United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
|
U.S. Application Serial No. 79269675
Mark: KRYSTAL
|
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
|
Applicant: EURO DIFFUSION MEDICALE
|
|
|
Reference/Docket No. N/A
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
International Registration No. 1492647
Notice of Provisional Full Refusal
Deadline for responding. The USPTO must receive applicant’s response within six months of the “date on which the notification was sent to WIPO (mailing date)” located on the WIPO cover letter, or the U.S. application will be abandoned. To confirm the mailing date, go to the USPTO’s Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) database, select “US Serial, Registration, or Reference No.,” enter the U.S. application serial number in the blank text box, and click on “Documents.” The mailing date used to calculate the response deadline is the “Create/Mail Date” of the “IB-1rst Refusal Note.”
Respond to this Office action using the USPTO’s Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS). A link to the appropriate TEAS response form appears at the end of this Office action.
Discussion of provisional full refusal. This is a provisional full refusal of the request for extension of protection to the United States of the international registration, known in the United States as a U.S. application based on Trademark Act Section 66(a). See 15 U.S.C. §§1141f(a), 1141h(c).
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
Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 4632639.
Although not all du Pont factors may be relevant, there are generally two key considerations in any likelihood of confusion analysis: (1) the similarities between the compared marks and (2) the relatedness of the compared goods and/or services. See 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)); Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co.,544 F.2d 1098, 1103, 192 USPQ 24, 29 (C.C.P.A. 1976) (“The fundamental inquiry mandated by [Section] 2(d) goes to the cumulative effect of differences in the essential characteristics of the goods [or services] and differences in the marks.”); TMEP §1207.01.
The applied-for mark is KRYSTAL plus design for use in connection with goods including pharmaceutical preparations for human use; chemical products for pharmaceutical use, pharmaceutical products, diagnostic agents and preparations for medical use, contrast agents for diagnostic ultrasound imaging, diagnostic agents for medical use, diagnostic substances for medical use, radiological contrast substances for medical use, products for diagnostic testing for medical use, contrast products for medical imaging, contrast media for in-vivo imaging, contrast products for use with medical equipment; medicated body gels, and dental preparations and products for medical use.
preparations for human use; chemical products for pharmaceutical use; pharmaceutical products; sanitary preparation and products for medical use; disinfectants and antiseptics; diagnostic agents and preparations for medical use; Contrast agents for diagnostic ultrasound imaging; diagnostic agents for medical use; diagnostic substances for medical use; radiological contrast substances for medical use; products for diagnostic testing for medical use; contrast products for medical ultrasound apparatus; contrast products for medical imaging; Contrast media for in-vivo imaging; contrast products for use with medical equipment; gases and gas mixtures for use in medical imaging; medicated body gels; dental preparations and products for medical use; deodorants
Registration No. 4632639 is CRYSTAL PHARMA plus design for use in connection with goods and services including anti-inflammatories, contraceptives, dermatological pharmaceutical products, hormones for medical purposes, pharmaceutical anti-allergic preparations and substances, pharmaceutical preparations for skin care, pharmaceutical preparations for the treatment and prevention of disorders of the immune system, the metabolic system, the respiratory system, the musculo-skeletal system, the genitourinary system, pharmaceutical preparations for the treatment of dermatitis, eczema, rhinitis, pruitic, respiratory, hormonal, dermatological and immune system related diseases and disorders, inflammatory disorders, for use in dermatology; pharmaceutical preparations for treating allergic rhinitis and asthma, pharmaceutical preparations for use in dermatology, pharmaceutical products for the prevention and treatment of cancer, pharmaceutical products for treating respiratory diseases and asthma, and steroids.
