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: 3/25/2014

 

 

 

 

The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney.  Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issues below.  15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62, 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.

 

Summary of Issues to be Addressed by Applicant

 

• Section 2(d) Likelihood of Confusion Refusal
• Section 2(e)(1) Refusal—Mark is Merely Descriptive
• Requirement for Additional Information
• Identification of Goods
• Unsigned Application—Signed Verification Required
• Foreign Registration Certificate Required
• Advisory: Foreign Application Not From Country of Origin

 

Section 2(d) Refusal—Likelihood of Confusion

 

THE FOLLOWING REFUSAL IS LIMITED TO THE GOODS “COMPUTER SOFTWARE”:

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 2617178, 2846602, 2993232, 3861946, 4065044 and 4086762.  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 of the applicant and registrant.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).  The court in In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973) listed the principal factors to be considered when determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d).  See TMEP §1207.01.  However, not all of the factors are necessarily relevant or of equal weight, and any one factor may be dominant in a given case, depending upon the evidence of record.  In re Majestic Distilling Co., 315 F.3d 1311, 1315, 65 USPQ2d 1201, 1204 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see In re E. I. du Pont, 476 F.2d at 1361-62, 177 USPQ at 567.

 

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

 

The overriding concern is not only to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods, 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).

 

Taking into account the relevant du Pont factors, a likelihood of confusion determination in this case involves a two-part analysis.  The marks are compared for similarities in their appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression.  TMEP §§1207.01, 1207.01(b).  The goods are compared to determine whether they are similar or commercially related or travel in the same trade channels.  See Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 1164-65, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Han Beauty, Inc. v. Alberto-Culver Co., 236 F.3d 1333, 1336, 57 USPQ2d 1557, 1559 (Fed. Cir. 2001); TMEP §§1207.01, 1207.01(a)(vi).

 

Highly Similar Marks

 

Applicant’s mark, “REDWOOD,” is highly similar to the registrants’ marks, “REDWOOD CRONACLE,” “REDWOOD ANALYTICS,” “REDWOOD E-LEARNING SYSTEMS,” “REDWOOD SYSTEMS,” “REDWOOD TECHNOLOGIES” and “REDWOOD” in appearance, sound and commercial impression.  All of the marks have the identical term “REDWOOD” as the first and dominant term, and are thus highly similar in overall sound, appearance and commercial impression. 

 

What’s more, the applicant’s mark is identical to the mark in Registration No. 4086762, “REDWOOD.”

 

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); 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).  Here, all of the marks combine the dominant term “REDWOOD” with disclaimed or descriptive matter.  Disclaimed matter that is descriptive of or generic for an applicant’s goods 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).

 

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 offered under applicant’s and registrant’s 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).  In this case, consumers will focus on the dominant term “REDWOOD,” and may be confused into thinking that applicant’s computer software goods emanate from one of the registrants.

 

Overlapping Goods

 

Furthermore, the goods are closely related.  The applicant’s goods include “computer software.” The registrants’ goods include a variety of computer software with various functions, such as software for website creation and content management, educational software, facilities management software, etc.

 

Likelihood of confusion is determined on the basis of the goods as they are identified in the application and registration.  Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1267-68, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1004-05 (Fed. Cir. 2002); In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1207 n.4, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1690 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 1993); TMEP §1207.01(a)(iii).

                                                           

Here, applicant’s designation “computer software” could encompass any or all of the registrants’ goods, as applicant could also be providing the same types of software, such as software for website creation and content management, educational software, facilities management software, etc. When the application describes the goods broadly and there are no limitations as to their nature, type, channels of trade or classes of purchasers, then it is presumed that the application encompasses all goods of the type described, that they move in all normal channels of trade, and that they are available to all potential customers.  See In re Melville Corp., 18 USPQ2d 1386, 1388 (TTAB 1991) (“With reference to the channels of trade, applicant’s argument that its goods are sold only in its own retail stores is not persuasive . . . . There is no restriction [in its identification of goods] as to the channels of trade in which the goods are sold.”); TMEP §1207.01(a)(iii).

 

Since the marks are so highly similar and the goods are overlapping, there is a likelihood that purchasers would confuse the sources of the goods or believe they stemmed from a single source.  Accordingly, registration is properly refused under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act due to a likelihood of confusion.

 

Applicant should note the following additional ground for refusal:

 

Section 2(e)(1)—Descriptive Refusal

 

Registration is refused because the applied-for mark merely describes a characteristic, feature, or the subject matter of applicant’s computer software.  Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); see TMEP §§1209.01(b), 1209.03 et seq.

 

A mark is merely descriptive if it describes an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose or use of the specified goods.  TMEP §1209.01(b); see 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). 

 

“A mark may be merely descriptive even if it does not describe the ‘full scope and extent’ of the applicant’s goods or services.”  In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 1173, 71 USPQ2d 1370, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing In re Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp., 240 F.3d 1341, 1346, 57 USPQ2d 1807, 1812 (Fed. Cir. 2001)); TMEP §1209.01(b).  It is enough if the term describes only one significant function, attribute or property.  In re Oppedahl, 373 F.3d at 1173, 71 USPQ2d at 1371; TMEP §1209.01(b).

 

In this case, applicant seeks registration of the mark “REDWOOD” for “computer software, including computer software for navigation, travel route planning, geographic, transportation and traffic information, driving and walking directions, street atlas information, electronic map display, and destination information.”  According to the attached dictionary definition and encyclopedia article, “REDWOOD” is the name of a particular tree, and also of a large U.S. National Park and California state park located along the northern California coast. Thus, the term “REDWOOD” presumably describes a characteristic, feature, or the subject matter of the software, namely, that applicant’s software provides users with navigation, travel route planning, geographic, transportation and traffic information, driving and walking directions, street atlas information, electronic map display, and destination information pertaining to Redwood National and State Parks in northern California.

 

As such, the proposed mark “REDWOOD” merely refers to the subject matter of applicant’s software, i.e., Redwood National and State Parks.  Accordingly, the proposed mark merely describes a feature, characteristic, function, purpose, or use of the identified goods, and its registration is properly refused under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1).

 

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 also respond to the requirements set forth below:

 

Additional Information Required

 

Due to the descriptive nature of the applied-for mark, applicant must provide the following information regarding the goods and wording appearing in the mark: 

 

(1)  Fact sheets, instruction manuals, brochures, advertisements and pertinent screenshots of applicant’s website as it relates to the goods.  Merely stating that information about the goods is available on applicant’s website is insufficient to make the information of record. 

 

If these materials are unavailable, applicant should submit similar documentation for goods of the same type, explaining how its own product will differ.  If the goods feature new technology and information regarding competing goods is not available, applicant must provide a detailed factual description of the goods.  Factual information about the goods must make clear how they operate, salient features, and prospective customers and channels of trade.  Conclusory statements will not satisfy this requirement.; and

 

(2)  Applicant must respond to the following questions: 

 

Do the goods provide information about, or in any other way pertain to, Redwood National and State Parks in northern California?

 

See 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b); In re AOP LLC, 107 USPQ2d 1644, 1650-51 (TTAB 2013); In re Cheezwhse.com, Inc., 85 USPQ2d 1917, 1919 (TTAB 2008); In re Planalytics, Inc., 70 USPQ2d 1453, 1457-58 (TTAB 2004); TMEP §§814, 1402.01(e). 

 

Failure to comply with a request for information can be grounds for refusing registration.  In re AOP LLC, 107 USPQ2d at 1651; In re DTI P’ship LLP, 67 USPQ2d 1699, 1701-02 (TTAB 2003); TMEP §814. 

 

Identification of Goods

 

The wording “computer software, including” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified for two reasons.  First, the wording “computer software” alone is indefinite.  An identification for computer software must specify the purpose or function of the software.  See TMEP §1402.03(d).  If the software is field-specific, the identification must also specify the field of use.  Id.  Clarification of the purpose, function, or field of use of the software is necessary for the USPTO to properly examine the application and make appropriate decisions concerning possible conflicts between the applicant’s mark and other marks.  See In re N.A.D. Inc., 57 USPQ2d 1872, 1874 (TTAB 2000).

Secondly, this wording is indefinite and must be clarified because it includes the open-ended wording “including.”  See TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03(a).  The identification must be specific and all-inclusive.  Therefore, this wording should be deleted and replaced with “namely.” 

 

Applicant may amend the identification to list only those items that are within the scope of the goods set forth in the application or within the scope of a previously accepted amendment to the identification.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §§1402.06 et seq., 1402.07.  

 

The examining attorney suggests, and applicant may adopt, any or all of the following identification of goods, if accurate:

 

“Computer software for [specify the function of the software, e.g., wording processing, database management, etc.] for use in the field of [specify field of use, if field-specific, e.g., healthcare, automobile manufacturing, etc.]; computer software, namely, computer software for navigation, travel route planning, geographic, transportation and traffic information, driving and walking directions, street atlas information, electronic map display, and destination information,” in International Class 9.

 

TMEP §1402.01.

 

Identifications of goods can be amended 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.  Therefore, applicant may not amend the identification to include goods that are not within the scope of the goods set forth in the present identification

 

For assistance with identifying and classifying goods 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.

 

Unsigned Application—Signed Verification Required

 

The application was not signed and verified, which are application requirements.  See 15 U.S.C. §§1051(a)-(b), 1126(d)-(e); 37 C.F.R. §§2.33(a)-(b), 2.34(a)(1)(i), (a)(2), (a)(3)(i), (a)(4)(ii).  Therefore, applicant must verify the statements specified further below in a signed affidavit or declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20.  See 15 U.S.C. §§1051(a)(3), (b)(3), 1126(d)-(e); 37 C.F.R. §§2.33(a)-(c), 2.193(e)(1); TMEP §§804.02, 806.01(a)-(d).

 

If applicant responds to this Office action online via the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), applicant may satisfy this requirement by answering “yes” to the TEAS response form wizard question relating to submitting a “signed declaration,” and following the instructions within the form for signing.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.33(a)-(c), 2.193(a), (c)-(d), (e)(1); TMEP §§611.01(c), 804.01(b). 

 

If applicant responds to this Office action on paper, via regular mail, applicant may satisfy this requirement by providing the following statements and declaration at the end of the response, personally signed by a person authorized under 37 C.F.R. §2.193(e)(1) and dated, with the printed or typed name of the signatory appearing immediately below the signature.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.20, 2.33(a)-(c), 2.193(a), (d); TMEP §§611.01(b), 804.01(b).

 

STATEMENTS:  The undersigned is properly authorized to execute this application on behalf of the applicant; he/she believes the applicant to be the owner of the trademark/service mark sought to be registered, or, if the application is being filed under 15 U.S.C. §1051(b), §1126(d) or §1126(e), he/she believes the applicant to be entitled to use the mark in commerce; the mark is in use in commerce and was in use in commerce on or in connection with the goods and/or services listed in the application as of the application filing date; the specimen shows the mark as used on or in connection with the goods or services listed in the application; 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 application filing date; the facts set forth in the application are true and accurate; and to the best of the undersigned’s knowledge and belief no other person, firm, corporation, or association has the right to use the mark in commerce, either in the identical form thereof or in such near resemblance thereto as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods/services of such other person, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive.

 

DECLARATION:  The undersigned being warned that willful false statements and the like are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under 18 U.S.C. §1001, and that such willful false statements and the like may jeopardize the validity of the application or document or any registration resulting therefrom, declares that all statements made of his/her own knowledge are true; and all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true.

 

_____________________________

(Signature)

 

_____________________________

(Print or Type Name and Position)

 

_____________________________

(Date)

 

The following persons are properly authorized to sign a verification or declaration on behalf of an applicant:

 

(1)       A person with legal authority to bind the applicant (e.g., a corporate officer or general partner);

 

(2)       A person with firsthand knowledge of the facts and actual or implied authority to act on behalf of the applicant; or

 

(3)       An authorized attorney who has an actual written or verbal power of attorney or an implied power of attorney from the applicant.

 

37 C.F.R. §§2.33(a), 2.193(e)(1); TMEP §§611.03(a), 804.04; see 37 C.F.R. §§11.1, 11.14.

 

Foreign Registration Certificate Required

 

The application specifies both an intent to use basis under Trademark Act Section 1(b) and a claim of priority under Section 44(d) based on a foreign application.  See 15 U.S.C. §§1051(b), 1126(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(2), (a)(4).  However, no copy of a foreign registration has been provided even though the application indicates applicant’s intent to rely on Section 44(e) as an additional basis for registration.  See 15 U.S.C. §1126(e).

 

An application with a Section 44(e) basis must include a true copy, photocopy, certification, or certified copy of a foreign registration from an applicant’s country of origin.  15 U.S.C. §1126(e); 37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(3)(ii); TMEP §§1004, 1004.01, 1016.  In addition, an applicant’s country of origin must be a party to a convention or treaty relating to trademarks to which the United States is also a party, or must extend reciprocal registration rights to nationals of the United States by law.  15 U.S.C. §1126(b); TMEP §§1002.01, 1004.

 

Therefore, applicant must provide a copy of the foreign registration from applicant’s country of origin when it becomes available.  TMEP §1003.04(a).  A copy of a foreign registration must consist of a document issued to an applicant by, or certified by, the intellectual property office in applicant’s country of origin.  TMEP §1004.01.  If applicant’s country of origin does not issue registrations or Madrid Protocol certificates of extension of protection, applicant may submit a copy of the Madrid Protocol international registration that shows that protection of the international registration has been extended to applicant’s country of origin.  TMEP §1016.  In addition, applicant must also provide an English translation if the foreign registration is not written in English.  37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(3)(ii); TMEP §1004.01(a)-(b).  The translation should be signed by the translator.  TMEP §1004.01(b).

 

If the foreign registration has not yet issued, or applicant requires additional time to procure a copy of the foreign registration (and English translation, as appropriate), applicant should so inform the trademark examining attorney and request that the U.S. application be suspended until a copy of the foreign registration is available.  TMEP §§716.02(b), 1003.04(b).

 

If applicant cannot satisfy the requirements of a Section 44(e) basis, applicant may request that the mark be approved for publication based solely on the Section 1(b) basis.  See 15 U.S.C. §§1051(b), 1126(e); 37 C.F.R. §2.35(b)(1); TMEP §§806.02(f), 806.04(b), 1003.04(b).  Although the mark may be approved for publication on the Section 1(b) basis, it will not register until an acceptable allegation of use has been filed.  See 15 U.S.C. §1051(c)-(d); 37 C.F.R. §§2.76, 2.88; TMEP §1103.  Please note that, if the U.S. application satisfied the requirements of Section 44(d) as of the U.S. application filing date, applicant may retain the priority filing date under Section 44(d) without perfecting the Section 44(e) basis, provided there is a continuing valid basis for registration.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.35(b)(1), (4); TMEP §§806.02(f), 806.04(b). 

 

Advisory: Foreign Application Not From Country of Origin

 

The application specifies both a basis under Trademark Act Section 1 and a claim of priority under Section 44(d) and indicates that applicant intends to rely on the foreign registration that will issue from its foreign application as a basis for registration under Section 44(e).  See 15 U.S.C. §§1051(a), (b), 1126(d), (e); 37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(1)-(2), (a)(4); TMEP §1003.04(a).  To obtain registration under Section 44(e) based on a foreign registration that will issue from the foreign application relied on for priority, the country in which the foreign application was filed must be the applicant’s country of origin.  See 15 U.S.C. §1126(c); TMEP §§1002.01, 1002.02, 1002.04.  Under Section 44(c), “country of origin” is defined as the country in which an applicant (1) is domiciled, (2) has a bona fide and effective industrial or commercial establishment, or (3) is a national.  15 U.S.C. §1126(c); TMEP §1002.04. 

 

In the present case, the U.S. application shows that applicant has a domicile in the United States, but the foreign application was filed in Trinidad and Tobago. 

 

Because applicant’s domicile is in a country different from the country in which the foreign application was filed, and from which the foreign registration will issue, applicant will need to establish that this country is applicant’s country of origin as of the date of issuance of the foreign registration.  See 15 U.S.C. §1126(c); TMEP §§1002.02, 1002.04.  This requirement may be satisfied by providing the following written statement for the record, once the foreign registration issues:  “Applicant has had a bona fide and effective industrial or commercial establishment in Trinidad and Tobago as of the date of issuance of the foreign registration.”  TMEP §1002.04.

 

If applicant will not be able to assert that the country in which the foreign registration has issued is applicant’s country of origin, registration under Section 44(e) will be refused.  See 15 U.S.C. §1126(c); TMEP §1002.01-.02.  In that case, applicant may delete the Section 44(e) basis and rely solely on Section 1(b) as a basis.  See 15 U.S.C. §§1051 (b), 1126(e); 37 C.F.R. §2.35(b); TMEP §806.04.  However, applicant may still retain the priority filing date under Section 44(d) without perfecting the Section 44(e) basis, if applicant’s U.S. application satisfied the requirements of Section 44(d) as of the U.S. application filing date and applicant has a continuing valid basis for registration.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.35(b)(3)-(4); TMEP §§806.02(f), 806.03(h).  

 

Assistance

If applicant has any questions or needs assistance in responding to this Office Action, please telephone or email the undersigned examining attorney.

 

 

/Allison P. Schrody/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 115

allison.schrody@uspto.gov

(571) 272-5893

(571) 273-9115 (fax)

 

 

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 3/25/2014 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 86137458

 

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 3/25/2014 (or sooner if specified in the Office action).  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 Trademark Electronic Application System (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.