UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)

OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION

 

 

 

OFFICE ACTION

 

STRICT DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER

 

INTERNATIONAL REGISTRATION NO. 1253050

 

STRICT DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO THIS NOTIFICATION:  TO AVOID ABANDONMENT OF THE REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF PROTECTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL REGISTRATION, THE USPTO MUST RECEIVE A COMPLETE RESPONSE TO THIS PROVISIONAL FULL REFUSAL NOTIFICATION WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF THE “DATE ON WHICH THE NOTIFICATION WAS SENT TO WIPO (MAILING DATE)” LOCATED ON THE WIPO COVER LETTER ACCOMPANYING THIS NOTIFICATION.

 

In addition to the Mailing Date appearing on the WIPO cover letter, a holder (hereafter “applicant”) may confirm this Mailing Date using the USPTO’s Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) system at http://tsdr.gov.uspto.report/.  To do so, enter the U.S. application serial number for this application and then select “Documents.”  The Mailing Date used to calculate the response deadline for this provisional full refusal is the “Create/Mail Date” of the “IB-1rst Refusal Note.”

 

This is a PROVISIONAL FULL REFUSAL of the request for extension of protection of the mark in the above-referenced U.S. application.  See 15 U.S.C. §1141h(c).  See below in this notification (hereafter “Office action”) for details regarding the provisional full refusal.

 

The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney.  Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issue(s) below.  15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62, 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.

 

Trademark Act Section 2(d) Refusal to Register – Likelihood of Confusion:

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark(s) in U.S. Registration No(s).:

 

2847624 (MILLENNIUM) (owner Celebrity Cruises)

 

2195297 (MILLENNIUM + design) (owner Twentieth Century Fox)

2194654 (MILLENNIUM) (owner Twentieth Century Fox)

 

2166623 (MILLENNIUM) (owner Millennium & Copthorne)

2105875 (MILLENNIUM + design) (owner Millennium & Copthorne)

2118358 (MILLENNIUM + design) (owner Millennium & Copthorne)

2035445 (MILLENNIUM + design) (owner Millennium & Copthorne)

2035444 (MILLENNIUM + design) (owner Millennium & Copthorne)

 

Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the enclosed registration(s).

 

Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that so resembles a registered mark that it is likely that a potential consumer would be confused or mistaken or deceived as to the source of the goods and/or services of the applicant and registrant.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).  The court in In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973) listed the principal factors to be considered when determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d).  See TMEP §1207.01.  However, not all of the factors are necessarily relevant or of equal weight, and any one factor may be dominant in a given case, depending upon the evidence of record.  In re Majestic Distilling Co., 315 F.3d 1311, 1315, 65 USPQ2d 1201, 1204 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see In re E. I. du Pont, 476 F.2d at 1361-62, 177 USPQ at 567.

 

In this case, the following factors are the most relevant:  similarity of the marks, similarity of the goods and/or services, and similarity of trade channels of the goods and/or services.  See In re Opus One, Inc., 60 USPQ2d 1812 (TTAB 2001); In re Dakin’s Miniatures Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593 (TTAB 1999); In re Azteca Rest. Enters., Inc., 50 USPQ2d 1209 (TTAB 1999); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.

 

Regarding the issue of likelihood of confusion, all circumstances surrounding the sale of the goods and/or services are considered.  These circumstances include the marketing channels, the identity of the prospective purchasers, and the degree of similarity between the marks and between the goods and/or services.  See Indus. Nucleonics Corp. v. Hinde, 475 F.2d 1197, 177 USPQ 386 (C.C.P.A. 1973); TMEP §1207.01.  In comparing the marks, similarity in any one of the elements of sound, appearance or meaning may be sufficient to find a likelihood of confusion.  In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB 1988); In re Lamson Oil Co., 6 USPQ2d 1041, 1043 (TTAB 1987); see TMEP §1207.01(b).  In comparing the goods and/or services, it is necessary to show that they are related in some manner.  See On-line Careline Inc. v. Am. Online Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1086, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1475 (Fed. Cir. 2000); TMEP §1207.01(a)(vi).

 

The Marks are Similar:

In a likelihood of confusion determination, the marks are compared for similarities in their appearance, sound, meaning or connotation and commercial impression.  In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973); TMEP §1207.01(b).  Similarity in any one of these elements may be sufficient to find a likelihood of confusion.  In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB 1988); In re Lamson Oil Co., 6 USPQ2d 1041, 1043 (TTAB 1987); see TMEP §1207.01(b).

