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: 2/6/2015

 

 

THIS IS A FINAL ACTION.

 

This action responds to the Applicant’s letter dated January 6, 2015 in which the applicant 1) argued against the likelihood of confusion refusal; 2) amended the identification of goods and services.  After careful consideration, the examining attorney has found a portion of the applicant’s likelihood of confusion arguments and recitation of services amendments to be unpersuasive and unacceptable as submitted.  The refusal under section 2(d) and the recitation of services requirement are thus continued and made FINAL.

 

As noted by the applicant, Registration Number 3382672 has been cancelled and no longer serves as a bar to the registration of the instant application.  Furthermore, Registration Numbers 1603556, 3267870 and 4231343 are also withdrawn based on the applicant’s amendment of the identification of goods and services.

 

The assigned trademark examining attorney has reviewed the referenced application and has determined the following:

 

Section 2(d) - Likelihood of Confusion Refusal -  Final – Class 41 Only

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 4471422 and 4564607.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the previously enclosed registrations.

 

The overriding concern is not only to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods and/or services, but to protect the registrant from adverse commercial impact due to use of a similar mark by a newcomer.  See In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1208, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1690 (Fed. Cir. 1993).  Therefore, any doubt regarding a likelihood of confusion determination is resolved in favor of the registrant.  TMEP §1207.01(d)(i); see Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1265, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2002); In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 464-65, 6 USPQ2d 1025, 1026 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

 

Comparison of the Marks

 

Marks are compared in their entireties for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression.  Stone Lion Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 1321, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F. 3d 1369, 1371, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 2005)); TMEP §1207.01(b)-(b)(v).  “Similarity in any one of these elements may be sufficient to find the marks confusingly similar.”  In re Davia, 110 USPQ2d 1810, 1812 (TTAB 2014) (citing In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB 1988); In re 1st USA Realty Prof’ls, Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1581, 1586 (TTAB 2007)); TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

In the instant case, the applicant’s mark “ASAP” is highly similar to the registrant’s marks “A$AP ROCKY” and “A$AP WORLDWIDE”.  The only difference between the marks is that the applicant deleted the “$” symbol replacing the letter “S” in the word “ASAP” and the wording “ROCKY” and “WORLDWIDE”.

 

The applicant argues that although the marks share a phonetically similar element that does not, in and of itself, make confusion likely where the marks are otherwise dissimilar.  The examining attorney respectfully disagrees because 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).  In this case, the first word in the applicant’s and registrant’s marks is “ASAP”/”A$AP”. 

 

The applicant also argues that the dollar sign symbol ($) ‘imbues the cited marks with meaning and connotation not shared by the applicant’s mark’.  This argument holds little weight because the applicant’s mark appears in standard character format.  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”).

 

Lastly, the applicant contends that the additional wording “WORLDWIDE” AND “ROCKY” in the registered marks further distinguishes the cited marks from the applicant’s mark.   As previously noted by the examining attorney, 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.

 

Furthermore, the descriptive word “WORLDWIDE” is disclaimed in Registration Number 4564607.  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).

 

Comparison of the Services

 

Please note that the applicant did not provide any comparison of services arguments.

 

The goods and/or services of the parties need not be identical or directly competitive to find a likelihood of confusion.  See Safety-Kleen Corp. v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 518 F.2d 1399, 1404, 186 USPQ 476, 480 (C.C.P.A. 1975); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).  Rather, it is sufficient that the goods and/or services are related in some manner and/or the conditions surrounding their marketing are such that they would be encountered by the same purchasers under circumstances that would give rise to the mistaken belief that the goods and/or services come from a common source.  In re Total Quality Group, Inc., 51 USPQ2d 1474, 1476 (TTAB 1999); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i); see, e.g., On-line Careline Inc. v. Am. Online Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1086-87, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1475-76 (Fed. Cir. 2000); In re Martin’s Famous Pastry Shoppe, Inc., 748 F.2d 1565, 1566-68, 223 USPQ 1289, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 1984).

