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: 6/15/2011

 

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.

 

 

Partial Refusal Under Trademark Act §2(d): Likelihood of Confusion

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused as to applicant’s goods “endoscopes,” “apparatus for positioning medical devices in the body” because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 2012159; and refused as to applicant’s goods “magnetic navigation systems comprised of magnetic devices and controls for controlling the position and/or orientation of magnetic substances and devices in the body; a line of magnetic medical devices that can be magnetically navigated in the body for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes; sheaths; catheters; endoscopes; magnets and electromagnets for medical applications; medical guidewires; medical electrodes; electrode catheters; electrophysiology catheters; apparatus for positioning medical devices in the body; systems for remotely operating medical devices namely devices that remotely advance and retract and/or remotely actuate medical devices; medical image networking apparatus and medical image networking systems comprising computer hardware, software and electronic display monitors for medical images for use in connection with computer-assisted remotely and locally controlled medical and surgical procedures” because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 3369592.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the enclosed registrations.

 

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 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.  Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp., Inc., ___ F.3d ___, 98 USPQ2d 1253, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2011); 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 Dakin’s Miniatures Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593 (TTAB 1999); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.

 

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).

 

Applicant’s proposed mark is STEREOTAXIS EPOCH for a range of medical goods for use in medical and surgical procedures.  The registered marks, which are owned by different entities, are:

 

·        U.S. Reg. No. 2012159 EPOCH for “orthopedic hip prostheses and instruments therefor.”

·        U.S. Reg. No. 3369592 EPOQ for goods and services including “apparatus and instruments for the measurement and treatment of impaired hearing.”

 

Comparing the Marks

 

In a likelihood of confusion determination, the marks are compared for similarities in their appearance, sound, meaning or 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).  Similarity in any one of these elements may be sufficient to find the marks 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).

 

The marks are compared in their entireties under a Trademark Act Section 2(d) analysis.  See TMEP §1207.01(b).  Nevertheless, one feature of a mark may be recognized as more significant in creating a commercial impression; greater weight is given to that dominant feature in determining whether the marks are confusingly similar.  See In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 1058, 224 USPQ 749, 751 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re J.M. Originals Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1393, 1394 (TTAB 1987); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii).

 

In applicant’s mark, the dominant element is the word EPOCH because the remaining word, STEREOTAXIS, is merely descriptive for an intended use of the goods and is therefore comparatively less source-indicating.  The attached dictionary definitions show that STEREOTAXIS, in the context of medical and surgical goods, identifies a method of surgical procedure employing three-dimensional computer mapping of the surgical area.  The attached screenshots from applicant’s website demonstrate that applicant’s goods are specifically intended for use in procedures employing stereotaxis; the word is therefore descriptive for applicant’s goods.  Descriptive or generic matter is typically less significant or less dominant in relation to other wording in a mark.  See In re Chatam Int’l Inc., 380 F.3d 1340, 1342-43, 71 USPQ2d 1944, 1946 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Binion, 93 USPQ2d 1531, 1534 (TTAB 2009).

 

By contrast, the word EPOCH in applicant’s mark appears to have no particular descriptive meaning in the context of the goods.  In the context of medical goods, the word EPOCH merely suggests that the goods mark a significant period (“epoch”) in medical treatment.  Thus, the word EPOCH in applicant’s mark is the element in the mark most likely to be perceived by consumers as a source-indicator for the goods.  For these reasons, the examining attorney finds that EPOCH is the dominant part of applicant’s mark.

 

The registered marks are EPOCH and EPOQ, respectively.  The first registered mark, EPOCH, is identical in sound, meaning and appearance to the dominant part of applicant’s mark, EPOCH.  The second registered mark, EPOQ, sounds the same when read aloud as the word EPOCH in applicant’s mark and shares the same suggestive meaning.  The similarity created between applicant’s mark and the registered marks by this common element is striking; applicant’s addition of the word STEREOTAXIS to its mark is insufficient to overcome the similarity, as STEREOTAXIS is descriptive for medical goods.  A similar term or phrase appearing in marks may be a sufficient basis for finding similarity between the marks.  See Crocker Nat’l Bank v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 228 USPQ 689 (TTAB 1986), aff’d sub nom. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 811 F.2d 1490, 1 USPQ2d 1813 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (COMMCASH and COMMUNICASH); In re Phillips-Van Heusen Corp., 228 USPQ 949 (TTAB 1986) (21 CLUB and “21” CLUB (stylized)); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65 (TTAB 1985) (CONFIRM and CONFIRMCELLS); In re Collegian Sportswear Inc., 224 USPQ 174 (TTAB 1984) (COLLEGIAN OF CALIFORNIA and COLLEGIENNE); In re Pellerin Milnor Corp., 221 USPQ 558 (TTAB 1983) (MILTRON and MILLTRONICS); In re BASF A.G., 189 USPQ 424 (TTAB 1975) (LUTEXAL and LUTEX); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii).

 

 In considering the marks in their entireties, the examining attorney therefore finds that they are similar.

 

Comparing the Goods

 

The examining attorney has also considered whether applicant’s goods are the same as, or are related in commerce to, registrant’s goods.

 

The goods in U.S. Reg. No. 2012159 are identified as “orthopedic hip prostheses and instruments therefor.”  Applicant’s goods are broadly identified medical and surgical goods, such that applicant’s goods “endoscopes” and “apparatus for positioning medical devices in the body” encompass surgical instruments specifically for orthopedic hip prostheses.  In a likelihood of confusion analysis, the comparison of the parties’ goods is based on the goods as they are identified in the application and registration, without limitations or restrictions that are not reflected therein.  In re Dakin’s Miniatures, Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593, 1595 (TTAB 1999); see Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1267-68, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1004-05 (Fed. Cir. 2002); In re Thor Tech, Inc., 90 USPQ2d 1634, 1638-39 (TTAB 2009); TMEP §1207.01(a)(iii). 

 

In this case, because applicant’s goods are identified broadly, the examining attorney must presume that the application encompasses all goods of the type described, including those in the registrant’s more specific identification, that the goods in all normal channels of trade, and that they are available to all potential customers.  Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp., Inc., ___ F.3d ___, 98 USPQ2d 1253, 1261 (Fed. Cir. 2011); 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).

For this reason, the examining attorney finds the goods to be the same.

 

Similarly, the goods in U.S. Reg. No. 3369592 are set forth as medical apparatus and instruments for a specific purpose, namely, for measurement and treatment of impaired hearing.  The examining attorney, based on third-party website evidence, finds that the treatment of impaired hearing encompasses surgical procedures; see the attached evidence.  Applicant’s current identification of goods enumerates a number of medical devices and surgical instruments without specifying their intended purpose; for this reason, the examining attorney finds that applicant’s goods “magnetic navigation systems comprised of magnetic devices and controls for controlling the position and/or orientation of magnetic substances and devices in the body; a line of magnetic medical devices that can be magnetically navigated in the body for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes; sheaths; catheters; endoscopes; magnets and electromagnets for medical applications; medical guidewires; electrophysiology catheters; apparatus for positioning medical devices in the body; systems for remotely operating medical devices namely devices that remotely advance and retract and/or remotely actuate medical devices; medical image networking apparatus and medical image networking systems comprising computer hardware, software and electronic display monitors for medical images for use in connection with computer-assisted remotely and locally controlled medical and surgical procedures” encompass such goods for treatment of impaired hearing.  For this reason, the examining attorney finds the goods to be the same.

 

Conclusion

 

Because the marks themselves are similar and the goods are the same, applicant’s mark must be refused registration under Trademark Act §2(d) as to the goods “magnetic navigation systems comprised of magnetic devices and controls for controlling the position and/or orientation of magnetic substances and devices in the body; a line of magnetic medical devices that can be magnetically navigated in the body for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes; sheaths; catheters; endoscopes; magnets and electromagnets for medical applications; medical guidewires; electrophysiology catheters; apparatus for positioning medical devices in the body; systems for remotely operating medical devices namely devices that remotely advance and retract and/or remotely actuate medical devices; medical image networking apparatus and medical image networking systems comprising computer hardware, software and electronic display monitors for medical images for use in connection with computer-assisted remotely and locally controlled medical and surgical procedures” on the basis of a likelihood of confusion with the registered marks.

 

 

Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusals by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.  Applicant must respond to the requirements set forth below.

 

 

Classification and Identification of Goods

 

Some of the wording in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified.  See TMEP §1402.01. 

 

The Office requires a degree of particularity necessary to identify clearly goods and/or services covered by a mark.  See In re Omega SA, 494 F.3d 1362, 1365, 83 USPQ2d 1541, 1543-44 (Fed. Cir. 2007).  Descriptions of goods and services in applications must be specific, explicit, clear and concise.  TMEP §1402.01; see In re Cardinal Labs., Inc., 149 USPQ 709, 711 (TTAB 1966); Cal. Spray-Chem. Corp. v. Osmose Wood Pres. Co. of Am., 102 USPQ 321, 322 (Comm’r Pats. 1954).

