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: 7/1/2017

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
• Section 2(d) Advisory: Ownership of Cited Registration
• Section 2(d) Advisory – Prior-Filed Application
• Section 2(d) Advisory – Ownership of Prior-Filed Application
• Identification Requirement
• Signature Requirement

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 No. 3161895.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registration.

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.

Applicant’s applied-for mark is: “RADEON INSTINCT” for “Semiconductor devices, semiconductor chips, semiconductors, computer hardware, computer software, computer servers, computer workstations, microprocessors, microprocessor modules, microprocessor subsystems, computer hardware subsystems, computer subsystems, graphics processors, accelerated processors; graphics cards; video cards; computer software; graphics software, video game software, processor software, servers, volatile memory and dynamic random-access memory, multimedia accelerator boards, video graphics accelerator, computer accelerator board, graphics accelerators, video servers, digital media streaming devices.”

This application is owned by: ATI Technologies ULC, a Canadian Unlimited Liability Corporation, AND by Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., a Delaware corporation.

The cited registered mark is Reg. No. 3161895: “RADEON” for “Integrated circuits, namely, graphics, video and multimedia integrated circuits; integrated circuit chip sets; Cards containing integrated circuits.”

This registrations is owned by: ATI Technologies ULC, a Canadian Unlimited Liability Corporation.

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).

Applicant’s mark is “RADEON INSTINCT”.

Registrant’s mark is “RADEON”.

The applicant’s mark is confusingly similar to the registered mark because it keep the entire registered mark as the dominant term in the applied-for mark and simply adds additional matter.

Applicant’s mark begins with “RADEON”, making this the dominant element in the applicant’s 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).

Applicant has merely added additional wording to the registrant’s mark, which is insufficient to obviate the similarity between the marks. Adding a term to a registered mark generally does not obviate the similarity between the compared marks, as in the present case, nor does it overcome a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d).  See Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Jos. E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 526 F.2d 556, 557, 188 USPQ 105, 106 (C.C.P.A. 1975) (finding BENGAL and BENGAL LANCER and design confusingly similar); In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d 1266, 1269 (TTAB 2009) (finding TITAN and VANTAGE TITAN confusingly similar); In re El Torito Rests., Inc., 9 USPQ2d 2002, 2004 (TTAB 1988) (finding MACHO and MACHO COMBOS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iii).  In the present case, the marks are identical in part.

The registrant’s mark is still entirely incorporated in the applicant’s mark. Incorporating the entirety of one mark within another does not obviate the similarity between the compared marks, as in the present case, nor does it overcome a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d).  See Wella Corp. v. Cal. Concept Corp., 558 F.2d 1019, 1022, 194 USPQ 419, 422 (C.C.P.A. 1977) (finding CALIFORNIA CONCEPT and surfer design and CONCEPT confusingly similar); Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Jos. E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 526 F.2d 556, 557, 188 USPQ 105, 106 (C.C.P.A. 1975) (finding BENGAL LANCER and design and BENGAL confusingly similar); In re Integrated Embedded, 120 USPQ2d 1504, 1513 (TTAB 2016) (finding BARR GROUP and BARR confusingly similar); In re Mr. Recipe, LLC, 118 USPQ2d 1084, 1090 (TTAB 2016) (finding JAWS DEVOUR YOUR HUNGER and JAWS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iii).  In the present case, the marks are identical in part.

Based on the foregoing, the applicant’s applied-for and registrant’s marks are sufficiently similar to find a likelihood of confusion.

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).

Applicant’s mark is for “Semiconductor devices, semiconductor chips, semiconductors, computer hardware, computer software, computer servers, computer workstations, microprocessors, microprocessor modules, microprocessor subsystems, computer hardware subsystems, computer subsystems, graphics processors, accelerated processors; graphics cards; video cards; computer software; graphics software, video game software, processor software, servers, volatile memory and dynamic random-access memory, multimedia accelerator boards, video graphics accelerator, computer accelerator board, graphics accelerators, video servers, digital media streaming devices.”

Registrant’s mark is for “Integrated circuits, namely, graphics, video and multimedia integrated circuits; integrated circuit chip sets; Cards containing integrated circuits.”

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 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 identifications set forth in the application and registration 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.  Further, the application uses broad wording to describe the goods and this wording is presumed to encompass all goods of the type described, including those in registrant’s more narrow identification.

