Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
ESTTA Tracking number: ESTTA1078878
Filing date: 09/01/2020
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Proceeding 88632909
Applicant Superior Balance S.L.
Applied for Mark Y-STRAP
CorrespondenceAddress
AVRAHAM S.Z. COHNCOHN LEGAL, PLLC325 W 38TH ST., SUITE 711NEW YORK, NY 10018UNITED STATESPrimary Email: [email protected]
Submission Appeal Brief
Attachments Y-STRAP EX PARTE APPEAL BRIEF FINAL.pdf(1125192 bytes )
Filer's Name Avraham S.Z. Cohn
Filer's email [email protected]
Signature /Avraham S.Z. Cohn/
Date 09/01/2020
Application Serial No. 88632909 Appeal Brief
1
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________________________________
Applicant: SUPERIOR BALANCE S.L.
Mark: Y-STRAP
Serial No.: 88632909
Filing Date: September 26, 2019
Examining Attorney: Dezmona Mizelle-Howard
Law Office: 110
APPLICANT’S EX PARTE APPEAL BRIEF
Application Serial No. 88632909
Appeal Brief
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………….… 3
STATEMENT OF THE CASE…………………………………….…. 4
THE TRADEMARK
APPLICATION………......……………………………………....….… 4
ARGUMENT…………………………………………..…………….… 4
A. The Link Between the TM and the Goods/Services is
Ambiguous, Limited, and Non-Descriptive…………………………….. 4
B. Applicant’s Mark is Suggestive and Not Descriptive…………... 7
CONCLUSION……………………………………………………….…8
EXHIBITS
Application Serial No. 88632909
Appeal Brief
3
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
In re Bayer, 488 F.3d at 964, 82 USPQ2d at 1831………………………….………… 5,7
In re Chamber of Commerce, 675 F.3d at 1300, 102 USPQ2d at 1219…………...….. 5,7
In re Geo. A. Hormel & Co., 218 USPQ 286, 287 (TTAB 1983) ……………………….8
In re Grand Metropolitan Foodservices, 30 USPQ2d at 1976…………………………..8
In re Gyulay, 820 F.2d 1216, 3 USPQ2d 1009, 1009 (Fed. Cir. 1987)…….……….… 5,7
In re MBNA America Bank N.A., 340 F.3d 1328, 67 USPQ2d 1778, 1780 (Fed. Cir.
2003)……………………………………………………………………………………..5
In re Microsoft Corp., 68 USPQ2d 1195, 1200-1 (TTAB 2003) ………………...……..8
In re Plus Products v. Medical Modalities Associates, Inc., 211 USPQ 1199, 1204-1205 (TTAB
1981) ………………………….…………………………………………………………5
In re Shutts, 217 USPQ 363, 364-65 (TTAB 1983)………………………………..……7
In re Tennis in the Round, Inc., 199 USPQ 496, 498 (TTAB 1978)……………………7,8
In re TMS Corp. of the Americas, 200 USPQ 57, 59 (TTAB 1978) ………………...….8
In re Universal Water Sys., Inc., 209 USPQ 165, 166 (TTAB 1980)………………...…7
Other Authorities
15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1)……………………………………………………………….…..4
TMEP § 1209.01(b)…………………………………………………………….…….………..4
Exhibits
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
Application Serial No. 88632909
Appeal Brief
4
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present brief is in response to the Final Office Action dated July 16, 2020, issued for
U.S. Serial No. 88632909 (“Application”) for the Mark Y-STRAP (“Mark”). The Examining
Attorney (EA) has refused registration under Section 2(e) on the grounds that the applied-for mark
purportedly merely describes a feature/purpose/function of applicant’s goods. 15 U.S.C.
§1052(e)(1); see TMEP §1209.01(b). For the reasons discussed below, Applicant respectfully
disagrees with EA’s refusal of the applied for mark on the basis of Section 2(e) and requests
reconsideration of the Merely Descriptive objection.
THE TRADEMARK APPLICATION
Applicant applied for the trademark, Y-STRAP, in relation to a physical exercise device.
