To:Horizon Hobby, LLC (trademarks@horizonhobby.com)
Subject:U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 86803730 - REACT - N/A
Sent:1/12/2016 2:02:51 PM
Sent As:ECOM108@USPTO.GOV
Attachments: Attachment - 1
Attachment - 2
Attachment - 3

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)

OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION

 

U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO.  86803730

 

MARK: REACT

 

 

        

*86803730*

CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS:

       BRIAN REINHART

       Horizon Hobby Llc

       4105 Fieldstone Rd

       Champaign, IL 61822-8800

       

 

CLICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER:

http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp

 

VIEW YOUR APPLICATION FILE

 

APPLICANT: Horizon Hobby, LLC

 

 

 

CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO:  

       N/A

CORRESPONDENT E-MAIL ADDRESS: 

       trademarks@horizonhobby.com

 

 

 

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: 1/12/2016

 

 

 

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:

 

 

SEARCH OF OFFICE’S DATABASE OF MARKS

 

The trademark examining attorney has searched the USPTO’s database of registered and pending marks and has found no similar registered marks that would bar registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d).  TMEP §704.02; see 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).  However, a mark in a prior-filed pending application may present a bar to registration of applicant’s mark.

 

PRIOR FILED APPLICATION - ADVISORY

 

The filing date of pending U.S. Application Serial No. 86645464 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.

 

REFUSAL – PREMATURE USE

 

Registration is refused because the specimen shows that applicant has not used the applied-for mark in commerce in connection with the identified goods as of the application filing date.  Trademark Act Sections 1(a) and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051(a), 1127; 37 C.F.R. § 2.34(a)(1)(i); see TMEP §§904, 1301.03(a). 

 

The use or display of a mark in the sale or advertising of goods before the goods are actually created or provided does not show use in commerce.  See Couture v. Playdom, Inc., 778 F.3d 1379, 1380-82, 113 USPQ2d 2042, 2043-44 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding that applicant failed to use the mark in commerce, even though applicant posted a website advertising his willingness to offer the services, because applicant had not rendered the services as of the application filing date); Aycock Eng’g, Inc. v. Airflite, Inc., 560 F.3d 1350, 1360, 90 USPQ2d 1301, 1307-08 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (holding that applicant failed to use the mark in commerce, even though applicant had engaged in preparations to provide the services, because applicant had not rendered the services as of the application filing date); Richardson-Vicks, Inc. v. Franklin Mint Corp., 216 USPQ 989, 991-92 (TTAB 1982) (noting that the goods to be identified by the mark must exist at or prior to the application filing date); TMEP §§904, 1301.03(a).  In this case, the specimen indicates the goods had not yet been sold or distributed in commerce as they were only available for "pre-order" such that the display of the mark would fail to show the mark in use in commerce.

 

If applicant’s goods were being sold or transported in commerce as of the application filing date, applicant must submit the following: 

 

(1)  A substitute specimen showing the applied-for mark in use in commerce for the goods specified in the application. 

 

(2)  The following statement, verified with an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20:  The substitute specimen was in use in commerce at least as early as the application filing date.  37 C.F.R. §2.59(a); TMEP §904.05; see 37 C.F.R. §2.193(e)(1).  If submitting a substitute specimen requires an amendment to the dates of use, applicant must also verify the amended dates.  37 C.F.R. §2.71(c); TMEP §904.05.

 

If applicant did not use the applied-for mark in commerce on or before the filing date, applicant may substitute a different basis for filing if applicant can meet the requirements for the new basis.  In this case, applicant may wish to amend the application to assert a Section 1(b) basis.  See TMEP §806.03(c).  However, if applicant amends the basis to Section 1(b), registration will not be granted until applicant later amends the application back to use in commerce by filing an acceptable allegation of use with a proper specimen.  See 15 U.S.C. §1051(c), (d); 37 C.F.R. §§2.76, 2.88; TMEP §1103.  If the same specimen is submitted with an allegation of use, the same refusal will issue.

 

To amend to Section 1(b), applicant must submit the following statement, verified with an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20:  Applicant has a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce and had a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce as of the application filing date.  37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(2); TMEP §806.01(b); see 15 U.S.C. §1051(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.35(b)(1), 2.193(e)(1).

 

TEAS RF RESPONSE GUIDELINES

 

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.

 

TEAS PLUS OR TEAS REDUCED FEE (TEAS RF) APPLICANTS – TO MAINTAIN LOWER FEE, ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS MUST BE MET, INCLUDING SUBMITTING DOCUMENTS ONLINE:  Applicants who filed their application online using the lower-fee TEAS Plus or TEAS RF application form must (1) file certain documents online using TEAS, including responses to Office actions (see TMEP §§819.02(b), 820.02(b) for a complete list of these documents); (2) maintain a valid e-mail correspondence address; and (3) agree to receive correspondence from the USPTO by e-mail throughout the prosecution of the application.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.22(b), 2.23(b); TMEP §§819, 820.  TEAS Plus or TEAS RF applicants who do not meet these requirements must submit an additional processing fee of $50 per international class of goods and/or services.  37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(1)(v), 2.22(c), 2.23(c); TMEP §§819.04, 820.04.  However, in certain situations, TEAS Plus or TEAS RF applicants may respond to an Office action by authorizing an examiner’s amendment by telephone without incurring this additional fee. 

 

 

 

/Christina M. Riepel/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 108

(571) 272-6358

christina.riepel@uspto.gov

 

 

TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER:  Go to http://www.uspto.gov/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.uspto.gov/.  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.uspto.gov/trademarks/process/status/.

 

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