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: 12/20/2014

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

PRIOR-FILED APPLICATION

The filing date of pending U.S. Application Serial No. 85668354 precedes applicant’s filing date.  See attached referenced application.  If the mark in the referenced application registers, applicant’s mark may be refused registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d) because of a likelihood of confusion between the two marks.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §§1208 et seq.  Therefore, upon receipt of applicant’s response to this Office action, action on this application may be suspended pending final disposition of the earlier-filed referenced application.

 

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

 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES that applicant must address:

 

• SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
• CLAIM OF OWNERSHIP OF REGISTRATIONS
• IDENTIFICATION AND CLASSIFICATION OF SERVICES
• MULTIPLE – CLASS APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS

 

 

 

 

SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

Registration of the applied-for mark NUWAVE is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark NUWAVE REWARDS in U.S. Registration No. 4414084, the mark NUWAVE in U.S. Registration No. 4467335¸and the mark NUWAVE CONTAINER in U.S. Reg. No. 4120813.  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 a potential consumer would be confused, mistaken, or deceived as to the source of the goods and/or services of the applicant and registrant.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).  A determination of likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d) is made on a case-by case basis and the factors set forth in In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973) aid in this determination.  Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp., Inc., 637 F.3d 1344, 1349, 98 USPQ2d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing On-Line Careline, Inc. v. Am. Online, Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1085, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2000)).  Not all the du Pont factors, however, are necessarily relevant or of equal weight, and any one of the factors may control in a given case, depending upon the evidence of record.  Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp., Inc., 637 F.3d at 1355, 98 USPQ2d at 1260; In re Majestic Distilling Co., 315 F.3d 1311, 1315, 65 USPQ2d 1201, 1204 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d at 1361-62, 177 USPQ at 567.

 

In this case, the following factors are the most relevant:  similarity of the marks, similarity and nature of the goods and/or services, and similarity of the 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.

 

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 MARKS 

The applicant has applied for the standard character mark NUWAVE.

 

The standard character marks of the registrants are as follows:

 

NUWAVE (U.S. Registration No. 4467335)

 

NUWAVE REWARDS (U.S. Registration No. 4414084 )

 

NUWAVE CONTAINER  (U.S. Reg. No. 4120813)

 

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 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 NUWAVE and the mark in U.S. Registration No. 4467335 is NUWAVE.  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 services and registrant’s goods. Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar. 

 

With regard to the mark NUWAVE REWARDS (U.S. Registration No. 4414084 ) and the mark

NUWAVE CONTAINER  (U.S. Reg. No. 4120813), 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).  Here the first dominant term of those registered marks are identical to the applicant’s 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 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).  In the registered marks, the terms “REWARDS” and “CONTAINER” have been deleted, leaving the term “NUWAVE” the only non-disclaimed term therein.

 

The marks all the dominant (or only) term “NUWAVE”.  In this respect, of the applicant’s mark and those of the registrants are identical or highly similar in appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression, and therefore, are likely to cause confusion as to the origin of the goods and services. 

 

 

COMPARISON OF GOODS/SERVICES 

The applicant’s services are identified as “Invent, develop, manufacture, market, and sell consumer housewares and home goods.”

 

The goods and services in the registrations are identified as follows:

 

NUWAVE (U.S. Registration No. 4467335)

Class 9: Consumer electronic products, namely, audio amplifiers, electrical audio and speaker cables and connectors, audio decoders, video decoders, power conversion devices, power converters, and power inverters

 

NUWAVE REWARDS (U.S. Registration No. 4414084)

Class 35: Arranging and conducting incentive reward programs to promote the sale of retailer merchandise.

 

NUWAVE CONTAINER  (U.S. Reg. No. 4120813)

Class 20: Non-metal recycling bins for commercial use.

Class 21: Refuse bins; non-metal recycling bins for household use

 

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). 

 

The respective goods and/or services need only be “related in some manner and/or if the circumstances surrounding their marketing [be] such that they could give rise to the mistaken belief that [the goods and/or services] emanate from the same source.”  Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting 7-Eleven Inc. v. Wechsler, 83 USPQ2d 1715, 1724 (TTAB 2007)); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).

