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.

INTRODUCTION

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

SUMMARY OF ISSUES:

· Refusal under Trademark Act Section 2(d) - Likelihood of Confusion

· Clarification of the Identification of Goods

REFUSAL UNDER TRADEMARK ACT SECTION 2(d) - LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 5532777 and 4549642. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the attached registrations.

The applied-for mark is “FORESIGHT” and design for the following goods:

· Class 009: Scientific, photographic, optical, signalling, checking [supervision], life-saving and teaching apparatus and instruments; apparatus for recording, transmission or reproduction of sound or images; data processing equipment; computer software for automotive (terms too vague in the opinion of the International Bureau - Rule 13 (2) (b) of the Common Regulations); electronic system for providing driving assistance using cameras layout (term linguistically incorrect in the opinion of the International Bureau - Rule 13(2)(b) of the Common Regulations); electronic system that captures a stereoscopic image, both day and night; computer hardware and software that monitors and provides warnings and assistance for driving and navigating motor vehicles; detection technology for autonomous driving; system that analyzes data and alerts the driver about hazards and provides information

The mark in U.S. Registration No. 5532777 is “4SIGHT” and design for the following goods:

· Class 009: Vehicle detection equipment, namely, display monitors, computers, image sensors, video cameras, and operating system and application software to detect vehicle location; Vehicle safety equipment, namely, an on-board vehicular surveillance system comprised of cameras and monitors for exposing and eliminating the blind spots on both sides of the vehicle; Vehicle safety equipment, namely, back-up sensors and cameras; Rearview cameras for vehicles; Safety and driving assistant system for mobile vehicles and vessels comprised of electronic proximity sensors and switches, high-resolution cameras, integrated circuits for the purpose of imaging processing, and display monitors.

The mark in U.S. Registration No. 4549642 is “IN 4 SIGHT” in standard characters for the following goods and services:

· Class 009: Scientific, nautical, surveying, photographic, cinematographic, optical, weighing, measuring, signaling, checking, supervision, life-saving and teaching apparatus and instruments, namely, software for support decision making, situational analyses and diagnostics; apparatus for recording, transmission or reproduction of sound or images; sound recording or optical disks, namely, blank optical discs, blank CD-ROMs for sound recording; compact disks featuring software for analyzing and abstracting data in the field of data science; equipment for data processing and computers; game software; recorded computer software for mass data processing, decision making, situational analyses and cognitive agents; diagnostic apparatus not for medical use, namely, computers used to support decision making

· Class 035: Advertising services; business management; business administration; providing office functions; direct mail advertising services via leaflets, prospectuses, printed matter and samples; arranging newspaper subscriptions for others; arranging subscriptions to telecommunication services for others; presentation of goods on communication media, for retail purposes, namely, providing television home shopping services in the field of general consumers merchandise; business management and organization consultancy; accounting services; document reproduction; employment agencies; computerized file management; organization of exhibitions for commercial or advertising purposes; on-line advertising on a computer network; rental of advertising time on all communication media; publication of advertising texts; rental of advertising space; dissemination of advertisements; public relations

· Class 038: telecommunication services, namely, telecommunication access services; telecommunication information; communications by computer terminals or by fiber-optic networks; communications by radio or telephone; cellular telephone communication services; providing user access to global computer networks; providing chatrooms on the Internet; providing access to databases; electronic bulletin board services; providing telecommunication connections to a global computer network; news agencies for electronic transmission ; rental of telecommunication apparatus; radio or television programs broadcasting; teleconferencing services; electronic messaging services; rental of access time to global computer networks

· Class 041: Educational services, namely, providing classes, seminars workshops in the field of software and decision making; training services in the field of software and decision making; providing information about education; vocational retraining services in the field of computer services; providing recreation facilities; publication of books; lending libraries; videotape film production; rental of motion pictures; rental of sound recordings; rental of video cassette recorders and radio and television sets; rental of show scenery; videotape editing; photography services; organization of competitions in the field of education or entertainment; organization of and conducting live colloquiums, conferences or congresses in the field of education, culture, sports and entertainment for non-business and non-commercial purposes; organization of exhibitions for cultural or educational purposes; booking of seats for shows; entertainment services, namely providing online computer games provided on-line from a computer network; gambling services; multimedia publishing of electronic books and journals on-line; electronic desktop publishing

· Class 042: engineering services featuring evaluations, assessments and research in the fields of engineering science and technology; design and development of computer hardware and software; research and development of new products for others; technical project study, namely, conducting feasibility studies; architecture services; design of interior decor; development, design, installation, maintenance, updating or rental of computer software; computer programming; computer system analysis; computer system design services; consultancy in the field of computers; data conversion of computer programs and data; conversion of data or documents from physical to electronic media; vehicle roadworthiness testing; graphic arts design services; styling, namely, industrial design; authentication of works of art

Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that so resembles a registered mark that it is likely a consumer would be confused, mistaken, or deceived as to the source of the goods and/or services of the applicant and registrant(s). See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d). Determining likelihood of confusion is made on a case-by-case basis by applying 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). In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1322, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1747 (Fed. Cir. 2017). However, “[n]ot all of the [du Pont] factors are relevant to every case, and only factors of significance to the particular mark need be considered.” Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1366, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1719 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601. F.3d 1342, 1346, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1259 (Fed. Cir 2010)). The USPTO may focus its analysis “on dispositive factors, such as similarity of the marks and relatedness of the goods [and/or services].” In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d at 1322, 123 USPQ2d at 1747 (quoting Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 1164-65, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2002)); see TMEP §1207.01.

In this case, the following factors are the most relevant: similarity of the marks and similarity and relatedness of the goods and services.

Similarity of 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).

As to Registration No. 5532777, the literal element in the applied-for mark “FORESIGHT” is nearly identical to the literal element in the registered mark “4SIGHT”. These marks are identical in 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), aff’d, 866 F.3d 1315, 123 USPQ2d 1744 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Additionally, because they share identical sound and meaning, 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. Id.

The difference in spelling does not obviate the similarity of the marks. 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, when evaluating a composite mark containing both words and designs, the word portion is more likely to indicate the origin of the goods and/or services because it is that portion of the mark that consumers use when referring to or requesting the goods and/or services. Bond v. Taylor, 119 USPQ2d 1049, 1055 (TTAB 2016) (citing In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908, 1911 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii). Although 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 1366-67, 101 USPQ2d at 1911 (citing Giant Food, Inc. v. Nation’s Foodservice, Inc., 710 F.2d 1565, 1570-71, 218 USPQ2d 390, 395 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). Thus, the design element in the applied-for and registered marks do not obviate the similarity of the marks in this case.

As to Registration No. 4549642, the applied-for mark is nearly identical to the registered mark “IN 4 SIGHT” in that they share the same dominant wording “foresight”. Marks may be confusingly similar 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 addition of “IN” in the registered mark does not obviate the similarity between the compared marks, nor does it overcome a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d). See Wella Corp. v. Cal. Concept Corp., 558 F.2d 1019, 1022, 194 USPQ 419, 422 (C.C.P.A. 1977) (finding CALIFORNIA CONCEPT and surfer design and CONCEPT confusingly similar); Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Jos. E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 526 F.2d 556, 557, 188 USPQ 105, 106 (C.C.P.A. 1975) (finding BENGAL LANCER and design and BENGAL confusingly similar); In re Integrated Embedded, 120 USPQ2d 1504, 1513 (TTAB 2016) (finding BARR GROUP and BARR confusingly similar); In re Mr. Recipe, LLC, 118 USPQ2d 1084, 1090 (TTAB 2016) (finding JAWS DEVOUR YOUR HUNGER and JAWS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iii).

Further, as discussed above, the difference in spelling and the design element in the applied-for mark do not obviate the similarity of the applicant’s mark to the registered mark. In this case, the marks are identical in part in sound and meaning and create a similar commercial impression; thus they are confusingly similar.

Similarity and Relatedness of the Goods and Services

Determining likelihood of confusion is based on the description of the goods and services stated in the application and registrations at issue, not on 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)).

The compared goods and services 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); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i). They 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 and/or services] 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).

Here, the application uses broad wording to describe its electronic goods in Class 009 (i.e., “Scientific, photographic, optical, signalling, checking [supervision], life-saving and teaching apparatus and instruments”; “apparatus for recording, transmission or reproduction of sound or images”; “data processing equipment”; “computer software for automotive”), which presumably encompasses all goods of the type described, including the goods in Registration No. 5532777 (i.e., “vehicle detection equipment”; “vehicle safety equipment”) and Registration No. 4549642 (i.e., “Scientific, nautical, surveying, photographic, cinematographic, optical, weighing, measuring, signaling, checking, supervision, life-saving and teaching apparatus and instruments, namely, software for support decision making, situational analyses and diagnostics”; “apparatus for recording, transmission or reproduction of sound or images”; “equipment for data processing and computers”). 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).

Additionally, the applicant’s electronic goods are closely related to the services in Registration No. 4549642. The registration uses broad wording to describe its services in Classes 035, 038, 041 and 042, which presumably encompass all services of the type described, including services that may be related to the applicant’s broad list of electronic goods. The registrant’s “business management” and “business administration services” are broad enough to encompass services that utilize applicant’s “data processing equipment.” The registrant’s “telecommunication services” are closely related to applicant’s “apparatus for...transmission or reproduction of sound or images.” The registrant’s “training services in the field of software and decision making” is closely related to applicant’s “Scientific, photographic, optical, signalling, checking [supervision], life-saving and teaching apparatus and instruments.” The registrant’s “engineering services featuring evaluations, assessments and research in the fields of engineering science and technology” is closely related to applicant’s “Scientific, photographic, optical, signalling, checking [supervision], life-saving and teaching apparatus and instruments” and “apparatus for recording, transmission or reproduction of sound or images.”

