Geneharbor (Hong Kong) Biotechnolo-gies Limited

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 8, 2017

No. 86551404 (T.T.A.B. Mar. 8, 2017)

This Opinion is not a
Precedent of the TTAB

Mailed: March 8, 2017

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____

In re Geneharbor (Hong Kong) Biotechnologies Limited
_____

Serial No. 86551404
_____

Bruce B. Brunda of Stetina Brunda Garred & Brucker,
for Geneharbor (Hong Kong) Biotechnologies Limited.
Louis Kolodner, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 122,
John Lincoski, Managing Attorney.
_____

Before Mermelstein, Kuczma and Goodman,
Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Kuczma, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Geneharbor (Hong Kong) Biotechnologies Limited (“Applicant”) seeks registration
on the Principal Register of the mark COENZYMATICS (in standard characters) for
biochemical catalysts; chemical preparations for scientific
purposes, other than for medical veterinary use; chemical
regents, other than medical or veterinary purposes;
chemical preparations for analyses in laboratories, other
than medical or veterinary purposes; chemical substances
for analyses in laboratories, other than medical or
veterinary purposes; biological tissue cultures other than
for medical or veterinary purposes; enzyme preparations
for the food industry; enzymes for the food industry in
International Class 1;
Serial No. 86551404
- 2 -
vitamin preparations; tonics, namely, medicinal tea,
medicinal drinks; drugs for medical purposes, namely, for
boosting the immune system, for detoxifying the body, for
treating diabetes; enzymes preparations for medical
purposes; antioxidant pills; biomedicine, namely,
preparations for boosting the immune system, for
detoxifying the body, for treating diabetes; nutritional
supplements, enzyme dietary supplements; protein dietary
supplements; dietary supplements for animals; protein
supplements for animals in International Class 5; and
fodder containing drugs in International Class 31.1
The Trademark Examining Attorney refused registration of Applicant’s applied-
for mark under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1), on the
ground that it merely describes a characteristic or ingredient of Applicant’s goods,
and also on the ground that Applicant failed to provide information required under
Trademark Rule 2.61(b), 37 CFR § 2.61(b).
After the refusals were made final, Applicant filed a Notice of Appeal and a
Request for Reconsideration requesting suspension of the application pending the
outcome of its appeal. The appeal is fully briefed including Applicant’s Reply brief.
For the reasons set forth below, the refusals to register are affirmed under § 2(e)(1)
and Trademark Rule 2.61(b).
I. Applicant’s Request for Reconsideration requesting suspension of
Application pending outcome of appeal
We first address Applicant’s Request for Reconsideration requesting suspension
of the application pending the outcome of this appeal which was concurrently filed

1 Application Serial No. 86551404 was filed on March 3, 2015, based upon Applicant’s
allegation of a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce for the identified goods under
Section 1(b) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(b).
Serial No. 86551404
- 3 -
with its Notice of Appeal. Upon the filing of the Notice of Appeal, the Board has
jurisdiction over the application. Typically, when an applicant files a notice of appeal
with a request for reconsideration, the Board will acknowledge the appeal, suspend
further proceedings with respect to the appeal, and remand the application to the
examining attorney for review of the request for reconsideration. In re Live Earth
Products Inc., 49 USPQ2d 1063 (TTAB 1998); 37 C.F.R. § 2.63(b)(1); Trademark
Board Manual of Procedure (TBMP) § 1204 (Jan. 2017); Trademark Manual of
Examining Procedure (TMEP) § 715.04 (Jan. 2017).
It does not appear that Applicant’s Notice of Appeal cross-referenced Applicant’s
Request for Reconsideration.2 However, the Acknowledgement of the filing of the
Notice of Appeal issued by the Board advised Applicant that if it “filed with its notice
of appeal, a request for reconsideration, … applicant should contact the Board at 571-
272-8500 and speak to the paralegal to whom this appeal has been assigned.” (2
TTABVUE). There is no indication that Applicant contacted the Board after filing its
Request for Reconsideration.
Under the circumstances of this case, whether or not the file was remanded to the
Examining Attorney for review of the Request for Reconsideration does not impact
the outcome. Rule 2.63(b)(1) permits an applicant to file a request for reconsideration
that seeks to overcome any substantive refusal to register, and comply with any

2 The ESTTA notice of appeal form which Applicant used includes a check box for Applicant
to indicate that a request for reconsideration is pending or will be filed simultaneous with
the appeal. Had Applicant checked the box, the pendency of a request for reconsideration
would have been noted in the notice of appeal generated by ESTTA, and the resulting
institution order would have automatically remanded the application for reconsideration by
the Examining Attorney. Neither happened in this case.
Serial No. 86551404
- 4 -
outstanding requirement maintained in a final action. Applicant’s Request for
Reconsideration seeks suspension of the application pending the outcome of this
appeal. Inasmuch as the Request for Reconsideration seeks something other than to
overcome the substantive refusal and comply with any outstanding requirements, it
is denied. In any event, Applicant’s request for suspension was unnecessary because
when a timely appeal is filed, examination of the application ceases and jurisdiction
passes to the TTAB pending the outcome of the appeal.
II. Descriptiveness
Applicant’s applied-for mark was refused registration in the three Classes set
forth above on the ground that it describes a characteristic and an ingredient of
Applicant’s goods. Applicant contends that the applied-for mark is not descriptive of
its goods but rather is suggestive of them.
A term is merely descriptive within the meaning of § 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act
if it immediately conveys knowledge of an ingredient, quality, characteristic,
function, feature, composition, purpose or use of the goods with which it is used. In re
Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 102 USPQ2d 1217, 1219 (Fed. Cir.
2012); In re Gyulay, 820 F.2d 1216, 3 USPQ2d 1009 (Fed. Cir. 1987); see also In re
TriVita, Inc., 783 F.3d 872, 114 USPQ2d 1574 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Moreover, a mark
does not need to be merely descriptive of all the goods or services specified in an
application. In re Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 102 USPQ2d at 1219; In re
Franklin Cnty. Historical Soc’y, 104 USPQ2d 1085, 1089 (TTAB 2012). “A
descriptiveness refusal is proper ‘if the mark is descriptive of any of the [goods or]
Serial No. 86551404
- 5 -
services for which registration is sought.’” In re Chamber of Commerce of the U.S.,
102 USPQ2d at 1219 (quoting In re Stereotaxis Inc., 429 F.3d 1039, 77 USPQ2d 1087,
1089 (Fed. Cir. 2005)).
Descriptiveness of a mark is not considered in the abstract. In re Chamber of
Commerce of the U.S., 102 USPQ2d at 1219. Rather, it is considered in relation to the
particular goods for which registration is sought, the context in which it is being used,
and the possible significance that the term would have to the average purchaser of
the goods because of the manner of its use or intended use. See In re Bayer
Aktiengesellschaft, 488 F.3d 960, 82 USPQ2d 1828, 1831 (Fed. Cir. 2007); In re Abcor
Development Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 200 USPQ 215, 217-18 (CCPA 1978). A term need
not immediately convey an idea of each and every specific feature of the applicant’s
goods or services in order to be considered merely descriptive; it is enough that the
term describes one significant attribute, function or property of the goods or services.
In re Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 102 USPQ2d at 1219; In re Oppedahl &
Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 71 USPQ2d 1370, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re
H.U.D.D.L.E., 216 USPQ 358, 359 (TTAB 1982); see also TMEP §1209.01(b).
Applicant contends that its applied-for mark cannot be deemed merely descriptive
because the term “COENZYMATICS” does not describe the various goods in question,
i.e., biochemical catalysts, enzyme preparation for the food industry, vitamin
preparations, medicinal tea, enzyme preparation for medical purposes, fodder
containing drugs, etc. Additionally, Applicant argues that consumers and potential
Serial No. 86551404
- 6 -
consumers of Applicant’s goods are not likely to divine any qualities or characteristics
of Applicant’s goods by seeing Applicant’s mark “COENZYMATICS.”3
Evidence submitted by the Examining Attorney shows that the term
“coenzymatic” is an adjective relating to coenzymes which are “nonproteinaceous
organic substance[s] that usually contain[ ] a vitamin or mineral and combine[ ] with
a specific protein, the apoenzyme, to form an active enzyme system.”4 Applicant’s
goods include, among other items, “enzyme preparations for the food industry,”
“enzymes for the food industry,” “enzymes preparations for medical purposes,”
“enzyme dietary supplements,” and “fodder containing drugs.” Therefore, as applied
to Applicant’s goods, the Examining Attorney contends the term “coenzymatics”
merely describes a characteristic or ingredient of the goods, i.e., that the goods include
a nonprotein organic substance containing a vitamin or mineral that combines with
a protein to form an active enzyme system. See In re TriVita, Inc., 114 USPQ2d 1574
(holding NOPALEA merely descriptive of dietary and nutritional supplements
containing nopal juice); In re Andes Candies Inc., 478 F.2d 1264, 178 USPQ 156
(CCPA 1973) (holding CREME DE MENTHE merely descriptive of candy); In re
Keebler Co., 479 F.2d 1405, 178 USPQ 155 (CCPA 1973) (holding RICH ‘N CHIPS
merely descriptive of chocolate chip cookies); In re Entenmann’s, Inc., 15 USPQ2d
1750 (TTAB 1990) (holding OATNUT merely descriptive of bread containing oats and

3 Applicant’s Brief p. 5 (4 TTABVUE 10).
4 June 15, 2015 Office Action p. 27 (citing The American Heritage Dictionary of the English
language. Boston, MA; Houghton Mifflin. Retrieved from http://search.credoref
erence.com/content /entry/hmdictenglang/coenzyme/0. Copyright © 2011, 2007, 2000 by
Houghton Mifflin Company).
Serial No. 86551404
- 7 -
hazelnuts); Flowers Indus., Inc. v. Interstate Brands Corp., 5 USPQ 2d 1580 (TTAB
1987) (holding HONEY WHEAT merely descriptive of bread containing honey and
wheat). Applicant does not contest the definition of “coenzymatic” or deny that its
products contain “coenzymatic” ingredients.
In addition to the definition of “coenzymatic,” the Internet evidence introduced by
the Examining Attorney shows that enzymes and coenzymes are an ingredient in
goods that are similar to those that Applicant describes in its identification of goods,
and that the term “coenzymatic” is frequently used to describe the ingredients or
characteristics of goods such as medicines, weight-loss medications, vitamins, and
vitamin supplements, each of which frequently contain coenzymes to treat various
symptoms and health conditions. Representative examples showing use of the term
“coenzymatic” include the following5:
• SansecoHealth.com advertises that Contegra™
“supplies B vitamins in the coenzymatic and/or
phosphorylated form, critical for proper
neurotransmitter function.”
http://www. sanes cohealth.com/contegra 06/15/ 2015;
• PrepareMD.com explains “Pantethine is the
coenzymatic form of vitamin B5…may increase
levels of coenzyme A. Increased levels of coenzyme A
can increase the beta oxidation of fatty acids
directly.”
http://www.preparemd.com/supplements-vitamins-cate
gories-information/panthethine-lowers-cholesterol-and-
triglycerides/ 06/15/2015;
• NowFoods.com notes that “… B-12 has gradually
become recognized for its coenzymatic properties

5 See attachments to June 15, 2015 Office Action (pp. 2, 5, 9, 11, 13, 17-20 of 33).
Serial No. 86551404
- 8 -
and important assistance for the production of
healthy red blood cells.”
http://www.nowfoods.com/Vitamin-B-12-1000mcg-100-
Chewable-Lozenges.htm 06/15/2015;
• SuperSup.com advertises Country Life Coenzyme B-
Complex Caps “Contains all of the Essential B-
Vitamins in their Active Coenzymatic Forms.”
http://www.supersup.com/country-life-coenzyme-b-com
plex-caps-240-vegetarian-capsules-015794064169
06/15/2015;
• NaturalHealthyConcepts.com states “These coenzy-
matic B vitamins are essential for proper amino acid
metabolism, neurological health, and many other
biochemical functions.”
http://www.natural healthyconcepts.com/tri-phos-b-90-
p-montiff.html 06/15/2015;
• BioActiveNutritional’s Blog notes states:
“A whole vitamin consists of not only the organic
nutrients identified as the vitamin, but also
enzymes, coenzymes, antioxidants, and the trace
element activators that are required for proper
function. …”
“The active form of thiamin as a coenzyme is
thiamim pyroshosphate….”
“Riboflavin functions in two important enzymes,
FMN and FAD, involved in energy production.
Vitamin B2 functions primarily in various coenzyme
components of cellular respiration, i.e., the
mitochondrial energy system,” and that “Its major
importance stems from the fact that energy
production by the mitochondria cannot proceed
without these coenzymes containing vitamins B2
….”
“Niacin, also known as vitamin B3, functions in the
body as a component in the coenzymes NAD and
NADP, which are involved in well over 50 different
chemical reactions in the body. … Its major
Serial No. 86551404
- 9 -
functions are as a coenzyme in tissue respiration and
carbohydrate and lipid metabolism.”
“Nicotinamide coenzymes also participate in other
(nonredox) biological reactions that involve ADP-
ribosylations.”
https://bioactivenutritional.wordpress.com/growform%
C2%AE-food-concentrate/ 06/15/2015.
The evidence shows that goods similar or identical to those goods listed in
Applicant’s application are promoted by third parties as containing coenzymatic form
ingredients. For example, Applicant’s goods include “biochemical catalysts.” A
biochemical catalyst is “[a] substance, especially an enzyme, that initiates or modifies
the rate of a chemical reaction in a living body.”6 As noted above, the evidence
submitted from PrepareMD.com claims that in its coenzymatic form, vitamin B5 may
“increase levels of coenzyme A. Increased levels of coenzyme A can increase the beta
oxidation of fatty acids directly.”7 Thus, vitamin B5 in its coenzymic form increases
levels of coenzyme A which modifies the rate of the chemical reaction of the beta
oxidation of fatty acids acting as a biochemical catalyst.

