Offc Action Outgoing

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: 11/22/2010

 

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.

 

SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 3449405.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the enclosed registration.

 

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

 

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

 

For the reasons set forth below, the examining attorney submits that there is a likelihood of confusion between applicant’s mark ICARE [& design] for “Contact Lenses, Eyeglasses, Frames” and “Retail and Wholesale Optical Services,” and registrant’s mark:

 

• ICARE VISION CENTERS [& design] (U.S. Reg. No. 3449405) for “Optometric Services; Eye glass fitting; and Optical Lens Fitting” in International Class 44.

 

COMPARISON OF THE MARKS

 

In the present case, applicant’s applied-for mark and the registered mark share the identical wording “ICARE.” 

 

“ICARE” is also the first word in the registered mark, and consumers are generally more inclined to focus on the first part of 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); see also Mattel Inc. v. Funline Merch. Co., 81 USPQ2d 1372, 1374-75 (TTAB 2006); Presto Prods., Inc. v. Nice-Pak Prods., Inc., 9 USPQ2d 1895, 1897 (TTAB 1988) (“it is often the first part of a mark which is most likely to be impressed upon the mind of a purchaser and remembered” when making purchasing decisions).

 

Moreover, both the applied-for mark and the registered mark dot the “I” in “ICARE” with an eye design.

 

The fact that applicant has deleted the wording “VISION CENTERS” from the registered mark will not prevent confusion.  See In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 94 USPQ2d 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2010); In re Optica Int’l, 196 USPQ 775, 778 (TTAB 1977); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii).  Applicant’s mark does not create a distinct commercial impression because it contains the same common wording as registrant’s mark, and there is no other wording to distinguish it from registrant’s mark.  In any event, “VISION CENTERS” has already been disclaimed from the registered mark as being descriptive.  Disclaimed matter is typically less significant or less dominant when comparing marks.  See In re Dixie Rests., Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 1407, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533-34 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 1060, 224 USPQ 749, 752 (Fed. Cir. 1985); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii).  As such, “ICARE” is the dominant portion of the registered mark for likelihood of confusion purposes.

 

COMPARISON OF THE GOODS/SERVICES

 

If the goods/services of the respective parties are “similar in kind and/or closely related,” the degree of similarity between the marks required to support a finding of likelihood of confusion is not as great as would be required with diverse goods/services.  In re J.M. Originals Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1393, 1394 (TTAB 1987); see Shen Mfg. Co. v. Ritz Hotel Ltd., 393 F.3d 1238, 1242, 73 USPQ2d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2004); TMEP §1207.01(b).  The fact that the goods/services of the parties differ is not controlling in determining likelihood of confusion.  The issue is not likelihood of confusion between particular goods/services, but likelihood of confusion as to the source of those goods/services.  In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1208, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1690 (Fed. Cir. 1993); TMEP §1207.01; see Safety-Kleen Corp. v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 518 F.2d 1399, 1404, 186 USPQ 476, 480 (C.C.P.A. 1975).

 

In the present case, applicant offers contact lenses and eyeglasses, and registrant offers optical lens and eyeglass fitting services.  Consumers are likely to be confused by the use of similar marks on or in connection with goods and with services featuring or related to those goods.  TMEP §1207.01(a)(ii); see In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 6 USPQ2d 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (holding BIGG’S for retail grocery and general merchandise store services likely to be confused with BIGGS for furniture); In re United Serv. Distribs., Inc., 229 USPQ 237 (TTAB 1986) (holding design for distributorship services in the field of health and beauty aids likely to be confused with design for skin cream); In re Phillips-Van Heusen Corp., 228 USPQ 949 (TTAB 1986) (holding 21 CLUB for various items of men’s, boys’, girls’ and women’s clothing likely to be confused with THE “21” CLUB (stylized) for restaurant services and towels); In re U.S. Shoe Corp., 229 USPQ 707 (TTAB 1985) (holding CAREER IMAGE (stylized) for retail women’s clothing store services and clothing likely to be confused with CREST CAREER IMAGES (stylized) for uniforms); Steelcase Inc. v. Steelcare Inc., 219 USPQ 433 (TTAB 1983) (holding STEELCARE INC. for refinishing of furniture, office furniture, and machinery likely to be confused with STEELCASE for office furniture and accessories); Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Huskie Freightways, Inc., 177 USPQ 32 (TTAB 1972) (holding similar marks for trucking services and on motor trucks and buses likely to cause confusion).

 

Moreover, attached are copies of printouts from the USPTO X-Search database, which show ten (10) third-party registrations of marks used in connection with the same or similar goods and services as those of applicant and registrant in this case.  These printouts have probative value to the extent that they serve to suggest that applicant’s goods and registrant’s services are of a kind that may emanate from a single source.  In re Infinity Broad. Corp. of Dallas,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).  As such, consumer confusion as to the source of the goods and services being provided is likely since it is common for a single entity to offer both applicant’s goods and registrant’s services under the same mark.

 

Regarding applicant’s services, applicant offers “optical services.”  This language is so broad that it could include the services provided by the registrant.  See In re La Peregrina Ltd., 86 USPQ2d 1645, 1646 (TTAB 2008); In re Jump Designs LLC, 80 USPQ2d 1370, 1374 (TTAB 2006); TMEP §1207.01(a)(iii).

 

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

 

CONCLUSION

 

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, 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1988).  As such, because applicant’s applied-for mark and registrant’s mark are nearly identical in sound, appearance, and commercial impression, and because applicant’s goods and services are closely related to registrant’s services, the applied-for mark must be refused registration based on a likelihood of confusion.

 

Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.

 

Applicant should note the following additional two specimen-based refusals.

 

SPECIMEN REFUSED – PRINTER’S PROOF NOT ACCEPTABLE TO SHOW USE

 

THIS PARTIAL REFUSAL APPLIES TO CLASS 9 ONLY.

 

The specimen is not acceptable for International Class 9 because it is a printer’s proof and thus does not show the applied-for mark in use in commerce.  Printer’s proofs are printed materials in draft form used for making corrections before a final print run.  As such, they are not disseminated to the public and do not show use of the mark in the ordinary course of trade on the actual goods that are sold or transported in commerce.  See In re The Signal Cos., 228 USPQ 956, 957-58 n.4 (TTAB 1986); TMEP §§904.04(a), 904.07(a). 

 

Trademark Act Section 45 requires that the mark be in “use in commerce” and defines such term to mean “the bona fide use of a mark in the ordinary course of trade.”  15 U.S.C. §1127.  A mark is used in commerce in relation to goods when it is used on the goods, containers for the goods, displays associated with the goods or tags or labels affixed to the goods, and the goods are sold or transported in commerce.  15 U.S.C. §1127; TMEP §901.01; see 37 C.F.R. §2.56(b)(1).

 

An application based on Section 1(a) must include a specimen showing the applied-for mark in use in commerce for each class of goods.  Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a).

 

Pending receipt of a proper response, registration is refused because the specimen does not show the applied-for mark in use in commerce as a trademark.  Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a).

 

SPECIMEN REFUSED – DOES NOT SHOW USE OF MARK WITH LISTED SERVICES

 

THIS PARTIAL REFUSAL APPLIES TO CLASS 35. ONLY

 

The specimen is not acceptable because it does not show the applied-for mark used in connection with any of the services specified in the application.  An application based on Trademark Act Section 1(a) must include a specimen showing the applied-for mark in use in commerce for each class of services.  Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a). 

 

In this case, the specimen appears to be advertising material for goods.  It does not make a direct association between applicant’s “retail and wholesale optical services” and the applied-for mark.  See In re Universal Oil Products Co., 476 F.2d 653, 177 USPQ 456 (C.C.P.A. 1973) (term that identifies only a process does not function as a service mark, even where services are advertised in the same specimen brochure in which the name of the process is used); In re J.F. Pritchard & Co. and Kobe Steel, Ltd., 201 USPQ 951 (TTAB 1979) (proposed mark used only to identify a liquefaction process in brochure advertising the services does not function as a mark, because there is no direct association between the mark and the offering of services); TMEP §1301.02.

 

Pending receipt of a proper response, registration is refused because the specimen does not show the applied-for mark in use in commerce as a trademark and/or service mark for the identified goods and/or services.  Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a).

 

HOW TO RESPOND TO SPECIMEN-BASED REFUSALS

 

In order to respond to the specimen-based refusals, applicant must submit the following:

 

(1)  A substitute specimen showing the mark in use in commerce for each class of goods and services specified in the application; and

 

(2)  The following statement, verified with an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20:  “The substitute specimen was in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application.”  37 C.F.R. §2.59(a); TMEP §904.05; see 37 C.F.R. §2.193(e)(1).  If submitting a substitute specimen requires an amendment to the dates of use, applicant must also verify the amended dates.  37 C.F.R. §2.71(c); TMEP §904.05.