The marks are compared in their entireties under a Trademark Act Section 2(d) analysis.  See TMEP §1207.01(b).  Nevertheless, one feature of a mark may be recognized as more significant in creating a commercial impression.  Greater weight is given to that dominant feature in determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion.  In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 224 USPQ 749 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Tektronix, Inc. v. Daktronics, Inc., 534 F.2d 915, 189 USPQ 693 (C.C.P.A. 1976); In re J.M. Originals Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1393 (TTAB 1987); see TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii).

Marks may be confusingly similar in appearance where similar terms or phrases or similar parts of terms or phrases appear in the compared marks and create a similar overall commercial impression.  See Crocker Nat’l Bank v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 228 USPQ 689, 690-91 (TTAB 1986), aff’d sub nom. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 811 F.2d 1490, 1495, 1 USPQ2d 1813, 1817 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (finding COMMCASH and COMMUNICASH confusingly similar); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65, 66 (TTAB 1985) (finding CONFIRM and CONFIRMCELLS confusingly similar); In re Pellerin Milnor Corp., 221 USPQ 558, 560 (TTAB 1983) (finding MILTRON and MILLTRONICS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii).

Here, the marks of applicant and registrant(s) are confusingly similar in appearance, sound, meaning and commercial impression.  Applicant’s proposed mark consists of the wording “MILLENNIUM” with minor stylization.  The mark(s) of registrant(s) consist(s) of the wording “MILLENNIUM,” some with minor design elements.

The marks thus share identical wording.  Although applicant’s mark contains minor stylization, this does not distinguish the marks.  A mark in typed or standard characters may be displayed in any lettering style; the rights reside in the wording or other literal element and not in any particular display or rendition.  See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1363, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1909 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 1348, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010); 37 C.F.R. §2.52(a); TMEP §1207.01(c)(iii).  Thus, a mark presented in stylized characters and/or with a design element generally will not avoid likelihood of confusion with a mark in typed or standard characters because the marks could be presented in the same manner of display.  See, e.g., In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d at 1363, 101 USPQ2d at 1909; Squirtco v. Tomy Corp., 697 F.2d 1038, 1041, 216 USPQ 937, 939 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (stating that “the argument concerning a difference in type style is not viable where one party asserts rights in no particular display”).

Moreover, the design elements present in some of the marks also do not distinguish them.  For a composite mark containing both words and a design, the word portion may be more likely to be impressed upon a purchaser’s memory and to be used when requesting the goods and/or services.  Joel Gott Wines, LLC v. Rehoboth Von Gott, Inc., 107 USPQ2d 1424, 1431 (TTAB 2013) (citing In re Dakin’s Miniatures, Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593, 1596 (TTAB 1999)); TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii); see In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908, 1911 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing CBS Inc. v. Morrow, 708 F. 2d 1579, 1581-82, 218 USPQ 198, 200 (Fed. Cir 1983)).  Thus, although such marks must be compared in their entireties, the word portion is often considered the dominant feature and is accorded greater weight in determining whether marks are confusingly similar, even where the word portion has been disclaimed.  In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d at 1366, 101 USPQ2d at 1911 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing Giant Food, Inc. v. Nation’s Foodservice, Inc., 710 F.2d 1565, 1570-71, 218 USPQ2d 390, 395 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). 

The Goods/Services are Related:

The goods and/or services of the parties need not be identical or directly competitive to find a likelihood of confusion. See Safety-Kleen Corp. v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 518 F.2d 1399, 1404, 186 USPQ 476, 480 (C.C.P.A. 1975); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i). Rather, they need only be related in some manner, or the conditions surrounding their marketing are such that they would be encountered by the same purchasers under circumstances that would give rise to the mistaken belief that the goods and/or services come from a common source. In re Total Quality Group, Inc., 51 USPQ2d 1474, 1476 (TTAB 1999); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i); see, e.g., On-line Careline Inc. v. Am. Online Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1086-87, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1475-76 (Fed. Cir. 2000); In re Martin’s Famous Pastry Shoppe, Inc., 748 F.2d 1565, 1566-68, 223 USPQ 1289, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 1984).

