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: 5/14/2014

 

 

 

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 that applicant must address:

 

·        PARTIAL SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

• IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS

 

PARTIAL SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

 

The stated refusal refers to the following goods and does not bar registration for the other goods:  “camping gear and accessories;” and “portable pots and pans for camping; bowls for use when camping; plates and utensils for use when camping.”

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 2814291, 4160298 and 4402391.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the enclosed registrations.

 

Applicant has applied to register the standard character mark BLACK OPS for relevant goods identified as “camping gear and accessories; tents for camping; sleeping bags; hammocks; camping furniture; chairs for use when camping; blow up pillows for use when camping; sleeping pads for use when camping; inflatable mattresses for use when camping; portable pots and pans for camping; bowls for use when camping; plates and utensils for use when camping.”

 

Registration No. 2814291 is for the standard character mark BLACK OPS for goods identified as “cutlery, namely knives.”

 

Registration No. 4160298 is for the design mark having the literal element BLACK OPS FLASHLIGHT for goods identified as LED lights for lighting purposes incorporated into key chains, small toys or other similar personal items; Miniature accent lights for attachment to the body and/or sports equipment to provide accent lighting to parts of the body and/or the sports equipment to which it is attached; Pen lights; Pocket search lights; Portable battery-operated lights that can be placed on surfaces where other light sources are unavailable; Portable utility lights.”

 

Registration No. 4402391 is for the design mark having the literal element BLACK OPS FLASHLIGHT for goods identified as “Flashlight holders; Flashlights; Tactical flashlights.”  This registration is owned by the same entity as Registration No. 4160298.

 

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 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 similarity of the trade channels of the goods.  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.

 

In any likelihood of confusion determination, two key considerations are similarity of the marks and similarity or relatedness of the goods.  Syndicat Des Proprietaires Viticulteurs De Chateauneuf-Du-Pape v. Pasquier DesVignes, 107 USPQ2d 1930, 1938 (TTAB 2013) (citing Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co., 544 F.2d 1098, 1103, 192 USPQ 24, 29 (C.C.P.A. 1976)); In re Iolo Techs., LLC, 95 USPQ2d 1498, 1499 (TTAB 2010); see TMEP §1207.01.  That is, the 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).  Additionally, the goods are compared to determine whether they are similar or commercially related or travel in the same trade channels.  See Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369-71, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722-23 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 1165, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2002); TMEP §1207.01, (a)(vi).

 

COMPARISON OF 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).

 

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 BLACK OPS in standard characters and the mark in Registration No. 2814291 is BLACK OPS in standard characters.  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.

 

Further, Further, the applicant’s mark is BLACK OPS in standard characters, and the mark in Registration Nos. 4160298 and 4402391 are BLACK OPS FLASHLIGHT in a design with the image of a flashlight.  The applied-for mark and the registrant’s marks are again similar in sound, appearance and meaning because of the similarity in the wording BLACK OPS contained in each of the marks, which sounds similar, looks similar and creates the same overall commercial impression as being related to covert military operations or covert political operations, as shown by the attached evidence from the Oxford Dictionary (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/black-operations).  The applicant’s mark and the mark in Registration Nos. 4160298 and 4402391 differ by the stylization and by the inclusion of the descriptive and disclaimed wording FLASHLIGHTS in the registered mark. 

 

First, with respect to the difference in stylization, a mark in typed or standard characters may be displayed in any lettering style; the rights reside in the wording or other literal element and not in any particular display or rendition.  See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1363, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1909 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 1348, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010); 37 C.F.R. §2.52(a); TMEP §1207.01(c)(iii).  Thus, a mark presented in stylized characters and/or with a design element generally will not avoid likelihood of confusion with a mark in typed or standard characters because the marks could be presented in the same manner of display.  See, e.g., In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d at 1363, 101 USPQ2d at 1909; Squirtco v. Tomy Corp., 697 F.2d 1038, 1041, 216 USPQ 937, 939 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (stating that “the argument concerning a difference in type style is not viable where one party asserts rights in no particular display”).  Thus the applied-for mark, which is in standard characters could be displayed in any manner, including in a manner similar to that of the registrant’s mark.

 

Second, with respect to the wording FLASHLIGHTS in the registrant’s mark, the applicant’s mark merely deletes this wording from the literal element of the 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 the registered mark, and there is no other wording to distinguish it from the registered mark.

