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.  A RESPONSE TRANSMITTED THROUGH THE TRADEMARK ELECTRONIC APPLICATION SYSTEM (TEAS) MUST BE RECEIVED BEFORE MIDNIGHT EASTERN TIME OF THE LAST DAY OF THE RESPONSE PERIOD.

 

 

ISSUE/MAILING DATE: 6/19/2017

 

 

THIS IS A FINAL ACTION.

 

The Office has reassigned this application to the undersigned trademark examining attorney.

 

In a previous Office action dated March 16, 2017, the trademark examining attorney refused registration of the applied-for mark under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act. In addition, applicant was required to satisfy the following requirement: amend the identification of goods and services.

 

This Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on May 22, 2017, in which applicant amends its identification of goods and services and submits arguments and evidence in support of registration.  

 

Based on applicant’s response, the requirement to amend the identification of goods and services has been satisfied.  See TMEP §§713.02, 714.04.

 

The trademark examining attorney has considered the applicant’s arguments against the Section 2(e)(1) refusal and has found them unpersuasive.  Therefore, for the reasons set forth below, the examining attorney maintains and now makes FINAL the Section 2(e)(1) refusal.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.64(a); TMEP §714.04.

 

Summary of Issues Made Final that applicant must address:

·       Section 2(e)(1) Refusal – Merely Descriptive

 

Section 2(e)(1) Refusal - Merely Descriptive

 

Registration is refused because the applied-for mark merely describes a feature, use, or intended user of applicant’s goods and services. Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); see TMEP §§1209.01(b), 1209.03 et seq.

 

Applicant’s mark is VENTURE for “computer software for the extraction, aggregation, consolidation and analysis of sales and financial information through business intelligence cubes, reports, dashboards as well as planning and forecasting tools primarily focused on invoice and financial data sets for use by venture capital firms, incubators and others either in the field of financing, operating or supporting start-up companies” in International Class 9 and “cloud computing featuring software for the extraction, aggregation, consolidation and analysis of sales and financial information through business intelligence cubes, reports, dashboards as well as planning and forecasting tools primarily focused on invoice and financial data sets for use by venture capital firms, incubators and others either in the field of financing, operating or supporting start-up companies; software as a service services featuring software for the extraction, aggregation, consolidation and analysis of sales and financial information through business intelligence cubes, reports, dashboards as well as planning and forecasting tools primarily focused on invoice and financial data sets for use by venture capital firms, incubators and others either in the field of financing, operating or supporting start-up companies” in International Class 42 .

 

A mark is merely descriptive if it describes an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose, or use of an applicant’s goods and services. TMEP §1209.01(b); see, e.g. , In re TriVita, Inc. , 783 F.3d 872, 874, 114 USPQ2d 1574, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP , 373 F.3d 1171, 1173, 71 USPQ2d 1370, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004)); In re Steelbuilding.com , 415 F.3d 1293, 1297, 75 USPQ2d 1420, 1421 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Estate of P.D. Beckwith, Inc. v. Comm’r of Patents , 252 U.S. 538, 543 (1920)).

 

The determination of whether a mark is merely descriptive is made in relation to an applicant’s goods and services, not in the abstract. DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd. , 695 F.3d 1247, 1254, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re The Chamber of Commerce of the U.S. , 675 F.3d 1297, 1300, 102 USPQ2d 1217, 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2012); TMEP §1209.01(b); see, e.g . , In re Polo Int’l Inc. , 51 USPQ2d 1061, 1062-63 (TTAB 1999) (finding DOC in DOC-CONTROL would refer to the “documents” managed by applicant’s software rather than the term “doctor” shown in a dictionary definition); In re Digital Research Inc. , 4 USPQ2d 1242, 1243-44 (TTAB 1987) (finding CONCURRENT PC-DOS and CONCURRENT DOS merely descriptive of “computer programs recorded on disk” where the relevant trade used the denomination “concurrent” as a descriptor of a particular type of operating system).

 

“Whether consumers could guess what the product [or service] is from consideration of the mark alone is not the test.” In re Am. Greetings Corp. , 226 USPQ 365, 366 (TTAB 1985).

 

Here, VENTURE merely describes a feature, use, or intended user of applicant’s goods and services.

 

The previously attached dictionary evidence shows that the term “VENTURE” means “a new business or activity” (Macmillan Dictionary), a “start-up” is “a small business that is just being started” (Macmillan Dictionary), and the additional attached dictionary evidence shows that an “incubator” is “an organization or place that aids the development of new business ventures especially by providing low-cost commercial space, management assistance, or shared services” (Merriam-Webster dictionary).  All of these terms refer to new business or activity or business that is just being started.