If the goods and/or services of the respective parties are “similar in kind and/or closely related,” the degree of similarity between the marks required to support a finding of likelihood of confusion is not as great as would be required with diverse goods and/or services. In re J.M. Originals Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1393, 1394 (TTAB 1987); see Shen Mfg. Co. v. Ritz Hotel Ltd., 393 F.3d 1238, 1242, 73 USPQ2d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2004); TMEP §1207.01(b).

Here, applicant’s services are:

 

International Class 41 – Arranging and conducting of conferences; arranging and conducting of reunions; arranging and conducting of workshops (training); management of entertainment events; management of entertainment services; production, organization and presentation of fashion shows entertainment; beauty contest (arrangement of contest); entertainment; organization of competitions (education or entertainment); television entertainment; videotape film production; shows (production of beauty pageant); arranging of pageants; all included in this class

 

The services of registrants are:

 

International Class 43 – providing convention facilities, providing facilities for exhibitions, making hotel accommodations and reservations for others, providing banquet and social function facilities for special occasions, bar and cocktail lounge services, cafe services, restaurant services and catering services

 

International Class 39 – cruise ship services

 

International Class 41 – entertainment services in the nature of distribution of a live-action television drama series concerning paranormal scenarios and criminal investigations which may have an element of paranormal activity; entertainment services in the nature of an on-going live-action television drama series concerning paranormal scenarios and criminal investigations which may have an element of paranormal activities; all related to a fictional dramatic television series concerning paranormal scenarios and criminal investigations which may have an element of paranormal activity

 

International Class 41 –distribution of a live-action television drama series; related to a fictional dramatic television series concerning paranormal scenarios and criminal investigations which may have an element of paranormal activity

 

International Class 35 – business services, namely, consultation in the areas of business, catering and hotel management of others; business advisory and consultation services relating to hotel services franchising; providing facilities for business meetings

 

International Class 43 – hotel concierge services; hotel services for preferred customers, making hotel reservations for others, providing facilities for conventions, food preparation, contract food services and catering

 

With respect to applicant’s and registrant’s goods and/or services, the question of likelihood of confusion is determined based on the description of the goods and/or services stated in the application and registration at issue, not on extrinsic evidence of actual use.  See, e.g., Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369-70, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Octocom Sys. Inc. v. Hous. Computers Servs. Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 942, 16 USPQ2d 1783, 1787 (Fed. Cir. 1990). 

 

Absent restrictions in an application and/or registration, the identified goods and/or services are “presumed to travel in the same channels of trade to the same class of purchasers.”  In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1268, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).  Additionally, unrestricted and broad identifications are presumed to encompass all goods and/or services of the type described.  See In re Jump Designs, LLC, 80 USPQ2d 1370, 1374 (TTAB 2006) (citing In re Elbaum, 211 USPQ 639, 640 (TTAB 1981)); In re Linkvest S.A., 24 USPQ2d 1716, 1716 (TTAB 1992). 

In this case, the identifications set forth in the application and registrations have no restrictions as to nature, type, channels of trade, or classes of purchasers.  Therefore, it is presumed that these services travel in all normal channels of trade, and are available to the same class of purchasers.  Further, the application uses broad wording to describe the services and this wording is presumed to encompass all services of the type described, including those in registrants’ more narrow identifications.  In particular, applicant’s “television entertainment” could the television programs in several of the registrations.

The goods and/or services of the applicant and registrant(s) are also highly related, as demonstrated by the attached copies of printouts from the USPTO X-Search database, which show third-party registrations of marks used in connection with the same or similar goods and/or services as those of applicant and registrant(s) in this case.  These printouts have probative value to the extent that they serve to suggest that the goods and/or services listed therein, namely providing facilities and event planning services, as well as cruise ship services and event planning services, and finally videotape production and television programs, are of a kind that may emanate from a single source.  In re Infinity Broad. Corp.,60 USPQ2d 1214, 1217-18 (TTAB 2001); In re Albert Trostel & Sons Co.,29 USPQ2d 1783, 1785-86 (TTAB 1993); In re Mucky Duck Mustard Co., 6 USPQ2d 1467, 1470 n.6 (TTAB 1988); TMEP §1207.01(d)(iii).  Thus, such goods and/or services are likely to travel in the same channels of trade, likely to be displayed to consumers under circumstances giving rise to a likelihood of confusion, and likely to be perceived as emanating from the same source.

The attached additional evidence from the websites of Mirage and Hilton shows entities offering services that are included in both the application and one or more of the registrations, which further demonstrates the relatedness of the services.

 

Viewing all of the factors together, based on the similarity of the registered mark(s) to the proposed mark and the identical goods, confusion as to source is likely.  Purchasers familiar with the mark(s) of the cited registration(s), upon seeing applicant’s mark, would be likely to conclude that applicant’s goods emanated from the same source, or that applicant’s goods were associated with and/or sponsored by the registrant(s).  Accordingly, registration is refused due to the likelihood of confusion.

 

Please note that the overriding concern is not only to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods and/or services, but to protect the registrant(s) from adverse commercial impact due to use of a similar mark by a newcomer.  See In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1208, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1690 (Fed. Cir. 1993).  Therefore, any doubt regarding a likelihood of confusion determination is resolved in favor of the registrant(s).  TMEP §1207.01(d)(i); see Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1265, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2002); In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 464-65, 6 USPQ2d 1025, 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

 

In addition, please note the following prior pending application, which may present an additional bar to registration of applicant’s mark should it register.

 

Prior Pending Application:

 

The filing date of pending U.S. Application Serial No. 86326668 precedes applicant’s filing date.  See attached referenced application.  If the mark in the referenced application registers, applicant’s mark may be refused registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d) because of a likelihood of confusion between the two marks.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §§1208 et seq.  Therefore, upon receipt of applicant’s response to this Office action, action on this application may be suspended pending final disposition of the earlier-filed referenced application.

 

In response to this Office action, applicant may present arguments in support of registration by addressing the issue of the potential conflict between applicant’s mark and the mark in the referenced application.  Applicant’s election not to submit arguments at this time in no way limits applicant’s right to address this issue later if a refusal under Section 2(d) issues.

Responding to Refusal to Register:

Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal(s) by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.  If applicant chooses to respond to the refusal(s) to register, applicant must respond to the requirement(s) set forth below.

Mark Description and Color Claim:

Applicant must clarify whether color is a feature of the mark because, although the drawing shows the mark in color, the application does not explicitly state whether color is claimed as a feature of the mark.  Applications for marks depicted in color must include not only a color drawing, but also (1) a complete list of all the colors claimed as a feature of the mark and (2) a mark description of the literal and design elements in the mark that specifies where all the colors appear in those elements.  37 C.F.R. §§2.37, 2.52(b)(1); see TMEP §807.07(a), (b).

 

Therefore, applicant must clarify whether color is claimed as a feature of the mark by satisfying one of the following:

 

(1)  If color is not a feature of the mark, applicant must submit (a) a substitute black-and-white drawing of the mark to replace the color drawing of record, (b) a statement that no claim of color is made with respect to the mark in the international registration, and (c) an accurate and concise description of the literal and design elements in the mark, omitting any reference to color.  37 C.F.R. §2.37; TMEP §§807.07(b), 807.12(c); see TMEP §§808 et seq.  The following mark description is suggested, if accurate: 

 

The mark consists of the stylized wording “MILLENNIUM” on a rectangle.

 

(2)  If color is a feature of the mark, applicant must submit (a) a statement listing all the colors that are claimed as a feature of the mark and (b) a statement describing the literal and design elements in the mark that specifies where the colors appear in those elements.  37 C.F.R. §§2.37, 2.52(b)(1); TMEP §§807.07(b), 807.12(c).  Generic color names must be used to describe the colors in the mark, e.g., magenta, yellow, turquoise.  TMEP §807.07(a)(i)-(ii).  If black, white, and/or gray are not being claimed as a color feature of the mark, applicant must exclude them from the color claim and include in the mark description a statement that the colors black, white, and/or gray represent background, outlining, shading, and/or transparent areas and are not part of the mark.  See TMEP §807.07(d), (d)(iii).  The following color claim and mark description are suggested, if accurate:

 

Color claim:  “The colors black and gold are claimed as a feature of the mark.”

 

Mark description:  “The mark consists the stylized wording “MILLENNIUM” in gold on a black rectangle”

 

Identification:

 

Some of the wording from the identification is indefinite and must be clarified, as fully explained below.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.