The Trademark Act not only guards against the misimpression that the senior user is the source of a junior user’s goods and/or services, but it also protects against “reverse confusion,” where a significantly larger or prominent junior user is perceived as the source of a smaller, senior user’s goods and/or services such that the “senior user may experience diminution or even loss of its mark’s identity and goodwill due to extensive use of a confusingly similar mark by the junior user” for related goods and/or services. In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1329, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1752 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1208, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1690 (Fed. Cir. 1993)); Fisons Horticulture, Inc. v. Vigoro Indust., Inc., 30 F.3d 466, 474-75, 31 USPQ2d 1592, 1597-98 (3d Cir. 1994).
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 Inn at St. John’s, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1746 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Davia, 110 USPQ2d 1810, 1812 (TTAB 2014)); TMEP §1207.01(b).
Here, the applied-for mark is KRYSTAL plus design and the registered mark is CRYSTAL PHARMA plus design. That the term KRYSTAL comprises the entirety of the word portion of the applied-for mark and its phonetical equivalent, CRYSTAL, is the first word of the registered mark is significant in a likelihood of confusion analysis. Consumers are generally more inclined to focus on the first word, prefix, or syllable in any trademark or service mark. See Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1372, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1692 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (finding similarity between VEUVE ROYALE and two VEUVE CLICQUOT marks in part because “VEUVE . . . remains a ‘prominent feature’ as the first word in the mark and the first word to appear on the label”); Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Century Life of Am., 970 F.2d 874, 876, 23 USPQ2d 1698, 1700 (Fed Cir. 1992) (finding similarity between CENTURY 21 and CENTURY LIFE OF AMERICA in part because “consumers must first notice th[e] identical lead word”); see also In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1303, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1049 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding “the identity of the marks’ two initial words is particularly significant because consumers typically notice those words first”).
The significant wording, KRYSTAL and CRYSTAL 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).
Likewise, 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 only additional wording in the registered mark is PHARMA, which is strongly descriptive of registrant’s pharmaceutical preparations. Accordingly, the wording has been disclaimed by registrant. Although marks are compared in their entireties, one feature of a mark may be more significant or dominant in creating a commercial impression. See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 1058, 224 USPQ 749, 751 (Fed. Cir. 1985); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii). Disclaimed matter that is descriptive of or generic for a party’s goods and/or services is typically less significant or less dominant when comparing marks. In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1305, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re Dixie Rests., Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 1407, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533-34 (Fed. Cir. 1997)); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii).
Although applicant’s mark does not contain the entirety of the word portion of the registered mark, applicant’s mark is likely to appear to prospective purchasers as a shortened form of registrant’s mark. See In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 1348, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting United States Shoe Corp., 229 USPQ 707, 709 (TTAB 1985)). Thus, merely omitting some of the wording from a registered mark may not overcome a likelihood of confusion. See In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 94 USPQ2d 1257; In re Optica Int’l, 196 USPQ 775, 778 (TTAB 1977); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii). In this case, applicant’s mark does not create a distinct commercial impression from the registered mark because it contains some of the wording in the registered mark and does not add any wording that would distinguish it from that mark.
The design elements of the two marks differ, but when evaluating a composite mark consisting of words and a design, the word portion is normally accorded greater weight because it is likely to make a greater impression upon purchasers, be remembered by them, and be used by them to refer to or request the goods and/or services. In re Aquitaine Wine USA, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1181, 1184 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii). Thus, 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)).
When comparing marks, “[t]he proper test is not a side-by-side comparison of the marks, but instead whether the marks are sufficiently similar in terms of their commercial impression such that [consumers] who encounter the marks would be likely to assume a connection between the parties.” Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., __ F.3d __, 127 USPQ2d 1797, 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (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 Inn at St. John’s, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1746 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re St. Helena Hosp., 774 F.3d 747, 750-51, 113 USPQ2d 1082, 1085 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Geigy Chem. Corp. v. Atlas Chem. Indus., Inc., 438 F.2d 1005, 1007, 169 USPQ 39, 40 (CCPA 1971)); TMEP §1207.01(b).