 

Consumers are likely to be confused by the use of similar marks on or in connection with goods and with services featuring or related to those goods.  TMEP §1207.01(a)(ii); see In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 6 USPQ2d 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (holding BIGG’S for retail grocery and general merchandise store services likely to be confused with BIGGS for furniture); In re United Serv. Distribs., Inc., 229 USPQ 237 (TTAB 1986) (holding design for distributorship services in the field of health and beauty aids likely to be confused with design for skin cream); In re Phillips-Van Heusen Corp., 228 USPQ 949 (TTAB 1986) (holding 21 CLUB for various items of men’s, boys’, girls’ and women’s clothing likely to be confused with THE “21” CLUB (stylized) for restaurant services and towels); In re U.S. Shoe Corp., 229 USPQ 707 (TTAB 1985) (holding CAREER IMAGE (stylized) for retail women’s clothing store services and clothing likely to be confused with CREST CAREER IMAGES (stylized) for uniforms); Steelcase Inc. v. Steelcare Inc., 219 USPQ 433 (TTAB 1983) (holding STEELCARE INC. for refinishing of furniture, office furniture, and machinery likely to be confused with STEELCASE for office furniture and accessories); Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Huskie Freightways, Inc., 177 USPQ 32 (TTAB 1972) (holding similar marks for trucking services and on motor trucks and buses likely to cause confusion).

 

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

 

In this case the applicant’s services are indefinitely and broadly identified as pertaining to the invention, development, manufacturing, marketing, and selling of consumer housewares and home goods.   The consumer electronics products, refuse bins, and recycling bins in the identification of goods of the  registrants are encompassed by the wording “housewares and home goods” in applicant’s identification of services.

 

Furthermore, the registrant’s services identified as “arranging and conducting incentive reward programs to promote the sale of retailer merchandise” are promotional activities encompassed by applicant’s broad wording “market”, and therefore must also be presumed to be closely related to the applicant’s services that feature the sale of “housewares and home goods”.

 

In sum, the marks are used to identify closely related goods and services, as the applicant’ services that pertain to home goods and housewares encompass the promotional services that overlap with the promotional services identified in one registration, and the applicant’s services also encompass services that pertain to and/or feature the consumer electronics and containers goods identified in the two other registrations.  Therefore the same consumers must be presumed to be exposed to the goods and services identified with the marks.  The similarities among the marks and the goods and services of the parties are so great as to create a likelihood of confusion.

 

CONCLUSION

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

 

 

Accordingly, in view of the closely related nature of the goods and services of the parties and the identical and strongly similar nature of the marks and their commercial impressions, confusion as to the source of the goods and services is likely under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.

 

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

 

 

 

INFORMATION ABOUT SERVICES REQUIRED

To permit proper examination of the application, applicant must submit additional information about the services.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b); In re Planalytics, Inc., 70 USPQ2d 1453, 1457-58 (TTAB 2004); TMEP §814.  The requested information should include fact sheets, brochures, and/or advertisements.  If these materials are unavailable, applicant should submit similar documentation for services of the same type, explaining how its own services will differ.  If the services feature new technology and no information regarding competing services is available, applicant must provide a detailed factual description of the services.

 

The submitted factual information must make clear what the services are and how they are rendered, their salient features, and their prospective customers and channels of trade.  Conclusory statements regarding the services will not satisfy this requirement for information.

 

Failure to comply with a request for information can be grounds for refusing registration.  In re AOP LLC, 107 USPQ2d 1644, 1651 (TTAB 2013); In re DTI P’ship LLP, 67 USPQ2d 1699, 1701-02 (TTAB 2003); TMEP §814.  Merely stating that information about the services is available on applicant’s website is an inappropriate response to a request for additional information and is insufficient to make the relevant information of record.  See In re Planalytics, 70 USPQ2d at 1457-58.

 

 

 

CLAIM OF OWNERSHIP OF REGISTRATIONS

If applicant owns U.S. Registration Nos. 2826443, 4426391, 4652905, and others, then applicant must submit for the application record a claim of ownership of these registrations.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.36; TMEP §812.  See the attached copies of the registrations.  See TMEP §812. 

 

Applicant may use the following format to claim ownership of these registrations:

 

Applicant is the owner of U.S. Registration Nos. 2826443, 4426391, 4652905, and others.

 

 

IDENTIFICATION AND CLASSIFICATION OF SERVICES

 

Applicant has identified its services as follows: 

 

Class 35: Invent, develop, manufacture, market, and sell consumer housewares and home goods

 

As detailed below, the wording in the identification of services must be clarified because it is indefinite and too broad and could include services in other international classes.  See TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03. 

