United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application

 

 

 

FINAL OFFICE ACTION

 

The USPTO must receive applicant’s response to this letter within six months of the issue date below or the application will be abandoned.  Respond using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) and/or Electronic System for Trademark Trials and Appeals (ESTTA).  A link to the appropriate TEAS response form and/or to ESTTA for an appeal appears at the end of this Office action. 

 

 

Issue date:  October 07, 2021

 

This letter responds to applicant’s communications filed June 30, 2021 in which applicant divided its application and amended the identification of services, submitted a disclaimer, and argued against the refusal under Section 2(e)(1).

 

The amended identification of services and disclaimer are acceptable and have been entered into the record.

 

Applicant’s arguments have been considered and found unpersuasive. The refusal under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1) is now made FINAL for the reasons set forth below.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b).

 

 

SECTION 2(e)(1) REFUSAL - MERELY DESCRIPTIVE – MADE FINAL

 

Registration is refused because the applied-for mark merely describes a feature of applicant’s services.  Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); see TMEP §§1209.01(b), 1209.03 et seq. This refusal is maintained and made final.

 

A mark is merely descriptive if it describes an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose, or use of an applicant’s services.  TMEP §1209.01(b); see, e.g., In re TriVita, Inc., 783 F.3d 872, 874, 114 USPQ2d 1574, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (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)). 

 

Applicant’s proposed mark is SCRIPT PARTNER PHARMACY. The applicant’s specified services are “Online retail pharmacy services; Mail order pharmacy services; Health benefit and prescription hub services, namely, determining and communicating health benefit price comparison information on behalf of patients and providers; Business administration of pharmacy reimbursement programs and services and patient reimbursement programs; patient relationship management services.”

 

Descriptiveness is considered in relation to the relevant services.  DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1254, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 2012).  “That a term may have other meanings in different contexts is not controlling.” Robinson v. Hot Grabba Leaf, LLC, 2019 USPQ2d 149089, at *5 (TTAB 2019) (citing In re Canine Caviar Pet Foods, Inc., 126 USPQ2d 1590, 1598 (TTAB 2018)); TMEP §1209.03(e).  “It is well settled that so long as any one of the meanings of a term is descriptive, the term may be considered to be merely descriptive.”  In re Mueller Sports Med., Inc., 126 USPQ2d 1584, 1590 (TTAB 2018) (quoting In re Chopper Indus., 222 USPQ 258, 259 (TTAB 1984)).

 

Generally, if the individual components of a mark retain their descriptive meaning in relation to the services, the combination results in a composite mark that is itself descriptive and not registrable.  In re Fat Boys Water Sports LLC, 118 USPQ2d 1511, 1516 (TTAB 2016) (citing In re Tower Tech, Inc., 64 USPQ2d 1314, 1317-18 (TTAB 2002)); TMEP §1209.03(d); see, e.g., In re Cannon Safe, Inc., 116 USPQ2d 1348, 1351 (TTAB 2015) (holding SMART SERIES merely descriptive of metal gun safes); In re King Koil Licensing Co., 79 USPQ2d 1048, 1052 (TTAB 2006) (holding THE BREATHABLE MATTRESS merely descriptive of beds, mattresses, box springs, and pillows). 

 

Only where the combination of descriptive terms creates a unitary mark with a unique, incongruous, or otherwise nondescriptive meaning in relation to the services is the combined mark registrable.  See In re Colonial Stores, Inc., 394 F.2d 549, 551, 157 USPQ 382, 384 (C.C.P.A. 1968); In re Positec Grp. Ltd., 108 USPQ2d 1161, 1162-63 (TTAB 2013).

 

In this case, both the individual components 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.

 

“Script” is used as an informal term for “a doctor’s prescription,” “partner” is defined as “A person or group that takes part with another or others in doing something,” and a “pharmacy” is “A store where medicinal drugs are dispensed and sold.” See definitions from www.lexico.com attached to the initial Office action and incorporated herein. Additionally, the attached evidence from www.medicinenet.com, www.elationhealth.com, www.cvs.com, and www.rxtran.com shows that “script” is a commonly-used abbreviation for “prescription.” Because this wording is commonly used in the pharmaceutical industry to refer to prescriptions, consumers who encounter the wording “script” used in connection with pharmacy services are likely to interpret “script” as having the same meaning as “prescription.” The attached evidence from www.unmc.edu, www.stevens.edu, www.colorado.aaa.com, and thetruthrx.com and evidence from www.dermrxpharmacy.com, myhealthpass.com, and assets.ctfassets.net attached to the initial Office action and incorporated herein shows that the wording “prescription partner” is used to describe entity that offer pharmacy that provide services to their established customers. Because applicant’s services encompass these types of services and business services in the field of these types of services, and applicant’s mark has the same meaning as “prescription partner pharmacy,” the proposed mark, when viewed as a whole, merely describes a feature of the services.

