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: 5/25/2017

 

INTRODUCTION

 

The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney.  Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issues below.  15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(a), 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.

 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES:

·        Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion

·        Prior Filed Applications

·        Amendment of Identification of Goods Required

 

 

SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration Nos. 2648139 (HURRICANE FORCE) and 0743711 (HURRICANE).  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registrations. 

 

The Applicant’s mark is HURRICANE for "Surface cleaning preparations", "Steam cleaning machines in the nature of steam mops; battery-powered spraying device, namely, sprayer for dispensing hard surface cleaning solution for use with wet mops for cleaning floors; electrical vacuum cleaners for domestic use", "Disposable paper wipes for household cleaning not impregnated with chemicals or compounds; fluffed, feather-like disposable paper wipes for household cleaning not impregnated with chemicals or compounds", and "Mops and their refills in the nature of mop heads, dust mops and their refills in the nature of mop heads, floor mops and their refills in the nature of mop heads, microfiber mops and their refills in the nature of mop heads, roller mops and their refills in the nature of mop heads, sponge mops and their refills in the nature of mop heads, dry or dust mops and their refills in the nature of mop heads, sponge mops featuring scrub brushes and their refills in the nature of mop heads, spray mops and their refills in the nature of mop heads, strip mops and their refills in the nature of mop heads, twist mops and their refills in the nature of mop heads, flat mops and their refills in the nature of mop heads, wet mops and their refills in the nature of mop heads, deck mops and their refills in the nature of mop heads, yarn mopheads, floor wax applicators and refills therefor in the nature of pads for floor wax application mountable on mop handles; brooms, corn brooms, hard brooms, plastic brooms, push brooms, whisk brooms, sweep brooms. brushes, namely, bath and shower brushes, brushes for bottles, brushes for parquet floors, brushes for tile, brushes for vegetables, cleaning brushes for household use, dishwashing brushes, dusting brushes, floor brushes, grill brushes for barbecue grills, lint brushes, pot cleaning brushes, roofing brushes, scraping brushes, scrubbing brushes, tub scrub brushes, nail and hand cleaning brushes, wire brushes not being machine parts; dusters, feather dusters, microfiber cleaning dusters; cleaning sponges, microfiber cleaning sponges, scouring sponges, scrub sponges, sponges for household purposes, and refills for cleaning sponges, dish-cleaning sponges with soap-filled dispensers and refills therefor in the nature of sponges; cleaning cloths, cloth for wiping or dusting, dusting cloths, microfiber cleaning cloths, scrubbing pads made of metal and plastic filaments, cleaning pads, grill cleaning pads; buckets, plastic buckets, buckets for commercial and household use, squeegee buckets; pails, plastic pails; mop wringers; dust pans, dust bins; dusting gloves; lint rollers and refills for lint rollers; metal wool for cleaning; scoops; soap dispensers and soap holders; squeegees for household use, squeegees for commercial use, squeegees for floor use; Cleaning tools, namely, buckets, brooms, push brooms, dust pans, debris collectors, namely, mop buckets and trash cans; squeegees, sponges, dusters, dust cloths, soap dispensing brushes namely, scrub brushes, dust brushes and utility brushes, and gloves for household use; work gloves; Light duty utility gloves; cloth for washing floors; furniture and appliance dusters; crumb-sweepers; cleaning solution cartridges for cleaning floors".

 

The Registrants’ marks are as follows:

 

• HURRICANE FORCE for "All purpose cleaning preparations, not used in manufacturing processes, for industrial, commercial and institutional use"; and
• HURRICANE (+styl.) for "Electrical Vacuum Cleaning Apparatus, and Parts and Attachments Therefor".

 

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, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (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.

 

COMPARISON OF THE MARKS

 

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 1st USA Realty Prof’ls, Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1581, 1586 (TTAB 2007)); In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB 1988)); TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

HURRICANE

 

In the present case, applicant’s mark is HURRICANE and one of Registrant’s mark is HURRICANE.  These marks are identical in appearance, sound, and meaning, “and have the potential to be used . . . in exactly the same manner.”  In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 116 USPQ2d 1406, 1411 (TTAB 2015).  Additionally, because they are identical, these marks are likely to engender the same connotation and overall commercial impression when considered in connection with Applicant’s and Registrant’s respective goods.  Id.  Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar. 

 

Furthermore, the fact that Registrant's mark contains stylization will not obviate a likelihood of confusion because Applicant's mark is in standard characters.  A mark in typed or standard characters may be displayed in any lettering style; the rights reside in the wording or other literal element and not in any particular display or rendition.  See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1363, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1909 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 1348, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010); 37 C.F.R. §2.52(a); TMEP §1207.01(c)(iii).  Thus, a mark presented in stylized characters and/or with a design element generally will not avoid likelihood of confusion with a mark in typed or standard characters because the marks could be presented in the same manner of display.  See, e.g., In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d at 1363, 101 USPQ2d at 1909; Squirtco v. Tomy Corp., 697 F.2d 1038, 1041, 216 USPQ 937, 939 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (stating that “the argument concerning a difference in type style is not viable where one party asserts rights in no particular display”).

 

HURRICANE FORCE

 

Here, Applicant's mark and Registrant's mark both feature the wording "HURRICANE".  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).

 

As the first word in each mark, "HURRICANE" is also the dominant portion of each mark.  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) (“VEUVE . . . remains a ‘prominent feature’ as the first word in the mark and the first word to appear on the label”); In re Integrated Embedded, 102 USPQ2d 1504, 1513 (TTAB 2016) (“[T]he dominance of BARR in [a]pplicant’s mark BARR GROUP is reinforced by its location as the first word in the mark.”); 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).

 

Furthermore, generally, the greater degree of similarity between the applied-for mark and the registered mark, the lesser the degree of similarity between the goods of the parties is required to support a finding of likelihood of confusion.  In re C.H. Hanson Co., 116 USPQ2d 1351, 1353 (TTAB 2015) (citing In re Opus One Inc., 60 USPQ2d 1812, 1815 (TTAB 2001)); In re Thor Tech, Inc., 90 USPQ2d 1634, 1636 (TTAB 2009). 

 

COMPARISON OF THE GOODS

 

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 are such that they could give rise to the mistaken belief that [the goods] 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).

 

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 of the type described.  See, e.g., Sw. Mgmt., Inc. v. Ocinomled, Ltd., 115 USPQ2d 1007, 1025 (TTAB 2015); In re N.A.D., Inc., 57 USPQ2d 1872, 1874 (TTAB 2000).   

 

In this case, the identification set forth in the application and registration 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 registration uses broad wording to describe the goods, e.g., "All purpose cleaning preparations, not used in manufacturing processes, for industrial, commercial and institutional use" and "Electrical Vacuum Cleaning Apparatus, and Parts and Attachments Therefor", and this wording is presumed to encompass all goods of the type described, including those in Applicant's more narrow identification, e.g., "Surface cleaning preparations" and "electrical vacuum cleaners for domestic use".

 

Furthermore, the attached Internet evidence shows multiple entities producing a variety of household cleaning products, including cleaning solutions, a variety of types of mops, wipes, brushes, brooms, sponges, and refills for such goods (See attached evidence from Clorox®, Procter & Gamble®, and SC Johnson®).  In addition, the evidence shows various companies that produce vacuums and steam mops, or combinations thereof, that also feature sprayers for dispensing cleaning solutions and pads (See attached evidence from Bissell®, Hoover®, Shark®, and Swiffer®).  This evidence establishes that the same entity commonly produces the relevant goods and markets the goods under the same mark.  In addition, the relevant goods are sold or provided through the same trade channels and used by the same classes of consumers in the same fields of use, and/or the goods are similar or complementary in terms of purpose or function.  Therefore, Applicant’s and Registrant’s goods are considered related for likelihood of confusion purposes.  See, e.g., In re Davey Prods. Pty Ltd., 92 USPQ2d 1198, 1202-04 (TTAB 2009); In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d 1266, 1268-69, 1271-72 (TTAB 2009).