Relatedness of the Goods
Here, both parties use their marks in the field of pharmaceuticals. Applicant’s identified goods include pharmaceutical preparations for human use, chemical products for pharmaceutical use, pharmaceutical products, diagnostic agents and preparations for medical use, contrast agents for diagnostic ultrasound imaging, diagnostic substances for medical use, radiological contrast substances for medical use, products for diagnostic testing for medical use, contrast products for medical imaging, contrast media for in-vivo imaging, medicated body gels, and dental preparations and products for medical use.
Registrant’s goods include anti-inflammatories, contraceptives, dermatological pharmaceutical products, hormones for medical purposes, pharmaceutical anti-allergic preparations and substances, pharmaceutical preparations for skin care, pharmaceutical preparations for the treatment and prevention of disorders of the immune system, the metabolic system, the respiratory system, the musculo-skeletal system, the genitourinary system, pharmaceutical preparations for the treatment of dermatitis, eczema, rhinitis, pruitic, respiratory, hormonal, dermatological and immune system related diseases and disorders, inflammatory disorders, for use in dermatology; pharmaceutical preparations for treating allergic rhinitis and asthma, pharmaceutical preparations for use in dermatology, pharmaceutical products for the prevention and treatment of cancer, pharmaceutical products for treating respiratory diseases and asthma, and steroids.
In this case, the application uses broad wording to describe pharmaceutical preparations for human use, chemical products for pharmaceutical use, pharmaceutical products, diagnostic agents and preparations for medical use, contrast agents for diagnostic ultrasound imaging, diagnostic substances for medical use, radiological contrast substances for medical use, products for diagnostic testing for medical use, which presumably encompasses all goods and/or services of the type described, including registrant’s more narrow anti-inflammatories, contraceptives, dermatological pharmaceutical products, pharmaceutical preparations for skin care, pharmaceutical preparations for the treatment and prevention of disorders of the immune system, the metabolic system, the respiratory system, the musculo-skeletal system, the genitourinary system, pharmaceutical preparations for the treatment of dermatitis, eczema, rhinitis, pruitic, respiratory, hormonal, dermatological and immune system related diseases and disorders, inflammatory disorders, for use in dermatology, pharmaceutical preparations for treating allergic rhinitis and asthma, pharmaceutical preparations for use in dermatology, pharmaceutical products for the prevention and treatment of cancer, pharmaceutical products for treating respiratory diseases and asthma, and steroids. See, e.g., In re Solid State Design Inc., 125 USPQ2d 1409, 1412-15 (TTAB 2018); Sw. Mgmt., Inc. v. Ocinomled, Ltd., 115 USPQ2d 1007, 1025 (TTAB 2015). Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods are legally identical. See, e.g., In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 127 USPQ2d 1627, 1629 (TTAB 2018) (citing Tuxedo Monopoly, Inc. v.Gen. Mills Fun Grp., Inc., 648 F.2d 1335, 1336, 209 USPQ 986, 988 (C.C.P.A. 1981); Inter IKEA Sys. B.V. v. Akea, LLC, 110 USPQ2d 1734, 1745 (TTAB 2014); Baseball Am. Inc. v. Powerplay Sports Ltd., 71 USPQ2d 1844, 1847 n.9 (TTAB 2004)).
Additionally, the goods and/or services of the parties have no restrictions as to nature, type, channels of trade, or classes of purchasers and 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)). Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods and/or services are related.
The presumption under Trademark Act Section 7(b) is that the registrant is the owner of the mark and that their use of the mark extends to all goods and/or services identified in the registration. 15 U.S.C. §1057(b). In the absence of limitations as to channels of trade or classes of purchasers in the goods and/or services in the registration, the presumption is that the goods and/or services move in all trade channels normal for such goods and/or services and are available to all potential classes of ordinary consumers of such goods and/or services. See In re I-Coat Co., 126 USPQ2d 1730, 1737 (TTAB 2018); In re Melville Corp., 18 USPQ2d 1386, 1388 (TTAB 1991); TMEP §1207.01(a)(iii).
