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: 7/12/2012

 

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

 

§         Refusal under Trademark Act Section 2(d) – Likelihood of Confusion

§         Refusal under Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45 - Specimen Required

§         Requirement for Information About Goods

§         Requirement for a Drawing of the Mark

§         Requirement for a Disclaimer

§         Requirement to Amend the Identification of Goods

§         Requirement to Amend the Classification of Goods

 

 

SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

 

Please note:  After the applicant clarifies its Identification of Goods (see below), this refusal will be reconsidered.

 

Registration of the applied-for mark, “PV”, is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 3392060 (PV PetroValves, S.r.l.) and 2450557 (PV).  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, 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).  In the seminal decision In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973), the court 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 of the factors may control in a given case, depending upon the evidence of record.  Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp., Inc., 637 F.3d 1344, 1355, 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 de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d at 1361-62, 177 USPQ at 567.

 

In this case, the following factors are the most relevant:  similarity of the marks, similarity and nature of the goods and/or services, and similarity of the trade channels of the goods and/or services.  See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1361-62, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Dakin’s Miniatures Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593, 1595-96 (TTAB 1999); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.

 

Comparing the Marks

 

Marks are compared in their entireties for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression.  In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting 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).

 

When comparing marks, the test is not whether the marks can be distinguished in a side-by-side comparison, but rather whether the marks are sufficiently similar in their entireties that confusion as to the source of the goods and/or services offered under applicant’s and registrant’s marks is likely to result.  Edom Labs., Inc. v. Lichter, 102 USPQ2d 1546, 1551 (TTAB 2012); L’Oreal S.A. v. Marcon, 102 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (TTAB 2012); TMEP §1207.01(b).  The focus is on the recollection of the average purchaser, who normally retains a general rather than specific impression of trademarks.  L’Oreal S.A. v. Marcon, 102 USPQ2d at 1438; Sealed Air Corp. v. Scott Paper Co., 190 USPQ 106, 108 (TTAB 1975); TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

The applicant’s proposed mark, “PV”, is likely to be confused with the registered marks, “PV PetroValves, S.r.l.” (RN 3392060) and “PV” (RN 2450557).  The literal element in the applicant’s mark and the mark in RN 2450557 are identical because they are comprised of the letters “P” and “V”.  The mark in RN 3392060 begins with the same literal element as the applicant’s mark and is followed by descriptive wording that is disclaimed, meaning that the dominant wording is the letters “PV”.  Since the dominant wording in all three marks is “PV”, the applicant’s mark is nearly identical in sound, appearance, and meaning to the registered marks.

 

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); 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).

 

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 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).

 

Marks may be confusingly similar in appearance where there are similar terms or phrases or similar parts of terms or phrases appearing in both applicant’s and registrant’s mark.  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).

 

The applicant’s mark contains a graphic of a square around the letters “PV”, whereas the registrant’s marks feature a triangle behind the terms.  The difference in the geometric shapes used with the letters “PV” does not alter the commercial impression of the marks to overcome a likelihood of confusion refusal because the text is dominant over the graphic element.  Although marks must be compared in their entireties, the word portion generally may be the dominant and most significant feature of a mark because consumers will request the goods using the wording.  See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Max Capital Grp. Ltd., 93 USPQ2d 1243, 1247 (TTAB 2010).  For this reason, greater weight is often given to the word portion of marks when determining whether marks are confusingly similar.  In re Dakin’s Miniatures, Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593, 1596 (TTAB 1999); TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii).

 

The marks in the application and RN 2450557 are both “PV” 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).

 

Comparing the Goods and Services

 

The applicant’s goods are “metal valves”.  See application.  The registrant’s goods in RN 3392060 are “electrical or hydraulic submarine engines; valves being machine parts that regulate the flow of gases, liquids, or loose materials through piping or through apertures by opening, closing, or obstructing ports or passageways, namely, gate valves, globe valves, check valves, ball valves, choke valves”, and its services in RN  2450557 are “manufacture of large scale valves for the order and specification of others”.  See attached registration.  As filed, it is unclear whether the applicant’s metal valves are of a large scale and are used with machines.  If the applicant’s valves are of this nature, then its mark would be used in the same manner, with the same goods, and in the same channels of trade as the registrant’s goods and services.