 

Applicant’s goods and services are identified as “computer software for the extraction, aggregation, consolidation and analysis of sales and financial information through business intelligence cubes, reports, dashboards as well as planning and forecasting tools primarily focused on invoice and financial data sets for use by venture capital firms, incubators and others either in the field of financing, operating or supporting start-up companies” and “cloud computing featuring software for the extraction, aggregation, consolidation and analysis of sales and financial information through business intelligence cubes, reports, dashboards as well as planning and forecasting tools primarily focused on invoice and financial data sets for use by venture capital firms, incubators and others either in the field of financing, operating or supporting start-up companies; software as a service services featuring software for the extraction, aggregation, consolidation and analysis of sales and financial information through business intelligence cubes, reports, dashboards as well as planning and forecasting tools primarily focused on invoice and financial data sets for use by venture capital firms, incubators and others either in the field of financing, operating or supporting start-up companies” (emphasis added).

 

Thus, the wording VENTURE merely describes the intended user of applicant’s software and software-based services, namely, firms providing capital to new businesses (commonly referred to as venture capital firms), incubators and entities in the field of financing, operating or supporting start-up companies.  Applicant itself identifies these users in its identification of goods and services. 

 

Further, or alternatively, the wording VENTURE also describes a feature or intended use of applicant’s software and software-based services, namely, the use of said goods and services to analyze financial information and data for new businesses or new business ventures or start-ups.  Again, applicant itself specifies in its identification that its goods and services are primarily focused on invoice and financial data sets for use by incubators and those in the field of providing venture capital to or financing, operating or supporting start-up companies.  Thus, the wording VENTURE is also descriptive of a feature or intended use of applicant’s goods and services.

 

Applicant has submitted a definition of “venture capital” as “a type of private equity, a form of financing that is provided by firms or funds to small, early-stage, emerging firms that are deemed to have high growth potential, or which have demonstrated high growth (in terms of number of employees, annual revenue, or both).”  Assuming the examining attorney accepts applicant’s definition of “venture capital,” this definition does not affect the descriptive nature of the wording VENTURE when used on its own.  Applicant erroneously focusses on the combined term “venture capital,” to the exclusion of its component parts.  In fact, applicant’s definition correctly recognizes that the combined meaning of the term “venture capital” is “financing” (that is, capital) provided to “small, early-stage, emerging firms” (that is, new ventures or start-ups).  Applicant’s definition therefore does not change the meaning of the individual terms “venture” and “capital”.  Contrary to applicant’s argument, the term VENTURE does immediately convey the “identity” of the group to whom applicant directs its goods and services, namely, venture capital firms (firms providing capital/ financing to early-stage emerging businesses), incubators and entities in the field of financing, operating or supporting start-up companies, as identified in applicant’s statement of its goods and services.

 

In its response, applicant seems to focus on use of the word VENTURE in the abstract when it states that “consumers would not immediately equate the word “Venture” with a computer software product or service designed to extract, aggregate and analyze sales and financial information through business intelligence cubes, reports, dashboards, and planning/ forecasting tools primarily focused on invoice and financial data sets” and that “a consumer’s mind would not jump instinctively from the contemplation of the mark to a knowledge of the goods and services for which Applicant seeks registration.”  However, determining the descriptiveness of a mark is done in relation to an applicant’s goods and/or services, the context in which the mark is being used, and the possible significance the mark would have to the average purchaser because of the manner of its use or intended use.  See In re The Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 1300, 102 USPQ2d 1217, 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, 488 F.3d 960, 963-64, 82 USPQ2d 1828, 1831 (Fed. Cir. 2007)); TMEP §1209.01(b).  Descriptiveness of a mark is not considered in the abstract.  In re Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, 488 F.3d at 963-64, 82 USPQ2d at 1831.

 

“Whether consumers could guess what the product [or service] is from consideration of the mark alone is not the test.”  In re Am. Greetings Corp., 226 USPQ 365, 366 (TTAB 1985).  The question is not whether someone presented only with the mark could guess what the goods and/or services are, but “whether someone who knows what the goods and[/or] services are will understand the mark to convey information about them.”  DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1254, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Tower Tech, Inc.,64 USPQ2d 1314, 1316-17 (TTAB 2002)); In re Franklin Cnty. Historical Soc’y, 104 USPQ2d 1085, 1087 (TTAB 2012).

 

When encountering the applied-for mark in use with applicant’s identified goods and services, it would not be a stretch for the average purchaser of applicant’s goods and services to conclude that the term VENTURE as used in the context of start-up businesses, incubators and venture capital firms refers to the intended users or a feature or use of the goods and services.  Moreover, this immediate connection is possible because applicant itself has told its consumers who the intended users of its goods and services are, what the features of its goods and services are, and how its goods and services are to be used (all referencing venture capital firms, incubators and others in the field of financing, operating or supporting start-up companies).