 

The identification also contains parentheses.  Generally, parentheses and brackets should not be used in identifications because the USPTO generally uses these punctuation marks to indicate goods and/or services that have been deleted from registrations.  See TMEP §1402.12.  Parenthetical or bracketed information is permitted in identifications only if it serves to explain or translate the matter immediately preceding the parenthetical phrase in such a way that it does not affect the clarity of the identification, e.g., “obi (Japanese sash).”  Id.

 

Therefore, applicant must remove the parentheses from the identification of goods and/or services and incorporate any parenthetical or bracketed information into the description.

 

In particular, business-related services are in International Class 35, not International Class 41, so all of applicant’s conferences and events must be for non-business purposes.  Similarly, management of something is generally an International Class 35 business activity, so applicant’s management services were presumed to be included in the “arranging and conducting” language below, and were thus omitted from the suggestion to avoid redundancy.  The wording “production” also was omitted from the identification, as it was indefinite as applied to the contests being organized and could include International Class 35 services or International Class 36 services, and was presumed to be included in the other language below.  The wording “all included in this class” was also omitted because it does not describe particular services and is redundant, as all of the listed services, once properly revised, must be properly included in the class listed for the application to proceed.  Finally, the word “entertainment” where it occurred by itself was omitted, because presumably this service is or can be included in the other portions of the identification suggested below.

 

Applicant may adopt the following identification, if accurate:

 

International Class 41 – Arranging and conducting of conferences in the fields of education, culture, sports and entertainment for non-business and non-commercial purposes; arranging and conducting of reunions in the field of entertainment for non-business and non-commercial purposes; arranging and conducting of training workshops in the field of {indicate field or subject matter}; organization and presentation of fashion shows for entertainment purposes; arranging beauty contests and pageants; organization of education or entertainment competitions, namely of {indicate type of competition, e.g., spelling, computer gaming, etc.}; television entertainment, namely, {specify International Class 41 services by common name, e.g., “television show production,” “ongoing television programs in the field of {indicate specific field, e.g., news, comedy, variety}, etc.}; videotape film production

 

For assistance with identifying and classifying goods and/or services in trademark applications, please see the USPTO’s online searchable U.S. Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual at http://tess2.gov.uspto.report/netahtml/tidm.html.  See TMEP §1402.04.  Identifications of goods and/or services can be amended only to clarify or limit the goods and/or services; adding to or broadening the scope of the goods and/or services is not permitted.  37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); see TMEP §§1402.06 et seq., 1402.07.  Therefore, applicant may not amend the identification to include goods and/or services that are not within the scope of the goods and/or services set forth in the present identification.

 

Please also note that the international classification of goods and/or services in applications filed under Trademark Act Section 66(a) cannot be changed from the classification the International Bureau assigned to the goods and/or services in the corresponding international registration.  TMEP §§1401.03(d), 1904.02(b).  Therefore, any modification to this wording must identify goods and/or services in International Class(es) 41, the classification(s) specified in the application for the goods and/or services listed above that applicant must clarify.

 

Response Guidelines (Full Refusal):

 

For this application to proceed toward registration, applicant must explicitly address each refusal and/or requirement raised in this Office action.  If the action includes a refusal, applicant may provide arguments and/or evidence as to why the refusal should be withdrawn and the mark should register.  Applicant may also have other options for responding to a refusal and should consider such options carefully.  To respond to requirements and certain refusal response options, applicant should set forth in writing the required changes or statements. 

 

If applicant does not respond to this Office action within six months of the date on which the USPTO sends this Office action to the International Bureau, or responds by expressly abandoning the application, the application process will end, the trademark will fail to register, and the application fee will not be refunded.  See 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.65(a), 2.68(a), 2.209(a); TMEP §§711, 718.01, 718.02.  Where the application has been abandoned for failure to respond to an Office action, applicant’s only option would be to file a timely petition to revive the application, which, if granted, would allow the application to return to active status.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.66; TMEP §1714.  There is a $100 fee for such petitions.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.6, 2.66(b)(1).

