To: | BIGFOOT VENTURES LLC (87321311.us@edocket.io) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 87321338 - LYNX - N/A |
Sent: | March 10, 2021 08:44:28 PM |
Sent As: | ecom101@uspto.gov |
Attachments: |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 87321338
Mark: LYNX
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
Applicant: BIGFOOT VENTURES LLC
|
|
Reference/Docket No. N/A
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
NONFINAL OFFICE ACTION
The USPTO must receive applicant’s response to this letter within six months of the issue date below or the application will be abandoned. Respond using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS). A link to the appropriate TEAS response form appears at the end of this Office action.
Issue date: March 10, 2021
This Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on 15 February 2021.
Assignment Document
Applicant has filed an assignment and submitted the assignment documents as part of the application record. However, the assignment documents do not indicate that the intent-to-use application was assigned to a successor to applicant’s business as required by Trademark Act Section 10(a)(1). 15 U.S.C. §1060(a)(1). Moreover, the application was filed under Section 1(b) and no allegation of use has been filed. 15 U.S.C. §1051(b).
An intent-to-use application is void if it was filed in the name of a party who was not entitled to use the mark on the application filing date. 37 C.F.R. §2.71(d); see Am. Forests v. Sanders, 54 USPQ2d 1860, 1863 (TTAB 1999); TMEP §§803.06, 1201.02(b). In addition, an intent-to-use application is void if, prior to filing an allegation of use, the application is assigned to a party other than either a successor to the applicant’s business or to a portion of the applicant’s business to which the mark pertains, if that business is ongoing and existing. 15 U.S.C. §1060(a)(1); 37 C.F.R. §3.16; TMEP §501.01(a); see Cent. Garden & Pet Co. v. Doskocil Mfg. Co., 108 USPQ2d 1134, 1146 (TTAB 2013); Clorox Co. v. Chem. Bank, 40 USPQ2d 1098, 1105-06 (TTAB 1996).
A void application cannot be cured by amendment or assignment. TMEP §§803.06, 1201.02(b); see 37 C.F.R. §2.71(d). In such cases, the true owner may only file a new application. TMEP §803.06.
Therefore, applicant must submit a written statement clarifying that the assignment was in compliance with Trademark Act Section 10(a)(1). 15 U.S.C. §1060(a)(1); see TMEP §501.01(a).
How to respond. Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action.
/Angela M Micheli/
Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 101
571.272.9196
angela.micheli@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE