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: 11/19/2014

 

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:

 

• Refusal under Trademark Act Section 2(d) – Likelihood of Confusion
• Requirement for an Acceptable Identification of Goods
• Requirement for Accurate Description of the Mark

 

SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

Registration of the applied-for stylized mark PRONTO is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration Nos. 3843475, 3756173, 3012687, 2667500, 2703369, 4015474, and 4306104, all of which are composed solely of the wording PRONTO or in which PRONTO is the dominant feature of the mark.  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 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.

 

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

 

Comparison of the Marks In General

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).

 

Comparison of the Goods in General

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 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).

 

Analysis of the Marks

Applicant’s mark, PRONTO, shares the wording PRONTO which is the entirety or dominant feature of the registered marks and therefore is confusingly similar to the registered marks in sound, appearance, meaning or connotation and overall commercial impression.

 

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).  Greater weight is often given to this dominant feature when determining whether marks are confusingly similar.  See In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d at 1058, 224 USPQ at 751. 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 marks share the identical wording PRONTO which is the only or dominant and initial portion of each of the marks.  Marks may be confusingly similar in appearance where similar terms or phrases or similar parts of terms or phrases appear in the compared marks and create a similar overall commercial impression.  See Crocker Nat’l Bank v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 228 USPQ 689, 690-91 (TTAB 1986), aff’d sub nom. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 811 F.2d 1490, 1495, 1 USPQ2d 1813, 1817 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (finding COMMCASH and COMMUNICASH confusingly similar); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65, 66 (TTAB 1985) (finding CONFIRM and CONFIRMCELLS confusingly similar); In re Pellerin Milnor Corp., 221 USPQ 558, 560 (TTAB 1983) (finding MILTRON and MILLTRONICS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii).

 

Although marks must be compared in their entireties, the word portion generally may be the dominant and most significant feature of a mark because consumers will request the goods using the wording.  See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 1366, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908, 1911 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Davia, 110 USPQ2d 1810, 1813 (TTAB 2014).  For this reason, greater weight is often given to the word portion of marks when determining whether marks are confusingly similar.  Joel Gott Wines, LLC v. Rehoboth Von Gott, Inc., 107 USPQ2d 1424, 1431 (TTAB 2013) (citing In re Dakin’s Miniatures, Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593, 1596 (TTAB 1999)); TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii).

 

Ultimately, 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 terms of their overall commercial impression that confusion as to the source of the goods offered under the respective 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); In re Davia, 110 USPQ2d 1810, 1813 (TTAB 2014); TMEP §1207.01(b).  The proper focus is on the recollection of the average purchaser, who retains a general rather than specific impression of trademarks.  United Global Media Grp., Inc. v. Tseng, 112 USPQ2d 1039, 1049, (TTAB 2014); L’Oreal S.A. v. Marcon, 102 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (TTAB 2012); TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

In this case, a consumer encountering the mark PRONTO in connection with applicant’s goods will incorrectly believe that the goods originate from the same source as each registrant’s PRONTO or PRONTO__ goods.

 

Where the marks of the respective parties are identical or virtually identical as some of the marks are in this case, the relationship between the relevant goods 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).

 

Analysis of the Goods

Applicant’s goods are closely related to each registrant’s goods.  Applicant’s goods are:

 

            REMOTE CONTROLS, CONTROL PANELS, CONTROL HUBS, ELECTRONIC TABLETS, WIRELESS SENSORS AND SMART DEVICE APPS ALL FOR AUDIO SETS, TELEVISION SETS, VIDEO RECORDERS, DVD and BLUERAY SETS, TELEVISIONS, AIRCONDITIONERS, FOR WIRELESS CONNECTING THE INTERNET, FOR AUDIO/VIDEO/PHOTO CONTENT NAVIGATION, FOR HOME AUTOMATION CONTROL.