Generally, the greater degree of similarity between the applied-for mark and the registered marks, the lesser the degree of similarity between the goods and services of the parties is required to support a finding of likelihood of confusion. In re C.H. Hanson Co., 116 USPQ2d 1351, 1353 (TTAB 2015) (citing In re Opus One Inc., 60 USPQ2d 1812, 1815 (TTAB 2001)); In re Thor Tech, Inc., 90 USPQ2d 1634, 1636 (TTAB 2009).

Conclusion

The applicant’s mark is confusingly similar to the registrants’ marks because they share a common phrase and create similar commercial impressions. In addition, the applicant’s goods are identical to or closely related to the registrants’ goods/services. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, registration of applicant’s mark is refused under Trademark Act Section 2(d).

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 requirements set forth below.

CLARIFICATION OF THE IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS

Some of the wording in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified to specify the nature of the goods. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.

The identification 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/services that have been deleted from registrations or in an affidavit of incontestability to indicate goods/services 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.

Applicant may adopt the following identification of goods, if accurate. Suggested edits are in bold and comments requiring attention are in bold italics.

· Class 009: Scientific, photographic, optical, signalling, checking, supervision, ~~[supervision],~~ life-saving and teaching apparatus and instruments, namely, {specify apparatus/instrument by common commercial name or explain the function of the apparatus/instrument, e.g., cameras, binoculars, sound alarms, life jackets, teaching robots}; apparatus for recording, transmission or reproduction of sound or images; data processing apparatus ~~equipment~~; computer software for automotive, namely, {specify function of software, e.g., operating software to enable self-driving functions on motor vehicles} ~~(terms too vague in the opinion of the International Bureau - Rule 13 (2) (b) of the Common Regulations)~~; ~~electronic system for providing driving assistance using cameras layout~~ electronic safety and driving assistant system for mobile vehicles comprised of {specify the components of the system, e.g., electronic proximity sensors and switches, high-resolution cameras, integrated circuits for the purpose of imaging processing, and display monitors} ~~(term linguistically incorrect in the opinion of the International Bureau - Rule 13(2)(b) of the Common Regulations)~~; electronic system comprised of {specify the components of the system, e.g., digital and infrared cameras, video monitors, computer hardware and operating software} that captures a stereoscopic image, both day and night; computer hardware and software that monitors and provides warnings and assistance for driving and navigating motor vehicles; ~~detection technology for autonomous driving~~ detection equipment for use with autonomous driving vehicles comprised of {specify the components, e.g., motion sensors, radar transmitters and receivers, cameras, computer hardware and software for processing data and images to enable the vehicle to avoid other objects}; computer hardware and software system that analyzes data and alerts the driver about hazards and provides information related to {specify the subject matter of the information, e.g., road and weather conditions and vehicle operations data}.

Scope Advisory

Applicant may amend the identification to clarify or limit the goods and/or services, but not to broaden or expand the goods and/or services beyond those in the original application or as acceptably amended. See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06. Generally, any deleted goods and/or services may not later be reinserted. See TMEP §1402.07(e). Additionally, for applications filed under Trademark Act Section 66(a), the scope of the identification for purposes of permissible amendments is limited by the international class assigned by the International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organization (International Bureau); and the classification of goods and/or services may not be changed from that assigned by the International Bureau. 37 C.F.R. §2.85(d); TMEP §§1401.03(d), 1904.02(b). Further, in a multiple-class Section 66(a) application, classes may not be added or goods and/or services transferred from one existing class to another. 37 C.F.R. §2.85(d); TMEP §1401.03(d).

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.

REQUIREMENT FOR A DESCRIPTION OF THE MARK

The applied-for mark is not in standard characters and applicant did not provide a description of the mark with the initial application. Applications for marks not in standard characters must include an accurate and concise description of the entire mark that identifies literal elements as well as any design elements. See 37 C.F.R. §2.37; TMEP §§808.01, 808.02, 808.03(b).

Therefore, applicant must provide a description of the applied-for mark. The following is suggested:

The mark consists of the wording “FORESIGHT” in stylized capital letters. The “O” in “FORESIGHT” is a shaded circle with two stylized curved lines shaped like a road extending from bottom left to top right of the circle.

RESPONSE GUIDELINES & ABANDONMENT ADVISORY

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(a)(1), (b)(1).

ATTORNEY REFERRAL ADVISORY

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).

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.

/Julie H. Choe/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 126

United States Patent & Trademark Office

(571) 270-3368

Julie.Choe@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.

Offc Action Outgoing

FORESIGHT

FORESIGHT AUTOMOTIVE LTD.

Offc Action Outgoing

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]