UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
|
U. S. APPLICATION SERIAL NUMBER: 76/435102
U. S. REGISTRATION NUMBER: 2,977,021
|
*2977021* |
|
CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS:
Elaine Scribner 11213 Jerryson Drive Grand Ledge, MI 48837
|
RETURN ADDRESS:
Commissioner for Trademarks P.O. Box 1451 Alexandria, VA 22313-1451
|
|
MARK: CARTWHEELS
APPLICANT/REGISTRANT: Cartwheels, Inc.
|
ISSUE/MAILING DATE: December 19, 2014 |
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: CARTWHEELS 4
CORRESPONDENT’S EMAIL ADDRESS:
|
|
Dear Ms. Scribner:
This letter acknowledges receipt of your petition to the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office dated November 14, 2014 to reinstate the above-identified registration.
On January 3, 2011, Cartwheels, Inc. (petitioner) timely filed a combined Trademark Act Section 8 affidavit or declaration of use or excusable nonuse and Section 15 affidavit of incontestability (combined affidavit). 15 U.S.C. §§1058, 1065. In the combined affidavit, petitioner authorized communication bye-mail and provided a new e-mail address. The Post Registration examiner refused the combined affidavit, in an Office action dated January 8, 2011, because the specimen was not acceptable. Further, the Post Registration examiner notified petitioner that he/she must file a response within six months of the issuance date of the Office action or before the end of the relevant filing period in Section 8(a), whichever was later, to avoid cancellation of the registration. See 37 C.F.R. §2.163(b); TMEP §§1604.16, 1605.05.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) did not receive a response on or before July 8, 2011, and the grace period under Section 8(a)(3) had expired. Therefore, the registration was cancelled on February 21, 2012.
Petitioner filed this petition seeking reinstatement on November 14, 2014. The petition included a declaration in which petitioner attested to the fact that he/she never received the Office action because it was not sent to her but instead was sent to her former attorney.
Upon review of the record, petitioner’s mailing address and e-mail address had not been updated in the USPTO’s databases to that submitted in the combined affidavit. Therefore, the USPTO sent the Office action to the wrong correspondence address in error. See TMEP §1712.02(a). Based on this evidence, petitioner could not have responded to the January 18, 2011 Office action within six months of the issue/mailing date.
The USPTO will reinstate the above-identified registration. The registration will then be forwarded to the Post Registration Division to review the response submitted with the petition. Because there is no fee for a request for reinstatement due to USPTO error, the petition fee will be applied to the required deficiency fee.
/Karen M. Strzyz/
Attorney Advisor
Office of the Deputy Commissioner
for Trademark Examination Policy
571-272-9419
karen.strzyz@uspto.gov
For general and other useful information about trademarks, you are encouraged to visit the USPTO web site at http://www.gov.uspto.report/main/trademarks.htm.