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

TO AVOID ABANDONMENT OF APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION, THE USPTO MUST RECEIVE APPLICANT’S COMPLETE RESPONSE TO THIS LETTER WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF THE ISSUE/MAILING DATE BELOW.

 

ISSUE/MAILING DATE: 9/29/2016

 

 

THIS IS A FINAL ACTION.

 

INTERNATIONAL REGISTRATION NO. 1282119

 

This Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on August 26, 2016.

 

In a previous Office action dated February 26, 2016, the trademark examining attorney refused registration of the applied-for mark based on the following:  Trademark Act Section 2(d) partial refusal.  In addition, applicant was required to satisfy the following requirements:  identification of goods and services requirement, description of the mark requirement, and explanation of mark’s significance requirement.  The examining attorney also provided an advisory regarding prior-filed application Serial No. 85983994 (“VENYX”), which has since abandoned.

 

Based on applicant’s response, the trademark examining attorney notes that the following requirements have been satisfied: description of the mark requirement and explanation of mark’s significance requirement.  See TMEP §§713.02, 714.04. 

 

Further, the trademark examining attorney maintains and now makes FINAL the refusal and requirement in the summary of issues below.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b); TMEP §714.04.

 

Summary of issues made final that applicant must address:

• Section 2(d) refusal – partial refusal applies to International Class 005 only
• Identification of goods and services  - partial requirement

 

Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion – Partial Refusal Applies to International Class 005 Only

This partial refusal applies to International Class 005 only.

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 2643440 (“VENIX”).  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registration.

 

Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that so resembles a registered mark that it is likely a potential consumer would be confused, mistaken, or deceived as to the source of the goods of the applicant and registrant.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).  A determination of likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d) is made on a case-by case basis and the factors set forth in In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973) aid in this determination.  Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp., Inc., 637 F.3d 1344, 1349, 98 USPQ2d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing On-Line Careline, Inc. v. Am. Online, Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1085, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2000)).  Not all the du Pont factors, however, are necessarily relevant or of equal weight, and any one of the factors may control in a given case, depending upon the evidence of record.  Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp., Inc., 637 F.3d at 1355, 98 USPQ2d at 1260; In re Majestic Distilling Co., 315 F.3d 1311, 1315, 65 USPQ2d 1201, 1204 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 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 and nature of the goods, and similarity of the trade channels of the goods.  See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1361-62, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Dakin’s Miniatures Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593, 1595-96 (TTAB 1999); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.

 

Applicant has applied to register the mark “VENEX” for, in relevant part, “Dietary supplements for humans” in International Class 005.  The examining attorney notes, as discussed further below, the applicant has proposed the amendment “Dietary supplements that help the user recover from fatigue arising from exercise or day-to-day living, not for use in supporting sexual function”; however, the proposed amendment exceeds the scope of the goods in the initial application because it does not specify that the dietary supplements are “for humans”.  Therefore, the original identification in the U.S. application as filed remains operative.

 

Registrant’s mark is “VENIX” for “Dietary and nutritional supplement for the support of healthy sexual function” in International Class 005.

 

Similarity of Marks

 

Marks are compared in their entireties for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression.  Stone Lion Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 1321, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F. 3d 1369, 1371, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 2005)); TMEP §1207.01(b)-(b)(v).  “Similarity in any one of these elements may be sufficient to find the marks confusingly similar.”  In re Davia, 110 USPQ2d 1810, 1812 (TTAB 2014) (citing In re 1st USA Realty Prof’ls, Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1581, 1586 (TTAB 2007)); In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB 1988)); TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

When comparing marks, the test is not whether the marks can be distinguished in a side-by-side comparison, but rather whether the marks are sufficiently similar in terms of their overall commercial impression that confusion as to the source of the goods offered under the respective marks is likely to result.  Midwestern Pet Foods, Inc. v. Societe des Produits Nestle S.A., 685 F.3d 1046, 1053, 103 USPQ2d 1435, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Bay State Brewing Co., 117 USPQ2d 1958, 1960 (TTAB 2016) (quoting Coach Servs., Inc. v. Truimph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1368, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(b).  The proper focus is on the recollection of the average purchaser, who retains a general rather than specific impression of trademarks.  In re Bay State Brewing Co., 117 USPQ2d at 1960 ( (citing Spoons Rests., Inc., v. Morrison, Inc., 23 USPQ2d 1735, 1741 (TTAB 1991), aff’d per curiam, 972 F.2d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1992)); In re C.H. Hanson Co., 116 USPQ2d 1351, 1353 (TTAB 2015) (citing Joel Gott Wines LLC v. Rehoboth Von Gott Inc., 107 USPQ2d 1424, 1430 (TTAB 2013));TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