 

The wording “invent, develop . . . housewares and home goods” in the identification of services is indefinite and must be clarified because it does not appear to identify any services in Class 35, and does not adequately identify the nature of the services.  See TMEP §1402.01.  Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate:  “product development for others in the field of housewares and home goods” in Class 42.

 

The wording “manufacture . . . housewares and home goods” in the identification of services appears to be misclassified in Class 35.  See TMEP §1402.01.  Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate:  “manufacture of housewares and home goods to order and/or specification of others” in Class 40.

 

 

The word “market” and the wording “sell consumer housewares and home goods” in the identification of services is indefinite and must be clarified.  See TMEP §1402.01.  To be a service, an activity must be primarily for the benefit of someone other than the applicant.  See In re Reichhold Chems., Inc., 167 USPQ 376, 377 (TTAB 1970).  “Sales” or “selling” is not a service rendered for the benefit of others.  See TMEP §§1301.01(a)(ii), 1402.11.  Moreover, applicant must clarify whether the term “market” refers to the  promotion of the goods of others, or some other type of retail service. 

 

Applicant may clarify that the “market” services refer to the promotion of the housewares and home goods of others by amending the wording to “marketing services for the housewares and home goods of others.”  Furthermore, applicant must delete “sell” and indicate with greater specificity the nature of the service, e.g., “retail store services featuring housewares and home goods,” “mail order services featuring housewares and home goods” or “on-line retail store services featuring housewares and home goods” in Class 35.

 

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.

 

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

 

Class 35:  marketing services for the housewares and home goods of others;  retail store services featuring housewares and home goods; mail order services featuring housewares and home goods;  on-line retail store services featuring housewares and home goods

 

Class 40:  manufacture of housewares and home goods to order and/or specification of others

 

Class 42:  product development for others in the field of housewares and home goods

 

See TMEP §1402.01.

 

Please Note: If applicant adds one or more international classes to the application, applicant must comply with the multiple-class requirements specified in this Office action.

 

An applicant may only amend an identification to clarify or limit the goods and/or services, but not to add to or broaden the scope of the goods and/or services.  37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); see TMEP §§1402.06 et seq., 1402.07.

 

 

MULTIPLE – CLASS APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS

As detailed above, the application identifies services that are classified in at least three classes; however, applicant submitted a fee sufficient for only one class.  In a multiple-class application, a fee for each class is required.  37 C.F.R. §2.86(a)(2); TMEP §§810.01, 1403.01.

 

Therefore, applicant must either (1) restrict the application to the number of classes covered by the fees already paid, or (2) submit the fees for each additional class.

 

The filing fees for adding classes to an application are as follows:

 

(1)  A $325 fee per class, when the fees are submitted with an electronic response filed online at http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp, via the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS).

 

(2)  A $375 fee per class, when the fees are submitted with a paper response.

 

37 C.F.R. §2.6(a)(1)(i)-(ii); TMEP §§810, 1403.02(c).

 

The application identifies goods and/or services in more than one international class; therefore, applicant must satisfy all the requirements below for each international class based on use in commerce under Section 1(a):

 

(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 services that are classified in at least three classes; however, applicant submitted a fee sufficient for only one 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.

 

(3)       Submit verified dates of first use of the mark anywhere and in commerce for each international class.

 

(4)       Submit a specimen for each international class.  The current specimen is acceptable for class 35 only; if applicant adds Classes 40 and 42, applicant needs a specimen for those classes. 

 

            Examples of specimens for services include advertising and marketing materials, brochures, photographs of business signage and billboards, and website printouts that show the mark used in the actual sale, rendering, or advertising of the services. 

 

(5)       Submit a verified statement that “The specimen was in use in commerce on or in connection with the goods and/or services listed in the application at least as early as the filing date of the application.” 

 

See 15 U.S.C. §§1051(a), 1112; 37 C.F.R. §§ 2.32(a)(6)-(7), 2.34(a)(1), 2.86(a); TMEP §§904, 1403.01, 1403.02(c).

 

For an overview of the requirements for a Section 1(a) 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.

 

 

RESPONSE GUIDELINES

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.

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

/John M. C. Kelly/

United States Patent and Trademark Office

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 119

571-272-9412

john.kelly@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 12/20/2014 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 86380747

 

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 12/20/2014 (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.