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 and/or services as those of both applicant and registrant in this case. This evidence shows that the goods and/or services listed therein, namely dental preparations, diagnostic preparations and pharmaceuticals in the nature of anti-inflammatories and treatments for disorders of the immune system, the metabolic system, the respiratory system, the musculo-skeletal system, and the genitourinary system, are of a kind that may emanate from a single source under a single mark. See In re I-Coat Co., 126 USPQ2d 1730, 1737 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Infinity Broad. Corp., 60 USPQ2d 1214, 1217-18 (TTAB 2001); In re Albert Trostel & Sons Co.,29 USPQ2d 1783, 1785-86 (TTAB 1993); In re Mucky Duck Mustard Co., 6 USPQ2d 1467, 1470 n.6 (TTAB 1988)); TMEP §1207.01(d)(iii).
The overriding concern is not only to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods and/or services, but to protect the registrant 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).
Conclusion
The marks are similar and the goods and services are closely related, and virtually identical in part. Accordingly, registration of the applied-for mark is refused pursuant to 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.
Color Claim and Mark Description
Applicant may respond to this requirement by satisfying one of the following:
(1) If color is not a feature of the mark, applicant must submit a black-and-white drawing of the mark to replace the color drawing. See TMEP §807.07(a)(i). However, any other amendments to the drawing will not be accepted if they materially alter the mark. 37 C.F.R. §2.72; see TMEP §§807.14 et seq. Applicant must also submit a revised description of all literal and design elements in the mark, deleting any reference to color, if appropriate. 37 C.F.R. §2.37; see TMEP §§808.01, 808.02. The following description is suggested, if accurate: The mark consists of the wording KRYSTAL separated into 2 parts, with KRY appearing in stylized lettering above STAL, which appears in the same style lettering. Below the wording is a shaded horizontal band and another shaded horizontal band split into two sections appears above the wording. Centered above the split band is a shaded diamond containing a large stylized crystal outlined with a broad band and filled with three shaded geometric elements.”
(2) If color is a feature of the mark, applicant must submit a statement (a) listing all the colors that are claimed as a feature of the mark and (b) describing all the literal and design elements in the mark that specifies where each color appears in those elements. 37 C.F.R. §§2.37, 2.52(b)(1); TMEP §807.07(a)-(a)(ii). Generic color names must be used to describe the colors in the mark, e.g., red, yellow, blue. TMEP §807.07(a)(i)-(ii). If black, white, and/or gray represent background, outlining, shading, and/or transparent areas and are not part of the mark, applicant must so specify in the description. See TMEP §807.07(d). The following color claim and description are suggested, if accurate:
Color claim: “The colors pale green, aqua green, blue and white e are claimed as a feature of the mark.”
Description: “The mark consists of the following: the wording KRYSTAL separated into 2 parts, with KRY appearing in aqua green stylized lettering above STAL, which appears in the same style aqua green lettering. Below the wording is a blue horizontal band and another blue horizontal band split into two sections appears above the wording. Centered above the split blue band is an aqua green diamond containing a large stylized crystal outlined in the color white, filled with the three geometric elements in the colors aqua green and pale green. All text and design appear against a white background.”
See TMEP §807.07(b).
Amended Identification of Goods Required
In an application filed under Trademark Act Section 66(a), an applicant may not change the classification of goods and/or services from that assigned by the International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organization in the corresponding international registration. 37 C.F.R. §2.85(d); TMEP §§1401.03(d), 1904.02(b). Therefore, although the goods and/or services may be classified in several international classes, any modification to this wording must identify goods and/or services in International Class 5 only, the class specified in the application for these goods and/or services. See TMEP §1904.02(c).
Therefore, applicant must amend this wording to specify either (1) the common generic name of each product or (2) the nature, purpose, and/or intended use of each product. See TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03.
