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: 7/18/2014

 

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.

 

Refusal under Trademark Act Section 2(d) – Likelihood of Confusion

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 3681926 (“CARRERA”).  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the enclosed registration.

 

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, 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).  In the seminal decision In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973), the court listed the principal factors to be considered when determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d).  See TMEP §1207.01.

 

Among these factors are the similarity of the marks as to appearance, sound, meaning, and overall commercial impression, relatedness of the goods and/or services, and similarity of trade channels of the goods and/or 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.  However, not all the factors 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 1344, 1355, 98 USPQ2d 1253, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2011); 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.

 

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, 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

 

Similarity of the Parties’ 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).

 

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/or services 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).  For that reason, the test of likelihood of confusion is not whether the marks can be distinguished when subjected to a side-by-side comparison.  The question is whether the marks create the same overall impression.  See Recot, Inc. v. M.C. Becton, 214 F.3d 1322, 1329-30, 54 USPQ2d 1894, 1899 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Visual Info. Inst., Inc. v. Vicon Indus. Inc., 209 USPQ 179, 189 (TTAB 1980).  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, the applicant’s mark creates a very similar commercial source impression to the cited registered mark.  The literal elements of the marks are identical in sound and apparent meaning.  The designs featured in the applicant’s mark do not function to differentiate the sources indicated by the marks, especially where the cited mark is for standard characters and is protected for a variety of representations.  Thus, consumers encountering the marks for closely related goods are likely to confuse the marks and mistake the underlying sources of the goods.

 

Relatedness of the Parties’ Goods

 

When analyzing an applicant’s and registrant’s goods and/or services for similarity and relatedness, the determination is based on the description of the goods and/or services 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); see TMEP §1207.01(a)(iii).

 

All circumstances surrounding the sale of the goods and/or services are considered.  These circumstances include the marketing channels, the identity of the prospective purchasers, and the degree of similarity between the marks and between the goods and/or services.  See Indus. Nucleonics Corp. v. Hinde, 475 F.2d 1197, 177 USPQ 386 (C.C.P.A. 1973); TMEP §1207.01.  However, 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.  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).

 

The goods and/or services 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).  Rather, the respective goods and/or services need only be related in some manner or the conditions surrounding their marketing be such that they will be encountered by the same consumers under circumstances that would lead to the mistaken belief that the goods and/or services originate from the same source.  Gen. Mills Inc. v. Fage Dairy Processing Indus., 100 USPQ2d 1584, 1597 (TTAB 2012); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i); see On-line Careline Inc. v. Am. Online Inc., 229 F.3d at 1086, 56 USPQ2d at 1475; In re Martin’s Famous Pastry Shoppe, Inc., 748 F.2d 1565, 1566-68, 223 USPQ 1289, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 1984).

 

Some of the applicant’s goods are identical to some of the goods identified by the cited registrant.  Both identify condoms as their goods.  The remainder of the applicant’s goods are related to the registrant’s goods as all are contraceptives, and thus serve similar purposes as the registrant’s condoms. 

 

For these reasons, consumers are likely to encounter the parties’ marks for very closely related goods in the same commercial contexts.  Given the strong similarities between the parties’ marks, consumers are likely to confuse the marks and mistake the underlying sources of such similar goods produced under the marks.  Registration is refused to prevent such confusion.

 

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

 

The applicant must also address the following requirements.

 

Drawing – Amendments to Color Claim and Mark Description Required

 

Applicant has submitted a color drawing but has not provided a color claim or a sufficiently clear description of the mark.  Applications for marks depicted in color must include (1) a complete list of all the colors claimed as a feature of the mark and (2) a mark description of the literal and design elements that specifies where all the colors appear in those elements.  37 C.F.R. §§2.37, 2.52(b)(1); see TMEP §807.07(a)-(a)(ii).

 

Therefore, applicant must submit (1) a color claim and (2) a mark description of all the colors in the mark.  37 C.F.R. §§2.37, 2.52(b)(1); see TMEP §807.07(a)-(a)(ii).  Generic color names must be used to describe the colors in the mark, e.g., magenta, yellow, turquoise.  TMEP §807.07(a)(i)-(ii).  If black, white, and/or gray are not being claimed as a color feature of the mark, applicant must exclude them from the color claim and include in the mark description a statement that the colors black, white, and/or gray represent background, outlining, shading, and/or transparent areas and are not part of the mark.  See TMEP §807.07(d).

 

• If color is a feature of the mark, the applicant must submit both an amended color claim and an amended mark description statement using the following format:

 

(1)     Color claim:  “The colors red and white are claimed as a feature of the mark.”; and

 

(2)     Mark description:  “The mark consists of the word “CARRERA” in stylized white letters on a red rectangular background.  The letters “RR” feature two horizontal breaks at the bottoms of the letters.”