Based on the analysis above, applicant’s and registrant’s goods are related.

Conclusion

Because applicant’s and registrant’s marks are similar and the goods are related, there is a likelihood of confusion and applicant’s applied-for mark must be refused under Section 2(d) of the Lanham Act.

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 Identification Requirement set forth below.

Applicant should also note the advisory below regarding how to proceed if applicant in fact has ownership of the cited registration.

ADVISORY: OWNERSHIP OF CITED REGISTRATION  

If the mark in the cited registration has been assigned to applicant, applicant may provide evidence of ownership of the mark 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 U.S. Registration No. 3161895.”  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, find “Active Prior Registration(s)” and insert the U.S. registration numbers in the data fields; 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).

Section 2(d) Advisory – Prior-Filed Application

The filing date of pending U.S. Applications Serial Nos. 87393557, 87450588, and 87450605 precedes applicant’s filing date.  See attached referenced applications.  If the marks in the referenced applications registers, applicant’s mark may be refused registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d) because of a likelihood of confusion between the 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.

This application is owned by: ATI Technologies ULC, a Canadian Unlimited Liability Corporation, AND by Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., a Delaware Corporation.

The cited application is owned by: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., a Delaware Corporation.

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.

Applicant should note the advisory below about how to proceed if applicant owns the cited applications.

Section 2(d) Advisory – Ownership of Prior-Filed Application

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. 87393557, 87450588, and 87450605.”  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. 87393557, 87450588, and 87450605,” inserting the relevant application serial numbers; 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).

Applicant should also note the requirements below.

IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENT

The identification of goods is indefinite.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.

Applicant’s applied-for mark is “RADEON INSTINCT”, with the follow goods identified:

“Semiconductor devices, semiconductor chips, semiconductors, computer hardware, computer software, computer servers, computer workstations, microprocessors, microprocessor modules, microprocessor subsystems, computer hardware subsystems, computer subsystems, graphics processors, accelerated processors; graphics cards; video cards; computer software; graphics software, video game software, processor software, servers, volatile memory and dynamic random-access memory, multimedia accelerator boards, video graphics accelerator, computer accelerator board, graphics accelerators, video servers, digital media streaming devices.”

An application must specify, in an explicit manner, “the particular goods on or in connection with which the applicant uses, or has a bona fide intention to use, the mark in commerce.”  TMEP §1402.01; see 15 U.S.C. §1051(a)(2), (b)(2); 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6).  Therefore, proper punctuation in identifications of goods is necessary to delineate explicitly each product or service within a list and to avoid ambiguity.  Commas, semicolons, and apostrophes are the only punctuation that should be used in an identification of goods.  TMEP §1402.01(a).  An applicant should not use colons and periods in an identification.  Id. 

In general, commas should be used in an identification (1) to separate a series of related items identified within a particular category of goods or services, (2) before and after “namely,” and (3) between each item in a list of goods or services following “namely” (e.g., personal care products, namely, body lotion, non-medicated hand soap, shampoo).  TMEP §1402.01(a).  Semicolons generally should be used to separate a series of distinct categories of goods or services within an international class (e.g., personal care products, namely, body lotion; deodorizers for pets; glass cleaners).  Id. 

The identification of goods in International Class 9 includes a duplicate entry of the wording “computer software” and clarification is required.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.01(a).  Applicant may either (1) modify one of these two identical descriptions of goods such that it will no longer be duplicative, or (2) delete one entry.  See TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.01(a).  If modifying one of the duplicate identifications, applicant may amend it 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.  Also, generally, any deleted goods may not later be reinserted.  TMEP §1402.07(e). The suggestion below simply deletes the duplicate entry.

Further, the identification for “computer software” is indefinite. The identification for software in International Class 9 is indefinite and must be clarified by amending to specify the purpose or function of the software.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.03(d).  If the software is content- or field-specific, applicant must also specify its content or field of use.  See TMEP §1402.03(d).  The USPTO requires such specificity in identifying computer software in order for a trademark examining attorney to examine the application properly and make appropriate decisions concerning possible conflicts between the applicant’s mark and other marks.  See In re N.A.D. Inc., 57 USPQ2d 1872, 1874 (TTAB 2000); TMEP §1402.03(d). The following are examples of acceptable identifications for software in International Class 9:  “downloadable mobile applications for managing bank accounts,” “desktop publishing software,” “tax preparation software.”