 

Applicant also argues that the word VENTURE has a number of meanings, therefore it is not merely descriptive of the goods and services listed in applicant’s application.  However, descriptiveness is considered in relation to the relevant goods and/or services.  DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1254, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 2012).  “That a term may have other meanings in different contexts is not controlling.”  In re Franklin Cnty. Historical Soc’y, 104 USPQ2d 1085, 1087 (TTAB 2012) (citing In re Bright-Crest, Ltd., 204 USPQ 591, 593 (TTAB 1979)); TMEP §1209.03(e).  The more important consideration is the meaning of the term in the context of applicant’s goods and services, and the examining attorney has shown that the word VENTURE is descriptive when used in relation to applicant’s identified goods and services.

 

Applicant should also note that a mark does not need to be merely descriptive of all the goods or services specified in an application.  In re The Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 1300, 102 USPQ2d 1217, 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Franklin Cnty. Historical Soc'y, 104 USPQ2d 1085, 1089 (TTAB 2012).  “A descriptiveness refusal is proper ‘if the mark is descriptive of any of the [goods or] services for which registration is sought.’”  In re The Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 675 F.3d at 1300, 102 USPQ2d at 1219 (quoting In re Stereotaxis Inc., 429 F.3d 1039, 1040, 77 USPQ2d 1087, 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2005)).

 

Applicant is correct in noting that “a term is suggestive and allowed registration if it requires imagination, thought and perception to reach a conclusion as to the nature of the goods [or services].”  However, the examining attorney maintains that no such imagination, thought and/or perception is required to reach a conclusion as to the nature of applicant’s goods or services when the term VENTURE is used in relation to it.  Rather, the term VENTURE immediately and directly conveys some information about applicant’s goods and services, thereby making it a descriptive term in relation to those goods and services.  See Stoncor Grp., Inc. v. Specialty Coatings, Inc., 759 F.3d 1327, 1332, 111 USPQ2d 1649, 1652 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citing DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1251-52, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1209.01(a).

 

The attached additional internet website evidence from Altareturn, DocDep, Navatar, and the previously attached evidence from Wellspring, Dynamo, Pitchbook and CB Insights also illustrates that others use the term “VENTURE” to describe similar software and software-based services as those of applicant.   

Applicant argues that the evidence previously provided by the examining attorney of venture capitalists using similar software and/or software-based services is not probative because in each case “software is associated with a name/ mark that does not include the word venture.”  Applicant should note that proper evidence of the descriptive usage of a term would not include usage of the term in the name or mark of an entity because such usage would show trademark or trade name usage, and not descriptive usage. 

 

Also, contrary to applicant’s argument, this evidence does not only show that venture capital firms use software.  Rather, the evidence shows that entities have developed software specifically with venture firms in mind, similar to applicant, and these entities use the term “VENTURE” in describing their software services and the intended users of these services. 

 

Further, evidence of descriptive usage of the term VENTURE by venture capitalists in connection with similar software and/or software-based services is probative because such software is most likely to be used by firms which categorize themselves as venture capital firms or venture firms because that is the most widely recognized term for firms in the field of financing and providing other finance-related services to startups.  The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines “venture capital” simply as “money available for investment in startup companies and small businesses with a high potential for growth.”  In fact, “venture capital firms” and “others…in the field of financing…start-up companies” form what may be perceived as a major subset of the intended users of applicant’s goods and services, as identified by applicant.  Therefore, evidence of descriptive usage of the term VENTURE in connection with similar software and software based services used by venture capital firms is both relevant and probative. 

 

The trademark examining attorney has also attached evidence from the USPTO’s X-search database consisting of third-party marks registered for use in connection with similar goods and/or services as those of applicant, namely, software services, goods for use by or to support start-up companies, services related to analysis and compilation of business data for investment purposes, and services of providing statistical information to others.  The wording “VENTURE” has been disclaimed in all of these registrations.  Third-party registrations featuring goods and/or services the same as or similar to applicant’s goods and/or services are probative evidence on the issue of descriptiveness where the relevant word or term is disclaimed, registered under Trademark Act Section 2(f) based on acquired distinctiveness, or registered on the Supplemental Register.  E.g., In re Morinaga Nyugyo Kabushiki Kaisha, 120 USPQ2d 1738, 1745 (TTAB 2016) (quoting Inst. Nat’l des Appellations D’Origine v. Vintners Int’l Co., 958 F.2d 1574, 1581-82, 22 USPQ2d 1190, 1196 (Fed. Cir. 1992)); In re Box Solutions Corp., 79 USPQ2d 1953, 1955 (TTAB 2006).

