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: 6/16/2017

 

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:

·        Likelihood of Confusion Refusal

·        Prior-Pending Applications

 

SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 2481193; 4762333; and 4808805.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registration.

 

 

Standard of Analysis for Section 2(d) Refusal

 

Applicant’s mark is “SHIELD” for “Clothing, namely, coats, jackets, trousers, anoraks, hoods and hooded robes; hats; footwear; belts for clothing” in International 025.

 

Registration No. 2481193 mark is “SHIELD GEAR” for “men's, women's clothing, namely, fleece tops, T-shirts, sweatshirts, shorts, pants, jackets, wind resistant jackets” in International Class 025.

 

Registration No. 4762333 mark is “SHIELD” plus design for “Clothing, namely, coveralls, overalls, trousers, jackets, bomber jackets, parkas, bib overalls and salopettes; work clothing, not included in other classes, namely, coveralls, overalls, dust coats and work trousers; footwear, namely, shoes and boots; waterproof and water-resistant clothing and footwear, not included in other classes, namely, waterproof and water-resistant coveralls, trousers, jackets, bib overalls, salopettes, bomber jackets, parkas, overalls, dust coats, work trousers, as well as waterproof and water-resistant shoes and boots; all aforementioned goods not to be used for welding purposes or related to welding technology” in International Class 025.

 

Registration No. 4808805 mark is “SHIELD CLASSIC” for “Textiles and textile goods, namely, fabrics, cotton fabrics, felt fabrics, faux suede fabrics, satin fabrics, silk fabrics, printed fabrics, woven fabrics; upholstery materials, namely, fabrics, cotton fabrics, felt fabrics, suede fabrics, satin fabrics, silk fabrics, printed fabrics, woven fabrics; materials for covering walls, namely, textile and fabric wall hangings; materials for soft furnishings, namely, textiles and fabrics for the further manufacture of soft furnishings; curtain materials of fabric and textile; fabrics for the manufacture of upholstered goods; flame retardant fabrics for the further manufacture of upholstered goods; waterproof fabrics for the further manufacture of upholstered goods; water resistant fabrics for the further manufacture of upholstered goods; laminated fabrics for the further manufacture of upholstered goods; vinyl cloth for use in the manufacture of upholstered goods; plastic substitutes for fabrics in the nature of vinyl fabric for use in the manufacture of upholstered items; upholstery fabrics; fabrics for the further manufacture of wall coverings; fabrics for furnishings; fabrics for soft furnishings; fabrics for seating areas, namely, for the further manufacture of furniture; curtain fabrics; soft furnishings, namely, curtains, cushion covers, bed sheets, duvet covers, pillow covers, bed blankets, blanket throws, lap blankets, travelling blankets, throws, coverlets; curtains; curtains of textile material; curtains made of plastics; shower curtains; door curtains in the nature of fabric curtains for separating rooms; fabric curtains for cubicles; fabric curtains for hospital cubicles; replacement parts for the aforesaid goods” in International Class 024. 

 

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 and/or services 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/or services, and similarity of the trade channels of the goods and/or services.  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:

 

SHIELD vs. SHIELD GEAR

 

Applicant’s applied-for mark is “SHIELD” and registrant’s mark is “SHIELD GEAR”.

 

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).

 

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.

 

In the present case, both applicant’s mark and registrant’s mark share the term “SHIELD.” The sole distinction between the marks, both visually and aurally, is the addition of the disclaimed term “GEAR” to registrant’s mark.  The mere deletion of wording from a registered mark may not be sufficient to overcome a likelihood of confusion.  See In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 94 USPQ2d 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2010); In re Optica Int’l, 196 USPQ 775, 778 (TTAB 1977); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii).  Applicant’s mark does not create a distinct commercial impression because it contains the same common wording as the registered mark, and there is no other wording to distinguish it from the registered mark.

 

Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar.

 

SHIELD vs. SHIELD + design

 

In a likelihood of confusion determination, the marks in their entireties are compared for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression.  In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973); TMEP §1207.01(b)-(b)(v). 

 

In the present case, applicant’s mark is “SHIELD” and registrant’s mark is “SHIELD” + design.  The word portions of the 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 the marks share identical wording, 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.

 

Furthermore, for a composite mark containing both words and a design, the word portion may be more likely to indicate the origin of the goods and/or services because it is that portion of the mark that consumers use when referring to or requesting the goods and/or services.  Bond v. Taylor, 119 USPQ2d 1049, 1055 (TTAB 2016) (citing In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908, 1911 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii).  Thus, although such marks must be compared in their entireties, the word portion is often considered the dominant feature and is accorded greater weight in determining whether marks are confusingly similar.  In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d at 1366-67, 101 USPQ2d at 1911 (citing Giant Food, Inc. v. Nation’s Foodservice, Inc., 710 F.2d 1565, 1570-71, 218 USPQ2d 390, 395 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).  Thus, the word portions of the marks is identical and these marks are likely to cause confusion in the marketplace.

 

Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar. 

 

SHIELD vs. SHIELD CLASSIC

 

Applicant’s applied-for mark is “SHIELD” and registrant’s mark is “SHIELD CLASSIC”.

 

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).

 

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.

 

In the present case, both applicant’s mark and registrant’s mark share the term “SHIELD.” The sole distinction between the marks, both visually and aurally, is the addition of the disclaimed term “CLASSIC” to registrant’s mark.  The mere deletion of wording from a registered mark may not be sufficient to overcome a likelihood of confusion.  See In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 94 USPQ2d 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2010); In re Optica Int’l, 196 USPQ 775, 778 (TTAB 1977); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii).  Applicant’s mark does not create a distinct commercial impression because it contains the same common wording as the registered mark, and there is no other wording to distinguish it from the registered mark.

Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar.

 

Comparison of 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 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).

 

Comparison of Goods in International Class 025

 

In the present case, applicant’s goods are “Clothing, namely, coats, jackets, trousers, anoraks, hoods and hooded robes; hats; footwear; belts for clothing” and registrant’s goods for “SHIELD GEAR” are “men's, women's clothing, namely, fleece tops, T-shirts, sweatshirts, shorts, pants, jackets, wind resistant jackets” and registrant’s goods for “SHIELD” + design are “Clothing, namely, coveralls, overalls, trousers, jackets, bomber jackets, parkas, bib overalls and salopettes; work clothing, not included in other classes, namely, coveralls, overalls, dust coats and work trousers; footwear, namely, shoes and boots; waterproof and water-resistant clothing and footwear, not included in other classes, namely, waterproof and water-resistant coveralls, trousers, jackets, bib overalls, salopettes, bomber jackets, parkas, overalls, dust coats, work trousers, as well as waterproof and water-resistant shoes and boots; all aforementioned goods not to be used for welding purposes or related to welding technology.” 

 

Herein, both applicant and registrants share similar goods such as jackets and footwear.  Furthermore, applicant’s goods and registrants’ goods are offered in the same channels of trade under the same mark.

 

The attached Internet evidence consists of third party websites that sell items from applicant’s identification of goods, as well as, registrants’ identification of goods.  This evidence establishes that the same entity commonly provides the relevant goods and markets the goods under the same mark.  Also, the evidence shows that 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.  Therefore, applicant’s and registrant’s goods and/or services 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).

 

Accordingly, the goods of applicant and the registrant(s) are considered related for purposes of the likelihood of confusion analysis.

 

Comparison of Goods in International Class 024

In the present case, applicant’s goods are “Textile piece goods, namely, fabric for use in the manufacture of articles of clothing and sleeping bags” and registrant’s goods are “Textiles and textile goods, namely, fabrics, cotton fabrics, felt fabrics, faux suede fabrics, satin fabrics, silk fabrics, printed fabrics, woven fabrics; upholstery materials, namely, fabrics, cotton fabrics, felt fabrics, suede fabrics, satin fabrics, silk fabrics, printed fabrics, woven fabrics; materials for covering walls, namely, textile and fabric wall hangings; materials for soft furnishings, namely, textiles and fabrics for the further manufacture of soft furnishings; curtain materials of fabric and textile; fabrics for the manufacture of upholstered goods; flame retardant fabrics for the further manufacture of upholstered goods; waterproof fabrics for the further manufacture of upholstered goods; water resistant fabrics for the further manufacture of upholstered goods; laminated fabrics for the further manufacture of upholstered goods; vinyl cloth for use in the manufacture of upholstered goods; plastic substitutes for fabrics in the nature of vinyl fabric for use in the manufacture of upholstered items; upholstery fabrics; fabrics for the further manufacture of wall coverings; fabrics for furnishings; fabrics for soft furnishings; fabrics for seating areas, namely, for the further manufacture of furniture; curtain fabrics; soft furnishings, namely, curtains, cushion covers, bed sheets, duvet covers, pillow covers, bed blankets, blanket throws, lap blankets, travelling blankets, throws, coverlets; curtains; curtains of textile material; curtains made of plastics; shower curtains; door curtains in the nature of fabric curtains for separating rooms; fabric curtains for cubicles; fabric curtains for hospital cubicles; replacement parts for the aforesaid goods.”

 

Herein, both applicant and registrants offer the same textile and textile goods.  Furthermore, registrant’s broad identification of “Textiles and textile goods, namely, fabrics, cotton fabrics, felt fabrics, faux suede fabrics, satin fabrics, silk fabrics, printed fabrics, woven fabrics” encompass applicant’s goods.  Registrant’s textile goods include fabrics that coul be used in the manufacture of articles of clothing.  

 

When analyzing an applicant’s and registrant’s goods and/or services for similarity and relatedness, that determination is based on the description of the goods and/or services 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 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, 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 registration encompass the goods set forth in the application and have 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.  See Midwestern Pet Foods, Inc. v. Societe des Produits Nestle S.A., 685 F.3d 1046, 1053, 103 USPQ2d 1435, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2012).  Accordingly, the goods of applicant and the registrant(s) are considered related for purposes of the likelihood of confusion analysis. 

 

Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal(s) by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration. 

 

PRIOR-PENDING APPLICATIONS

 

The filing date of pending U.S. Application Serial No. 87172107 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.

 

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.

 

If applicant does not respond to this Office action within six months of the issue/mailing date, the following goods will be deleted from the application:  “Clothing, namely, coats, jackets, trousers, anoraks, hoods and hooded robes; hats; footwear; belts for clothing”.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.65(a); TMEP §718.02(a).  The application will then proceed with the following goods only:  Textile piece goods, namely, fabric for use in the manufacture of articles of clothing and sleeping bags.  See TMEP §718.02(a).  In such case, an applicant may timely file a petition to revive the abandoned goods, which, if granted, would allow for the reinsertion of these goods into the application.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.66; TMEP §§718.02(a), 1714.  The petition must be filed within two months of the date of issuance of the notice of abandonment and may be filed online via the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) with a $100 fee.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(15)(ii), 2.66(b)(1).

 

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.  

 

 

 

/Bridget A. Sarpu/

Bridget A. Sarpu

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 125

(571)272-3223

bridget.sarpu@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 6/16/2017 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 87376087

 

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 6/16/2017 (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.