 

Registrant’s goods are:

 

• PRONTO!: Software for communicating among electronic devices; Software for communicating with electronic devices
• PRONTO: Children's educational software; Computer software to enhance the audio-visual capabilities of multimedia applications, namely, for the integration of text, audio, graphics, still images and moving pictures
• PRONTOFLOW: Thermal management systems and components for use with electronic goods, namely, air flow sensors, thermal controllers, flow trays, and fan and blower assemblies
• PRONTO: Automotive batteries; battery terminals, namely, solderless terminals; automotive electronic temperature controls, electrical wires and cables for automotive use; automotive cruise control transducers; temperature control products, namely, engine thermostats; solderless battery terminals; vehicle engine parts, namely, thermostats; land vehicle engine control systems, comprised of [ spark plug wires, ] electronic control modules, [ oxygen sensors, ] temperature sensors, EGR valves, emission control modules and parts therefore, all sold as a unit; mass air flow sensors
• PRONTO THE SMART CHOICE FOR AUTO PARTS: Automotive batteries; battery terminals, namely, solderless terminals; automotive electronic temperature controls, electrical wires and cables for automotive use; automotive cruise control transducers; temperature control products, namely, engine thermostats; solderless battery terminals; vehicle engine parts, namely, thermostats; land vehicle engine control systems, comprised of spark plug wires, electronic control modules, oxygen sensors, temperature sensors, EGR valves, emission control modules and parts therefore, all sold as a unit; mass air flow sensors
• S2 PRONTO: Computer hardware and software for use in computer security, namely, computer hardware and software for controlling access to facilities and areas, and for use in security monitoring, management of users and their access privileges, identity management and photo ID, video surveillance and management, and environmental monitoring
• PRONTO: Computer networking apparatus, namely, routers, bridges, switches, hubs, multilayer switches, Ethernet switches, enterprise switches, protocol converters, bridge routers, network wireless cards, LAN cards for connection of computer devices to computer networks, gateways routers in the nature of computer control hardware, networking servers, networking storages in the nature of computer backup and storage systems with multiple removable RAID cartridges

 

To the extent that both of the parties provide software, controls, and sensors and related goods, the goods are closely related if not identical.

 

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 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 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 registrations 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’ more narrow identification.

 

In other words, the broadly worded software, controls, and sensors and related goods offered by applicant encompass the software, controls, and sensors and related goods for specific applications offered by registrant.  For example, applicant’s “wireless sensors … for  … airconditioners” are closely related to registrant’s “air flow sensors” as well as another registrant’s various “temperature sensors”. Applicant’s “smart device apps … for audio sets, television sets, video recorders” encompasses registrant’s “Software for communicating among electronic devices; Software for communicating with electronic devices” and another registrant’s “Computer software to enhance the audio-visual capabilities of multimedia applications, namely, for the integration of text, audio, graphics, still images and moving pictures”. Furthermore, it is assumed that each registrant’s and applicant’s goods are offered everywhere that is normal for such goods, i.e., computer and electronics stores.  Thus, it can also be assumed that the same classes of purchasers seek these goods and that consumers are accustomed to seeing them offered under the same or similar marks. 

 

Summary of Analysis

A consumer encountering the stylized mark PRONTO in connection with applicant’s software, controls, and sensors and related goods will incorrectly believe that the goods originate from the same source as the registrant’s PRONTO  and PRONTO __ software, controls, and sensors and related goods.  As a result, because of the confusingly similar marks and closely related and potentially identical goods, registration is refused under Trademark Act Section 2(d).  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.

 

IDENTIFICATION AND CLASSIFICATION OF GOODS

 

The identification of goods must be clarified because the wording is indefinite, awkwardly stated, and vague.  See TMEP §1402.01.  For example, remote controls “FOR WIRELESS CONNECTING THE INTERNET” does not make sense because remote controls are for devices. The wording “SMART DEVICE APPS” must specify the purpose or function of the software.  See TMEP §1402.03(d).  If the software is field-specific, the identification must also specify the field of use.  Id.  Clarification of the purpose, function, or field of use of the software is necessary for the USPTO to properly examine the application and make appropriate decisions concerning possible conflicts between the applicant’s mark and other marks.  See In re N.A.D. Inc., 57 USPQ2d 1872, 1874 (TTAB 2000). Suggestions and instructions are provided below in bold.