In the present case, the applied-for mark “VENEX” and the registered mark “VENIX” could clearly be pronounced the same.  There is no correct pronunciation of a mark because it is impossible to predict how the public will pronounce a particular mark.  See Embarcadero Techs., Inc. v. RStudio, Inc., 105 USPQ2d 1825, 1835 (TTAB 2013) (quoting In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1367, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1912 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re The Belgrade Shoe Co., 411 F.2d 1352, 1353, 162 USPQ 227, 227 (C.C.P.A. 1969)); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iv).  The marks in question could clearly be pronounced the same; such similarity in sound alone may be sufficient to support a finding that the marks are confusingly similar.  In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB 1988); see In re 1st USA Realty Prof’ls, Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1581, 1586 (TTAB 2007); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iv).

 

Additionally, while the applied-for mark contains a design element, the design element does not obviate the similarity between the applied-for mark and the registered mark.  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.  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)).  Therefore, in the present case, greater weight is given to the word portion of the applied-for mark “VENEX”, which is phonetically similar to the registered mark “VENIX”.

 

Because the marks look and sound similar and create a similar commercial impression, the marks are considered similar for likelihood of confusion purposes.

 

The applicant argues that the registered mark “VENIX” is spelled differently and pronounced differently than the applied-for mark “VENEX”; however, as discussed above, there is no correct pronunciation of a mark because it is impossible to predict how the public will pronounce a particular mark; in this case, the marks “VENIX” and “VENEX” could clearly be pronounced the same.

 

Relatedness of Goods

 

The goods of the parties need not be identical or even competitive to find a likelihood of confusion.  See On-line Careline Inc. v. Am. Online Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1086, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1475 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Recot, Inc. v. Becton, 214 F.3d 1322, 1329, 54 USPQ2d 1894, 1898 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“[E]ven if the goods in question are different from, and thus not related to, one another in kind, the same goods can be related in the mind of the consuming public as to the origin of the goods.”); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i). 

 

The respective goods need only be “related in some manner and/or if the circumstances surrounding their marketing [be] such that they could give rise to the mistaken belief that [the goods] emanate from the same source.”  Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting 7-Eleven Inc. v. Wechsler, 83 USPQ2d 1715, 1724 (TTAB 2007)); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).

 

The attached Internet evidence consists of the websites gnc.com, irwinnaturals.com, pharmafreak.com, therabotanics.com, appliednutrition.com, nowfoods.com, peaklife.com, sourcenaturals.com, naturesway.com, athleticedge.com, and enzymatictherapy.com.  This evidence establishes that the same entity commonly provides the relevant goods of dietary supplements for humans, including dietary supplements for humans that help the user recover from fatigue arising from exercise or day-to-day living, not for use in supporting sexual function, and dietary and nutritional supplement for the support of healthy sexual function and markets the goods under the same mark.  Therefore, applicant’s and registrant’s goods are considered related for likelihood of confusion purposes.  See, e.g., In re Davey Prods. Pty Ltd., 92 USPQ2d 1198, 1202-04 (TTAB 2009); In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d 1266, 1268-69, 1271-72 (TTAB 2009).

 

In addition to the above mentioned website evidence, the trademark examining attorney has attached evidence from the USPTO’s X-Search database consisting of a number of third-party marks registered for use in connection with the same or similar goods as those of both applicant and registrant in this case.  This evidence shows that the goods, namely, dietary supplements for humans, including dietary supplements for humans that help the user recover from fatigue arising from exercise or day-to-day living, not for use in supporting sexual function, and dietary and nutritional supplement for the support of healthy sexual function, are of a kind that may emanate from a single source under a single mark.  See In re Aquamar, Inc., 115 USPQ2d 1122, 1126 n.5 (TTAB 2015) (citing In re Mucky Duck Mustard Co., 6 USPQ2d 1467, 1470 n.6 (TTAB 1988)); In re Albert Trostel & Sons Co.,29 USPQ2d 1783, 1785-86 (TTAB 1993); TMEP §1207.01(d)(iii).

 

Accordingly, the goods are considered related for purposes of the likelihood of confusion analysis.

 

Applicant argues that applicant’s goods are for an entirely different purpose, targeted to different groups of consumers and will not appear side by side with the registrant’s goods in the marketplace.  As discussed above, and discussed further below, applicant has proposed the amendment “Dietary supplements that help the user recover from fatigue arising from exercise or day-to-day living, not for use in supporting sexual function”; however, the proposed amendment exceeds the scope of the goods in the initial application because it does not specify that the dietary supplements are “for humans”.  Therefore, the original identification in the U.S. application as filed of “dietary supplements for humans” remains operative.  The examining attorney notes that the attached evidence demonstrates that both “dietary supplements for humans” and “Dietary supplements that help the user recover from fatigue arising from exercise or day-to-day living, not for use in supporting sexual function” are commonly provided by entities that also provide “Dietary and nutritional supplement for the support of healthy sexual function”.  Therefore, the goods are similar, and are targeted to the same consumer groups and do appear side-by-side in the marketplace.

 

Conclusion

 

Because the marks are similar and the goods are related, there is a likelihood of confusion as to the source of applicant’s goods.  Therefore, applicant’s mark is not entitled to registration for International Class 005.  In consideration of the foregoing, the Section 2(d) partial refusal is continued and made FINAL.

 

Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.  However, if applicant responds to the refusal, applicant must also respond to the requirement set forth below.

 

Identification of Goods and Services – Partial Requirement

 

This partial requirement applies only to the goods specified therein.

 

The proposed amendment to the identification is not acceptable because it exceeds the scope of the goods and services in the initial application.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §§1402.01(c), 1904.02(c)(iv).  Applicant’s goods and services may be clarified or limited, but may not be expanded beyond those originally itemized in the application or as acceptably amended.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §§1402.06, 1904.02(c)(iv).  Therefore, the original identification in the U.S. application as filed, or as acceptably amended, remains operative for purposes of future amendment.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §§1402.01(b), 1402.07(d).

 

In this case, the application identifies the goods in International Class 005 as “Dietary supplements for humans”.

 

However, the proposed amendment identifies the following goods in International Class 005 as “Dietary supplements that help the user recover from fatigue arising from exercise or day-to-day living, not for use in supporting sexual function”.

 

The proposed amendment is beyond the scope of the original identification because it could include supplements for animals in addition to supplements for humans.

 

Accordingly, applicant may respond by adding “for humans” to the proposed amendment, deleting the proposed amendment to the goods or arguing that the amendment is within the scope of the goods in the initial application and should remain in the application.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §§1402.07(a), (e), 1904.02(c)(iv).  If this issue is being made final, applicant may appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board under 37 C.F.R. §§2.141, 2.142, or petition the Director under 37 C.F.R. §2.146 if permitted by 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b)(2).  TMEP §1904.02(c)(iv).

 

The identification of goods contains brackets in “jersey [fabric]” in International Class 024.  Generally, applicants should not use parentheses and brackets in identifications in their applications so as to avoid confusion with the USPTO’s practice of using parentheses in registrations to indicate goods and/or services that have been deleted from registrations.  See TMEP §1402.12.  The only exception is that parenthetical information is permitted in identifications in an application 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 brackets from the identification and incorporate any parenthetical or bracketed information into the description of the goods.

 

The wording “layettes” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified.  Applicant must specify whether the layettes are clothing layettes.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01. 

 

The wording “Educational services, namely, providing certification for qualifications of fitness and exercise instructors” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified.  Applicant must clarify who is being trained and the field of certification.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01. 

 

Applicant may adopt the following identification, if accurate (suggested changes are in bold): 

 

International Class 005:  Dietary supplements for humans that help the user recover from fatigue arising from exercise or day-to-day living, not for use in supporting sexual function

 

International Class 020:  Bedding, except linen, namely, mattress toppers; Cushions; Japanese floor cushions (zabuton); Pillows; Mattresses; Sleeping bags for camping; Pet cushions

 

International Class 024:  Woven fabrics; fabrics for textile use; knitted fabrics; jersey fabric; bed sheets; futon quilts; fitted quilt futon covers not of paper; quilts; quilt covers; pillowcases; covers for cushions; mattress covers; covers for Japanese floor cushions (zabuton); blankets, namely, bed blankets, and blankets for outdoor use; bed clothes, namely, bed sheets, and bed blankets; Bed covers

 

International Class 025:  Men's, women's and children's clothing and sports clothing apparel and outerwear, namely, t-shirts, shirts, golf shirts, wind shirts, tank tops, dress shirts, blouses, skirts, dresses, tights, leggings, stockings, leotards, sweatshirts, knit shirts, shirts with raglan sleeves, thermal bottoms, thermal socks, thermal underwear, fleece bottoms, fleece pullovers, fleece shorts, fleece tops, fleece vests, fleece jackets, jeans, sweaters, aprons, suits, jackets, gloves, ponchos, swimwear, sweatsuits, sports bras, coveralls, clothing layettes, sleepwear, loungewear, belts, vests, athletic sleeves, boxing shorts, arm warmers, hand-warmers, knee warmers, neck warmers, ear warmers, leg warmers, and boleros; Short-sleeved or long-sleeved T-shirts; Polo shirts; Clothing, namely, jerseys; Shorts; Pants; Nightwear; Underwear; Tights; Socks and stockings; Shawls; Sleep masks; clothing, namely, neck warmers; headgear, namely, hats, caps, visors, bonnets, headbands, and toques; Footwear; Boots and shoes for sports

 

International Class 041:  Physical fitness instruction; providing exercise instruction services in the field of pilates, yoga, health, and wellbeing; health and fitness training, namely, personal fitness training services, and physical fitness training services; personal trainer services in the field of physical fitness training; coaching in the field of sports and sports training services; Training of fitness and exercise instructors; Educational services, namely, providing training of fitness and exercise instructors for certification in the field of {indicate field of use}; Educational examination services; educational and instruction services, namely, conducting classes, seminars, conferences, and workshops in the field of arts, crafts, sports, fitness, exercise, health, and wellbeing; arranging and organization of seminars, professional workshops, symposiums and lectures; conducting seminars, workshops, symposiums and lectures in the field of sports, fitness, exercise, health, and wellbeing; providing on-line electronic publications in the nature of books, magazines, pamphlets, manuals, and brochures in the field of sports, fitness, exercise, health, and wellbeing, not downloadable; Publication of books; providing on-line videos featuring information in the field of sports, fitness, exercise, health, and wellbeing, not downloadable; fitness and exercise club services, namely, providing instruction and equipment in the field of physical exercise; health club services, namely, providing instruction and equipment in the field of physical exercise; Providing sports facilities; Rental of sports equipment, except vehicles 

 

Applicant’s goods and services may be clarified or limited, but may not be expanded beyond those originally itemized in the application or as acceptably amended.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06.  Applicant may clarify or limit the identification by inserting qualifying language or deleting items to result in a more specific identification; however, applicant may not substitute different goods and services or add goods and services not found or encompassed by those in the original application or as acceptably amended.  See TMEP §1402.06(a)-(b).  The scope of the goods and services sets the outer limit for any changes to the identification and is generally determined by the ordinary meaning of the wording in the identification.  TMEP §§1402.06(b), 1402.07(a)-(b).  Any acceptable changes to the goods and services will further limit scope, and once goods and services are deleted, they are not permitted to be reinserted.  TMEP §1402.07(e).

 

For assistance with identifying and classifying goods and services in trademark applications, please see the USPTO’s online searchable U.S. Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual.  See TMEP §1402.04.

 

In consideration of the foregoing, the identification of goods and services requirement is continued and made FINAL.

 

Response Guidelines

 

Applicant must respond within six months of the date of issuance of this final Office action or the following goods and services to which the final refusal and requirement apply will be deleted from the application by Examiner’s Amendment:

 

International Class 005:  Dietary supplements that help the user recover from fatigue arising from exercise or day-to-day living, not for use in supporting sexual function

 

International Class 024:  jersey [fabric]

 

International Class 025:  layettes

 

International Class 041:  Educational services, namely, providing certification for qualifications of fitness and exercise instructors

 

37 C.F.R. §2.65(a); see 15 U.S.C. §1062(b).

 

The application will then proceed for the following goods and services: 

 

International Class 020:  Bedding, except linen, namely, mattress toppers; Cushions; Japanese floor cushions (zabuton); Pillows; Mattresses; Sleeping bags for camping; Pet cushions

 

International Class 024:  Woven fabrics; fabrics for textile use; knitted fabrics; bed sheets; futon quilts; fitted quilt futon covers not of paper; quilts; quilt covers; pillowcases; covers for cushions; mattress covers; covers for Japanese floor cushions (zabuton); blankets, namely, bed blankets, and blankets for outdoor use; bed clothes, namely, bed sheets, and bed blankets; Bed covers

 

International Class 025:  Men's, women's and children's clothing and sports clothing apparel and outerwear, namely, t-shirts, shirts, golf shirts, wind shirts, tank tops, dress shirts, blouses, skirts, dresses, tights, leggings, stockings, leotards, sweatshirts, knit shirts, shirts with raglan sleeves, thermal bottoms, thermal socks, thermal underwear, fleece bottoms, fleece pullovers, fleece shorts, fleece tops, fleece vests, fleece jackets, jeans, sweaters, aprons, suits, jackets, gloves, ponchos, swimwear, sweatsuits, sports bras, coveralls, sleepwear, loungewear, belts, vests, athletic sleeves, boxing shorts, arm warmers, hand-warmers, knee warmers, neck warmers, ear warmers, leg warmers, and boleros; Short-sleeved or long-sleeved T-shirts; Polo shirts; Clothing, namely, jerseys; Shorts; Pants; Nightwear; Underwear; Tights; Socks and stockings; Shawls; Sleep masks; clothing, namely, neck warmers; headgear, namely, hats, caps, visors, bonnets, headbands, and toques; Footwear; Boots and shoes for sports

 

International Class 041:  Physical fitness instruction; providing exercise instruction services in the field of pilates, yoga, health, and wellbeing; health and fitness training, namely, personal fitness training services, and physical fitness training services; personal trainer services in the field of physical fitness training; coaching in the field of sports and sports training services; Training of fitness and exercise instructors; Educational examination services; educational and instruction services, namely, conducting classes, seminars, conferences, and workshops in the field of arts, crafts, sports, fitness, exercise, health, and wellbeing; arranging and organization of seminars, professional workshops, symposiums and lectures; conducting seminars, workshops, symposiums and lectures in the field of sports, fitness, exercise, health, and wellbeing; providing on-line electronic publications in the nature of books, magazines, pamphlets, manuals, and brochures in the field of sports, fitness, exercise, health, and wellbeing, not downloadable; Publication of books; providing on-line videos featuring information in the field of sports, fitness, exercise, health, and wellbeing, not downloadable; fitness and exercise club services, namely, providing instruction and equipment in the field of physical exercise; health club services, namely, providing instruction and equipment in the field of physical exercise; Providing sports facilities; Rental of sports equipment, except vehicles

 

Applicant may respond by providing one or both of the following:

 

(1)       A response that fully satisfies all outstanding requirements and resolves all outstanding refusals.

 

(2)       An appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, with the appeal fee of $100 per class.

 

37 C.F.R. §2.63(b)(1)-(2); TMEP §714.04; see 37 C.F.R. §2.6(a)(18); TBMP ch. 1200.

 

In certain rare circumstances, an applicant may respond by filing a petition to the Director pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b)(2) to review procedural issues.  TMEP §714.04; see 37 C.F.R. §2.146(b); TBMP §1201.05; TMEP §1704 (explaining petitionable matters).  The petition fee is $100.  37 C.F.R. §2.6(a)(15).

 

 

 

 

 

/Sandra Snabb/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 120

571-272-4633

Sandra.Snabb@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.

 

 

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)

 

 

IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING YOUR

U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION

 

USPTO OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) HAS ISSUED

ON 9/29/2016 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 79179997

 

Please follow the instructions below:

 

(1)  TO READ THE LETTER:  Click on this link or go to http://tsdr.uspto.gov,enter the U.S. application serial number, and click on “Documents.”

 

The Office action may not be immediately viewable, to allow for necessary system updates of the application, but will be available within 24 hours of this e-mail notification.

 

(2)  TIMELY RESPONSE IS REQUIRED:  Please carefully review the Office action to determine (1) how to respond, and (2) the applicable response time period.  Your response deadline will be calculated from 9/29/2016 (or sooner if specified in the Office action).  For information regarding response time periods, see http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/process/status/responsetime.jsp.

 

Do NOT hit “Reply” to this e-mail notification, or otherwise e-mail your response because the USPTO does NOT accept e-mails as responses to Office actions.  Instead, the USPTO recommends that you respond online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) response form located at http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp.

 

(3)  QUESTIONS:  For questions about the contents of the Office action itself, please contact the assigned trademark examining attorney.  For technical assistance in accessing or viewing the Office action in the Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) system, please e-mail TSDR@uspto.gov.

 

WARNING

 

Failure to file the required response by the applicable response deadline will result in the ABANDONMENT of your application.  For more information regarding abandonment, see http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/basics/abandon.jsp.

 

PRIVATE COMPANY SOLICITATIONS REGARDING YOUR APPLICATION:  Private companies not associated with the USPTO are using information provided in trademark applications to mail or e-mail trademark-related solicitations.  These companies often use names that closely resemble the USPTO and their solicitations may look like an official government document.  Many solicitations require that you pay “fees.” 

 

Please carefully review all correspondence you receive regarding this application to make sure that you are responding to an official document from the USPTO rather than a private company solicitation.  All official USPTO correspondence will be mailed only from the “United States Patent and Trademark Office” in Alexandria, VA; or sent by e-mail from the domain “@uspto.gov.”  For more information on how to handle private company solicitations, see http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/solicitation_warnings.jsp.