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: 11/19/2013

 

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 Section 2(d) – Likelihood of Confusion
• Prior Pending Applications – Mark Not Entitled to Register
• Identification of Goods

 

 

REFUSAL UNDER SECTION 2(d) – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 4170416, 4237451, and 4430806.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the enclosed registrations.

 

Applicant’s mark is ORIGAMI OWL (in standard characters) for a huge variety of goods in International Class 9 including downloadable music and downloadable media files relating to jewelry.  The mark in Reg. No. 4170416 is ORIGAMI OWL (in standard characters) for retail store services featuring jewelry.  The mark in Reg. No. 4430806 is O2 ORIGAMI OWL for retail store services featuring jewelry.  The mark in Reg. No. 4237451 is ORIGAMI (in standard characters) for downloadable musical sound recordings, among other goods. Applicant should note that Reg. Nos. 4170416 and 4430806 have the same owner.

 

Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that so resembles a registered mark that it is likely 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).  A determination of likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d) is made on a case-by case basis and the factors set forth in In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973) aid in this determination.  Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp., Inc., 637 F.3d 1344, 1349, 98 USPQ2d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing On-Line Careline, Inc. v. Am. Online, Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1085, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2000)).  Not all the du Pont factors, however, 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 at 1355, 98 USPQ2d at 1260; 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 services, and similarity of the trade channels of the goods and 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.

 

Similarity of the Marks

 

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 services offered under applicant’s and registrants’ marks is likely to result.  Midwestern Pet Foods, Inc. v. Societe des Produits Nestle S.A., 685 F.3d 1046, 1053, 103 USPQ2d 1435, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Edom Labs., Inc. v. Lichter, 102 USPQ2d 1546, 1551 (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 1434, 1438 (TTAB 2012); Sealed Air Corp. v. Scott Paper Co., 190 USPQ 106, 108 (TTAB 1975); TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

The respective marks, ORIGAMI OWL, ORIGAMI OWL, O2 ORIGAMI OWL, and ORIGAMI, are highly similar in appearance, sound and meaning.  All share the word “ORIGAMI,” and the marks in Reg. Nos. 4170416 and 4430806 contain the words “ORIGAMI OWL,” which is the entirety of applicant’s mark. 

 

Reg. No. 4170416

 

In a likelihood of confusion determination, the marks in their entireties are compared for similarities in appearance, sound, 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). 

 

In the present case, applicant’s mark is ORIGAMI OWL and the mark in Reg. No. 4170416 is ORIGAMI OWL.  Thus, the marks are identical in terms of appearance and sound.  In addition, the connotation and commercial impression of the marks do not differ when considered in connection with applicant’s and registrant’s respective goods.

 

Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar. 

 

Reg. No. 4430806

 

The only literal difference between applicant’s mark and the mark in Reg. No. 4430806 is that the registrant’s mark contains the alphanumeric combination “O2.” In essence, applicant has deleted this portion of registrant’s mark.  The mere deletion of wording from a registered mark may not be sufficient to overcome a likelihood of 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.

 

Additionally, registrant’s mark differs from applicant’s in that the registered mark is stylized.  However, the word portions of the marks are nearly identical in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression; therefore, the addition of a design element does not obviate the similarity of the marks in this case.  See In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1206, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1993); TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii).

 

Reg. No. 4237451

 

With respect to the mark in Reg. No. 4237451, consumers are generally more inclined to focus on the first word, prefix or syllable in any trademark or service mark.  In re Power Distrib., Inc., ___ USPQ2d ___, Ser. No. 77825939, 2012 TTAB LEXIS 402, at *5 (Sept. 29, 2012); 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); 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).

 

In this case, the marks share the same first word, “ORIGAMI.”  This fact contributes to the marks having the same commercial impression because consumers are more likely to focus on the word “ORIGAMI” when viewing or hearing the marks.

 

Here, the addition of the term “OWL” in applicant’s mark does not obviate the overall similarity between the marks.  Consumers, when encountering the marks ORIGAMI and ORIGAMI OWL, are likely to be confused as to the source of the goods at issue, particularly when the goods are identical.

 

Thus, the applied-for mark causes a likelihood of confusion with the cited registrations because the marks share common literal elements, which give the marks the same commercial impression.