 

See TMEP §807.07(b).

 

• If color is not a feature of the mark, the applicant may respond by submitting an amended drawing showing a black-and-white drawing of the mark and the following amended description: “The mark consists of the word “CARRERA” in stylized letters on a rectangular background.  The letters “RR” feature two horizontal breaks at the bottoms of the letters.”  An applicant may only amend a mark if the change would not materially alter the mark.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.72; TMEP §807.14.  In this case, amending the drawing of the mark to a black-and-white drawing would not be considered a material alteration.

 

The applicant must also address the following requirements.

 

Translation of Non-English Wording Required

 

Applicant must submit an English translation of all foreign wording in the mark, if applicable.  37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(9); see TMEP §809.  If the wording in the mark has no foreign meaning or significance in the applicant’s field, the applicant must affirmatively state as such.  In the present case, the wording “CARRERA” requires translation.  The following translation statement is suggested:  “The English translation of “CARERRA” in the mark is “career” or “race”.”  TMEP §809.03.

 

The applicant must also address the following requirements.

 

Identifications and/or Classifications of Goods Require Amendment

 

The wording used to describe portions of the applicant’s goods needs clarification because it is indefinite and/or includes goods classified in different international classes.  See TMEP §§1401 et seq., 1402.01, 1402.03.

 

The Trademark Office requires a degree of particularity necessary to identify clearly goods and/or services covered by a mark.  See In re Omega SA, 494 F.3d 1362, 1365, 83 USPQ2d 1541, 1543-44 (Fed. Cir. 2007).  Descriptions of goods and services in applications must be specific, explicit, clear and concise.  TMEP §1402.01; see In re Cardinal Labs., Inc., 149 USPQ 709, 711 (TTAB 1966); Cal. Spray-Chem. Corp. v. Osmose Wood Pres. Co. of Am., 102 USPQ 321, 322 (Comm’r Pats. 1954).  These requirements for specification of the particular goods and/or services apply to applications filed under all statutory bases.  See 15 U.S.C. §§1051(a)(2), 1051(b)(2), 1053, 1126(d)-(e), 1141f; 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.01(b)-(c).

 

The application insufficiently describes the following goods:

 

·         In Class 10, the wording “prophylactic devices” is indefinite and may be misclassified.  The applicant must specify the common commercial (generic) name of particular goods (e.g., “tooth prophylactics” is acceptable in Class 5), or describe the nature and purpose of particular goods in greater detail (e.g., “intra-uterine contraceptive devices” is acceptable in Class 10), and classify the goods properly.

 

·         In Class 10, the wording “hygienic devices to prevent the transmission of infections and diseases” is indefinite.  The applicant must specify the common commercial (generic) name of particular goods (e.g., “dental dams”, “surgical masks”, etc.), or describe the nature and purpose of particular goods in greater detail.

 

If accurate, and inserting specific information where directed, the applicant may adopt any or all of the following identifications of goods.  See TMEP §1402.01.  PLEASE NOTE:  The applicant has currently paid for any one (1) class of its choosing.

 

·         Class ?:  Prophylactic devices, namely, [applicant must specify the common commercial name of particular goods or describe the nature and purpose of particular goods in greater detail, and classify the goods properly];

 

·         Class 10:  Condoms; Contraceptive devices; Hygienic devices to prevent the transmission of infections and diseases, namely, [applicant must specify the common commercial name of particular goods or describe the nature and purpose of particular goods in greater detail].

 

The applicant should note the following when amending the identifications and/or classifications.

 

·         The applicant may use different wording of its own when amending the identifications and/or classifications of goods.  The applicant must follow the guidelines discussed herein to ensure specificity and accuracy.  Please note that while identifications of goods or services can be clarified or limited by amendment; adding to the goods or services or broadening the scope of the goods or services is not permitted.  37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); see TMEP §§1402.06 et seq., 1402.07.  Therefore, the applicant may not amend the identification to include goods or services that are not within the scope of the present identification.

 

·         Careful use of grammar, capitalization, and punctuation helps to clearly group or distinguish goods and services.  Generally, commas should be used to separate a series of related items or a series of descriptions of characteristics for a single overall category of goods or services (the term “namely” often signifies such a list or series of many items or descriptions under a broader category).  TMEP §1402.01(a).  Semicolons generally should be used to separate a series of distinct categories of goods or services within an international class.  Id.  For example, the identification of goods “cleaners, namely, glass cleaners, deodorizers for pets, cosmetics” is ambiguous because “cosmetics” and “deodorizers for pets” are not “cleaners,” and thus are not within this category of goods even though they are all in the same international class.  Id.  However, by replacing the commas with semicolons after “glass cleaners” and “deodorizers for pets,” this identification would become acceptable:  “Cleaners, namely, glass cleaners; Deodorizers for pets; Cosmetics.”  Id.

