7UNITED 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.  A RESPONSE TRANSMITTED THROUGH THE TRADEMARK ELECTRONIC APPLICATION SYSTEM (TEAS) MUST BE RECEIVED BEFORE MIDNIGHT EASTERN TIME OF THE LAST DAY OF THE RESPONSE PERIOD.

 

 

ISSUE/MAILING DATE: 7/16/2018

 

 

On 05/03/2013, action on this application was suspended pending the disposition of U.S. Application Serial Nos. 85524431, 85683106 and 85132541.  The referenced prior-pending applications 85524431 and 85132541 have since registered.  The pending application 85683106 has abandoned and is no longer a potential bar to the registration of applicant’s mark. Upon further review, the potential refusal for U.S. Application No. 85132541 is hereby withdrawn. Therefore, registration is refused as follows.

 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES:

• M Maintained and Continued: Partial Likelihood of Confusion Refusal
• Maintained and Continued: Identification of Services – Broad/Indefinite  

Maintained and Continued: Partial Likelihood of Confusion Refusal

 

Registration of the applied-for mark was previously refused because of a likelihood of confusion for the class 009 software goods only, with the mark in U.S. Registration Nos. 2499555 and 3345030, and is now additionally refused for the mark in U.S. Registration No. 4318416.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registration.

 

Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that so resembles a registered mark that it is likely a consumer would be confused, mistaken, or deceived as to the source of the goods and/or services of the applicant and registrant(s).  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).  Determining likelihood of confusion is made on a case-by-case basis by applying the factors set forth in In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973).  In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1322, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1747 (Fed. Cir. 2017).  However, “[n]ot all of the [du Pont] factors are relevant to every case, and only factors of significance to the particular mark need be considered.”  Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1366, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1719 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601. F.3d 1342, 1346, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1259 (Fed. Cir 2010)).  The USPTO may focus its analysis “on dispositive factors, such as similarity of the marks and relatedness of the goods [and/or services].”  In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d at 1322, 123 USPQ2d at 1747 (quoting Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 1164-65, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2002)); see TMEP §1207.01. 

 

Applicant’s mark and the Registered Marks are Similar

When evaluating a composite mark containing both words and designs, the word portion is more likely to indicate the origin of the goods and/or services because it is that portion of the mark that consumers use when referring to or requesting the goods and/or services.  Bond v. Taylor, 119 USPQ2d 1049, 1055 (TTAB 2016) (citing In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908, 1911 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii).  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)). 

Applicant's mark is “ONTRACK ANALYTICS.” The registered marks are “ONTRAC,” ”, U.S. Registration No. 2499555, “ONTRACK,” ”, U.S. Registration No. 3345030, and “ONTRAQ”, U.S. Registration No. 4318416, respectively.  Applicant’s mark is similar in appearance and sound to the registered marks in that they all share the common or phonetically equivalent dominant term ONTRACK, ONTRAC or ONTRACK.

Slight differences in the sound of similar marks will not avoid a likelihood of confusion.  In re Energy Telecomm. & Elec. Ass’n, 222 USPQ 350, 351 (TTAB 1983); see In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1367, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1912 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

 

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.  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 at 1060, 224 USPQ at 752; TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii). In this case, applicant has disclaimed the term ANALYTICS because it merely describes an analytical metric use of the software, and does not have source indicating meaning for the mark.

 

Moreover, consumer confusion has been held likely for marks that do not physically sound or look alike but that convey the same idea, stimulate the same mental reaction, or may have the same overall meaning.  Proctor & Gamble Co. v. Conway, 419 F.2d 1332, 1336, 164 USPQ 301, 304 (C.C.P.A. 1970) (holding MISTER STAIN likely to be confused with MR. CLEAN on competing cleaning products); see In re M. Serman & Co., 223 USPQ 52, 53 (TTAB 1984) (holding CITY WOMAN for ladies’ blouses likely to be confused with CITY GIRL for a variety of female clothing); H. Sichel Sohne, GmbH v. John Gross & Co., 204 USPQ 257, 260-61 (TTAB 1979) (holding BLUE NUN for wines likely to be confused with BLUE CHAPEL for the same goods); Ralston Purina Co. v. Old Ranchers Canning Co., 199 USPQ 125, 128 (TTAB 1978) (holding TUNA O’ THE FARM for canned chicken likely to be confused with CHICKEN OF THE SEA for canned tuna); Downtowner Corp. v. Uptowner Inns, Inc., 178 USPQ 105, 109 (TTAB 1973) (holding UPTOWNER for motor inn and restaurant services likely to be confused with DOWNTOWNER for the same services); TMEP §1207.01(b). In this case, despite the different spellings of the phonetically equivalent term ONTRACK in all of the marks, the commercial impression shared by the marks is same, i.e., that use of the software will allow the user to stay “ON TRACK” in relation to some task, data, goal, etc.

