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: 8/21/2017

 

 

THIS IS A FINAL ACTION.

 

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.  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.  

 

This Office action responds to the applicant's communications dated 7/29/2017 where applicant:

 

• Submitted evidence consisting of an image of goods bearing the applied-for mark.

 

The examining attorney has considered the applicant's responses and determined the following:

 

1)     The examining attorney has reviewed applicant’s response, however, the response does not resolve the Section 2(d) refusal.  Therefore, the refusal under Trademark Act Section 2(d) is now made FINAL with respect to U.S. Registration No. 4327430.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b).

 

2)     In light of applicant’s “evidence” submission, the Information Requirement is obviated.  See TMEP §§713.02, 714.04.  Additionally, to the extent applicant’s submitted “evidence”, which resembles a specimen, is intended to show use of the mark in commerce, applicant is advised that it has not submitted a proper Amendment to Allege Use and has not effectively amend the filing basis of the application.  Moreover, applicant is advised the potential specimen is unacceptable because it displays goods other than the applied-for goods. 

 

FINAL:  SECTION 2(d) – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION REFUSAL

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 4327430.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registration in the initial Office action.

 

In this case, applicant has applied to register the mark “CACHE” for use in connection with “non-electric portable coolers.”

 

The mark in Registration No. 4327430 is “CAFÉ CACHE” and design used in connection with “containers for household or kitchen use.”

 

Introduction to Section 2(d) Analysis

 

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.

 

Similarity 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).

 

In addition to the reasons articulated in the initial Office action, the marks are confusingly similar for the following reasons.  Here, applicant’s mark, “CACHE”, is confusingly similar to the registered mark, “CAFÉ CACHE” and design, in sound, appearance, and meaning. Specifically, the marks sound and appear similar in that they both contain the identical term “CACHE”. When comparing marks, the test is not whether the marks can be distinguished in a side-by-side comparison, but rather whether the marks are sufficiently similar in terms of their overall commercial impression that confusion as to the source of the goods offered under the respective marks is likely to result.  Midwestern Pet Foods, Inc. v. Societe des Produits Nestle S.A., 685 F.3d 1046, 1053, 103 USPQ2d 1435, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Bay State Brewing Co., 117 USPQ2d 1958, 1960 (TTAB 2016) (quoting Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1368, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(b).  The proper focus is on the recollection of the average purchaser, who retains a general rather than specific impression of trademarks.  In re Bay State Brewing Co., 117 USPQ2d at 1960 (citing Spoons Rests. Inc. v. Morrison Inc., 23 USPQ2d 1735, 1741 (TTAB 1991), aff’d per curiam, 972 F.2d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1992)); In re C.H. Hanson Co., 116 USPQ2d 1351, 1353 (TTAB 2015) (citing Joel Gott Wines LLC v. Rehoboth Von Gott Inc., 107 USPQ2d 1424, 1430 (TTAB 2013)); TMEP §1207.01(b).  Therefore, the similarity of the mark analysis focuses on whether the marks are similar in their entireties despite the differences between the marks.

 

In this case, the marks share the same meaning and overall commercial impression.  Specifically, the term “CACHE” in the marks means “a place to conceal goods or valuable.”  See American Heritage Dictionary definition of “cache,” attached to the initial Office action.  Thus both marks leave consumers with the same overall commercial impression of something containing a hiding place for valuables.

 

Additionally, though the registered mark contains an added term and design element, these added features do not obviate the similarities of the marks.  To begin, the added term “CAFÉ” in the registered mark is descriptive of a feature of the registered goods and has therefore been disclaimed by registrant. 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).  Disclaimed matter that is descriptive of or generic for a party’s goods is typically less significant or less dominant when comparing marks.  See In re Dixie Rests., Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 1407, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533-34 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d at 1060, 224 USPQ at 752; TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii).  Therefore, the added term, “CAFÉ”, is less significant because consumers will immediately recognize that the term conveys information about the registrant’s goods, rather than viewing this term as a source-identifying term.  Consequently, consumers will focus on “CACHE” in registrant’s mark.

 

Similarly, the added design element in the registered mark does not obviate the similarities of the marks.  For a composite mark containing both words and a design, the word portion may be more likely to indicate the origin of the goods because it is that portion of the mark that consumers use when referring to or requesting the goods.  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, even where the word portion has been disclaimed.  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)).  Therefore, the word portion of the mark is dominant as the feature consumers will use when recalling the source of registrant’s goods.

 

For the reasons articulate, the marks leave consumers with the same overall commercial impression that applicant and registrant, despite the differences in the marks.  Moreover, applicant does not dispute the marks are confusingly similar in its response.  Thus, the marks are confusingly similar.

 

Relatedness 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).

