Offc Action Outgoing

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(a), 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.

SUMMARY OF ISSUES

Section 2(d) Refusal—Likelihood of Confusion
Entity Information Omitted
Identification of Goods

SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in the following U.S. Registrations:

· U.S. Registration No. 4598513 (AERLITE)

· U.S. Registration No. 4163052 (AIR LIGHT)

· U.S. Registration No. 4589446 (AIRELITE)

· U.S. Registration No. 2971552 (AIRLITE)

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

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 and/or services 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/or services, and similarity of the trade channels of the goods and/or services. 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.

Comparing the 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 and/or services 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. Triumph 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).

Comparing the applicant’s mark to the mark in U.S. Registration No. 4598513 (AERLITE)

The applicant’s mark, “AIRLITE” is likely to be confused with the registered mark, “AERLITE”.

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).

The marks are essentially phonetic equivalents and thus sound similar. 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).

Further, the marks are highly similar in appearance, differing only by the substitution of the letter “I” for the letter “E” in the “AIR” portion of the mark. This change does not affect the overall impression of the marks. Both marks convey the impression of being a combination of the terms AIR and LITE or LIGHT, identifying the “lightness” of air.

Taken together, the marks are confusingly similar.

Comparing the applicant’s mark to the mark in U.S. Registration No. 4163052 (AIR LIGHT)

The applicant’s mark, “AIRLITE” is likely to be confused with the registered mark, “AIR LIGHT”.

Further, the marks are highly similar in appearance, differing only by the substitution of the spelling “LITE” for the word “LIGHT” in the registrant’s mark. These terms are pronounced the same and convey a similar meaning. Thus, this change is insufficient to avoid a finding of confusion.

Taken together, the marks are confusingly similar.

Comparing the applicant’s mark to the mark in U.S. Registration No. 4589446 (AIRELITE)

The applicant’s mark, “AIRLITE” is likely to be confused with the registered mark, “AIRELITE”.

Further, the marks are highly similar in appearance, differing only by the addition of an extra “E” the term “AIR”. These terms are still pronounced the same and convey a similar meaning, that of the “lightness” of air. Thus, this change is insufficient to avoid a finding of confusion.

Taken together, the marks are confusingly similar.

Comparing the applicant’s mark to the mark in U.S. Registration No. 2971552 (AIRLITE)

In a likelihood of confusion determination, the marks in their entireties are compared for similarities in appearance, sound, 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)-(b)(v).

In the present case, applicant’s mark is AIRLITE and registrant’s mark is AIRLITE. These marks are identical in appearance, sound, and meaning, “and have the potential to be used . . . in exactly the same manner.” In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 116 USPQ2d 1406, 1411 (TTAB 2015). Additionally, because they are identical, these marks are likely to engender the same connotation and overall commercial impression when considered in connection with applicant’s and registrant’s respective goods and/or services. Id.

Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar.

Comparing the Goods

The applicant’s goods are identified as follows:

International Class 1: Industrial chemicals for use in the manufacture of varnishes and paints, chemicals for use in the initiation of thickening of varnishes and paints, polyurethane cross-linking agents for use in varnishes and paints, balm of gurjun (gurjon, gurjan) for making varnishes and paints, coalescing aids for the varnish and paint industries, defoaming agents for the varnish and paint industries, sequestrants for varnishes and paints, talc for use in varnishes and paints, solvents for varnishes and paint; chemical additives for varnishes

International Class 2: Varnishes with air purifying properties, varnishes with air deodorising properties; paints, varnishes, lacquers, enamels, thickening agents for varnishes and paints, colour bases for varnishes, thinners for varnishes and paints, protective coatings in the form of varnishes, sumac for varnishes, reflective varnishes; additives to paints not being chemical preparations for the manufacture of paints

International Class 5: Air deodorising and purifying preparations

International Class 11: Air purifying apparatus

See application.

The registrant’s goods are identified as follows:

U.S. Registration No. 4598513 (AERLITE) is registered in connection with “concrete additives; chemical additives for use in the manufacture of concrete; chemicals for use in industry; chemical preparations for use in industry; chemical additives for lubricants; protein for industrial use” in International Class 1.

U.S. Registration No. 4163052 (AIR LIGHT) is registered in connection with “Cosmetics; cosmetic creams; pet fragrances; hair shampoo; detergents for household use; perfumes; aromatic potpourris; dentifrices; shoe polish” in International Class 3.