 

The applicant’s services in International Class 41 for “Entertainment services, namely, providing non-downloadable playback of audio and video recordings and multimedia content featuring image, text, audio, video, audiovisual, and data files via global communications network” are closely related to the services in Registration Number  4471422 for “providing a website featuring musical performance video, musical multi-media materials, and information on a musical performer” in International Class 41 and Registration Number 4564607 for “Providing a website featuring musical performance videos, musical multi-media materials, and information on a musical performer” in International Class 41. 

 

With respect to applicant’s and registrant’s services, the question of likelihood of confusion is determined based on the description of the services stated in the application and registration at issue, not on extrinsic evidence of actual use.  See Stone Lion Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 1323, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting 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 and/or services 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(s) has no restrictions as to nature, type, channels of trade, or classes of purchasers.  Therefore, it is presumed that these services travel in all normal channels of trade, and are available to the same class of purchasers.  Further, the application use(s) broad wording to describe the services and this wording is presumed to encompass all services of the type described, including those in registrant’s more narrow identification.  It should be noted that the Identification of Goods and Services Manual specifically lists an Id entry for “Entertainment services, namely, providing non-downloadable playback of music via a global communications networks”.  The note attached to the Id states that this is a service of having the music available for playback”.  This note makes it clear that this service is analogous to providing online videos featuring…, which infers that users will actually play/view the videos.  Therefore, the applicant is merely offering the same services as the registrant in a broader manner.  Please see the applicant’s and registrant’s recitation of services as evidence.

 

Furthermore, a search for the applicant’s website on Google ® using the search terms “ASAP AMAZON” produces hits for websites that describe the services used in connection with the applicant’s mark, but more importantly it also produces hits for the registrant’s mark being used on the applicant’s Amazon ® website.  Please see the attached website screenshots as evidence.    

 

Purchasers of applicant’s services could mistakenly assume such services were offered by registrant, or that applicant and registrant are related in some way.  Accordingly, since the marks are confusingly similar and the services are closely related, there is a likelihood of confusion and registration must be refused under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.

 

Although the trademark examining attorney has refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal to register by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.  If applicant chooses to respond to the refusal to register, then applicant must also respond to the following requirements.

 

Application Informalities

 

Identification of Goods – Final - In-part

 

A portion of the identification of goods and services in International Classes 38, 41 and 42 are unacceptable as indefinite because the goods and services listed were not specific enough and may be classified in several different International Classes.  See TMEP §1402.01.

 

Please note that the identification of goods in International Class 9 is acceptable as submitted.

 

Class 38

 

As previously noted, the wording “communication services, namely, accessing, sharing, displaying, mirroring and transferring electronic data and multimedia content, namely, voice, audio, visual images, data, books, photos, videos, text, documents, content, audiovisual works, multimedia works, literary works, files, and other electronic works, via telecommunications networks, wireless communication networks, the Internet, information services networks, and data networks” in the identification of services needs clarification because it is too broad and could include services classified in other international classes.  See TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03.  Specifically, “displaying the websites and images of others on a computer server” is classified in International Class 42; “Provision of on-line forums for users for the sharing and transmission of information and electronic media concerning ___” is classified in International Class 38, while “Peer-to-browser photo sharing services, namely, providing a website featuring technology enabling users to upload, view, and download digital photos” is classified in International Class 42.  The applicant must specify that they are “Providing access to telecommunications networks, wireless communication networks, the Internet, information services networks, and data networks”

 

Applicant may adopt the following recitation of services, if accurate: 

 

