The Board affirmed a refusal to register the mark GAUGEWEAR, in standard character form, for biometric data measurement devices (class 9) and various clothing items (class 25), because applicant failed to comply with the Examining Attorney Anne M. Farrell's request for information under Rule 2.61. Applicant provided a link to its website and identified a relevant utility patent, but that was not sufficient. In re gaugewear, Inc., Serial No. 86569473 (August 21, 2017) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Peter W. Cataldo).
The examining attorney requested product information in the
nature of fact sheets, instruction manuals, advertisements, and
other documentation regarding the goods, in order to "make
clear how the goods operate, their salient features, and their
prospective customers and channels of trade." Applicant
referred the examining attorney to its website and suggested that
she peruse a certain utility patent, a copy of which was not
provided.
The examining attorney then repeated the requirement for
information, stating that merely pointing to a website was not a
proper response. The applicant provided nothing further.
On appeal, applicant argued that the examining attorney had in fact
downloaded some material from the website, and so there was no need
to provide more information. As to the patent, applicant pointed
out that it did not just refer to a website, but to a specific
patent number.
The Board found the examining attorney's request for
information to be proper, particularly in a case such as this where
the application is based on intent-to-use. Applicant was afforded
three opportunities to comply and simply failed to do so.
The Board reiterated that providing a hyperlink to Internet
material is not sufficient to make the contents of a website of
record. Moreover, here there was no indication of the extent of the
information on the website or what part of it the examining
attorney downloaded. As to the patent, the USPTO has no duty to
search its records for a referenced patent or take judicial notice
thereof when applicant could easily have provided a copy. To be
sure, the Board does not take judicial notice of USPTO records.
The information required by the Examining Attorney was "reasonably necessary to the proper examination of the application." Trademark Rule 2.61(b). Product information from Applicant's website and patent documentation relating to the goods clearly assist the Examining Attorney in determining, e.g., whether GAUGEWEAR or the terms GAUGE and WEAR comprising the mark are merely descriptive of some or all of the recited goods.
The Board observed that it would have been a simple matter for applicant to supply the requested information. The failure to comply with the request required affirmance of the refusal to register.
TTABlog comment: What a waste of time and money!
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.