U.S. Registration No. 4589446 (AIRELITE) is registered in connection with “Air movement products, namely, high volume, low speed electric fans” in International Class 11.

U.S. Registration No. 2971552 (AIRLITE) is registered in connection with “Air Filter and Purifying machines namely, machines and filters used to clean the air, for use by individuals and consumers or for retail sales and not for air sampling purposes,” in International Class 11.

See attached registrations.

With respect to applicant’s and registrant’s goods, the question of likelihood of confusion is determined based on the description of the goods stated in the application and registration at issue, not on extrinsic evidence of actual use. See Stone Lion Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 1323, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting 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 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, e.g., Sw. Mgmt., Inc. v. Ocinomled, Ltd., 115 USPQ2d 1007, 1025 (TTAB 2015); In re N.A.D., Inc., 57 USPQ2d 1872, 1874 (TTAB 2000).

In this case, the identification set forth in the application and registration(s) has no restrictions as to nature, type, channels of trade, or classes of purchasers. Therefore, it is presumed that these goods travel in all normal channels of trade, and are available to the same class of purchasers.

With respect to the goods in Registration No. 4598513, the registration use(s) broad wording to describe the goods and this wording is presumed to encompass all goods of the type described, including those in applicant’s more narrow identification of goods in Class 1.

Similarly, with respect to the goods in Registration No. 2971552, the applicant uses broad wording, air purifying apparatus, and this wording is presumed to encompass all goods of the type described, including those in the registrant’s more narrow identification.

Moreover, 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 are 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 screenshots from the websites identified below. This evidence establishes that the same entity commonly provides the relevant goods and markets the goods under the same mark and are sold in the same general channels of trade. 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).

· www.dyson.com, showing that air purifying apparatus of the type produced by applicant are produced under the same mark and in the same channels of trade as fans produced in connection with the mark in Registration No. 4589446. Moreover, this evidence shows that goods of both functions and purposes are combined into one unit.

· www.honeywellstore.com, showing that air purifying apparatus of the type produced by applicant are produced under the same mark and in the same channels of trade as fans produced in connection with the mark in Registration No. 4589446.

· www.febrezeinwash.com and www.febreze.com, showing that the same entity provides air deodorizing preparations and laundry preparations under the same mark and in the same channels of trade;

· www.armandhammer.com, showing that the same entity provides air deodorizing preparations and laundry preparations under the same mark and in the same channels of trade;

· www.sherwin-williams.com, showing that the same entity provides industrial chemicals in the nature of toluene and naptha and paint and varnish under the same mark and in the same channels of trade

· www.dow.com and www.coatings.com, showing that the same entity provides industrial chemicals and additives for paint and coatings under the same mark

The overriding concern is not only to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods, but to protect the registrant 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. 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, 1026 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

In this case, the applicant’s mark is phonetically identical and similar in appearance and impression to the marks in the cited registrations, and the goods with which they are used are closely related. Accordingly, the applicant’s proposed mark, AIRLITE, is refused for likelihood of confusion under Trademark Act Section 2(d).

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 responds to the refusal(s), applicant must also respond to the requirement(s) set forth below.

ENTITY INFORMATION OMITTED

Applicant must specify its form of business or type of legal entity and its national citizenship or U.S. state or foreign country of organization or incorporation. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(3)(i)-(ii); TMEP §§803.03, 803.04. For example, an applicant can apply as an individual, a partnership, a corporation, a joint venture, or the foreign equivalent thereof. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(3); TMEP §§803.03 et seq.

If applicant’s entity type is an individual, applicant must indicate his or her national citizenship for the record. 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(3)(i); TMEP §803.04.

If applicant’s entity type is a corporation, association, partnership, joint venture, or the foreign equivalent, applicant must set forth the U.S. state or foreign country under whose laws applicant is organized or incorporated. 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(3)(ii); TMEP §§803.03(b)-(c), 803.04. In addition, if applicant is a U.S. partnership or joint venture, applicant must list the names, legal entities and national citizenship or the U.S. state or foreign country of organization or incorporation of all the general partners or joint venturers. 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(3)(ii)-(iv); TMEP §§803.03(b), 803.04. For an association, applicant must also specify whether the association is incorporated or unincorporated. TMEP §803.03(c).

IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS

The identification of goods contains parentheses. 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 and brackets in registrations to indicate goods that have been deleted from registrations or in an affidavit of incontestability to indicate goods not claimed. 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 or scope of the identification, e.g., “fried tofu pieces (abura-age).” Id.