 

Although Applicant’s mark has been refused registration, Applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.  If Applicant responds to the refusal, Applicant must also respond to the requirement set forth below.

 

 

PRIOR FILED APPLICATIONS

 

The filing date of pending U.S. Application Serial Nos. 87186484 (HURRICANE SPIN BROOM) and 87113429 (HURRICANE SPIN SCRUBBER) precede applicant’s filing date.  See attached referenced applications.  If the marks in the referenced application register, 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 applications.

 

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 marks in the referenced applications.  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.

 

 

Ownership of Potentially Conflicting Applications Advisory

 

If the marks in the potentially conflicting prior-filed applications have been assigned to applicant, applicant may provide evidence of ownership of the marks to avoid a possible refusal under Trademark Act Section 2(d) based on a likelihood of confusion.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); TMEP §812.01. 

 

Applicant may provide evidence of ownership of the marks by satisfying one of the following:

 

(1)       Record the assignment with the USPTO’s Assignment Recordation Branch (ownership transfer documents such as assignments can be filed online at http://etas.uspto.gov) and promptly notify the trademark examining attorney that the assignment has been duly recorded.

 

(2)       Submit copies of documents evidencing the chain of title.

 

(3)       Submit the following statement, verified with an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20:  “Applicant is the owner of Application Serial Nos. 87186484 and 87113429.”  To provide this statement using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), use the “Response to Office Action” form; answer “yes” to wizard questions #3 and #10; then, continuing on to the next portion of the form, in the “Additional Statement(s)” section, check the box for “Miscellaneous Statement” and write in the free form text field for the “Miscellaneous Statement” that  “Applicant is the owner of Application Serial Nos. 87186484 and 87113429,” inserting the relevant application serial number(s); and follow the instructions within the form for signing.  The form must be signed twice; a signature is required both in the “Declaration Signature” section and in the “Response Signature” section.

 

TMEP §812.01; see 15 U.S.C. §1060; 37 C.F.R. §§2.193(e)(1), 3.25, 3.73(a)-(b); TMEP §502.02(a).

 

Recording a document with the Assignment Recordation Branch does not constitute a response to an Office action.  TMEP §503.01(d).

 

 

AMENDMENT OF IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS REQUIRED

 

The identification of goods is unacceptable because it contains indefinite wording and must be clarified.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.  For example, Applicant should specify the nature of its "refills for cleaning sponges", "sponges", and "cleaning solution cartridges for cleaning floors". 

 

In addition, "squeegees for commercial use" is too broad and must be clarified.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03.  For example, squeegees as hand tools is classified in International Class 008, and squeegees as parts of machines is classified in International Class 007.  Regardless, as Applicant specified that its squeegees are for commercial use, International Class 021 is not the appropriate class for these goods. 

 

Applicant may adopt the following identification, if accurate: 

 

International Class 003:  "Surface cleaning preparations" [no change]

 

International Class 007:  "Steam cleaning machines in the nature of steam mops; battery-powered spraying device, namely, sprayer for dispensing hard surface cleaning solution for use with wet mops for cleaning floors; electrical vacuum cleaners for domestic use; squeegees for commercial use, namely, [specify commercial use within this International Class, e.g., wood squeegees used with silk screen printing machines, squeegees as parts of industrial vacuum cleaners, squeegees as parts of steam cleaning machines]"

 

International Class 008:  "Hand tools, namely, Ssqueegees for commercial use"

 

International Class 016:  "Disposable paper wipes for household cleaning not impregnated with chemicals or compounds; fluffed, feather-like disposable paper wipes for household cleaning not impregnated with chemicals or compounds" [no change]

 

