed at http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/tm_fee_info.jsp).
`
`(6)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`Verification of the above (1) through (3) requirements in an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20.
`
`(cid:160)S
`
`ee 37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(2), 2.56, 2.76(b), 2.193(e)(1); TMEP §§1104.08, 1104.10(b)(v).
`
`(cid:160)A
`
`mendments to allege use can be filed online at http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/index.jsp.(cid:160) Filing an amendment to allege use does not
`extend the deadline for filing a response to an outstanding Office action.(cid:160) TMEP §1104.
`
`If applicant responds to the refusal(s), applicant must also respond to the requirement(s) set forth below.
`
`INFORMATION ABOUT GOODS/SERVICES REQUIRED
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`o permit proper examination of the application, applicant must submit additional information about the goods.(cid:160) An applicant can be required to
`provide more information if it is necessary for proper examination of the application.(cid:160) 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b); TMEP §§814, 1402.01(e); see In re
`AOP LLC, 107 USPQ2d 1644, 1650-51 (TTAB 2013); In re Cheezwhse.com, Inc., 85 USPQ2d 1917, 1919 (TTAB 2008); In re DTI P’ship LLP ,
`67 USPQ2d 1699, 1701-02 (TTAB 2003).(cid:160) The information requested below is necessary to the examination of the application because it will
`
`provide a more in-depth understanding of the mark and/or issue(s) at hand.(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`Failure to comply with a request for information can be grounds for refusing registration.(cid:160) In re AOP LLC, 107 USPQ2d 1644, 1651 (TTAB
`
`2013); In re DTI P’ship LLP , 67 USPQ2d 1699, 1701-02 (TTAB 2003); TMEP §814.(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`Merely stating that information about the goods or services is available on applicant’s website is an inappropriate response to a request for
`additional information and is insufficient to make the relevant information of record.(cid:160) See In re Planalytics, Inc., 70 USPQ2d 1453, 1457-58
`(TTAB 2004).
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he applicant must directly answer the following question(s) and/or provide the information requested:
`
`(cid:160)1
`
`.(cid:160) Do CYCLONIC, INVERTER, or CYCLONIC INVERTER have any significance as applied to the goods and/or services other than
`trademark and/or service mark significance?(cid:160) NOTE: The applicant may ignore this question if amending the application to the Supplemental
`Register.
`
`(cid:160)2
`
`.(cid:160) Do CYCLONIC, INVERTER, or CYCLONIC INVERTER have any significance in the relevant trade or industry other than trademark
`and/or service mark significance?(cid:160) NOTE: The applicant may ignore this question if amending the application to the Supplemental Register.
`
`(cid:160)3
`
`(cid:160)4
`
`.(cid:160) Does the applicant manufacture or offer any of the goods and/or services that appear in the registrant’s identification of goods?
`
`.(cid:160) If available, the applicant will provide a website address at which the goods and/or services are offered and/or the mark is used.(cid:160) If no website
`
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`

`

`is available, then the applicant will state this fact for the record.
`
`(cid:160)5
`
`.(cid:160) NOTE:(cid:160) Providing a website address does not obviate this requirement.(cid:160) To permit proper examination of the application, applicant must
`submit additional product information about the goods.(cid:160) See 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b); In re AOP LLC, 107 USPQ2d 1644, 1650-51 (TTAB 2013); In
`re Cheezwhse.com, Inc., 85 USPQ2d 1917, 1919 (TTAB 2008); In re DTI P’ship LLP , 67 USPQ2d 1699, 1701-02 (TTAB 2003); TMEP §814.(cid:160)
`The requested product information should include fact sheets, instruction manuals, and/or advertisements.(cid:160) If these materials are unavailable,
`applicant should submit similar documentation for goods of the same type, explaining how its own product will differ.(cid:160) If the goods feature new
`technology and no competing goods are available, applicant must provide a detailed description of the goods.
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he submitted factual information must make clear how the goods operate, their salient features, and their prospective customers and channels of
`trade.(cid:160) Conclusory statements regarding the goods will not satisfy this requirement.(cid:160) NOTE: The applicant may ignore this question if amending
`the application to the Supplemental Register.
`
`(cid:160)6
`
`.(cid:160) Will the microwaves be emitted in, or otherwise be related to, a cyclonic pattern?(cid:160) NOTE: The applicant may ignore this question if amending
`the application to the Supplemental Register.
`
`QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS ACTION
`
`(cid:160)A
`
`s noted above, if applicant has technical questions about the TEAS response to Office action form, applicant can review the electronic filing
`tips available online at http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/e_filing_tips.jsp and send technical questions to TEAS@uspto.gov via e-mail.
`
`For status inquiries, an applicant may check the status of or view documents filed in his or her trademark and/or service mark application or
`registration 24 hours a day, 7 days a week using the Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) database on the USPTO website at
`http://tsdr.uspto.gov/.(cid:160) To obtain this status or view these documents, enter the application serial number or registration number and click on
`“Status” or “Documents.”
`
`For all other non-legal matters, including petitions to revive or reinstate an application, please contact the Trademark Assistance Center (TAC).(cid:160)
`TAC may be reached by e-mail at TrademarkAssistanceCenter@uspto.gov(cid:160) or by telephone at (800) 786-9199.(cid:160) For non-technical matters, TAC
`is open from 8:30 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST), Monday through Friday, except on federal government holidays.(cid:160) A list of
`federal government holidays is available at the following website: http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/snow-dismissal-
`procedures/federal-holidays/#url=2014.
`
`If applicant has questions regarding the legal issues in this Office action, please call the assigned trademark examining attorney.
`
`/Brian Pino/
`Examining Attorney
`Law Office 114
`571.272.9209 Telephone
`571.273.9209 Facsimile
`Brian.Pino2@uspto.gov
`
`TO 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
`
`(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)
`