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

Additionally, proper punctuation in identifications of goods is necessary to delineate explicitly each product or service within a list and to avoid ambiguity. Commas, semicolons, and apostrophes are the only punctuation that should be used in an identification of goods. TMEP §1402.01(a). An applicant should not use colons and periods in an identification. Id.

In general, commas should be used in an identification (1) to separate a series of related items identified within a particular category of goods or services, (2) before and after “namely,” and (3) between each item in a list of goods or services following “namely” (e.g., personal care products, namely, body lotion, non-medicated hand soap, shampoo). TMEP §1402.01(a). Semicolons generally should be used to separate a series of distinct categories of goods or services within an international class (e.g., personal care products, namely body lotion; deodorizers for pets; glass cleaners). Id.

Further, the chart below identifies particular entries in applicant’s identification which are unacceptable. Suggestions have been provided for acceptable wording, where possible.

Original Wording	Reason Unacceptable	Suggested Wording
International Class 1
polyurethane cross-linking agents for use in varnishes and paints	The wording “agents” is indefinite. Applicant must clarify the common commercial name of this wording.	Chemicals, namely, polyurethane cross-linking agents for use in varnishes and paints
balm of gurjun (gurjon, gurjan) for making varnishes and paints	Applicant must remove the parenthetical wording from this clause. Applicant should also clearly indicate the nature of these products.	chemicals, namely, balm of gurjun for making varnishes and paints
coalescing aids for the varnish and paint industries	The wording “aids” is indefinite. Applicant must clarify the common commercial name of this wording.	Chemicals, namely, coalescing aids for the varnish and paint industries
International Class 2
Enamels	Indefinite and too broad; could identify a variety of enamels. Applicant should specify the specific type or purpose.	Enamels for painting
Color bases for varnishes	Applicant should specify the common commercial name for these goods, as their nature cannot adequately be determined.	Color bases for varnishes, namely, colorants
Sumac for varnishes	Applicant should specify the purpose or function of the sumac.	Sumac colorant for varnishes

Applicant may adopt the following wording, if accurate:

International Class 1: Industrial chemicals for use in the manufacture of varnishes and paints; chemicals for use in the initiation of thickening of varnishes and paints; chemicals, namely, polyurethane cross-linking agents for use in varnishes and paints; chemicals, namely, balm of gurjun for making varnishes and paints; chemicals, namely, coalescing aids for the varnish and paint industries; defoaming agents for the varnish and paint industries; sequestrants for varnishes and paints; talc for use in varnishes and paints; solvents for varnishes and paint; chemical additives for varnishes

International Class 2: Varnishes with air purifying properties; varnishes with air deodorizing properties; paints; varnishes; laquers; enamels for painting; thickening agents for varnishes and paints; color bases for varnishes, namely, colorants; sumac colorant for varnishes; reflective varnishes; additives to paints not being chemical preparations for the manufacture of paints

International Class 5: Air deodorizing and purifying preparations

International Class 11: Air purifying apparatus

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.

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 or an online directory of legal professionals, such as FindLaw®. The USPTO, however, may not assist an applicant in the selection of an attorney. 37 C.F.R. §2.11.

Please note that foreign attorneys, other than authorized Canadian 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. §§2.17(e), 11.14(c), (e); TMEP §602.03-.03(c).

RESPONDING TO OFFICE ACTIONS

For this application to proceed further, 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 specified in this Office action for responding to a refusal, and should consider those options carefully. To respond to requirements and certain refusal response options, applicant should set forth in writing the required changes or statements. For more information and general tips on responding to USPTO Office actions, response options, and how to file a response online, see “Responding to Office Actions” on the USPTO’s website.

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 and the trademark will fail to register. See 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.65(a), 2.68(a); TMEP §§711, 718.01, 718.02.

When an application has abandoned for failure to respond to an Office action, an applicant may timely file a 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. The petition must be filed within two months of the date of issuance of the notice of abandonment and may be filed online via the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) with a $100 fee. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(15)(ii), 2.66(b)(1).

ASSISTANCE

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. §§2.62(c), 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.

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 U.S. commonwealths or U.S. territories. 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.

/Diane Collopy/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 107

diane.collopy@uspto.gov (informal communications only)

(571) 270-3118

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.

Offc Action Outgoing

AIRLITE

AM Technology Limited

Offc Action Outgoing

STRICT DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]

Offc Action Outgoing [image/jpeg]