6 The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright ©
2016 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. http://www.thefreedictionary.com
/biocatalyst.
The Board may sua sponte take judicial notice of dictionary definitions, Univ. of Notre Dame
du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imp. Co., 213 USPQ 594 (TTAB 1982), aff’d, 703 F.2d 1372, 217
USPQ 505 (Fed. Cir. 1983), including definitions in online dictionaries that exist in printed
format or have regular fixed editions. In re Cordua Rests. LP, 110 USPQ2d 1227, 1229 n.4
(TTAB 2014), aff’d, 823 F.3d 594, 118 USPQ2d 1632 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See also Trademark
Trial and Appeal Board Manual of Procedure (“TBMP”) § 1208.04 (Jan. 2017).
7 See attachments to June 15, 2015 Office Action from PrepareMD http://www. prepare
md.com/supplements-vitamins-categories-information/panthethine-lowers-cholesterol-and-
triglycerides/ (p. 9 of 37).
Serial No. 86551404
- 10 -
Applicant’s goods also include “vitamin preparations.” The evidence from the
Sanesco website explains that “vitamins in the coenzymatic … form [are] critical for
proper neurotransmitter function;”8 the PrepareMD.com website claims that in its
coenzymatic form, vitamin B5 increases the levels of coenzyme A9; the
SuperSupplements website advertises Country Life Coenzyme B-Complex Caps, 240
Vegetarian Capsules containing all of the essential B-vitamins in their active
coenzymatic forms.10
Additional goods covered in Applicant’s application include “enzymes
preparations for medical purposes,” “drugs for medical purposes, namely, for boosting
the immune system, for detoxifying the body, for treating diabetes,” and “biomedicine,
namely, preparations for boosting the immune system, for detoxifying the body, for
treating diabetes.” As noted above, Sanseco reports that B vitamins in their
coenzymatic form are “critical for neurotransmitter function”11; the Now website
states B-12’s coenzymatic properties assist in the production of healthy red blood
cells12; and NaturalHealthyConcepts notes “coenzymatic B vitamins are essential for

8 See attachments to June 15, 2015 Office Action from http://sanescohealth .com/contegra/
(p. 6 of 37).
9 See attachments to June 15, 2015 Office Action from http://www.preparemd.com/
supplements-vitamins-categories-information/panthethine-lowerslcholesterol-and-triglyceri
des (p. 9 of 37).
10 See attachments to June 15, 2015 Office Action from http://www.supersub.com/country-
life-coenzyme-b-complex-caps-240-vegetarian-capsules-015794064169 (p. 15 of 37).
11 See attachments to June 15, 2015 Office Action from http://sanescohealth.com/contegra/
(p. 6 of 37).
12 See attachments to June 15, 2015 Office Action from http://www.nowfoods.com/Vitamin-
B-12-1000mcg-100-Chewable-Lozenges.htm (p. 13 of 37).
Serial No. 86551404
- 11 -
proper amino acid metabolism, neurological health, and many other biochemical
functions.”13
Thus, as applied to the identified goods, the term COENZYMATICS clearly and
immediately conveys that the goods are in coenzymatic form or feature coenzymatic
properties requiring no thought or imagination necessary to understand the
connection between the mark and the goods.
Attempting to distinguish such evidence, Applicant notes that there “is no record
of” any definition or use of the term COENZYMATICS14 and that the addition of the
letter -S at the end of the applied-for mark masks the meaning of the term
“coenzymatic.”15 Although Applicant argues that “coenzymatic” and “coenzymatics”
have different meanings, there is no evidence establishing a different meaning
conveyed by the two terms. While a trademark must always be evaluated
individually, pluralization commonly does not alter the meaning of a mark. See In re
Cordua Rests., Inc., 823 F.3d 594, 118 USPQ2d 1632, 1637 (Fed. Cir. 2016); In re
Belgrade Shoe Co., 411 F.2d 1352, 162 USPQ 227, 227 (CCPA 1969); Wilson v.
Delaunay, 245 F.2d 877, 114 USPQ 339, 341 (CCPA 1957). Thus, there is no material
difference between “coenzymatic” and “coenzymatics.”
Applicant also argues “that it might just as easily be speculated that the term
‘COENZYMATICS’ relates, for example, to a field of study relating to coenzymes, e.g.