 

Furthermore, the wording “partners” is commonly used in connection with pharmacies would work with other providers, or “partners” to provide prescriptions. See attached evidence from www.envisionpharmacies.com, www.everydayhealth.com, benefits.mt.gov, and www.medmutual.com. Applicant’s website, www.scriptpartner.com, shows that applicant prescription services are offered in connection with pharmacy partners. Thus, the proposed mark, when viewed as a whole also describes applicant’s services as prescription services offered through pharmacy partners.

 

Applicant argues that the lack of evidence showing third party usage of the wording “script partner” means that the wording is not merely descriptive; however, the fact that an applicant may be the first or only user of a merely descriptive designation does not necessarily render a word or term incongruous or distinctive; as in this case, the evidence shows that SCRIPT PARTNER PHARMACY is merely descriptive.  See In re Fat Boys Water Sports LLC, 118 USPQ2d 1511, 1514 (TTAB 2016); In re Phoseon Tech., Inc., 103 USPQ2d 1822, 1826 (TTAB 2012); TMEP §1209.03(c).

 

Applicant argues that any doubt regarding the mark’s descriptiveness should be resolved on applicant’s behalf.  E.g., In re Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 828 F.2d 1567, 1571 4 USPQ2d 1141, 1144 (Fed. Cir. 1987); In re Grand Forest Holdings, Inc., 78 USPQ2d 1152, 1156 (TTAB 2006).  However, in the present case, the evidence of record leaves no doubt that the mark is merely descriptive.

 

Because the proposed mark is merely descriptive of applicant’s services, the refusal to register on the Principal Register is maintained and made final.

 

 

Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.

 

 

SUPPLEMENTAL REGISTER

 

Although an amendment to the Supplemental Register would normally be an appropriate response to this refusal, such a response is not appropriate in the present case.  The instant application was filed under Trademark Act Section 1(b) and is not eligible for registration on the Supplemental Register until an acceptable amendment to allege use meeting the requirements of 37 C.F.R. §2.76 has been timely filed.  37 C.F.R. §2.47(d); TMEP §§816.02, 1102.03.

 

If applicant files an acceptable allegation of use and also amends to the Supplemental Register, the application effective filing date will be the date applicant met the minimum filing requirements under 37 C.F.R. §2.76(c) for an amendment to allege use.  TMEP §§816.02, 1102.03; see 37 C.F.R. §2.75(b).  In addition, the undersigned trademark examining attorney will conduct a new search of the USPTO records for conflicting marks based on the later application filing date.  TMEP §§206.01, 1102.03.

 

Although registration on the Supplemental Register does not afford all the benefits of registration on the Principal Register, it does provide the following advantages to the registrant:

 

(1)        Use of the registration symbol ® with the registered mark in connection with the designated goods and/or services, which provides public notice of the registration and potentially deters third parties from using confusingly similar marks.

 

(2)        Inclusion of the registered mark in the USPTO’s database of registered and pending marks, which will (a) make it easier for third parties to find it in trademark search reports, (b) provide public notice of the registration, and thus (c) potentially deter third parties from using confusingly similar marks.

 

(3)        Use of the registration by a USPTO trademark examining attorney as a bar to registering confusingly similar marks in applications filed by third parties.

 

(4)        Use of the registration as a basis to bring suit for trademark infringement in federal court, which, although more costly than state court, means judges with more trademark experience, often faster adjudications, and the opportunity to seek an injunction, actual damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

 

(5)        Use of the registration as a filing basis for a trademark application for registration in certain foreign countries, in accordance with international treaties.

 

See 15 U.S.C. §§1052(d), 1091, 1094; J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks & Unfair Competition §§19:33, 19:37 (rev. 4th ed. Supp. 2017).

 

 

How to respond.  Click to file a request for reconsideration of this final Office action that fully resolves all outstanding requirements and refusals and/or click to file a timely appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) with the required filing fee(s).

 

 

/Kristina Morris/

Kristina Morris

Examining Attorney

Law Office 116

571-272-5895

kristina.morris@uspto.gov (informal queries only)

 

 

RESPONSE GUIDANCE

• Missing the response deadline to this letter will cause the application to abandon.  A response or notice of appeal must be received by the USPTO before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period.  TEAS and ESTTA maintenance or unforeseen circumstances could affect an applicant’s ability to timely respond.  

 

• Responses signed by an unauthorized party are not accepted and can cause the application to abandon.  If applicant does not have an attorney, the response must be signed by the individual applicant, all joint applicants, or someone with legal authority to bind a juristic applicant.  If applicant has an attorney, the response must be signed by the attorney.

 

• If needed, find contact information for the supervisor of the office or unit listed in the signature block.