 

Where applicant’s goods are properly classified in other classes, applicant is required to either (1) specify the goods acceptably, add the appropriate international class(es) to the application, and classify the goods therein, or (2) delete the goods from the application.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.86, 6.1; TMEP §§1403 et seq

 

The specific language to which this requirement applies follows:

• The wording “MAGNETIC NAVIGATION SYSTEMS COMPRISED OF MAGNETIC DEVICES AND CONTROLS FOR CONTROLLING THE POSITION AND/OR ORIENTATION OF MAGNETIC SUBSTANCES AND DEVICES IN THE BODY” is unacceptable because it is unclear.  Applicant needs to clarify, if accurate, that the goods are in the nature of “medical devices.”
• The wording “SHEATHS” is unacceptable because it is indefinite and too broad.  In the context of the goods as a whole, it appears that the goods are in the nature of “medical devices.”  If that characterization is accurate, then applicant simply needs to so specify.  However, if the goods are “sheaths” of another type (such as knife sheaths in Class 8, or rifle sheaths in Class 13), then applicant is required to identify and classify the goods appropriately.
• The wording “ENDOSCOPES” is unacceptable because it is too broad.  Because endoscopes may be used for both medical and non-medical purposes, applicant is required to so specify; proper classification depends on the goods’ intended use.  For example, “rigid and flexible endoscopes for non-medical use” are goods properly classified in Class 9, while “rigid and flexible medical endoscopes” are properly classified in Class 10, as applicant has proposed.  The goods must therefore be identified to permit proper classification and so classified.
• The wording “APPARATUS FOR POSITIONING MEDICAL DEVICES IN THE BODY” is unacceptable because it is indefinite.  Applicant needs to state the general nature of the goods, e.g., “medical apparatus for positioning medical devices in the body.”
• The wording “SYSTEMS FOR REMOTELY OPERATING MEDICAL DEVICES NAMELY DEVICES THAT REMOTELY ADVANCE AND RETRACT AND/OR REMOTELY ACTUATE MEDICAL DEVICES” is unacceptable because it is indefinite.  Applicant needs to state the general nature of the goods more clearly, e.g., “medical devices, namely, systems that remotely advance and retract and/or remotely actuate medical devices.”
• The wording “MEDICAL IMAGE NETWORKING APPARATUS AND MEDICAL IMAGE NETWORKING SYSTEMS COMPRISING COMPUTER HARDWARE, SOFTWARE AND ELECTRONIC DISPLAY MONITORS FOR MEDICAL IMAGES FOR USE IN CONNECTION WITH COMPUTER-ASSISTED REMOTELY AND LOCALLY CONTROLLED MEDICAL AND SURGICAL PROCEDURES” is unacceptable because it is indefinite.  Applicant needs to state the general nature of the goods more clearly, e.g., “medical imaging apparatus, namely, imaging device networking apparatus and imaging device networking systems comprising computer hardware, software and electronic display monitors, all for use in connection with computer-assisted remotely and locally controlled medical and surgical procedures.”

 

Applicant may adopt the following identification of goods, if accurate:

 

Class 9:      Endoscopes for non-medical use

 

Class 10:    MEDICAL DEVICES, NAMELY, MAGNETIC NAVIGATION SYSTEMS COMPRISED OF MAGNETIC DEVICES AND CONTROLS FOR CONTROLLING THE POSITION AND/OR ORIENTATION OF MAGNETIC SUBSTANCES AND DEVICES IN THE BODY; A LINE OF MAGNETIC MEDICAL DEVICES THAT CAN BE MAGNETICALLY NAVIGATED IN THE BODY FOR DIAGNOSTIC AND THERAPEUTIC PURPOSES; MEDICAL DEVICES, NAMELY, SHEATHS; CATHETERS; MEDICAL ENDOSCOPES; MAGNETS AND ELECTROMAGNETS FOR MEDICAL APPLICATIONS; ATHERECTOMY DEVICES; MEDICAL GUIDEWIRES; MEDICAL ELECTRODES; ELECTRODE CATHETERS; ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY CATHETERS; MEDICAL IMAGING APPARATUS; MEDICAL APPARATUS FOR POSITIONING MEDICAL DEVICES IN THE BODY; MEDICAL DEVICES, NAMELY, SYSTEMS FOR REMOTELY OPERATING MEDICAL DEVICES NAMELY DEVICES THAT REMOTELY ADVANCE AND RETRACT AND/OR REMOTELY ACTUATE MEDICAL DEVICES; MEDICAL IMAGING APPARATUS, NAMELY, IMAGING DEVICE NETWORKING APPARATUS AND IMAGINE DEVICE NETWORKING SYSTEMS COMPRISING COMPUTER HARDWARE, SOFTWARE AND ELECTRONIC DISPLAY MONITORS, ALL FOR USE IN CONNECTION WITH COMPUTER-ASSISTED REMOTELY AND LOCALLY CONTROLLED MEDICAL AND SURGICAL PROCEDURES

 

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.

 

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.

 

 

Requirements for Multiple-Class Applications

 

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 an intent to use the mark in commerce under Trademark Act Section 1(b):

 

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

 

(2)   PROVIDE FEES FOR ALL INTERNATIONAL CLASSES:  Applicant must submit an application filing fee for each international class of goods 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”).

 

See 15 U.S.C. §§1051(b), 1112, 1126(e); 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(2)-(3), 2.86(a); TMEP §§1403.01, 1403.02(c).

 

 

Information Requirement

 

To permit proper examination of the application, applicant must submit additional product information about the goods.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b); In re DTI P’ship LLP, 67 USPQ2d 1699, 1701-02 (TTAB 2003); TMEP §814.  Specifically, applicant is required to respond to the following question:

 

·        Will any of the goods listed in the application be intended for use in, or be capable of being used in, medical or surgical procedures employing stereotaxis?  (See the attached dictionary definitions.)

 

Failure to respond to a request for information is an additional ground for refusing registration.  See In re Cheezwhse.com, Inc., 85 USPQ2d 1917, 1919 (TTAB 2008); In re DTI, 67 USPQ2d at 1701-02.  Merely stating that information about the goods is available on applicant’s website is an inappropriate response to a request for additional information and is insufficient to make the relevant information of record.  See In re Planalytics, Inc., 70 USPQ2d 1453, 1457-58 (TTAB 2004).

 

 

Disclaimer Required

 

Applicant must disclaim the descriptive wording “STEREOTAXIS” apart from the mark as shown because it merely describes an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose or use of applicant’s goods and/or services.  See 15 U.S.C. §§1052(e)(1), 1056(a); In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293, 1297, 75 USPQ2d 1420, 1421 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Gyulay, 820 F.2d 1216, 1217-18, 3 USPQ2d 1009, 1010 (Fed. Cir. 1987); TMEP §§1213, 1213.03(a). 

 

The attached dictionary definitions show that STEREOTAXIS, in the context of medical and surgical goods, identifies a method of surgical procedure employing three-dimensional computer mapping of the surgical area.  The attached screenshots from applicant’s website demonstrate that applicant’s goods are specifically intended for use in procedures employing stereotaxis; the word is therefore descriptive for applicant’s goods and needs to be disclaimed from the mark as a whole.

 

Applicant may submit the following standardized format for a disclaimer:

                       

No claim is made to the exclusive right to use “STEREOTAXIS” apart from the mark as shown.

 

TMEP §1213.08(a)(i); see In re Owatonna Tool Co., 231 USPQ 493 (Comm’r Pats. 1983).

 

 

Claim of Prior Registration Required

 

If applicant is the owner of U.S. Registration No. 3732775, then applicant must submit a claim of ownership.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.36; TMEP §812.  The following standard format is suggested:

 

Applicant is the owner of U.S. Registration No. 3732775.

 

 

Questions

 

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 cannot 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. §2.191; TMEP §§709.04-.05. 

 

Further, although the trademark examining attorney may provide additional explanation pertaining to the issues discussed 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.

 

 

/Rebecca Miles Eisinger/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 102

(571) 272-8845

rebecca.eisinger@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 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 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

U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION

 

USPTO OFFICE ACTION HAS ISSUED ON 6/15/2011 FOR

SERIAL NO. 85268787

 

Please follow the instructions below to continue the prosecution of your application:

 

 

TO READ OFFICE ACTION: Click on this link or go to http://portal.gov.uspto.report/external/portal/tow and enter the application serial number to access the Office action.

 

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

 

RESPONSE IS REQUIRED: You should carefully review the Office action to determine (1) how to respond; and (2) the applicable response time period. Your response deadline will be calculated from 6/15/2011 (or sooner if specified in the office action).

 

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, the USPTO recommends that you respond online using the Trademark Electronic Application System Response Form.

 

HELP: For technical assistance in accessing the Office action, please e-mail

TDR@uspto.gov.  Please contact the assigned examining attorney with questions about the Office action. 

 

        WARNING

 

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