13 See sanescohealth.com/, June 15, 2015 Office Action, 6 TSDR at 2-4 of 33; nowfoods.com/,
June 15, 2015 Office Action, 6 TSDR at 9-10 of 33; naturalhealthyconcepts.com/, June 15,
2015 Office Action, 6 TSDR at 13-14 of 33.
14 Applicant’s Brief p. 5 (4 TTABVUE 10).
15 Applicant’s Brief p. 7 (4 TTABVUE 12).
Serial No. 86551404
- 12 -
mathematic/mathematics.”16 “Applicant submits that some degree of imagination is
needed for a typical consumer to hear the term ‘COENZYMATICS’ and to determine
whether the term is used in relation to a coenzyme including product, a study of a
particular type of coenzyme activity, or has some other meaning.”17 Applicant
criticizes the Examining Attorney’s assertion that the term “COENZYMATICS”
merely describes certain products arguing that it appears to be based on little more
than conjecture, is without a support, and does not exclude at least equally plausible
constructions of the term which are not descriptive of Applicant’s goods arguing that
“[w]here there are numerous definitions or interpretations possible for a given term,
this precludes a finding that such term can be merely descriptive under the
Trademark Act.”18
Applicant argues that where there are numerous definitions or interpretations
possible for a given term, this precludes a finding that such term is merely
descriptive, citing Henry Siegel Co. v. M & R Int’l Mfg. Co., 4 USPQ2d 1154 (TTAB
1987) (finding that the mark CHIC for women’s jeans “projects a double meaning, i.e.,
a double entendre,” and thus is not merely descriptive); In re Colonial Stores, Inc.,
157 USPQ 382 (CCPA 1968) (finding the mark SUGAR & SPICE as a combination
mark, would evoke the nursery rhyme to one familiar with such phrase, and this dual
association prevented the mark from being merely descriptive); In re National Tea

16 Applicant’s Brief p. 7 (4 TTABVUE 12).
17 Applicant’s Brief p. 8 (4 TTABVUE 13).
18 Applicant’s Brief p. 7 (4 TTABVUE 12).
Serial No. 86551404
- 13 -
Co., 144 USPQ 286 (TTAB 1965) (finding that the mark NO BONES ABOUT IT for
fresh pre-cooked ham had a double connotation or significance and was not merely
descriptive); In re Grand Metropolitan Foodservice, Inc., 30 USPQ2d 1974 (TTAB
1994) (finding the mark MufFuns was not merely descriptive of the applicant’s mini-
muffins since the mark projected a dual meaning or suggestiveness).19 These cases
are not supportive of Applicant’s position. No showing of different definitions or
interpretations for the term “COENZYMATICS” has been made.
Applicant’s applied-for mark, unlike the marks in the foregoing cases, does not
project a dual meaning, i.e., a double entendre, or suggestiveness. The fact that a
term has more than one definition does not mean that it is registrable as a trademark
for goods of which it is descriptive. Because the term “COENZYMATICS” merely
describes a characteristic or ingredient of the goods, or as Applicant asserts without
support, the study of coenzymes, it is descriptive in relation to at least some of the
recited goods and does not create any double entendre or incongruity. There is no
other conclusion as to the meaning of the term “COENZYMATICS” as applied to
goods that are coenzymatic in nature, whether because they contain coenzymes or
have other coenzymatic features.
That the applied-for mark “COENZYMATICS” cannot be considered merely
descriptive because consumers confronted with the term would be unable to
determine the nature of the goods is also flawed. Whether consumers could guess
what the product is from consideration of the mark alone is not the test. In re

19 Applicant’s Brief p. 7 (4 TTABVUE 12).
Serial No. 86551404
- 14 -
Accelerate s.a.l., 101 USPQ2d 2047, 2051 (TTAB 2012); In re Am. Greetings Corp.,
226 USPQ 365, 366 (TTAB 1985). The question is not whether someone presented
only with the mark could guess what the goods are, but “whether someone who knows
what the goods [and services] are will understand the mark to convey information
about them.” DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247,
103 USPQ2d 1753, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Tower Tech, Inc., 64 USPQ2d
1314, 1316-17 (TTAB 2002)); In re Franklin Cnty. Historical Soc’y, 104 USPQ2d 1085,
1087 (TTAB 2012). Here, someone who knows what the goods are would clearly
understand the mark to convey information about the goods.
While any doubt regarding the mark’s descriptiveness should be resolved on
Applicant’s behalf, In re ActiveVideo Networks, Inc., 111 USPQ2d 1581, 1605 (TTAB
2014), here there is no doubt. As supported by the evidence of record, the proposed
mark, COENZYMATICS, is merely descriptive of Applicant’s goods. The commercial
impression of the applied-for mark corresponds with the accepted definition and
usage of the term “coenzymatic” in commerce. Therefore, when the mark is analyzed
in relation to Applicant’s goods, it is merely descriptive of a characteristic or
ingredient of the goods, and thus cannot be registered as a trademark on the Principal
Register. Therefore, registration is refused under § 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act.
III. Failure to Comply with Request for Information
The Examining Attorney maintains that Applicant failed to respond to his request
for information pursuant to Rule 2.61(b), 37 CFR § 2.61(b). In the first Office Action,
the Examining Attorney explained that in order to “permit proper examination of the
Serial No. 86551404
- 15 -
application, applicant must submit additional product information about the goods.”
The Examining Attorney further explained what the information “should include”
and noted that merely “stating that information about the goods is available on
applicant’s website is an inappropriate response … and is insufficient to make the
relevant information of record.” The Examining Attorney also advised Applicant that
“[f]ailure to comply with a request for information can be grounds for refusing
registration.” Applicant did not address the request for information in its Response
to Office Action dated December 15, 2015.
In the Final Office Action, the Examining Attorney reiterated the request for
information again advising Applicant that failing to provide the information can be
grounds for refusing registration. The Examining Attorney advised Applicant in both
the first Office Action and the Final Office Action that the information from
Applicant’s website was not sufficient and that Applicant needed to supply additional
information responsive to the queries.
Applicant did not respond to the request for information. When it filed its appeal
brief, Applicant noted that “[its] mark is not in use at this time and … there is no
information regarding specific products for which the mark is or will be used.
However, information respecting information [sic] from Applicant’s website,
indicating the general nature of Applicant’s goods, was provided by Examining
Attorney in the initial Office action dated June 15, 2015.”20

20 Fn.2, Applicant’s Brief p. 11 (4 TTABVUE 16).
Serial No. 86551404
- 16 -
Trademark Rule 2.61(b), 37 CFR § 2.61(b), provides that the examining attorney
“may require the applicant to furnish such information, exhibits … as may be
reasonably necessary to the proper examination of the application.” If an applicant
fails to comply with the examining attorney’s requirement under Trademark Rule
2.61(b), registration of an applicant’s mark may be refused on that basis. See In re
AOP LLC, 107 USPQ2d 1644, 1651 (TTAB 2013); In re Cheezwhse.com Inc., 85
USPQ2d 1917, 1919 (TTAB 2008); In re Planalytics Inc., 70 USPQ2d 1453 (TTAB
2004); In re DTI Partnership LLP, 67 USPQ2d 1699, 1701 (TTAB 2003).
Applicant did not comply with the requirement for providing more specific
information, or advise that there was no information regarding specific products for
which the mark would be used, during the pendency of its application. Although
Applicant belatedly advised in its Appeal Brief that its mark is not in use and that
there is no information regarding specific products for which the mark is or will be
used, Applicant failed to timely meet the requirement for providing more specific
information.
Decision: The refusal to register Applicant’s applied-for mark COENZYMATICS
under § 2(e)(1), and the refusal to register for failing to respond to the request for
information pursuant to Trademark Rule 2.61(b), are affirmed.