 

Examples of specimens for goods are tags, labels, instruction manuals, containers, photographs that show the mark on the actual goods or packaging, or displays associated with the actual goods at their point of sale.  See TMEP §§904.03 et seq.  Examples of specimens for services are signs, photographs, brochures, website printouts or advertisements that show the mark used in the actual sale or advertising of the services.  See TMEP §§1301.04 et seq.

 

To submit a verified substitute specimen online via the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), applicant should do the following:  (1) answer “yes” to the TEAS response form wizard question to “submit a new or substitute specimen;” (2) attach a jpg or pdf file of the substitute specimen; (3) select the statement that “The substitute specimen(s) was in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application.”; and (4) sign personally or enter personally his/her electronic signature and date after the declaration at the end of the TEAS response form.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.59(a), 2.193(a), (c)-(d), (e)(1); TMEP §§611.01(c), 804.01(b).  Please note that these steps appear on different pages of the TEAS response form. 

 

If applicant experiences difficulty in submitting the required substitute specimen, supporting statement and/or declaration, please e-mail TEAS@uspto.gov for technical assistance regarding the TEAS response form.

 

If applicant cannot satisfy the above requirements, applicant may amend the application from a use in commerce basis under Section 1(a) to an intent to use basis under Section 1(b), for which no specimen is required.  See TMEP §806.03(c).  However, if applicant amends the basis to Section 1(b), registration will not be granted until applicant later amends the application back to use in commerce by filing an acceptable allegation of use with a proper specimen.  See 15 U.S.C. §1051(c), (d); 37 C.F.R. §§2.76, 2.88; TMEP §1103. 

 

To amend to Section 1(b), applicant must submit the following statement, verified with an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20:  “Applicant has had a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce on or in connection with the goods and/or services listed in the application as of the filing date of the application.”  37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(2); TMEP §806.01(b); see 15 U.S.C. §1051(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.35(b)(1), 2.193(e)(1).

 

Applicant must respond to the requirements set forth below.

 

IDENTIFICATIONS OF GOODS AND SERVICES INDEFINITE/TOO BROAD

 

The wording “frames” in the International Class 9 identification of goods must be clarified because it is too broad and could include goods in other international classes.  See TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03. 

 

Similarly, the International Class 35 identification of services is indefinite and must be clarified because the exact nature of the services being provided is unclear because of the wording “optical services.”  Therefore, this identification could also include services in other international classes  See TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03.  For example, “eyeglass fitting” and “optician services” is properly classified in International Class 44; “optical laboratories that design prescription eyeglass frames and lenses” is properly classified in International Class 42; and “retail store services featuring contact lenses, eyeglasses, and eyeglass frames” is properly classified in International Class 35.

 

Applicant may adopt the following identifications, if accurate:   

 

Class 9: Contact lenses, eyeglasses, eyeglass frames

 

Class 35: Retail and wholesale optical store services featuring contact lenses, eyeglasses, and eyeglass frames

 

Class 42: Optical services, namely, optical laboratories that design prescription eyeglass frames and lenses

 

Class 44: Optical services, namely, eyeglass fitting

 

An applicant may amend an identification of goods and services only to clarify or limit the goods and services; adding to or broadening the scope of the goods and/or services is not permitted.  37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); see TMEP §§1402.06 et seq., 1402.07 et seq.

 

For assistance with identifying and classifying goods and/or services in trademark applications, please see the online searchable Manual of Acceptable Identifications of Goods and Services at http://tess2.gov.uspto.report/netahtml/tidm.html.  See TMEP §1402.04.

 

ADVISORY: MULTIPLE CLASS REQUIREMENTS

 

For an application with more than one international class, called a “multiple-class application,” an applicant must meet all of the requirements below for those international classes based on use in commerce:

 

(1)        LIST GOODS AND/OR SERVICES BY INTERNATIONAL CLASS:  Applicant must list the goods/services by international class;

 

(2)        PROVIDE FEES FOR ALL INTERNATIONAL CLASSES:  Applicant must submit an application filing fee for each international class of goods and/or services not covered by the fee(s) already paid (confirm current fee information at http://www.uspto.gov, click on “View Fee Schedule” under the column titled “Trademarks”); and

 

(3)        SUBMIT REQUIRED STATEMENTS AND EVIDENCE:  For each international class of goods and/or services, applicant must also submit the following:

 

(a)        DATES OF USE:  Dates of first use of the mark anywhere and dates of first use of the mark in commerce, or a statement that the dates of use in the initial application apply to that class.  The dates of use, both anywhere and in commerce, must be at least as early as the filing date of the application.;