 

Further, the descriptive wording FLASHLIGHT, has been disclaimed from the registered mark.  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 an applicant’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).  Thus consumers are more likely to focus on the wording BLACK OPS when retaining an overall commercial impression of the registrant’s mark and the overall commercial impression is very similar between the applied-for and the registered marks.

 

Therefore the applied-for mark is similar in sound, appearance and meaning to the mark in each of the cited registrations. 

 

COMPARISON OF GOODS

 

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] 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, each of the registrations identifies distinct goods, and they are thus distinct from each other.  However, the applicant has identified broad goods which encompass the goods identified in each of the cited registrations. 

 

With respect to applicant’s and registrant’s goods, the question of likelihood of confusion is determined based on the description of the goods stated in the application and registration at issue, not on extrinsic evidence of actual use.  See, e.g., Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369-70, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Octocom Sys. Inc. v. Hous. Computers Servs. Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 942, 16 USPQ2d 1783, 1787 (Fed. Cir. 1990). 

 

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.”  In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1268, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).  Additionally, unrestricted and broad identifications are presumed to encompass all goods and/or services of the type described.  See In re Jump Designs, LLC, 80 USPQ2d 1370, 1374 (TTAB 2006) (citing In re Elbaum, 211 USPQ 639, 640 (TTAB 1981)); In re Linkvest S.A., 24 USPQ2d 1716, 1716 (TTAB 1992). 

 

In this case, the identification set forth in the application and registration has 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.  Further, the application uses broad wording to describe the goods and this wording is presumed to encompass all goods of the type described, including those in registrants’s more narrow identifications.

 

Specifically, the applicant has used the broad wording “camping gear and accessories.”  This wording is broad enough to encompass the goods in each of the cited registrations.  As shown by the attached evidence from Cabela’s (http://www.cabelas.com/catalog/browse/lights/_/N-1100699/Ns-CATEGORY_SEQ_104743080?WTz_l=Unknown%3Bcat104795280), Dick’s Sporting Goods (http://www.dickssportinggoods.com/category/index.jsp?categoryId=4414966) and Sports Authority (http://www.sportsauthority.com/Outdoor-Equipment/Camping-Hiking/Lights-Lanterns/category.jsp?categoryId=2280663&cp=3085044) it is very common for retailers to include flashlights and other lights in the category of camping gear and accessories.  Thus the applicant’s identified goods are broad enough to include the goods identified in Registration Nos. 4160298 and 4402391.

 

Further, the attached evidence from Cabela’s (http://www.cabelas.com/catalog/browse/camping/_/N-1100668?WT.srch=1&WT.tsrc=PPC&rid=20&WT.mc_id=GOOGLE|cam_general_cabelas+misspellings|USA&WT.z_mc_id1=43700001031787540&gclid=CNWc4Jvgn74CFYuXOgodE3gABA&gclsrc=aw.ds), Dick’s (http://www.dickssportinggoods.com/category/index.jsp?categoryId=4414966) and Sports Authority (http://www.sportsauthority.com/Outdoor-Equipment/Camping-Hiking/category.jsp?categoryId=3085044) it is also very common for retailers to include knives in the category of camping gear.  Thus the applicant’s identified goods are broad enough to include the goods identified in Registration No. 2814291.

 

Further, the applicant has identified goods of “portable pots and pans for camping; bowls for use when camping; plates and utensils for use when camping” while Registration No. 2814291 has identified goods of “cutlery, namely knives.”  The applicant’s goods of “plates and utensils for use when camping” are thus broad enough to encompass the registrant’s identified “cutlery, namely knives” which are not limited to camping applications and could thus be used in any channel of trade or for any purpose.  Further, the remainder of the goods of “portable pots and pans for camping; bowls for use when camping; plates and utensils for use when camping” are related to the registrant’s identified knives because it is common for the same entity to provide knives and pots and pans and bowls and plates for camping together under the same mark. 

 

The attached Internet evidence consists of websites of retailers that provide a variety of eating utensils for camping, including pots and pans, bowls and plates and other utensils.  This evidence establishes that the same entity commonly manufactures, produces and provides the relevant goods and markets the goods under the same mark, the relevant goods are sold or provided through the same trade channels and used by the same classes of consumers in the same fields of use and the goods are similar or complementary in terms of purpose or function.  Therefore, applicant’s and registrant’s goods 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).

 

Specifically, the attached evidence from Coleman (http://www.coleman.com/Products/5170/dishes-amp-utensils), Camp Chef (http://www.campchef.com/cooking-accessories/pots-pans.html and http://www.campchef.com/cooking-accessories/cooking-utensils-kits.html?limit=all), GSI Outdoors (http://www.gsioutdoors.com/products/cat/camp_cookware/, and http://gsioutdoors.com/products/cat/kitchen_sets_tools/), and Coghlan’s (http://www.coghlans.com/products/campers-knife-8252, http://www.coghlans.com/camp-kitchen/utensils, http://www.coghlans.com/products/polypropylene-bowl-1217, http://www.coghlans.com/products/polypropylene-plate-1212) each shows that it is very common for the same company to provide knives and other implements specifically designed for camping. 

 

Evidence obtained from the Internet may be used to support a determination under Trademark Act Section 2(d) that goods 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).

 

Thus as the applicant’s mark is identical to the registrant’s mark and as the goods are related, there is a likelihood of confusion as to the source of the applicant’s goods.  The applicant’s mark is thus not entitled to registration for the goods identified as “camping gear and accessories” and “portable pots and pans for camping; bowls for use when camping; plates and utensils for use when camping.”

 

PARTIAL REFUSAL OPTIONS

 

Applicant may respond to the stated refusal by submitting evidence and arguments against the refusal.  In addition, applicant may respond by doing one of the following:

 

(1)       Deleting the goods to which the refusal pertains; or

 

(2)       Filing a request to divide out the goods and/or services that have not been refused registration, so that the mark may proceed toward publication for opposition for those goods or services to which the refusal does not pertain.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.87.  See generally TMEP §§1110 et seq. (regarding the requirements for filing a request to divide).  If applicant files a request to divide, then to avoid abandonment, applicant must also file a timely response to all outstanding issues in this Office action, including the refusal.  37 C.F.R. §2.87(e).

 

If applicant responds to the refusal(s), applicant must also respond to the requirement(s) set forth below.

 

IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS

 

The wording “camping gear and accessories” 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.  Further, the remainder of the wording in the application belongs in a variety of classes.  Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate: 

 

Class 6:  Camping gear and accessories, namely, {applicant must specify, e.g., metal tent stakes, metal tent pegs, metal tent poles}

 

Class 9:  Camping gear and accessories, namely, flashlights

 

Class 12:  Camping gear and accessories, namely, {applicant must specify, e.g., camping trailers}

 

Class 18:  Camping gear and accessories, namely, {applicant must specify, e.g., rucksacks}

 

Class 20:  Camping gear and accessories, namely, {applicant must specify, e.g., non-metal tent stakes, non-metal tent pegs, non-metal tent poles}; sleeping bags; camping furniture; chairs for use when camping; blow up pillows for use when camping; sleeping pads for use when camping; inflatable mattresses for use when camping

 

Class 21:  Camping gear and accessories, namely, {applicant must specify the type of camping gear and accessories claimed, e.g., camping grills}; portable pots and pans for camping; bowls for use when camping; plates and utensils for use when camping

 

Class 22:  Camping gear and accessories, namely, {applicant must specify the type of camping gear and accessories claimed, e.g., rain flies for tents}; tents for camping; hammocks

 

Class 24:  Camping gear and accessories, namely, {applicant must specify the type of camping gear and accessories claimed, e.g., liners adapted to sleeping bags for camping}

 

Note that bolding, italics, and the like are used only to highlight suggested changes to the original language.

 

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 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. 

 

MULTIPLE – CLASS APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS

 

The application identifies goods in more than one international class; therefore, applicant must satisfy all the requirements below for each international class based on Trademark Act Section 1(b):

 

(1)       List the goods and/or services by their international class number in consecutive numerical order, starting with the lowest numbered class.

 

(2)       Submit a filing fee for each international class not covered by the fee(s) already paid (view the USPTO’s current fee schedule at http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/tm_fee_info.jsp).  The application identifies goods and/or services that are classified in at least 8 classes; however, applicant submitted a fee sufficient for only 1 class.  Applicant must either submit the filing fees for the classes not covered by the submitted fees or restrict the application to the number of classes covered by the fees already paid.

 

See 15 U.S.C. §§1051(b), 1112, 1126(e); 37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(6)-(7), 2.34(a)(2)-(3), 2.86(a); TMEP §§1403.01, 1403.02(c).

 

For an overview of the requirements for a Section 1(b) multiple-class application and how to satisfy the requirements online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, please go to http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/law/multiclass.jsp.

 

ASSISTANCE

 

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.

 

 

 

/Natalie L. Kenealy/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 104

(571) 272-7817

Natalie.Kenealy@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.