 

The wording “BLUERAY” in the identification of goods is a registered mark not owned by applicant.  See enclosed copy of U.S. Registration No(s). 3657054.  An applicant may not use a registered mark owned by another party in the identification.  A registered mark indicates origin in one party and cannot be used to define goods or services that originate in a party other than the registrant.  TMEP §1402.09; see Camloc Fastener Corp. v. Grant, 119 USPQ 264, 264 n.1 (TTAB 1958). Therefore, applicant must amend the identification of goods to delete the wording “BLUERAY” and substitute the common commercial or generic name of the goods.

 

An application must specify, in an explicit manner, the particular goods or services on or in connection with which the applicant uses, or has a bona fide intention to use, the mark in commerce.  See 15 U.S.C. §1051(a)(2), (b)(2); 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.  Therefore, proper punctuation in identifications of goods and services is necessary to delineate explicitly each product or service within a list and to avoid ambiguity.  Generally, commas should be used (1) to separate a series of related items identified within a particular category of goods or services, (2) before and after “namely,” and (3) between each item in a list of goods or services following “namely.”  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.

 

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

 

Applicant may adopt the following identification, if accurate: 

 

“REMOTE CONTROLS, CONTROL PANELS, AND CONTROL HUBS in the nature of __ {identify generic name for these hubs, e.g., “computer network hubs” or “communication hubs”} FOR AUDIO SETS, TELEVISION SETS, VIDEO RECORDERS, DVD PLAYERS, TELEVISIONS, AND AIR CONDITIONERS; ELECTRONIC __ {identify type of tablet, e.g., writing, computer} TABLETS FOR USE WITH AUDIO SETS, TELEVISION SETS, VIDEO RECORDERS, DVD PLAYERS, TELEVISIONS, AND AIR CONDITIONERS; WIRELESS SENSORS for __ {identify what is being sensed or measured, e.g. “measuring distance” or “temperature”} FOR USE WITH AUDIO SETS, TELEVISION SETS, VIDEO RECORDERS, DVD PLAYERS, TELEVISIONS, AND AIR CONDITIONERS; SMART DEVICE SOFTWARE APPLICATIONS FOR USE WITH AUDIO SETS, TELEVISION SETS, VIDEO RECORDERS, DVD PLAYERS, TELEVISIONS, AND AIR CONDITIONERS FOR WIRELESSLY CONNECTING THE INTERNET, FOR NAVIGATING AUDIO/VIDEO/PHOTO CONTENT, AND FOR CONTROLLING HOME AUTOMATION SYSTEMS” in International Class 009

 

Periodically the USPTO revises the U.S. Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual (ID Manual) based on changes to the international classification system and the USPTO’s policies regarding acceptable identifications of goods.  See TMEP §1402.14.  Identifications are examined in accordance with the Trademark Rules of Practice and the USPTO’s policies and procedures in effect on the date an application is filed.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.85(e)(1); TMEP §1402.14.  However, an applicant may voluntarily choose to follow policies and procedures adopted after the application was filed.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.85(e)(2); TMEP §1401.12.

 

Thus, descriptions of goods 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, please use the USPTO’s online ID Manual at http://tess2.gov.uspto.report/netahtml/tidm.html, which is continually updated in accordance with prevailing rules and policies.  See TMEP §1402.04.

 

DESCRIPTION OF MARK REQUIRED

 

The description of the mark is accurate but incomplete because it does not describe all the significant aspects of the applied-for mark.  Applications for marks not in standard characters must include an accurate and concise description of the entire mark that identifies literal elements as well as any design elements.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.37; TMEP §§808 et seq. 

 

Therefore, applicant must provide a more complete description of the applied-for mark.  The following is suggested:

 

The mark consists of the stylized wording “PRONTO” in which the top of the “O” is displayed as three curved lines and the bottom of the “O” is solid.

 

RESPONSE GUIDELINES

 

If applicant has questions regarding this Office action, please e-mail the assigned trademark examining attorney at Tasneem.Hussain@uspto.gov.  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 unless otherwise noted 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.

 

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.

 

 

/Ms. Tasneem Hussain/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 118

tasneem.hussain@uspto.gov (preferred)

571.272.8273

 

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 11/19/2014 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 86425932

 

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 11/19/2014 (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.