Specifically, the application covered the following;
CL 010 for “Physical exercise apparatus, for medical purposes; Posture correction device, namely, an adjustable harness to correct one's posture
for medical purposes; Stretching machines for therapeutic purposes;
Traction apparatus for medical use”
ARGUMENTS
A. The Link Between the TM and the Goods is Ambiguous, Ill-Defined, and Non-Descriptive
The Examining Attorney (EA) has refused registration under Section 2(e) on the grounds
that applied-for mark merely describes a feature/purpose/function of applicant’s goods. A term is
“merely descriptive” within the meaning of Section 2(e)(1) if it “immediately conveys knowledge
Application Serial No. 88632909
Appeal Brief
5
of a quality, feature, function, or characteristic of the goods or services with which it is used.”
Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 102 USPQ2d at 1219 (quoting Bayer AG, 82 USPQ2d at 1831).
The thrust of the inquiry as to whether or not a mark is viewed as descriptive is the extent to which
the mark describes, with a “degree of particularity”, an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function,
feature, purpose of the specific good. See In re Gyulay, 820 F.2d 1216, 3 USPQ2d 1009 (Fed. Cir.
1987); Plus Products v. Medical Modalities Associates, Inc., 211 USPQ 1199, 1204-1205 (TTAB
1981). Conversely, when the given mark requires imagination and perception in order to understand
the specific qualities and characteristics of the goods, the mark is suggestive. In re MBNA America
Bank N.A., 340 F.3d 1328, 67 USPQ2d 1778, 1780 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Presently, Applicant seeks registration of the mark Y-STRAP in standard characters for use
in connection with a physical exercise apparatus in CL 010. The Examining Attorney has alleged
that Applicant’s mark is merely descriptive because of a few pieces of Internet evidence which
purport to show that, “Y Strap refers to a chiropractic technique which features a ‘Y-Axis Traction
strap’ which is ‘used to stretch the neck by putting a long-axis stretch/movement (distraction force
through the spinal joints associated ligaments and muscles.’ See Office Action of July 20, 2020, p.
2. Because the mark, so the theory goes, describes the nature of the Goods sold, the trademark is
Descriptive.
However, this analysis is fundamentally flawed as it erroneously takes for granted that “Y-
Axis Traction Strap”, and as a derivative, “Y-Strap”, is a meaningful and significant term of art
within the physical therapy space, to justify the conclusion that the Mark is Descriptive of the
Goods. This conclusion is both ill conceived and woefully insufficient to justify a Section 2(e)
Descriptiveness refusal.
The Examining Attorney has effectively manufactured and relied upon the following false
syllogism:
Application Serial No. 88632909
Appeal Brief
6
1. Y-Axis Traction Strap is a common and well-understood term of art in the domain of
physical therapy
2. Y-Strap is a derivative of the commonly understood and used term of art, Y-Axis Traction
Strap
3. Because Y-Axis Traction Strap is Descriptive of the Goods sold, Y-Strap must also be
considered Descriptive of the Goods sold
Of course, the moment one understands that Y-Axis Traction Strap is not an inherently descriptive,
clinical, and accepted term of art within this space, the syllogism falls apart and “Y-Strap”, as a
derivative formulation of Y-Axis Traction Strap, cannot be considered Descriptive.
What evidence does the Examining Attorney invoke to demonstrate the commonality of Y-
Axis Traction Strap? The Examining Attorney in her Final Office Action has cited to several
websites, which make use of this terminology and show images of products that are either
Applicant’s product or seemingly Applicant’s product, but this does not in any way substantiate the
proposition that Y-Axis Traction Strap is an inherently common and/or Descriptive term in the
physical therapy space; certainly, none of the evidence proves that Y-Axis Traction Strap is a
clinical term by any stretch of the imagination and the referenced websites merely demonstrate the
increasing ubiquity of Applicant’s product and brand which Applicant has worked hard to build.
Applicant’s product is well known in this industry and to this end, Applicant has obtained FDA
approval on its product, which is listed, in the FDA database under its proprietary name, Y-Strap.
See Attached Exhibit A. Applicant’s website has developed the phrase Y-Axis Traction Strap and
that certain informational articles on errant websites reference Applicant’s product in conjunction
with Applicant’s phrase does not render the term, Y-Axis Traction Strap inherently common and/or
descriptive in this domain of inquiry. Because Y-Axis Traction Strap is not inherently descriptive,
it would be wrong to suggest that it’s derivation, Y-Strap, is inherently descriptive.