Applicant may adopt the following wording in International Class 5, if accurate:
Class 5: Pharmaceutical preparations for human use, namely ________ [specify type of Class 5 preparations, e.g. antivirals, for treating skin disorders]; chemical products for pharmaceutical use, namely _______ [specify type of Class 5 chemical products, e.g. cellulose esters ; pharmaceutical products, namely ________ [specify type of Class 5 products, e.g., for the treatment of bone disease]; sanitary preparations for medical use; sanitary products for medical use, namely _______ [specify type of Class 5 products, e.g. sanitary masks] ; disinfectants and antiseptics; diagnostic agents and preparations for medical use; Contrast agents for diagnostic ultrasound imaging; diagnostic agents for medical use; diagnostic substances for medical use; radiological contrast substances for medical use; products for diagnostic testing for medical use, namely _______ [specify type of Class 5 products, e.g. diagnostic test patch for application to the skin for determining allergies]; contrast products for medical ultrasound apparatus; contrast products for medical imaging, namely _______ [specify type of Class 5 products, e.g. contrast media]; Contrast media for in-vivo imaging; contrast products for use with medical equipment, namely _______ [specify type of Class 5 products, e.g. x-ray contrast agents]; gases and gas mixtures for use in medical imaging; medicated body gels; dental preparations and products for medical use, namely _______ [specify type of Class 5 products, e.g. dental preparations for disclosing plaque, dental wax, dental ceramics, dental veneers]; deodorants, namely _______ [specify type of Class 5 goods, e.g. household deodorant]
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.
Please email the assigned trademark examining attorney with questions about this Office action. Although the trademark examining attorney cannot provide legal advice or statements about applicant’s rights, the trademark examining attorney can provide applicant with additional explanation about the refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) in this Office action. See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06. Although the USPTO does not accept emails as responses to Office actions, emails can be used for informal communications and will be included in the application record. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(c), 2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05.
Applicant must be represented by a U.S.-licensed attorney at the USPTO to respond to or appeal the provisional refusal. An applicant whose domicile is located outside of the United States or its territories is foreign-domiciled and must be represented at the USPTO by an attorney who is an active member in good standing of the bar of the highest court of a U.S. state or territory. 37 C.F.R. §§2.11(a), 11.14; Requirement of U.S.-Licensed Attorney for Foreign-Domiciled Trademark Applicants & Registrants, Examination Guide 4-19, at I.A. (Rev. Sept. 2019). An individual applicant’s domicile is the place a person resides and intends to be the person’s principal home. 37 C.F.R. §2.2(o); Examination Guide 4-19, at I.A. A juristic entity’s domicile is the principal place of business; i.e., headquarters, where a juristic entity applicant’s senior executives or officers ordinarily direct and control the entity’s activities. 37 C.F.R. §2.2(o); Examination Guide 4-19, at I.A. Because applicant is foreign-domiciled, applicant must appoint such a U.S.-licensed attorney qualified to practice under 37 C.F.R. §11.14 as its representative before the application may proceed to registration. 37 C.F.R. §2.11(a). See Hiring a U.S.-licensed trademark attorney for more information.
To appoint or designate a U.S.-licensed attorney. To appoint an attorney, applicant should submit a completed Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) Revocation, Appointment, and/or Change of Address of Attorney/Domestic Representative form. The newly-appointed attorney must submit a TEAS Response to Examining Attorney Office Action form indicating that an appointment of attorney has been made and address all other refusals or requirements in this action, if any. Alternatively, if applicant retains an attorney before filing the response, the attorney can respond to this Office action by using the appropriate TEAS response form and provide his or her attorney information in the form and sign it as applicant’s attorney. See 37 C.F.R. §2.17(b)(1)(ii).
How to respond. Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action
/Suzanne Blane/
Examining Attorney
Law Office 114
Phone: 571-272-5497
suzanne.blane@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE