Applicant SICPA Holding SA ran into double trouble when it applied to register the mark SHIFTMAG for "security consulting in the nature of professional consulting on magnetic stripe color shifting smart designs based on liquid crystal technology for visual card authentication, embed protection and brand identity customization." In a dubiously precedential opinion, the Board agreed with Examining Attorney Brian Pino that SICPA's recitation of services was fatally indefinite, and the Board also upheld a second refusal based on SICPA's failure to respond timely and adequately to a Rule 2.61(b) request for information. In re SICPA Holding SA, Serial No. 88488405 (June 7, 2021) [precedential] (Opinion by Judge Michael B. Adlin).
Indefiniteness: Examining Attorney Pino maintained that, because of the indefiniteness of the recitation of services, they cannot be properly classified. SICPA argued that its is a "one-of-a-kind business entity," that the services it offers are "not in the ID Manual," and that "[n]ot everything in the world is in the ID Manual."
The Board sided with the USPTO, observing that specificity is
required "to provide public notice and to enable the USPTO to
classify the goods and services properly ...." In re Fiat
Grp Mktg. & Corp. Commc'ns. S.p.A.A., 109 USPQ2d 1593,
1597 (TTAB 2014). Moreover, "[i]t is within the discretion of
the PTO to require than one's goods be identified with
particularity." In re Omega SA, 494 F.3d 1362, 83
USPQ2d 1541, 1544 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting In re Water Gremlin
Co., 635 F.2d 841, 208 USPQ 89, 91 (CCPA 1980)).
In In re Omega, the CAFC upheld a requirement that the term "chronographs" be identified more specifically because the term could refer to "watches" in class 14 or to time recording instruments in class 9. Similarly, here the term "security" in SICPA's recitation of services is ambiguous: "it is unclear whether the term refers to data security, as suggested by the services relating to 'card authentication and identification,' or to physical security." SICPA claimed that it "does not do data security," but that did not make the identification less ambiguous. Moreover, it was not clear from SICPA's examples of use whether it was offering a product or a product feature, rather than a service.
While Applicant's product may very well be "one of a kind," that does not excuse Applicant from complying with the requirement to identify its goods or services with sufficient particularity and in an understandable way. Goods and services implementing emerging technologies, by their very nature, may not to be represented in the ID Manual. Nonetheless, the Trademark Rules and decisional law require an applicant to identify its goods or services in a clear manner that permits proper classification. Applicant did not do so here, however.
Request for Information: Under Rule 2.61(b),
"[t]he Office may require the applicant to furnish such
information . . . as may be reasonably necessary to the proper
examination of the application." "Equivocal, vague or
evasive responses are unacceptable." In re AOP LLC ,
107 USPQ2d 1644, 1651 (TTAB 2013). Failure to comply with a request
for information is an independent ground for refusal of an
application. In re Cheezwhse.com Inc., 85 USPQ2d 1917,
1919 (TTAB 2008); In re DTI P'ship LLP , 67 USPQ2d
1699, 1701 (TTAB 2003).
Of the five requests made by the Examining Attorney, SICPA
failed to respond to two of them until its final brief. "But
that was too late."
The Rule's purpose is thwarted , proceedings are unduly prolonged, and the expenditure of agency resources is needlessly increased if the information is not provided until examination is over and the application is on appeal before the Board.
And so, the Board affirmed the second refusal.
Read comments and post your comment here.
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.