 

In the response, applicant has essentially argued that combined with the applicant’s additional use of the disclaimed term ANALYTICS, the registered marks are weak, and entitled to a narrow scope of protection “Applicant respectfully submits that, when viewed as a whole and in light of the foregoing third-party registrations, its ONTRACK ANALYTICS mark is sufficiently distinguished from the marks ONTRAC and ONTRACK to warrant protection”

 

The examining attorney respectfully disagrees. First, 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.  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 at 1060, 224 USPQ at 752; TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii). In this case, applicant has disclaimed the term ANALYTICS because it merely describes an analytical metric use of the software, and does not have source indicating meaning for the mark.

 

Second, consumer confusion has been held likely for marks that do not physically sound or look alike but that convey the same idea, stimulate the same mental reaction, or may have the same overall meaning.  Proctor & Gamble Co. v. Conway, 419 F.2d 1332, 1336, 164 USPQ 301, 304 (C.C.P.A. 1970) (holding MISTER STAIN likely to be confused with MR. CLEAN on competing cleaning products); see In re M. Serman & Co., 223 USPQ 52, 53 (TTAB 1984) (holding CITY WOMAN for ladies’ blouses likely to be confused with CITY GIRL for a variety of female clothing); H. Sichel Sohne, GmbH v. John Gross & Co., 204 USPQ 257, 260-61 (TTAB 1979) (holding BLUE NUN for wines likely to be confused with BLUE CHAPEL for the same goods); Ralston Purina Co. v. Old Ranchers Canning Co., 199 USPQ 125, 128 (TTAB 1978) (holding TUNA O’ THE FARM for canned chicken likely to be confused with CHICKEN OF THE SEA for canned tuna); Downtowner Corp. v. Uptowner Inns, Inc., 178 USPQ 105, 109 (TTAB 1973) (holding UPTOWNER for motor inn and restaurant services likely to be confused with DOWNTOWNER for the same services); TMEP §1207.01(b). In this case, despite the different spellings of the phonetically equivalent term ONTRACK in all of the marks, the commercial impression shared by the marks is same, i.e., that use of the software will allow the user to stay “ON TRACK” in relation to some task, data, goal, etc.

 

Third, applicant has not submitted any evidence to establish that the third-party registrations cited against applicant can or could establish that the cited marks are weak.

 

Accordingly, the marks are confusingly similar.

 

The Software Goods Are Sufficiently Related

 

 

Applicant’s class 009 goods are identified as “COMPUTER SOFTWARE FOR PROVIDING CLINICAL, ECONOMIC, AND TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS IN THE HEALTHCARE FIELD, NAMELY, TRACKING, ANALYZING, AND ASSESSING RISK MITIGATION, OPERATING ROOM EFFICIENCY, CLINICAL RESULTS, FUTURE STANDARDS OF CARE, PATIENT EDUCATION, PAIN MANAGEMENT, VALUE-BASED PURCHASING, PRACTICE MANAGEMENT, AND MARKET ECONOMIES IN THE HEALTHCARE FIELD.”

 

The goods for Registration No. 2499555 are identified as “Computer software for use in business consulting services and financial consulting services for healthcare providers, namely, decision support and daily work planning software for use with patient registration, records, financial information and insurance information, and provider customer service information.”

 

 

The goods for Registration No. 3345030 are identified as “Computer software monitoring system for graphically monitoring physician practice performance and dentist practice performance.”

 

The class 009 goods for Registration No. 4318416 are identified as "Computer software for organizing medical and dental compliance, including OSHA training, waste management, quality plan principles, and expiring medications, into easy-to-manage modules to better track regulatory and compliance obligations."

The applicant's software goods are closely related to the registrant's software goods because all are types of software used in practice management in the healthcare field. The compared goods and/or services need not be identical or even competitive to find a likelihood of confusion.  See On-line Careline Inc. v. Am. Online Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1086, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1475 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Recot, Inc. v. Becton, 214 F.3d 1322, 1329, 54 USPQ2d 1894, 1898 (Fed. Cir. 2000); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).  They need only be “related in some manner and/or if the circumstances surrounding their marketing are such that they could give rise to the mistaken belief that [the goods and/or services] emanate from the same source.”  Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting 7-Eleven Inc. v. Wechsler, 83 USPQ2d 1715, 1724 (TTAB 2007)); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).