 

(b)        SPECIMEN:  One specimen showing the mark in use in commerce for each international class of goods and/or services.  Applicant must have used the specimen in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application.  If a single specimen supports multiple international classes, applicant should indicate which classes the specimen supports.  Examples of specimens for goods are tags, labels, instruction manuals, containers, photographs that show the mark on the actual goods or packaging, or displays associated with the goods at their point of sale.  See TMEP §§904.03 et seq.  Examples of specimens for services are signs, photographs, brochures, website printouts, or advertisements that show the mark used in the actual sale or advertising of the services.  See TMEP §§1301.04 et seq.;

 

(c)        STATEMENT:  The following statement:  “The specimen was in use in commerce on or in connection with the goods and/or services listed in the application at least as early as the filing date of the application.”; and

 

(d)       VERIFICATION:  Applicant must verify the statements in 3(a) and 3(c) (above) in an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20.  Verification is not required where (1) the dates of use for the added class are stated to be the same as the dates of use specified in the initial application, and (2) the original specimens are acceptable for the added class(es).

 

See 15 U.S.C. §§1051(a), 1112, 1127; 37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(5), 2.34(a)(1), 2.56(a), 2.71(c), 2.86(a), 2.193(e)(1); TMEP §§1403.01, 1403.02(c).

 

With respect to the specimen requirement in 3(b) above in which a specimen is required for each international class of goods and services, the specimens of record are unacceptable for any International Classes (as explained previously). 

 

RESPONSE REQUIRED

 

For this application to proceed toward registration, applicant must explicitly address each refusal and/or requirement raised in this Office action.  If the action includes a refusal, applicant may provide arguments and/or evidence as to why the refusal should be withdrawn and the mark should register.  To respond to requirements and certain refusal response options, applicant should set forth in writing the required changes or statements and request that the Office enter them into the application record. 

 

Applicant may wish to hire an attorney to assist in prosecuting this application because of the legal technicalities involved.  The Office, however, cannot aid in the selection of an attorney.  37 C.F.R. §2.11.  Applicant may wish to consult a local telephone directory for a listing of attorneys specializing in trademark or intellectual property law, or seek guidance from a local bar association attorney-referral service.

 

To expedite prosecution of the application, applicant is encouraged to file its response to this Office action online via the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), which is available at http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/index.html.  If applicant has technical questions about the TEAS response to Office action form, applicant can review the electronic filing tips available online at http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/eFilingTips.htm and email technical questions to TEAS@uspto.gov.

 

If, after first carefully reading the entirety of this Office action, applicant has specific questions about its application or this Office action, please telephone the assigned trademark examining attorney at the telephone number below.

 

 

/Drew Leaser/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 112

(571) 272-1911

 

 

TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER:  Use the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) response form at http://teasroa.gov.uspto.report/roa/.  Please wait 48-72 hours from the issue/mailing date before using TEAS, to allow for necessary system updates of the application.  For technical assistance with online forms, e-mail TEAS@uspto.gov.

 

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 Trademark Applications and Registrations Retrieval (TARR) at http://tarr.gov.uspto.report/.  Please keep a copy of the complete TARR screen.  If TARR shows no change for more than six months, 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/teas/eTEASpageE.htm.

 

IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING YOUR TRADEMARK APPLICATION

Your trademark application (Serial No. 85097565) has been reviewed.   The examining attorney assigned by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) has written a letter (an “Office Action”) on 11/22/2010 to which you must respond.  Please follow these steps:

 

1. Read the Office letter by clicking on this link OR go to http://tmportal.gov.uspto.report/external/portal/tow and enter your serial number to access the Office letter.       

 

 PLEASE NOTE: The Office letter may not be immediately available but will be viewable within 24 hours of this e-mail notification. 

 

2. Respond within 6 months, calculated from 11/22/2010 (or sooner if specified in the Office letter), using the Trademark Electronic Application System Response to Office Action form. If you have difficulty using the USPTO website, contact TDR@uspto.gov. 

 

3. Contact the examining attorney who reviewed your application with any questions about the content of the office letter:

 

/Drew Leaser/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 112

(571) 272-1911

WARNING

Failure to file any required response by the applicable deadline will result in the ABANDONMENT of your application.

Do NOT hit “Reply” to this e-mail notification, or otherwise attempt to e-mail your response, as the USPTO does NOT accept e-mailed responses.  Instead, please use the Trademark Electronic Application System Response to Office Action form.