“Electronic data transmission; electronic transmission and streaming of digital media content for others via global and local networks; {specify, e.g., telecommunication}____ services for transmitting, accessing, receiving, downloading, streaming, broadcasting, mirroring and transferring electronic data and multimedia content, namely, voice, audio, visual images, data, books, photos, videos, text, documents, {audio} ____content, audiovisual works, multimedia works, literary works, files, and other electronic works, via telecommunications networks, wireless communication networks, the Internet, information services networks, and data networks; wireless broadband communication services; providing an internet forum and online chat rooms for the transmission of messages among computer users concerning reviews, ratings and recommendations related to entertainment content featuring voice, audio, visual images, data, books, photos, videos, text, documents, content, audiovisual works, multimedia works, literary works, files, and other electronic works via telecommunications networks, wireless communication networks, the Internet, information services networks, and data networks; telecommunications services, namely, providing access to online directories, databases, current events websites and blogs, and on-line reference materials in the entertainment and literary fields; providing access in the nature of providing telecommunication connectivity services to auxiliary devices or electronic devices for the transfer of images, messages, audio, visual, audiovisual and multimedia works among e-readers, mobile phones, smartphones, portable electronic devices, portable digital devices, or computers; streaming of audio, visual and audiovisual material via the Internet or other computer or communications network; providing online chat rooms and internet forums for the transmission of user-generated entertainment content featuring photos, videos, text, and electronic works, namely, books, data, images, documents, content, visual works, audio works, audiovisual works, multimedia works, literary works, files, and other electronic works; telecommunications services, namely, transmission of podcasts and of webcasts; transmission and distribution of electronic data and multimedia content featuring image, text, audio, video, audiovisual, music, and data files via telecommunications networks, wireless communication networks, the Internet, information services networks, and data networks”;

 

Class 41

 

The wording “playback of…” in the identification of services is indefinite and must be clarified because the Identification of Goods and Services Manual lists “Entertainment services, namely, providing non-downloadable playback of music via a global communication network”.  See TMEP §1402.01.  The word “playback”, as used in the ID Manual is analogous to providing “online videos featuring…”, thus inferring that the viewers will actually “play/view” the videos.  The applicant’s inclusion of the wording “image, text, audiovisual and data files” does not comport with the Manual entry.  Furthermore, the applicant must be clear that said services are not actually for the streaming or transmission of videos, which would be properly classified in International Class 38.

 

Applicant may adopt the following recitation of services, if accurate: 

 

“Entertainment services, namely, providing non-downloadable playback of audio and video recordings featuring ____ {specify, music} and multimedia content featuring audio, video, audiovisual and data files all featuring ____ {music} via global communications network”;

 

Class 42

 

The wording “creating online communities for the transmission of messages and information among computer users concerning reviews, ratings and recommendations related to voice, audio, visual images, data, books, photos, videos, text, documents, content, audiovisual works, multimedia works, literary works, files, and other electronic works; creating online communities for the transmission of photos, videos, text, and electronic works, namely, books, data, images, documents, content, visual works, audio works, audiovisual works, multimedia works, literary works, files, and other electronic works among computer users;” in the identification of services is indefinite and must be clarified because if the applicant is “creating” an on-line community, applicant must specify the users of said community.  However, if the applicant is “hosting” an on-line community, no such specification is required.  Furthermore, the wording “transmission” creates ambiguity in so much as, the applicant must clarify that it is not providing Class 38 services.  See TMEP §1402.01. 

 

Applicant may adopt the following recitation of services, if accurate: 

 

“Computer services, namely providing temporary use of non-downloadable software tool for streaming and delivery of audio and video recordings and multimedia entertainment content featuring image, text, audio, video, audiovisual, music, and data files; computer services, namely providing temporary use of non-downloadable software tool for storage and playback of personalized audio and video recordings and multimedia content featuring image, text, audio, video, audiovisual, music, and data files; creating online communities for ____ {specify users, e.g., registered users, athletes, attorneys, etc.} for the sharing of messages and information among computer users concerning reviews, ratings and recommendations related to voice, audio, visual images, data, books, photos, videos, text, documents, content, audiovisual works, multimedia works, literary works, files, and other electronic works; creating online communities for ____ {specify, e.g., registered users, athletes, attorneys, etc.} that allows users to share photos, videos, text, and electronic works, namely, books, data, images, documents, content, visual works, audio works, audiovisual works, multimedia works, literary works, files, and other electronic works among computer users; storage of electronic data and digital multimedia content featuring image, text, audio, video, audiovisual, music, and data files”.

 

For assistance with identifying and classifying goods and/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.

 

Please note that, while the identification of services may be amended to clarify or limit the services, adding to the services or broadening the scope of the services is not permitted.  37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06.  Therefore, applicant may not amend the identification to include services that are not within the scope of the services set forth in the present identification.

 

Stated Refusal Pertains to Specific Services

 

The stated likelihood of confusion refusal and recitation of services requirement refers to all of International Class 41 and the following services in International Classes 38 and 42 and does not bar registration for the other services:  “communication services, namely, transmitting, accessing, receiving, downloading, streaming, broadcasting, sharing, displaying, mirroring and transferring electronic data and multimedia content, namely, voice, audio, visual images, data, books, photos, videos, text, documents, content, audiovisual works, multimedia works, literary works, files, and other electronic works, via telecommunications networks, wireless communication networks, the Internet, information services networks, and data networks; Entertainment services, namely, providing non-downloadable playback of audio and video recordings and multimedia content featuring image, text, audio, video, audiovisual, and data files via global communications network; creating online communities for the transmission of messages and information among computer users concerning reviews, ratings and recommendations related to voice, audio, visual images, data, books, photos, videos, text, documents, content, audiovisual works, multimedia works, literary works, files, and other electronic works; creating online communities for the transmission of photos, videos, text, and electronic works, namely, books, data, images, documents, content, visual works, audio works, audiovisual works, multimedia works, literary works, files, and other electronic works among computer users”.

 

Applicant’s 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 and/or services 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).

 

Response to Final Office Action

 

Applicant must respond within six months of the date of issuance of this final Office action or the following services to which the final refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) apply will be deleted from the application by Examiner’s Amendment:  “communication services, namely, transmitting, accessing, receiving, downloading, streaming, broadcasting, sharing, displaying, mirroring and transferring electronic data and multimedia content, namely, voice, audio, visual images, data, books, photos, videos, text, documents, content, audiovisual works, multimedia works, literary works, files, and other electronic works, via telecommunications networks, wireless communication networks, the Internet, information services networks, and data networks; Entertainment services, namely, providing non-downloadable playback of audio and video recordings and multimedia content featuring image, text, audio, video, audiovisual, and data files via global communications network; creating online communities for the transmission of messages and information among computer users concerning reviews, ratings and recommendations related to voice, audio, visual images, data, books, photos, videos, text, documents, content, audiovisual works, multimedia works, literary works, files, and other electronic works; creating online communities for the transmission of photos, videos, text, and electronic works, namely, books, data, images, documents, content, visual works, audio works, audiovisual works, multimedia works, literary works, files, and other electronic works among computer users”..  37 C.F.R. §2.65(a); see 15 U.S.C. §1062(b).

 

The application will then proceed with all of the remaining goods and services in International Classes 9, 38 and 42.   

 

Applicant may respond by providing one or both of the following:

 

(1)       A response that fully satisfies all outstanding requirements and/or resolves all outstanding refusals.

 

(2)       An appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, with the appeal fee of $100 per class.

 

37 C.F.R. §2.63(b)(1)-(2); TMEP §714.04; see 37 C.F.R. §2.6(a)(18); TBMP ch. 1200.

 

In certain rare circumstances, an applicant may respond by filing a petition to the Director pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b)(2) to review procedural issues.  TMEP §714.04; see 37 C.F.R. §2.146(b); TBMP §1201.05; TMEP §1704 (explaining petitionable matters).  The petition fee is $100.  37 C.F.R. §2.6(a)(15).

 

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. §§2.62(c), 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.

 

 

 

/David Collier/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 109

571-272-8859

david.collier@uspto.gov (not for formal responses)

 

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 2/6/2015 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 86239782

 

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 2/6/2015 (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.