Applicant argues that the sophisticated purchasers of the software goods would not be confused by use of the similar marks with the goods. The fact that purchasers are sophisticated or knowledgeable in a particular field does not necessarily mean that they are sophisticated or knowledgeable in the field of trademarks or immune from source confusion.  TMEP §1207.01(d)(vii); see, e.g., Stone Lion Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d. 1317, 1325, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1163-64 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Top Tobacco LP v. N. Atl. Operating Co., 101 USPQ2d 1163, 1170 (TTAB 2011).  Further, where the purchasers consist of both professionals and the public, the standard of care for purchasing the goods is that of the least sophisticated potential purchaser.  Primrose Ret. Cmtys., LLC v. Edward Rose Senior Living, LLC, 122 USPQ2d 1030, 1039 (TTAB 2016) (citing Stone Lion Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d. at 1325, 110 USPQ2d at 1163).

Thus, upon encountering the applicant’s mark and the registered marks on the various software goods in Class 009, consumers are likely to be confused and mistakenly believe that the respective goods emanate from a common source.

Accordingly, registration is refused under Trademark Act Section 2 (d) based on a likelihood of confusion.

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

Applicant must address the following requirements

 

Maintained and Continued: Identification of Services – Broad/Indefinite

The identification of services continues to need clarification because it is too broad or indefinite and could include services classified in other international classes.  See TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03.

Class 035

Applicant may not add “ADMINISTRATION OF PATIENT REIMBURSEMENT PROGRAMS” to the class 035 services because it exceeds the scope of the services in the initial application. 

Particular wording in the proposed amendment to the identification is not acceptable because it exceeds the scope of the identification in the application.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(6), 2.71(a); TMEP §§805, 1402.06 et seq., 1402.07.  Applicant’s goods and/or services may be clarified or limited, but may not be expanded beyond those originally itemized in the application or as acceptably amended.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06.  Therefore, the original identification in the application, and any previously accepted amendments, remain operative for purposes of future amendment.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.07(d).

 

In this case, the application originally identified the goods and/or services as follows in class 035:  “BUSINESS CONSULTING AND MANAGEMENT IN THE FIELD OF HEALTHCARE; MARKETING SERVICES TO OBTAIN CONSUMER INSIGHTS AND DEVELOP BRANDING STRATEGIES; WEB-BASED PROPRIETARY PHYSICIAN REFERRAL SYSTEM USED TO HELP PRIMARY CARE PHYSICIANS REFER TO THE PRACTICE” and

 

“FINANCIAL CONSULTANCY SERVICES IN THE FIELD OF HEALTHCARE; PROVIDING COUNSELING AND CONSULTING IN THE FIELD OF HEALTHCARE BENEFITS, COVERAGE, CODING, AND REIMBURSEMENT” in class 036.

 

However, the proposed amendment identifies the following service in class 035:  “BUSINESS CONSULTING AND MANAGEMENT IN THE FIELD OF HEALTHCARE; MARKETING SERVICES TO OBTAIN CONSUMER INSIGHTS AND DEVELOP BRANDING STRATEGIES; PROVIDING ONLINE PROPRIETARY PHYSICIAN REFERRAL SERVICES USED TO HELP PRIMARY CARE PHYSICIANS REFER TO THE PRACTICE; ADMINISTRATION OF PATIENT REIMBURSEMENT PROGRAMS.” 

 

This portion of the proposed amendment is beyond the scope of the original identification because “ADMINISTRATION OF PATIENT REIMBURSEMENT PROGRAMS” is not limited to a business consulting, management service, a marketing, branding or physician referral service or other type of class 035 service or to limited to a business counseling or consulting purposes from the original broad language for COUNSELING AND CONSULTING IN THE FIELD OF HEALTHCARE BENEFITS, …., AND REIMBURSEMENT in class 036.

 

In addition, the following amended language in class 035 in bold below is unacceptable because the meaning of “USED TO HELP PRIMARY CARE PHYSICIANS REFER TO THE PRACTICE” is vague and does not make grammatical sense. Whom are the primary care physicians referring to the practice?

 

PROVIDING ONLINE PROPRIETARY PHYSICIAN REFERRAL SERVICES USED TO HELP PRIMARY CARE PHYSICIANS REFER TO THE PRACTICE

 

CLASS 36

In addition, the following amended language in class 036 below is unacceptable because the financial aspect of “AND MEDICAL CODING INFORMATION IN RELATION TO HEALTHCARE BENEFITS” is unclear and appears to be a business administration services in class 035. 