 

WHO IS PERMITTED TO RESPOND TO THIS PROVISIONAL FULL REFUSAL:  Any response to this provisional refusal must be personally signed by an individual applicant, all joint applicants, or someone with legal authority to bind a juristic applicant (e.g., a corporate officer or general partner).  37 C.F.R. §§2.62(b), 2.193(e)(2)(ii); TMEP §712.01.  If applicant hires a qualified U.S. attorney to respond on his or her behalf, then the attorney must sign the response.  37 C.F.R. §§2.193(e)(2)(i), 11.18(a); TMEP §§611.03(b), 712.01.  Qualified U.S. attorneys include those in good standing with a bar of the highest court of any U.S. state, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and other federal territories and possessions of the United States.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.17(a), 2.62(b), 11.1, 11.14(a); TMEP §§602, 712.01.  Additionally, for all responses, the proper signatory must personally sign the document or personally enter his or her electronic signature on the electronic filing.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.193(a); TMEP §§611.01(b), 611.02.  The name of the signatory must also be printed or typed immediately below or adjacent to the signature, or identified elsewhere in the filing.  37 C.F.R. §2.193(d); TMEP §611.01(b).

 

In general, foreign attorneys are not permitted to represent applicants before the USPTO (e.g., file written communications, authorize an amendment to an application, or submit legal arguments in response to a requirement or refusal).  See 37 C.F.R. §11.14(c), (e); TMEP §§602.03-.03(b), 608.01. 

 

DESIGNATION OF DOMESTIC REPRESENTATIVE:  The USPTO encourages applicants who do not reside in the United States to designate a domestic representative upon whom any notice or process may be served.  TMEP §610; see 15 U.S.C. §§1051(e), 1141h(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.24(a)(1)-(2).  Such designations may be filed online at http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/correspondence.jsp.

 

Foreign Applicant May Wish to Seek Trademark Counsel:

 

Because of the legal technicalities and strict deadlines involved in the USPTO application process, applicant may wish to hire a qualified U.S. attorney specializing in trademark matters to represent applicant in this process and provide legal advice.  Although the undersigned trademark examining attorney is permitted to help an applicant understand the contents of an Office action as well as the application process in general, no USPTO attorney or staff is permitted to give an applicant legal advice or statements about an applicant’s legal rights.  TMEP §§705.02, 709.06.  For attorney referral information, applicant may consult the American Bar Association’s Consumers’ Guide to Legal Help at http://www.abanet.org/legalservices/findlegalhelp/home.cfm.  The USPTO may not assist an applicant in the selection of an attorney.  37 C.F.R. §2.11.

 

If applicant does not choose to retain local counsel with a phone number for communication, it is strongly recommended that applicant provide a phone number in its response so that the examiner can contact applicant directly if needed.  Applicant should also provide convenient times for the examiner to call, taking into account any time differences between the United States and applicant’s country.  Providing this information will facilitate a faster resolution to any issues that may remain in the application after applicant’s response.

 

 

If applicant has questions regarding this Office action, please telephone or e-mail the assigned trademark examining attorney.  All relevant e-mail communications will be placed in the official application record; however, an e-mail communication will not be accepted as a response to this Office action and will not extend the deadline for filing a proper response.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05.  Further, although the trademark examining attorney may provide additional explanation pertaining to the refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) in this Office action, the trademark examining attorney may not provide legal advice or statements about applicant’s rights.  See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06.

 

/James MacFarlane/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 104

(571) 270-1512 (phone)

(571) 270-2512 (fax)

james.macfarlane@uspto.gov

 

TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER:  Go to http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp.  Please wait 48-72 hours from the issue/mailing date before using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), to allow for necessary system updates of the application.  For technical assistance with online forms, e-mail TEAS@uspto.gov.  For questions about the Office action itself, please contact the assigned trademark examining attorney.  E-mail communications will not be accepted as responses to Office actions; therefore, do not respond to this Office action by e-mail.

 

All informal e-mail communications relevant to this application will be placed in the official application record.

 

WHO MUST SIGN THE RESPONSE:  It must be personally signed by an individual applicant or someone with legal authority to bind an applicant (i.e., a corporate officer, a general partner, all joint applicants).  If an applicant is represented by an attorney, the attorney must sign the response. 

 

PERIODICALLY CHECK THE STATUS OF THE APPLICATION:  To ensure that applicant does not miss crucial deadlines or official notices, check the status of the application every three to four months using the Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) system at http://tsdr.gov.uspto.report/.  Please keep a copy of the TSDR status screen.  If the status shows no change for more than six months, contact the Trademark Assistance Center by e-mail at TrademarkAssistanceCenter@uspto.gov or call 1-800-786-9199.  For more information on checking status, see http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/process/status/.

 

TO UPDATE CORRESPONDENCE/E-MAIL ADDRESS:  Use the TEAS form at http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/correspondence.jsp.