 

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 to show that because of the conditions surrounding their marketing, or because they are otherwise related in some manner, the goods and/or services would be encountered by the same consumers under circumstances such that offering the goods and/or services under confusingly similar marks would lead to the mistaken belief that they come from, or are in some way associated with, the same source.  In re Iolo Techs., LLC, 95 USPQ2d 1498, 1499 (TTAB 2010); see In re Martin’s Famous Pastry Shoppe, Inc., 748 F.2d 1565, 1566-68, 223 USPQ 1289, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 1984); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).

 

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).

 

The attached Internet evidence consists of pages from the registrant’s website.  This evidence establishes that depending on the nature of the applicant’s valves, its goods would be similar in terms of purpose or function to the registrant’s goods and services.  Therefore, applicant’s goods and registrant’s goods and/or services are considered related for likelihood of confusion purposes.  See, e.g., In re Davey Prods. Pty Ltd., 92 USPQ2d 1198, 1202-04 (TTAB 2009); In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d 1266, 1268-69, 1271-72 (TTAB 2009).

 

Evidence obtained from the Internet may be used to support a determination under Trademark Act Section 2(d) that goods and/or services are related.  See, e.g., In re G.B.I. Tile & Stone, Inc., 92 USPQ2d 1366, 1371 (TTAB 2009); In re Paper Doll Promotions, Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1660, 1668 (TTAB 2007).

 

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).

 

Accordingly, the applicant’s proposed mark, “PV”, is refused for likelihood of confusion under Trademark Act Section 2(d).

 

 

Applicant should note the following additional ground for refusal.

 

 

SPECIMEN REQUIRED

 

The application is incomplete because it does not include the required specimen showing use of the applied-for mark in commerce for the goods and/or services identified 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 goods and/or services.  Trademark Act Sections 1(a)(1) and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051(a)(1), 1127; 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a).

 

Therefore, applicant must submit the following:

 

(1)  A specimen (i.e., an example of how applicant actually uses its mark in commerce) for each class of goods and/or services based on use in commerce; and

 

(2)  The following statement, verified with an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20:  “The 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 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. 

 

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).

 

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

 

 

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.

 

 

INFORMATION ABOUT GOODS REQUIRED

 

Applicant must submit information regarding the specific type of valves with which the applicant will be using the mark to permit proper examination of the application.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b); TMEP §§814, 1402.01(e).  Specifically, this information must provide whether the applicant’s metal valves are pressure valves.  See AcronymFinder.com, search of “PV”, “Pressure Valve”, http://www.acronymfinder.com/Pressure-Valve-(PV).html (accessed: July 12, 2012) (“The pressure valve is an essential feature that prevents excess pressure from building up which can possibly causing an explosion”).

 

Failure to respond to a request for information can be grounds for refusing registration.  TMEP §814; see In re Cheezwhse.com, Inc., 85 USPQ2d 1917, 1919 (TTAB 2008); In re DTI P’ship LLP, 67 USPQ2d 1699, 1701-02 (TTAB 2003).  Merely stating that information about the goods or services 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).

 

 

DRAWING OF THE MARK

 

The drawing is not acceptable because the digitized image of the mark is unclear and does not show the mark in sufficient detail.  See TMEP §807.04(a).  Specifically, the drawing is small and appears to be a poor quality photocopy.  A clear drawing of the mark is an application requirement.  37 C.F.R. §2.52. 

 

Therefore, applicant must submit a new drawing showing a clear depiction of the mark.  All lines must be clean, sharp and solid, and not fine or crowded.  37 C.F.R. §§2.53(c), 2.54(e); TMEP §§807.05(c), 807.06(a).