 

·         The applicant must be as complete and specific as possible and avoid the use of indefinite words and phrases.  See TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03(a).  If applicant uses indefinite wording, such as “accessories,” “components,” “devices,” “equipment,” “materials,” “parts,” “systems,” “products,” “services in connection with,” “such as,” “including,” “and like services,” “concepts,” or “not limited to,” to refer to goods or services, such words must be followed by “namely,” followed by a list of the specific goods or service activities identified by their common commercial names.

 

·         Periodically the Office revises its international classification system and the policies regarding acceptable identifications of goods and services.  Identifications are examined in accordance with Rules of Practice and Office policies and procedures in effect on the application filing date.  37 C.F.R. §2.85(e)(1); TMEP §1402.14.  Descriptions of goods and services found in earlier-filed applications and registrations are not necessarily considered acceptable identifications when a later-filed application is examined.  See TMEP §§702.03(a)(iv), 1402.14.  For guidance on writing identifications of goods and/or services and classifying them properly, please use the online searchable Manual of Acceptable Identifications of Goods and Services at http://tess2.gov.uspto.report/netahtml/tidm.html, which is continually updated in accordance with prevailing rules and policies.  See TMEP §§70203(a)(iv), 1402.04.

 

Requirements for Multiple-Class Applications

 

The application identifies goods that may fall 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 fees already paid (view the USPTO’s current fee schedule at http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/tm_fee_info.jsp).  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.

 

RESPONDING TO THE OFFICE ACTION

 

For this application to proceed toward registration, applicant must explicitly address each refusal and/or requirement raised in this Office action.  If the action includes a refusal, applicant may provide arguments and/or evidence as to why the refusal should be withdrawn and the mark should register.  Applicant may also have other options for responding to a refusal and should consider such options carefully.  To respond to requirements and certain refusal response options, applicant should set forth in writing the required changes or statements.

 

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

 

To expedite prosecution of the application, applicant is encouraged to file its response to this Office action online via the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), which is available at http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/index.jsp.  If applicant has technical questions about the TEAS response to Office action form, applicant can review the electronic filing tips available online at http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/e_filing_tips.jsp and email technical questions to TEAS@uspto.gov.

 

Applicant should include the following information on all correspondence with the Office whether filed through TEAS or on paper via regular mail:  (1) the name and law office number of the trademark examining attorney, (2) the serial number and filing date of the application, (3) the date of issuance of this Office action, (4) applicant’s name, address, telephone number and e-mail address (if applicable), and (5) the mark.  37 C.F.R. §2.194(b)(1); TMEP §302.03(a).

 

In addition, the proper signatory must personally sign or personally enter his or her electronic signature.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.193(a), (e)(2); TMEP §§611.01(b), 611.02.  The name of the signatory must also be printed or typed immediately below or adjacent to the signature, or identified elsewhere in the filing.  37 C.F.R. §2.193(d); TMEP §611.01(b).

 

Where an applicant is represented by an attorney who may practice before the USPTO, the attorney must sign the response.  37 C.F.R. §2.193(e)(2)(i); TMEP §§611.03(b), 712.01.  The only attorneys who may sign responses and otherwise practice before the USPTO in trademark matters are (1) attorneys in good standing with a bar of the highest court of any U.S. state, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and other federal territories and possessions of the United States; and (2) Canadian agents/attorneys who represent applicants located in Canada and (a) are registered with the USPTO and in good standing as patent agents or (b) have been granted reciprocal recognition by the USPTO.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.17(e), 2.62(b), 11.1, 11.5(b)(2), 11.14(a), (c); TMEP §§602, 712.01.  Foreign attorneys, other than authorized Canadian attorneys, do not have authority to sign responses or otherwise represent applicants before the USPTO.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.17(e), 11.5(b)(2), 11.14(c), (e); TMEP §§602.03(b)-(c), 712.03. 

 

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.

 

 

/Cory Boone/

Cory Boone

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 104

Phone: (571) 270-1510

Fax: (571) 270-2510

cory.boone@uspto.gov

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)

 

 

IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING YOUR

U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION

 

USPTO OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) HAS ISSUED

ON 7/18/2014 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 86244585

 

Please follow the instructions below:

 

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

 

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

 

(2)  TIMELY RESPONSE IS REQUIRED:  Please carefully review the Office action to determine (1) how to respond, and (2) the applicable response time period.  Your response deadline will be calculated from 7/18/2014 (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.