Finally, it worth briefly noting that the Examining Attorney’s inclusion of screenshots of
the Amazon results page for the search, “Y Strap Neck Chiropractor” works against, rather than in
Application Serial No. 88632909
Appeal Brief
7
favor, of the Examining Attorney’s position that “Y Strap” is somehow a common and descriptive
term in the context of this industry. The results of the search, as demonstrated by the products
proposed by Amazon in the evidence file, represent a clumsy but ineffectual attempt by Amazon’s
search algorithms to find products that match the search description. Of course, there are no exact
matches and indeed none of the items represented in the Examining Attorney’s evidence even show
“Y Strap” mentioned in the descriptions of these represented products. And yet, if “Y-Strap” is
simply a common term of art which is ubiquitous and standard to the industry, surely at least some
of the products recovered by the Amazon search result would show these words. They don’t. Why?
Because Y-Strap is not a common term of art in this industry and for Applicant’s product in
particular.
B. Applicant’s Mark is Suggestive and Not Descriptive
A term is “merely descriptive” within the meaning of Section 2(e)(1) if it “immediately
conveys knowledge of a quality, feature, function, or characteristic of the goods or services with
which it is used.” Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 102 USPQ2d at 1219 (quoting Bayer AG, 82
USPQ2d at 1831). “On the other hand, if one must exercise mature thought or follow a multi-stage
reasoning process in order to determine what product or service characteristics the term indicates,
the term is suggestive rather than merely descriptive.” In re Tennis in the Round, Inc., 199 USPQ
496, 498 (TTAB 1978); see also In re Gyulay, 820 F.2d 1216, 3 USPQ2d 1009, 1009 (Fed. Cir.
1987); In re Shutts, 217 USPQ 363, 364-65 (TTAB 1983); In re Universal Water Sys., Inc., 209
USPQ 165, 166 (TTAB 1980).
Can it seriously be argued that Y-Strap immediately conveys knowledge of a quality,
feature, function or characteristic of the applied for Goods?
Even assuming for the moment that Y-Axis Traction Strap is Descriptive vis-à-vis the
Application Serial No. 88632909
Appeal Brief
8
Goods (which for the foregoing reasons Applicant argues would be a mistake to conclude), it does
not stand to reason that Y-Strap, which is a severe and reductionist variation of Y-Axis Traction
Strap, is Descriptive. Instead, Y-Strap is surely the sort of name which requires one to exercise
mature thought or follow a multi-stage reasoning process of the sort contemplated in In re Tennis
to understand what product is sold under the banner of the trademark. The applied-for-mark, “Y-
STRAP”, is simply, far too ambiguous and nebulous to reasonably claim that it immediately
describes the significant features and characteristics of its product with the requisite degree of
particularity to satisfy a Descriptiveness refusal. See In re TMS Corp. of the Americas, 200 USPQ
57, 59 (TTAB 1978). Given this accepted standard, Applicant respectfully submits that a sufficient
amount of thought and imagination is required to understand the nature of Applicant’s goods and
therefore the mark should be viewed as suggestive and not descriptive.
CONCLUSION
Trademark law demands that the burden is on the Office to marshal a prima facie case of
descriptiveness under Section 2(e). In re Microsoft Corp., 68 USPQ2d 1195, 1200-1 (TTAB 2003).
To meet this enormous burden, the Examining Attorney must present substantial evidence that the
mark is merely descriptive. Id. Critically, a “mere scintilla” of evidence of descriptive use is not
sufficient. Id. “[A]ny doubt with respect to the issue of descriptiveness should be resolved in
applicant’s behalf.” In re Grand Metropolitan Foodservices, 30 USPQ2d at 1976; see also In re
Geo. A. Hormel & Co., 218 USPQ 286, 287 (TTAB 1983). Given the lack of evidence submitted
by the Examining Attorney regarding the descriptiveness of Applicant’s trademark and the
foregoing arguments to the contrary, there is at the very least some doubt whether Applicant’s Y-
Strap mark is suggestive or merely descriptive. Trademark jurisprudence holds that doubts must be
resolved in Applicant’s favor. Applicant respectfully requests that its mark be approved for
Application Serial No. 88632909
Appeal Brief
9
publication without further delay.