 

In addition to the evidence attached in the initial office action, the parties’ goods are closely related for the following reasons.  Here, applicant’s non-electric coolers are closely related to registrant’s containers for household or kitchen use because these goods are all containers for carrying and transporting foods, and entities that manufacture food containers frequently offer the parties’ specified goods, as a complete set, in the same channels of trade and under the same mark.  See e.g.,

 

1.     http://www.qvc.com/Lock-%26-Lock-Insulated-Cooler-Bag-%26-6-Piece-Storage-Set.product.K45378.html?colorId=172&sizeId=000&ref=GAS&cm_mmc=GOOGLESHOPPINGFEED-_-GShopping|M|Generic|cooking+dining-_-pla-_-sYRAshj8E|dc_193409122207__K45378-172-000_&mkwid=sYRAshj8E|dc_pcrid_193409122207_pkw__pmt__productid_K45378-172-000_&cvosrc=pla.google.K45378-172-000&cvo_crid=193409122207&matchtype=shopping&TZ=EST (showing Lock & Lock offers non-electric coolers and household containers for carrying foods, which fit the cooler, being offered as a set under the same mark).

 

2.     http://www.amazon.com/dp/B007L3OQUE/ref=asc_df_B007L3OQUE5132743/?tag=hyprod-20&creative=395033&creativeASIN=B007L3OQUE&linkCode=df0&hvadid=198060101726&hvpos=1o1&hvnetw=g&hvrand=12109426857661666179&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9008192&hvtargid=pla-318753465119 (showing Picnic Plus offers non-electric coolers and household containers for carrying foods, which fit the cooler, being offered as a set under the same mark).

 

3.     http://www.amazon.com/dp/B01MECMXKU/ref=asc_df_B01MECMXKU5132743/?tag=hyprod-20&creative=395033&creativeASIN=B01MECMXKU&linkCode=df0&hvadid=198060101726&hvpos=1o1&hvnetw=g&hvrand=4676349248481848207&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9008192&hvtargid=pla-320312405033 (showing Fit & Fresh Jaxx offers non-electric coolers and household containers for carrying foods, which fit the cooler, being offered as a set under the same mark).

 

4.     http://www.amazon.com/ThinkFit-Insulated-Containers-Reusable-Shoulder/dp/B01HH3AMHS/ref=pd_sim_79_14?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=25WN0AEVPHMDQR8RB224 (showing ThinkFit offers non-electric coolers and household containers for carrying foods, which fit the cooler, being offered as a set under the same mark).

 

The attached evidence establishes that the parties’ respective goods frequently travel in the same channels of trade, and are offered to the same class of class of consumers in the same field of use.  Additionally, the evidence demonstrates that consumers are accustomed to seeing businesses offer coolers and household containers for those coolers, as a set, under the same mark.  As a result, consumers encountering applicant’s and registrant’s respective goods at the same time are likely to mistakenly presume the goods originate from the same source because of the relationship between the goods.  Consequently, applicant’s and registrant’s respective goods are closely related under the likelihood of confusion analysis.

 

The trademark examining attorney has attached evidence from the USPTO’s X-Search database consisting of a number of third-party marks registered for use in connection with the same or similar goods as those of both applicant and registrant in this case.  This evidence shows that the goods listed therein, namely containers for household or kitchen use and non-electric coolers, are of a kind that may emanate from a single source under a single mark.  See In re Aquamar, Inc., 115 USPQ2d 1122, 1126 n.5 (TTAB 2015) (citing In re Mucky Duck Mustard Co., 6 USPQ2d 1467, 1470 n.6 (TTAB 1988)); In re Albert Trostel & Sons Co.,29 USPQ2d 1783, 1785-86 (TTAB 1993); TMEP §1207.01(d)(iii).

 

See Registration Nos. 5260700, 5259922, 5250624, 5245531, 5232450, 5170226, 5199250, and 5190612.

 

This evidence establishes 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.  Accordingly, 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).]

 

Applicant does not dispute the goods are closely related in its response.  Rather, applicant has submitted evidence consisting of an image of the intended goods.  To the extent applicant’s evidence is intended to show that dry bags and registrant’s household containers are not closely related, applicant’s evidence is unconvincing.  See http://www.rei.com/c/dry-bags?r=c&origin=web&ir=category%3Adry-bags&page=1&fx=stores%3Anull.  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)).  Therefore, applicant’s evidence showing use of the mark in connection with dry bags does not show the applied-for goods are unrelated to registrants goods because the applied-for goods in this case is identified as non-electric portable coolers and not the displayed dry bags shown in applicant’s evidence.  Moreover, the evidence of record clearly establishes that these goods frequently travel in the same channels of trade as registrant’s goods under the same mark such that consumers are likely to encounter the parties’ goods under conditions where they are likely to confuse the source of the goods.

 

For these reasons, the goods are closely related.

 

Conclusion

 

The trademark examining attorney has established that the marks are confusingly similar, and the goods closely related under Section 2(d).  In the situation of a potential likelihood of confusion between an applied-for mark and registered mark, the overriding concern is not only to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods, but to protect the registrant from adverse commercial impact due to use of a similar mark by a newcomer.  See In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1208, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1690 (Fed. Cir. 1993).  Therefore, any doubt regarding a likelihood of confusion determination is resolved in favor of the registrant.  TMEP §1207.01(d)(i); see Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1265, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2002); In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 464-65, 6 USPQ2d 1025, 1026 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

 

Consequently, because of a likelihood of confusion caused by similar marks and related goods, the refusal to register the applicant’s mark under Trademark Act Section 2(d) is maintained and made FINAL.

 

ADVISORY:  APPLICANT DID NOT FILE AN ACCEPTABLE ALLEGATION OF USE AND HAS NOT AMENDED THE FILING BASIS OF THE APPLICATION

 

To the extent applicant’s evidence was submitted intended to show use of the mark in connection with goods, applicant is advised that it cannot amend the filing basis of the application from a 1(b) intent-to-use application to a 1(a) use-in-commerce filing basis without submitting a proper Amendment to Allege Use.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.35(b)(8); TMEP §806.03(e). 

 

An applicant may amend an application from intent to use to use in commerce only by filing an allegation of use, which has various legal requirements including providing verified dates of first use of the mark, a verified statement that the mark is in use in commerce, a specimen showing actual use of the mark in commerce for each international class, and a fee.  37 C.F.R. §2.35(b)(8); TMEP §806.01(b); see 37 C.F.R. §§2.76, 2.88.  In addition, certain time restrictions apply to filing allegations of use.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.76(a), 2.88(a); TMEP §§1104.03, 1109.04. 

 

For more information about an allegation of use and requirements for filing either an amendment to allege use or statement of use, please go to the Intent-to-Use Applications webpage.  Allegations of use may be filed online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) “Statement of Use/Amendment to Allege Use for Intent-to-Use Application,” form number one (1), located under Intent to Use Forms.

 

            Specimen does not show use of the mark in connection with the applied-for goods

 

Additionally, applicant is advised that to the extent applicant intends to submit the image provided as “evidence” as a specimen, the specimen would be unacceptable because it does not show the applied-for mark in use in commerce in connection with any of the goods specified in International Class 21in the application.  Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); In re Graystone Consulting Assocs., Inc., 115 USPQ2d 2035, 2037-38 (TTAB 2015); In re Chengdu AOBI Info. Tech. Co., 111 USPQ2d 2080, 2081-82 (TTAB 2011); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a), 1301.04(d), (g)(i).  Specifically, the goods pictured in the submitted “evidence” appears to be display “dry bags” in Class 18 for bags designed to carry a wide variety of goods.  See REI website evidence showing images of “dry bags,” attached supra. Therefore, to the extent applicant intends to submit the image provided as “evidence” as a specimen showing use of the mark in connection with the applied-for goods.  The specimen would be unacceptable.

 

Examples of specimens for goods include tags, labels, instruction manuals, containers, photographs that show the mark on the actual goods or packaging, and displays associated with the actual goods at their point of sale.  See TMEP §§904.03 et seq.  Webpages may also be specimens for goods when they include a picture or textual description of the goods associated with the mark and the means to order the goods.  TMEP §904.03(i). 

 

RESPONSE GUIDELINES

 

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 filed using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) that fully satisfies all outstanding requirements and/or resolves all outstanding refusals; and/or

 

(2)       an appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board filed using the Electronic System for Trademark Trials and Appeals (ESTTA) with the required filing fee of $200 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).  There is a fee required for filing a petition.  37 C.F.R. §2.6(a)(15).

 

ASSISTANCE

 

If applicant has questions regarding this Office action, please telephone or e-mail the assigned trademark examining attorney. 

 

 

/Tiffany Y. Chiang/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 113

(571) 272-7681

tiffany.chiang@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 8/21/2017 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 87405252

 

Your trademark application has been reviewed.  The trademark examining attorney assigned by the USPTO to your application has written an official letter to which you must respond.  Please follow these steps:

 

(1)  Read the LETTER by clicking on this link or going to http://tsdr.gov.uspto.report/, entering your U.S. application serial number, and clicking 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)  Respond within 6 months (or sooner if specified in the Office action), calculated from 8/21/2017, using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) response form located at http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp.  A response transmitted through TEAS must be received before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period.

 

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. 

 

(3)  Questions about the contents of the Office action itself should be directed to the trademark examining attorney who reviewed your application, identified below. 

 

/Tiffany Y. Chiang/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 113

(571) 272-7681

tiffany.chiang@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.