`

`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) 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)
`

`

`Pri ni: Jan 12, 2015
`
`73807094-
`
`DESIGN MARK
`
`Serial Number
`TBBOTOB4
`
`Status
`REGISTERED AND RENEWED
`
`Word Mark
`CYCLONIC COOKING
`
`Standard Character Merit
`No
`
`Registration Number
`;S2233O
`
`Date Registered
`;SSOx11x13
`
`Type of Marin
`TRADEMARK
`
`Register
`PRINCIPAL
`
`Mark Drawing Code
`[1] TYPED DRAWING
`
`Dwner
`METAL WARE CORPORATION, THE CORPORATION WISCONSIN P.O. BOX 23? TWO
`RIVERS WISCONSIN 5412410237‘
`
`Goodsfserviees
`G 5: S: COUNTER TOP OVEN.
`US U34.
`IC 011.
`Class Status -- ACTIVE.
`Firs: Use:
`l989fO2f22. First Use In Commerce:
`l989HO2f22.
`
`Dieolairner Statement
`NO CLAIM IS MADE TO THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE "COOKING" APART FROM
`THE MARK AS SHOWN.
`
`Filing Date
`IBBSHOEHIE
`
`Examining Attorney
`UNKNOWN
`
`Attorney of Record
`Nicholas A. Keee
`
`

`

`http:/Ivwvw.merriam-webster.comldictionarvIcvc|onic
`
`01l12I2015 10:37:33 AM
`
`
`
`Dictionary
`
`cyclon
`
`
`
`Thesaurus
`mm:
`Enqdn
`
`
`New-r'
`
`
`
`
`save ljliswordloyoulflavoriles
`llyou've Iuggemmu Facebnnk, ynu're reamnn gn
`
`
`
`
`
`cyclone
`
`?!
`.
`Gull
`Tel Your Vocabulary
`THKEDIH 1I)1]IlE5Ii0ll Qllil
`Janlz
`5’
`
`
`flirt rwuu:
`
`C‘II:|mIie region
`cyclonic flan“
`5K-tmnr
`Travel Guanl® Insurance
`...mw.n. Tram ll-are "Err Less‘
`wwwlravelguard cum
`
`\‘sT-l-<lt':n\
`noun
`cy-clone ll)
`: an extremely large, powerful, and
`destructive storm with very high winds
`that turn around an area of low
`Dressure
`
`SCRABBLEE fan? Try our new won-.1 linden! »
`Full Deflnllinll uf (YCLDNE
`1 a: a stnrm or system niwmus that rntates ahnut a
`
`center arluw atmosphem: pressure, advances at a speed cf
`20 to 30 mlles (abuut 30 ca 50 kllumeters) an mm, and men
`
`bangs heavy ram — cv-clon-in 1
`
`alfjeztive
`— I:v-c|nn-i-\:a|-|v «
`adverb
`
` nuns aulxzss
`
`Name That Thing
`Take nurvlsnal vocabulary qmz
`Testvour Knowledge»
`
`True or False?
`A qulck um: abnul sluwwurm Knnwmg
`Take It myw )9
`
`Spell It
`The commonly rmssnellefiwnms am:
`llearlt, Spell n 14
`
`{P33
`
`Lg’
`
`-4'V\\
`
`
`
`

`

`EFEI
`miner
`1'oin 1 n I. I e 1 s »
`ShouldYou "Flush Out" or
`"I'[ahOut“ Your Plan?
`Top I0 C0!nn\nll|y'CnlIfII=NIW(1l(It:_
`vol, 2
`2ul4Wurdufthe Year: cnlnne
`Here's Whal Irlis vears Top LOOEHJDS
`sailAbout Us
`I
`
`‘
`
`
`
`D
`
`http:/Ivwvw.merriam-webster.comldictionarvIcvc|onic
`
`01l12I2015 10:37:33 AM
`adverb
`—I:v-clan-l-tal-Iv 1”
`E7 5* cyclone derned ror Engislrlanguage learners »
`See cyclone deflied fol [dds »
`origin at CYCLONE
`inodiricabon or Greek lryldoi-ria wneel, coil, from kykiourr to go
`arouid, born lcyuos circie
`First Known Use: 154$
`R||Vme5 witll CYCLONE
`agon, aitcnbcne, alone, atone, backbo