Respectfully submitted,
Date: August 11, 2020 By: /Avraham S.Z. Cohn/
Avraham S.Z. Cohn
Cohn Legal, PLLC
325 w. 38th St., Suite 711 New York, NY 10018
EXHIBIT A
8/11/2020 Establishment Registration & Device Listing
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfRL/rl.cfm?lid=642073&lpcd=HST 1/2
New Search Back To Search Results
Proprietary Name: Y-StrapClassification Name: APPARATUS, TRACTION, NON-POWEREDProduct Code: HST6
Device Class: 1Regulation Number: 888.58507
Medical Specialty: OrthopedicRegistered Establishment Name: SUPERIOR BALANCE SL8
Registered Establishment Number: 3016445625 Owner/Operator: Superior Balance SL9
Owner/Operator Number: 10062384 Establishment Operations: Manufacturer
Links on this page:1й http:ккwwwйaddthisйcomкbookmarkйphp?u508=true&v=152&username=fdamain
2й http:ккwwwйaddthisйcomкbookmarkйphp
3й https:ккwwwйfdaйgovк
4й https:ккwwwйfdaйgovкMedicalиDevices
5й https:ккwwwйfdaйgovкmedicalиdevicesкdeviceиadviceиcomprehensiveиregulatoryиassistanceкmedicalиdeviceиdatabases
6й кscriptsкcdrhкcfdocsкcfPCDкclassificationйcfm?ID=3899
7й кscriptsкcdrhкcfdocsкcfCFRкCFRsearchйcfm?FR=888й5850
8й кscriptsкcdrhкcfdocsкcfRLкrlйcfm?rid=237918
9й кscriptsкcdrhкcfdocsкcfRLкrlйcfm?start_search=1&OwnerOperatorNumber=10062384
Page Last Updated: 08к10к2020
Note: If you need help accessing information in different file formats, see Instructions for Downloading Viewersand Playersй Language Assistance Available: Español | 繁體中⽂ | Tiếng Việt | 한국어 | Tagalog | Русс Kreyòl Ayisyen | العربیة | | Français | Polski | Português | Italiano | Deutsch | ⽇本語 | فارسی | English
Accessibility Contact FDA Careers FDA Basics FOIA No FEAR Act Nondiscrimination Website Policies
UйSй Food and Drug Administration10903 New Hampshire Avenue Silver Spring, MD 20993 Phй 1и888иINFOиFDA (1и888и463и6332)Contact FDA
For Government For Press
Combination Products Advisory Committees Science & Research Regulatory Information Safety EmergencyPreparedness International Programs News & Events Training and Continuing EducationInspectionsкCompliance State & Local Officials Consumers Industry Health Professionals FDA Archive
Establishment Registration & Device ListingFDA Home3 Medical Devices4 Databases5
8/11/2020 Establishment Registration & Device Listing
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfRL/rl.cfm?lid=642073&lpcd=HST 2/2
Links on this page:1й http:ккwwwйaddthisйcomкbookmarkйphp?u508=true&v=152&username=fdamain
2й http:ккwwwйaddthisйcomкbookmarkйphp
3й https:ккwwwйfdaйgovк
4й https:ккwwwйfdaйgovкMedicalиDevices
5й https:ккwwwйfdaйgovкmedicalиdevicesкdeviceиadviceиcomprehensiveиregulatoryиassistanceкmedicalиdeviceиdatabases
6й кscriptsкcdrhкcfdocsкcfPCDкclassificationйcfm?ID=3899
7й кscriptsкcdrhкcfdocsкcfCFRкCFRsearchйcfm?FR=888й5850
8й кscriptsкcdrhкcfdocsкcfRLкrlйcfm?rid=237918
9й кscriptsкcdrhкcfdocsкcfRLкrlйcfm?start_search=1&OwnerOperatorNumber=10062384
EXHIBIT B
8/11/2020 What is the Y-Strap tool? - Y-Strap
https://y-strap.com/what-is-the-y-strap-tool/ 1/8
COVID-19 Update: All orders are shipped on same or next business day with freecomplimentary Express Shipping. Read more
What is the Y-Strap tool? November 24, 2019 One Comment
Introduction: What is the Y-Strap tool?The Y-Strap tool is a stretching tool to perform manual spine decompression.
This spine stretching tool allows spine stretching by supporting the sub-occipital region of the skull to decompress the cervical, dorsal and lumber partsof the spine.
In this blog post we will talk about the Y-Strap and other tools used for spineand cervical decompression.
Privacy & Cookies Policy
0
8/11/2020 What is the Y-Strap tool? - Y-Strap
https://y-strap.com/what-is-the-y-strap-tool/ 2/8
Why is this stretching tool called a Y-Strap?The Y-Strap, or y-axis traction strap to be more specific, gets its name from thebody axis (Y-Axis) where the force takes place.
The Y-Axis, also known as vertical axis is aligned with the spine, head andlegs.
Privacy & Cookies Policy
8/11/2020 What is the Y-Strap tool? - Y-Strap
https://y-strap.com/what-is-the-y-strap-tool/ 3/8
After fastening the Y-Strap to the user’s head size with the small adjuster, thetwo “arms” lead to the handle bar of the y-strap that is used to perform the ystrap stretch in the y-axis of the user’s body.
Inversion spinal stretching by Teeter (EZ-UP INVERSION)
Spinal traction and decompressionPrivacy & Cookies Policy
8/11/2020 What is the Y-Strap tool? - Y-Strap
https://y-strap.com/what-is-the-y-strap-tool/ 4/8
Spinal traction is a technique used to stretch the spine, by stretching it thediscs between the vertebrae get decompressed. The main goal of stretchingthe spine is relaxing muscles, increasing the intervertebral foramina gap (thespace between vertebrae) and reduce pressure on the nerves that exist in thespine.
There are many ways to decompress the spine, some of them are:
Gravity streching: hanging from the feet, inverted, to stretch the lowerand upper spine.Fully manual decompression: Using the hands to grip the back of thehead and the forehead to pull the head in the Y-Axis.Manual tool-aided decompression: Many tools are available to helpstretch the spine. To apply force they use rubber bands, weights, gravityor human strength to decompress the spine.Mechanical/powered spine decompression: Machines that are designedto execute spine decompression automatically and use electric power.
Manual vs Motorized mechanical tractionManual traction has been chosen for decades as it is simple to perform,requires no expensive equipment, and the person practicing the stretch can getcontinuous verbal and tactile feedback. It can, however, be physicallydemanding and it requires focusing on the task, while motorized solutions donot need human interaction during while stretching motion happens.
Motorized solutions use a harness to hold the hip or the head and generatecontinuous or intermittent traction. These options are usually significantly moreexpensive than manual alternatives.
Privacy & Cookies Policy
8/11/2020 What is the Y-Strap tool? - Y-Strap
https://y-strap.com/what-is-the-y-strap-tool/ 5/8
What is a chin strap and what is it neededfor?The Y-Strap works on its own with most users but, as the anatomic differencesbetween humans are significant, some users with less-pronounced occipitalbone may find the Y-Strap to slip.
This is when the chin strap comes into play. The chin strap allows ourcustomers to be able to perform the Y-strap stretch on any occipital anatomy.
The chin strap is an extra piece of padded strap that is attached to the main Y-Strap via a reusable velcro system over the user’s chin to firmly stabilize theuser’s head within the Y-Strap.
Privacy & Cookies Policy
8/11/2020 What is the Y-Strap tool? - Y-Strap
https://y-strap.com/what-is-the-y-strap-tool/ 6/8
Buy Y-Strap
1 thought on “What is the Y-Strap tool?”
Dr. Joseph ArevaloJune 18, 2020
Great product!!!My patients love the Y-strap!!!Makes it so much easier on my hands as well.
Reply
Leave a ReplyYour email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Comment
Privacy & Cookies Policy
8/11/2020 What is the Y-Strap tool? - Y-Strap
https://y-strap.com/what-is-the-y-strap-tool/ 7/8
Name *
Email *
Website
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
Post Comment
Payment methods
Follow us
About usPrivacy & Cookies Policy
8/11/2020 What is the Y-Strap tool? - Y-Strap
https://y-strap.com/what-is-the-y-strap-tool/ 8/8
Frequently Asked QuestionsRefunds and returns
Privacy Policy
Contact
Feel free to call us:
+1 6282511063
+34 910606434
Privacy & Cookies Policy