 

Relatedness of the Goods

 

Reg. Nos. 4170416 and 4430806

 

The goods of the parties 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) (“[E]ven if the goods in question are different from, and thus not related to, one another in kind, the same goods can be related in the mind of the consuming public as to the origin of the goods.”); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i). 

 

The respective goods need only be “related in some manner and/or if the circumstances surrounding their marketing [be] 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)); Gen. Mills Inc. v. Fage Dairy Processing Indus. SA, 100 USPQ2d 1584, 1597 (TTAB 2011); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).

 

In this case, the applicant’s various downloadable goods related to jewelry are closely related to the registrant’s retail services featuring jewelry because these goods and services are all in the field of jewelry. 

 

Additionally, the use of similar marks on or in connection with both products and retail-store services has been held likely to cause confusion where the evidence showed that the retail-store services featured the same type of products.  See In re Thomas, 79 USPQ2d 1021, 1023 (TTAB 2006) (holding the use of similar marks both for jewelry and for retail-jewelry and mineral-store services was likely to cause confusion); In re Peebles Inc., 23 USPQ2d 1795, 1796 (TTAB 1992) (holding the use of nearly identical marks both for coats and for retail outlets featuring camping and mountain climbing equipment, including coats, was likely to cause confusion, noting that “there is no question that store services and the goods which may be sold in that store are related goods and services for the purpose of determining likelihood of confusion”); In re U.S. Shoe Corp., 8 USPQ2d 1938, 1939 (TTAB 1988) (holding the use of nearly identical marks both for leather cowboy boots and for retail western-, outdoor-, and leisure-clothing-store services featuring boots was likely to cause confusion); TMEP §1207.01(a)(ii).

 

Here, the attached Internet evidence consists of webpages from Morgan Jewelers, Zales, and Tiffany & Co.  This evidence establishes that the same entity commonly provides the relevant goods and services, namely jewelry retail services and downloadable multimedia featuring jewelry, and markets these goods and services under the same mark.  Therefore, applicant’s and registrant’s goods and 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).

 

Finally, it should be noted that where the marks of the respective parties are identical or virtually identical—as is the case with the marks here—the relationship between the relevant goods and services need not be as close to support a finding of likelihood of confusion.  See In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1207, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Davey Prods. Pty Ltd., 92 USPQ2d 1198, 1202 (TTAB 2009); In re Thor Tech, Inc., 90 USPQ2d 1634, 1636 (TTAB 2009); TMEP §1207.01(a).

 

 

Reg. Nos. 4170416

 

When analyzing an applicant’s and registrant’s goods for similarity and relatedness, that determination is based on the description of the goods stated in the application and registration at issue, not on extrinsic evidence of actual use.  See Octocom Sys. Inc. v. Hous. Computers Servs. Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 942, 16 USPQ2d 1783, 1787 (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1267, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1004 (Fed. Cir. 2002). 

 

Absent restrictions in an application and/or registration, the identified goods are presumed to travel in the same channels of trade to the same class of purchasers.  Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp., Inc., 637 F.3d 1344, 1356, 98 USPQ2d 1253, 1261 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press Inc., 281 F.3d at 1268, 62 USPQ2d at 1005.  Additionally, unrestricted and broad identifications are presumed to encompass all goods and/or services of the type described.  See In re Jump Designs, 80 USPQ2d 1370, 1374 (TTAB 2006); In re Linkvest S.A., 24 USPQ2d 1716, 1716 (TTAB 1992). 

 

In this case, the identifications set forth in the application and registration are the same with respect to downloadable music and have no restrictions as to nature, type, channels of trade, or classes of purchasers.  Therefore, it is presumed that these goods travel in all normal channels of trade, and are available to the same class of purchasers.  See Midwestern Pet Foods, Inc. v. Societe des Produits Nestle S.A., 685 F.3d 1046, 1053, 103 USPQ2d 1435, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2012).  Accordingly, the downloadable music of applicant and registrant is considered related for purposes of the likelihood of confusion analysis.

 

In summary, the applicant’s and registrants’ marks create the same commercial impression and the respective goods and services are highly related.   Therefore, consumers are likely to be confused and mistakenly believe that these goods and services originate from a common source.  Accordingly, registration must be refused under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.

 

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

 

 

Prior Pending ApplicationS – Mark Not Entitled to Register

 

The filing dates of pending U.S. Application Serial Nos. 85745199 and 86001306 precede applicant’s filing date.  See attached referenced applications.  If one or more of the marks in the referenced applications register, applicant’s mark may be refused registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d) because of a likelihood of confusion with the registered marks.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §§1208 et seq.  Therefore, upon receipt of applicant’s response to this Office action, action on this application may be suspended pending final disposition of the earlier-filed referenced applications.

 

In response to this Office action, applicant may present arguments in support of registration by addressing the issue of the potential conflict between applicant’s mark and the marks in the referenced applications.  Applicant’s election not to submit arguments at this time in no way limits applicant’s right to address this issue later if a refusal under Section 2(d) issues.

 

However, applicant must respond to the requirements set forth below.

 

 

IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS

 

The identification of goods must be amended because the wording not taken directly from TEAS Plus entries is indefinite.

 

The language in the identification of goods was primarily adopted from entries in the U.S. Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual [hereinafter ID Manual] through the TEAS Plus application form.  Language that was adopted wholesale from the ID Manual is acceptable. However, the entries adopted for which applicant completed blanks are indefinite and unacceptable because applicant’s added language is ambiguous.  See TMEP §1402.01.

 

For example, applicant chose to adopt the ID Manual entry for “downloadable graphics featuring {indicate content or subject matter} for use on {indicate specific items of equipment, e.g., mobile phones}.”  This entry requires the user to fill in the blank to specify the subject matter of the graphics.  For this entry, applicant inserted the language “seminars.”  Thus, the submitted language reads as “downloadable graphics featuring . . . seminars,” and it is unclear how the content of a graphic could be a seminar.

 

For the example above, and the language below, applicant must amend the fill-in-the-blank language to specify appropriate content, subject matter, or functions of the goods provided, as called for by the language in the brackets.

 

·       Computer application software for {specify items, e.g., mobile phones, portable media players, handheld computers}, namely, software for {specify the function of the programs, e.g., use in database management, use in electronic storage of data, etc.}

·       Downloadable graphics featuring {indicate content or subject matter} for use on {indicate specific items of equipment, e.g., mobile phones}

·       Downloadable images in the field of {indicate subject matter or field, e.g., automobiles, cats and dogs, etc.} for mobile phones

·       Downloadable mobile applications for {indicate function of software, e.g., managing bank accounts, editing photos, making restaurant reservations, etc. and, if software is content- or field-specific, the content or field of use}

·       Downloadable multimedia file containing artwork relating to {indicate field of subject matter of file}

·       Downloadable multimedia file containing artwork, text, audio, video, games, and Internet Web links relating to {indicate field of subject matter of file}

·       Downloadable multimedia file containing audio relating to {indicate field of subject matter of file}

·       Downloadable multimedia file containing text relating to {indicate field of subject matter of file}

·       Downloadable multimedia file containing video relating to {indicate field of subject matter of file}

·       Downloadable computer software for {specify the function of the software, e.g., use as a spreadsheet, word processing, etc. and, if software is content- or field-specific, the content or field of use}

·       Downloadable software in the nature of a mobile application for {specify the function of the programs, e.g., for use in database management, for use as a spreadsheet, for word processing, etc. and, if software is content- or field-specific, the content or field of use}

·       Downloadable virtual goods, namely, computer programs featuring {specify nature, type, e.g., articles of clothing} for use in online virtual worlds

 

To address the issues discussed above, applicant may adopt the following identification of goods, if accurate.  The examining attorney has indicated where additional specification is needed in bold and underlined font.

 

International Class 9: Cell phone cases; Cell phone covers; Cell phone faceplates; Cellular phone accessory charms; Children's educational software; Clear protective covers specially adapted for personal electronic devices, namely, mobile and cellular phones, wireless devices, handheld electronic devices, portable media players, handheld computers; Computer application software for mobile and cellular phones, wireless devices, handheld electronic devices, portable media players, handheld computers, namely, software for {specify the function of the programs, e.g., use in database management, use in electronic storage of data, etc.}; Computer game programmes downloadable via the Internet; Computer game software; Computer game software for use on mobile and cellular phones; Computer programs for connecting remotely to computers or computer networks; Computer programs for searching remotely for content on computers and computer networks; Computer software for communicating with users of hand-held computers; Computer software for the collection, editing, organizing, modifying, book marking, transmission, storage and sharing of data and information; Computer software for the field of warehousing and distribution, to manage transactional data, provide statistical analysis, and produce notifications and reports; Computer software for wireless content delivery; Computer software, namely, an application allowing sales and field service employees to update and receive data stored in an enterprise's computer databases in real time, using a mobile device, with full telephony integration with the telephone and/or software features of the mobile device; Downloadable computer game software via a global computer network and wireless devices; Downloadable electronic game software for use on mobile and cellular phones, wireless devices, handheld electronic devices, portable media players, handheld computers; Downloadable graphics featuring {indicate content or subject matter} for use on mobile and cellular phones, wireless devices, handheld electronic devices, portable media players, handheld computers; Downloadable graphics for mobile phones; Downloadable images in the field of {indicate subject matter or field, e.g., automobiles, cats and dogs, etc.} for mobile phones; Downloadable mobile applications for {indicate function of software, e.g., managing bank accounts, editing photos, making restaurant reservations, etc. and, if software is content- or field-specific, the content or field of use}; Downloadable multimedia file containing artwork relating to {indicate field of subject matter of file}; Downloadable multimedia file containing artwork, text, audio, video, games, and Internet Web links relating to {indicate field of subject matter of file}; Downloadable multimedia file containing audio relating to {indicate field of subject matter of file}; Downloadable multimedia file containing text relating to {indicate field of subject matter of file}; Downloadable multimedia file containing video relating to {indicate field of subject matter of file}; Downloadable music files; Downloadable software application for downloading DVR-recorded content for viewing on smartphones; Downloadable software for {specify the function of the software, e.g., use as a spreadsheet, word processing, etc. and, if software is content- or field-specific, the content or field of use}; Downloadable software in the nature of a mobile application for {specify the function of the software, e.g., use as a spreadsheet, word processing, etc. and, if software is content- or field-specific, the content or field of use}; Downloadable virtual goods, namely, computer programs featuring {specify nature, type, e.g., articles of clothing} for use in online virtual worlds; Electronic game programs; Electronic game software; Electronic game software for cellular telephones; Electronic game software for handheld electronic devices; Electronic game software for wireless devices.

 

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.

 

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

 

 

CONCLUDING REMARKS

 

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 live 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).

 

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 §§304.01-.02, 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.

 

 

TEAS PLUS APPLICANTS MUST SUBMIT DOCUMENTS ELECTRONICALLY OR SUBMIT FEE:  Applicants who filed their application online using the reduced-fee TEAS Plus application must continue to submit certain documents online using TEAS, including responses to Office actions.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.23(a)(1).  For a complete list of these documents, see TMEP §819.02(b).  In addition, such applicants must accept correspondence from the Office via e-mail throughout the examination process and must maintain a valid e-mail address.  37 C.F.R. §2.23(a)(2); TMEP §§819, 819.02(a).  TEAS Plus applicants who do not meet these requirements must submit an additional fee of $50 per international class of goods and/or services.  37 C.F.R. §2.6(a)(1)(iv); TMEP §819.04.  In appropriate situations and where all issues can be resolved by amendment, responding by telephone to authorize an examiner’s amendment will not incur this additional fee.

 

 

 

/April Reeves/

April E. Reeves

Examining Attorney

Law Office 102

(571) 272-3681

april.reeves@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 11/19/2013 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 86102718

 

Your trademark application has been reviewed.  The trademark examining attorney assigned by the USPTO to your application has written an official letter to which you must respond.  Please follow these steps:

 

(1)  Read the LETTER by clicking on this link or going to http://tsdr.gov.uspto.report/, entering your U.S. application serial number, and clicking 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)  Respond within 6 months (or sooner if specified in the Office action), calculated from 11/19/2013, using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) response form located at http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.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. 

 

(3)  Questions about the contents of the Office action itself should be directed to the trademark examining attorney who reviewed your application, identified below. 

 

/April Reeves/

April E. Reeves

Examining Attorney

Law Office 102

(571) 272-3681

april.reeves@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.