 

Applicant also argues in its Response that the evidence provided by the examining attorney in support of the descriptiveness refusal is not sufficient.  Applicant should note that the absence of widespread evidence of descriptive usage of the term VENTURE in relation to similar goods and services as applicant’s does not bar a descriptiveness refusal.  The fact that an applicant may be the first or only user of a merely descriptive designation does not necessarily render a word or term incongruous or distinctive; as in this case, the evidence shows that VENTURE is merely descriptive.  See In re Fat Boys Water Sports LLC, 118 USPQ2d 1511, 1514 (TTAB 2016); In re Phoseon Tech., Inc., 103 USPQ2d 1822, 1826 (TTAB 2012); TMEP §1209.03(c).

 

Finally, two major reasons for not protecting descriptive marks are (1) to prevent the owner of a descriptive mark from inhibiting competition in the marketplace and (2) to avoid the possibility of costly infringement suits brought by the trademark or service mark owner.  In re Abcor Dev. Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 813, 200 USPQ 215, 217 (C.C.P.A. 1978); TMEP §1209.  Businesses and competitors should be free to use descriptive language when describing their own goods and/or services to the public in advertising and marketing materials.  See In re Styleclick.com Inc., 58 USPQ2d 1523, 1527 (TTAB 2001).

 

Taking all of the above into consideration, the examining attorney maintains that consumers encountering the mark VENTURE on the applicant’s goods and services are likely to perceive the mark as merely indicating a feature, use, or intended user of applicant’s software and software-based services, rather than as an indication that applicant is the source of the goods and services. Consequently, the entire mark is descriptive of the goods and services in the application, and is therefore not entitled to federal trademark protection.

 

In light of the above, the refusal based on Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act is hereby maintained and made Final.

 

Supplemental Register Advisory

 

Although an amendment to the Supplemental Register would normally be an appropriate response to this refusal, such a response is not appropriate in the present case.  The instant application was filed under Trademark Act Section 1(b) and is not eligible for registration on the Supplemental Register until an acceptable amendment to allege use meeting the requirements of 37 C.F.R. §2.76 has been timely filed.  37 C.F.R. §2.47(d); TMEP §§816.02, 1102.03.

 

If applicant files an acceptable allegation of use and also amends to the Supplemental Register, the application effective filing date will be the date applicant met the minimum filing requirements under 37 C.F.R. §2.76(c) for an amendment to allege use.  TMEP §§816.02, 1102.03; see 37 C.F.R. §2.75(b).  In addition, the undersigned trademark examining attorney will conduct a new search of the USPTO records for conflicting marks based on the later application filing date.  TMEP §§206.01, 1102.03.

 

Although registration on the Supplemental Register does not afford all the benefits of registration on the Principal Register, it does provide the following advantages to the registrant:

 

(1)       Use of the registration symbol ® with the registered mark in connection with the designated goods and/or services, which provides public notice of the registration and potentially deters third parties from using confusingly similar marks.

 

(2)       Inclusion of the registered mark in the USPTO’s database of registered and pending marks, which will (a) make it easier for third parties to find it in trademark search reports, (b) provide public notice of the registration, and thus (c) potentially deter third parties from using confusingly similar marks.

 

(3)       Use of the registration by a USPTO trademark examining attorney as a bar to registering confusingly similar marks in applications filed by third parties.

 

(4)       Use of the registration as a basis to bring suit for trademark infringement in federal court, which, although more costly than state court, means judges with more trademark experience, often faster adjudications, and the opportunity to seek an injunction, actual damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

 

(5)       Use of the registration as a filing basis for a trademark application for registration in certain foreign countries, in accordance with international treaties.

 

See 15 U.S.C. §§1052(d), 1091, 1094; J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks & Unfair Competition §§19:33, 19:37 (rev. 4th ed. Supp. 2017).

 

Response Options for Final Office Action

 

Applicant must respond within six months of the date of issuance of this final Office action or the application will be abandoned. 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §2.65(a). Applicant may respond by providing one or both of the following:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

If applicant has questions regarding this Office action, please telephone or e-mail the assigned trademark examining attorney.  All relevant e-mail communications will be placed in the official application record; however, an e-mail communication will not be accepted as a response to this Office action and will not extend the deadline for filing a proper response.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(c), 2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05.  Further, although the trademark examining attorney may provide additional explanation pertaining to the refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) in this Office action, the trademark examining attorney may not provide legal advice or statements about applicant’s rights.  See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06.

 

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 $125 per 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 or e-mail without incurring this additional fee.

 

 

 

 

/Leslie Ann Thomas-Riggs/

Leslie Ann Thomas-Riggs

Trademark Examining Attorney

USPTO, Law Office 125

(571) 272-5469

leslie.thomas-riggs@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 6/19/2017 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 87257310

 

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 6/19/2017 (or sooner if specified in the Office action).  A response transmitted through the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) must be received before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period.  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 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.