 

International Class 036: FINANCIAL CONSULTANCY SERVICES IN THE FIELD OF HEALTHCARE; PROVIDING COUNSELING AND CONSULTING IN THE FIELD OF HEALTHCARE BENEFITS, INSURANCE INFORMATION RELATING TO HEALTHCARE COVERAGE, AND MEDICAL CODING INFORMATION IN RELATION TO HEALTHCARE BENEFITS

 

Medical record coding services for others is a class 035 business administration type of service. Therefore, providing medical coding information for that use, would also be a class 035 service since information services are classified according to the subject matter/use of the information.

 

 Applicant must amend this wording to specify the common commercial or generic name for the services.  If there is no common commercial or generic name for the services, then applicant must describe the nature of the services as well as their main purpose, channels of trade, and the intended consumer(s). 

 

 

Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate: 

 

 International Class 009: COMPUTER SOFTWARE FOR PROVIDING CLINICAL, ECONOMIC, AND TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS IN THE HEALTHCARE FIELD, NAMELY, TRACKING, ANALYZING, AND ASSESSING RISK MITIGATION, OPERATING ROOM EFFICIENCY, CLINICAL RESULTS, FUTURE STANDARDS OF CARE, PATIENT EDUCATION, PAIN MANAGEMENT, VALUE BASED PURCHASING, PRACTICE MANAGEMENT, AND MARKET ECONOMIES IN THE HEALTHCARE FIELD

 

 

International Class 035: BUSINESS CONSULTING AND MANAGEMENT IN THE FIELD OF HEALTHCARE; MARKETING SERVICES TO OBTAIN CONSUMER INSIGHTS AND DEVELOP BRANDING STRATEGIES; PROVIDING ONLINE PROPRIETARY PHYSICIAN REFERRAL SERVICES FOR USE BY PRIMARY CARE PHYSICIANS IN REFERRING PATIENTS TO SPECIALISTS; AND PROVIDING COUNSELING AND CONSULTING IN THE FIELD OF MEDICAL BILLING AND CODING FOR MEDICAL BILLS

 

PROVIDING ONLINE PROPRIETARY PHYSICIAN REFERRAL SERVICES USED TO HELP PRIMARY CARE PHYSICIANS REFER TO THE PRACTICE

 

International Class 036: FINANCIAL CONSULTANCY SERVICES IN THE FIELD OF HEALTHCARE; PROVIDING COUNSELING AND CONSULTING IN THE FIELD OF HEALTHCARE BENEFITS AND INSURANCE COVERAGE

 

 

International Class 041: EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, NAMELY, CLASSES AND SEMINARS IN THE FIELD OF HEALTHCARE; DEVELOPMENT AND DISSEMINATION OF EDUCATIONAL AND TRAINING MATERIALS FOR OTHERS IN THE HEALTHCARE FIELD

 

 

 

International Class 042: TECHNOLOGY CONSULTATION AND RESEARCH IN THE FIELD OF HEALTHCARE; CONSULTATION SERVICES IN THE FIELD OF MEDICAL AND SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH; MEDICAL RESEARCH SERVICES, NAMELY, MANAGING AND CONDUCTING CLINICAL TRIALS AND EVALUATIONS FOR RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS; PROVIDING QUALITY ASSURANCE SERVICES IN THE FIELD OF ORTHOPEDIC MEDICINE

 

 

 

International Class 044: CONSULTATION SERVICES IN THE FIELD OF HEALTHCARE; CONSULTATION SERVICES IN THE FIELD OF MEDICAL ASSISTANCE SERVICES IN THE NATURE OF MEDICAL INFORMATION PROVIDED TO MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS FROM REMOTE LOCATIONS VIA THE INTERNET AND GLOBAL COMPUTER NETWORKS; MEDICAL CLINICS; HOSPITAL, HEALTHCARE AND MEDICAL CARE SERVICES; MEDICAL SERVICES IN THE NATURE OF DIAGNOSIS, TREATMENT AND CARE OF THE MUSCULOSKELETAL SYSTEM, JOINTS AND CONNECTIVE TISSUE

 

 

 

 See TMEP §1402.01.

 

 

Applicant’s goods and/or services may be clarified or limited, but may not be expanded beyond those originally itemized in the application or as acceptably amended.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06.  Applicant may clarify or limit the identification by inserting qualifying language or deleting items to result in a more specific identification; however, applicant may not substitute different goods and/or services or add goods and/or services not found or encompassed by those in the original application or as acceptably amended.  See TMEP §1402.06(a)-(b).  The scope of the goods and/or services sets the outer limit for any changes to the identification and is generally determined by the ordinary meaning of the wording in the identification.  TMEP §§1402.06(b), 1402.07(a)-(b).  Any acceptable changes to the goods and/or services will further limit scope, and once goods and/or services are deleted, they are not permitted to be reinserted.  TMEP §1402.07(e).

 

 

 

Response Guidelines

 

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.  Applicant may also have other options for responding to a refusal and should consider such options carefully.  To respond to requirements and certain refusal response options, applicant should set forth in writing the required changes or statements.

 

If applicant does not respond to this Office action within six months of the issue/mailing date, or responds by expressly abandoning the application, the application process will end, the trademark will fail to register, and the application fee will not be refunded.  See 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.65(a), 2.68(a), 2.209(a); TMEP §§405.04, 718.01, 718.02.  Where the application has been abandoned for failure to respond to an Office action, applicant’s only option would be to file a timely petition to revive the application, which, if granted, would allow the application to return to active status.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.66; TMEP §1714.  There is a $100 fee for such petitions.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.6, 2.66(b)(1).

 

 

/Anthony M. Rinker/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 102

U.S. Trademark Office

P. 571-272-5491

anthony.rinker@uspto.gov

 

TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER:  Go to http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp.  Please wait 48-72 hours from the issue/mailing date before using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), to allow for necessary system updates of the application.  For technical assistance with online forms, e-mail TEAS@uspto.gov.  For questions about the Office action itself, please contact the assigned trademark examining attorney.  E-mail communications will not be accepted as responses to Office actions; therefore, do not respond to this Office action by e-mail.

 

All informal e-mail communications relevant to this application will be placed in the official application record.

 

WHO MUST SIGN THE RESPONSE:  It must be personally signed by an individual applicant or someone with legal authority to bind an applicant (i.e., a corporate officer, a general partner, all joint applicants).  If an applicant is represented by an attorney, the attorney must sign the response. 

 

PERIODICALLY CHECK THE STATUS OF THE APPLICATION:  To ensure that applicant does not miss crucial deadlines or official notices, check the status of the application every three to four months using the Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) system at http://tsdr.gov.uspto.report/.  Please keep a copy of the TSDR status screen.  If the status shows no change for more than six months, contact the Trademark Assistance Center by e-mail at TrademarkAssistanceCenter@uspto.gov or call 1-800-786-9199.  For more information on checking status, see http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/process/status/.

 

TO UPDATE CORRESPONDENCE/E-MAIL ADDRESS:  Use the TEAS form at http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/correspondence.jsp.

 

 

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)

 

 

IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING YOUR

U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION

 

USPTO OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) HAS ISSUED

ON 7/16/2018 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 85684982

 

Please follow the instructions below:

 

(1)  TO READ THE LETTER:  Click on this link or go to http://tsdr.uspto.gov,enter the U.S. application serial number, and click on “Documents.”

 

The Office action may not be immediately viewable, to allow for necessary system updates of the application, but will be available within 24 hours of this e-mail notification.

 

(2)  TIMELY RESPONSE IS REQUIRED:  Please 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 7/16/2018 (or sooner if specified in the Office action).  A response transmitted through the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) must be received before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period.  For information regarding response time periods, see http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/process/status/responsetime.jsp.

 

Do NOT hit “Reply” to this e-mail notification, or otherwise e-mail your response because the USPTO does NOT accept e-mails as responses to Office actions.  Instead, the USPTO recommends that you respond online using the TEAS response form located at http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp.

 

(3)  QUESTIONS:  For questions about the contents of the Office action itself, please contact the assigned trademark examining attorney.  For technical assistance in accessing or viewing the Office action in the Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) system, please e-mail TSDR@uspto.gov.

 

WARNING

 

Failure to file the required response by the applicable response deadline will result in the ABANDONMENT of your application.  For more information regarding abandonment, see http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/basics/abandon.jsp.

 

PRIVATE COMPANY SOLICITATIONS REGARDING YOUR APPLICATION:  Private companies not associated with the USPTO are using information provided in trademark applications to mail or e-mail trademark-related solicitations.  These companies often use names that closely resemble the USPTO and their solicitations may look like an official government document.  Many solicitations require that you pay “fees.” 

 

Please carefully review all correspondence you receive regarding this application to make sure that you are responding to an official document from the USPTO rather than a private company solicitation.  All official USPTO correspondence will be mailed only from the “United States Patent and Trademark Office” in Alexandria, VA; or sent by e-mail from the domain “@uspto.gov.”  For more information on how to handle private company solicitations, see http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/solicitation_warnings.jsp.