The wording “computer workstations” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified because applicant must specify what class 9 goods are included in these workstations.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01. 

The wording “accelerated processors” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified because applicant must specify what type of accelerated processors these are, such as video, or data.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01. 

The wording “video cards” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified because the nature of these goods is unclear.  Applicant may state that these are “video display cards” and/or “video capture cards.” See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01. 

The wording “servers” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified because applicant must specify what type of class 9 servers applicant is referring to, such as “network servers.”  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01. 

The wording “volatile memory” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified because the nature of the goods are unclear. It appears that these are a type of computer memory devices. In this case, applicant should clarify that these are “computer memory devices, namely, volatile memory devices.” See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01. 

If accurate, applicant may adopt the following identification and associated classifications, which accounts for all the necessary revisions as discussed above. Note the changes, which are demarcated   by   underlined font:  

“Semiconductor devices; semiconductor chips; semiconductors; computer hardware; computer software for {specify function or purpose}; computer servers; computer workstations, comprising {specify major computer hardware components}; microprocessors; microprocessor modules; microprocessor subsystems; computer hardware subsystems; computer subsystems; graphics processors; accelerated data processors; graphics cards; video cards, namely, video display cards and video capture cards; graphics software; video game software; processor software; network servers; computer memory devices, namely, volatile memory devices; dynamic random-access memory; multimedia accelerator boards; video graphics accelerator; computer accelerator board; graphics accelerators; video servers; digital media streaming devices.”

Applicant’s goods may be clarified or limited, but may not be expanded beyond those originally itemized in the application or as acceptably amended.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06.  Applicant may clarify or limit the identification by inserting qualifying language or deleting items to result in a more specific identification; however, applicant may not substitute different goods or add goods not found or encompassed by those in the original application or as acceptably amended.  See TMEP §1402.06(a)-(b).  The scope of the goods sets the outer limit for any changes to the identification and is generally determined by the ordinary meaning of the wording in the identification.  TMEP §§1402.06(b), 1402.07(a)-(b).  Any acceptable changes to the goods will further limit scope, and once goods are deleted, they are not permitted to be reinserted.  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.

Applicant should note the additional requirement below.

SIGNATURE REQUIREMENT

The application was unsigned, resulting in the application not being properly verified.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.2(n), 2.33(a)-(b), 2.34(a)(1)(i), (a)(2), (a)(3)(i), (a)(4)(ii), 2.193(e)(1).  Applicant must properly sign and therefore verify the application in an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20.  37 C.F.R. §§2.2(n), 2.33(a)-(b), 2.34(a)(1)(i), (a)(2), (a)(3)(i), (a)(4)(ii), 2.193(e)(1); TMEP §804.02.

To respond to this requirement online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) response Office action form, answer “yes” to the TEAS response form wizard question #10, and follow the instructions within the form for signing.  The TEAS online form will require two signatures:  one in the “Declaration Signature” section and one in the “Response Signature” section.  For more information about a signed declaration and required verified statement and how to provide them using TEAS, please go to http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademark/laws-regulations/verified-statement.

RESPONSE AND ASSISTANCE

For this application to proceed further, applicant must explicitly address each refusal and/or requirement raised in this Office action.  If the action includes a refusal, applicant may provide arguments and/or evidence as to why the refusal should be withdrawn and the mark should register.  Applicant may also have other options specified in this Office action for responding to a refusal and should consider those options carefully.  To respond to requirements and certain refusal response options, applicant should set forth in writing the required changes or statements.  For more information and general tips on responding to USPTO Office actions, response options, and how to file a response online, see “Responding to Office Actions” on the USPTO’s website.

If applicant does not respond to this Office action within six months of the issue/mailing date, or responds by expressly abandoning the application, the application process will end and the trademark will fail to register.  See 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.65(a), 2.68(a); TMEP §§718.01, 718.02.  Additionally, the USPTO will not refund the application filing fee, which is a required processing fee.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(1)(i)-(iv), 2.209(a); TMEP §405.04.

When an application has abandoned for failure to respond to an Office action, an applicant may timely file a petition to revive the application, which, if granted, would allow the application to return to active status.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.66; TMEP §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).

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 and requirements 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.  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.  

/Kimberly M. Ray/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 122

(571) 272-7834

Kimberly.Ray@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 7/1/2017 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 87456175

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 7/1/2017 (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.