 

To submit a new drawing via the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), applicant must use the response form and follow the instructions regarding submission of a drawing.  TMEP §807.05(a); see 37 C.F.R. §2.53(a).  An applicant must submit a drawing via TEAS in jpg format, and the USPTO recommends a digitized image with a length and width no smaller than 250 pixels and no larger than 944 pixels.  37 C.F.R. §2.53(c); TMEP §807.05(c).

 

For drawings submitted on paper, the paper should be approximately 8.5 inches wide by 11 inches long, white, non-shiny, and include the caption “DRAWING PAGE” at the top.  37 C.F.R. §2.54(a)-(c); TMEP §807.06(a).  The mark in the drawing must appear no larger than 3.15 inches (8 cm) high by 3.15 inches (8 cm) wide.  37 C.F.R. §2.54(b); TMEP §807.06(a).  Further, the drawing must be made with ink or by a process that will provide a high definition when scanned.  37 C.F.R. §2.54(e); TMEP §807.06(a).  A photolithographic, printer’s proof copy, or other high-quality reproduction of the mark may be used.  37 C.F.R. §2.54(e); TMEP §807.06(a). 

 

The USPTO will not accept amendments or changes to the applied-for mark shown in a new drawing if the changes would materially alter the mark.  37 C.F.R. §2.72; see TMEP §§807.13 et seq., 807.14.

 

 

IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS

 

The wording “metal valves” in the 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.  Applicant must specify the purpose of the goods for proper classification.  See U.S. Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual, search of “(valves and machine) and (006 or 007)”, http://tess2.gov.uspto.report/netahtml/tidm.html (July 12, 2012). 

 

Applicant may substitute the following wording, showing the suggested amendments in bold type, if accurate:   

 

Class 6

 

Metal valves not being parts of machines

 

Class 7

 

Metal valves being parts of machines

 

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 USPTO’s online searchable U.S. Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual at http://tess2.gov.uspto.report/netahtml/tidm.html.  See TMEP §1402.04.

 

 

CLASSIFICATION OF GOODS

 

If applicant adopts the suggested amendment of the goods, then applicant must amend the classification to International Classes 6 and/or 7.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(7), 2.85; TMEP §§805, 1401.  

 

Applicant must adopt the appropriate international classification number for the goods and/or services identified in the application.  The United States follows the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks, established by the World Intellectual Property Organization, to classify goods and services.  37 C.F.R. §2.85(a); TMEP §§1401.02, 1401.02(a).

 

Proper classification of goods and services is a purely administrative matter within the sole discretion of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.  In re Tee-Pak, Inc., 164 USPQ 88, 89 (TTAB 1969).

 

 

FEES FOR ADDITIONAL CLASSES

 

The application identifies goods that are classified in at least 2 classes; however, the fees submitted are sufficient for only one class.  In a multiple-class application, a fee for each class is required.  37 C.F.R. §2.86(a)(2); TMEP §§810.01, 1403.01.

 

Therefore, applicant must either (1) restrict the application to the number of classes covered by the fee(s) already paid, or (2) submit the fees for the additional class(es). 

 

The filing fees for adding classes to an application are as follows:

 

(1)  A $325 fee per class, when the fees are submitted with an electronic response filed online at http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp, via the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS).

 

(2)  A $375 fee per class, when the fees are submitted with a paper response.

 

37 C.F.R. §2.6(a)(1)(i)-(ii); TMEP §§810, 1403.02(c).

 

 

REQUIREMENTS FOR APPLICATIONS WITH MULTIPLE CLASSES

 

For an application with more than one international class, called a “multiple-class application,” an applicant must meet all 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 and/or 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.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/tm_fee_info.jsp).

 

(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.”

 

(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 the applicant did not submit a specimen.  Applicant must submit additional specimens if different international classes are added to the application.

 

 

RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION

 

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 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. §2.191; TMEP §§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.

 

/Alyssa Steel/

Alyssa Paladino Steel

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 107

Phone: (571) 272-8808

E-mail: alyssa.steel@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 7/12/2012 FOR

SERIAL NO. 85584618

 

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 7/12/2012 (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.