International Class 021:  "Mops and their refills in the nature of mop heads, dust mops and their refills in the nature of mop heads, floor mops and their refills in the nature of mop heads, microfiber mops and their refills in the nature of mop heads, roller mops and their refills in the nature of mop heads, sponge mops and their refills in the nature of mop heads, dry or dust mops and their refills in the nature of mop heads, sponge mops featuring scrub brushes and their refills in the nature of mop heads, spray mops and their refills in the nature of mop heads, strip mops and their refills in the nature of mop heads, twist mops and their refills in the nature of mop heads, flat mops and their refills in the nature of mop heads, wet mops and their refills in the nature of mop heads, deck mops and their refills in the nature of mop heads, yarn mopheads, floor wax applicators and refills therefor in the nature of pads for floor wax application mountable on mop handles; brooms, corn brooms, hard brooms, plastic brooms, push brooms, whisk brooms, sweep brooms;. brushes, namely, bath and shower brushes, brushes for cleaning bottles for household use, brushes for parquet floors, brushes for tile floors, brushes for cleaning vegetables for household use, cleaning brushes for household use, dishwashing brushes, dusting brushes, floor brushes, grill brushes for barbecue grills, lint brushes, pot cleaning brushes, roofing brushes in the nature of tar brushes for household use, scraping brushes, scrubbing brushes, tub scrub brushes, nail and hand cleaning brushes, wire brushes not being machine parts; dusters, feather dusters, microfiber cleaning dusters; cleaning sponges, microfiber cleaning sponges, scouring sponges, scrub sponges, sponges for household purposes, and refills for cleaning sponges in the nature of [specify, e.g., sponges, cleaning clothes], dish-cleaning sponges with soap-filled dispensers and refills therefor in the nature of sponges; cleaning cloths, cloth for wiping or dusting, dusting cloths, microfiber cleaning cloths, scrubbing pads made of metal and plastic filaments for cleaning, cleaning pads, grill cleaning pads; buckets, plastic buckets, buckets for commercial and household use, squeegee buckets; pails, plastic pails; mop wringers; dust pans, dust bins; dusting gloves; lint rollers and refills for lint rollers; metal wool for cleaning; scoops for household purposes; soap dispensers and soap holders; squeegees for household use, squeegees for commercial use, squeegees for floor use for household use; Cleaning tools, namely, buckets, brooms, push brooms, dust pans, debris collectors, namely, mop buckets and trash cans; squeegees, [specify type of sponge, e.g., bath, cleaning, scouring, scrub] sponges, dusters, dust cloths, soap dispensing brushes namely, scrub brushes, dust brushes and utility cleaning brushes for household use, and gloves for household use; work gloves; Light duty utility gloves; cloth for washing floors; furniture and appliance dusters; crumb-sweepers; cleaning solution refill cartridges for [specify in what the cartridges are used, e.g., mops with electric cleaning solution sprayers] used to cleaning floors for household use"

 

Applicant may amend the identification to clarify or limit the goods, but not to broaden or expand the goods beyond those in the original application or as acceptably amended.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06.  Generally, any deleted goods may not later be reinserted.  See TMEP §1402.07(e).

 

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.  See TMEP §1402.04.

 

 

Multiple Class Advisory

 

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 Trademark Act Section 1(b):

 

(1)       List the goods 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 fees already paid (view the USPTO’s current fee schedule at http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/tm_fee_info.jsp).  The application identifies goods that are classified in at least five classes; however, applicant submitted a fees sufficient for only four classes.  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.

 

See 15 U.S.C. §§1051(b), 1112, 1126(e); 37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(6)-(7), 2.34(a)(2)-(3), 2.86(a); TMEP §§1403.01, 1403.02(c).

 

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

 

 

If the applicant has any questions or requires assistance in responding to this Office Action, please contact the examining attorney at the contact information provided below.  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 and/or requirement 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.

 

 

Yi, Crystal

/Crystal H. Yi/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 123

571.270.0763

crystal.yi@uspto.gov

 

 

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.  

 

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 5/25/2017 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 87356506

 

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 5/25/2017 (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.