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: 6/7/2018

 

 

 

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.  

 

Introduction

 

This Office action is in response to applicant’s communication of May 16, 2018. The assigned trademark examining attorney inadvertently omitted a requirement relevant to the mark in the subject application.  See TMEP §§706, 711.02.  Specifically, the identification of services and owner name information require clarification.  The trademark examining attorney apologizes for any inconvenience caused by the delay in raising this issue.  Additionally, some issues that were raised in the previous Office action remain unresolved.

 

In a previous Office action dated May 9, 2018, the trademark examining attorney refused registration of the applied-for mark based on Trademark Act Section 2(d) for a likelihood of confusion with multiple registered marks, and failure to show the applied-for mark in use in commerce with any of the specified services.  In response, applicant amended its identification of goods and submitted what appears to be an unverified substitute specimen.

 

Based on applicant’s response, the trademark examining attorney notes that likelihood of confusion refusals against the following U.S. Registrations have been obviated: 

 

• U.S. Reg. No. 3838744 for AXIOM FINANCIAL STRATEGIES GROUP
• U.S. Reg. No. 4513284 for AXIOM HOME LOANS owned by Axiom Financial, LLC
• U.S. Reg. No. 4513283 for AXIOM FINANCIAL owned by Axiom Financial, LLC

 

See TMEP §713.02. 

 

However, the likelihood of confusion refusals against the following U.S. Registrations are maintained and continued:

 

• U.S. Reg. No. 4526188 for AXIOM owned by Axiom Bancshares
• U.S. Reg. No. 4526203 for CREDIT AXIOM owned by Axiom Bancshares
• U.S. Reg. No. 5408439 for AXIOMGO owned by Axiom Bancshares

 

In addition, while applicant’s substitute specimen is acceptable, it is unverified.  Until applicant submits a verified substitute specimen, the original specimen refusal is maintained and continued. 

 

The following is a SUMMARY OF ISSUES that applicant must address:

 

• NEW ISSUE:  Identification of Services Requires Amendment
• NEW ISSUE: Owner Name Clarification Required
• MAINTAINED & CONTINUED:  Section 2(d) Likelihood of Confusion with U.S. Reg. Nos. 4526188, 4526203, and 5408439
• MAINTAINED & CONTINUED: Registration Refusal – Specimen Unacceptable

 

 

Identification of Services Requires Amendment

 

The identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified because it is unclear how virtual currency for use by members of an on-line community is a financial security.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.  Applicant may adopt the following identification, if accurate (added language in bold; deleted language struck; requests for further information in bold and italicized): 

 

Class 36:         Financial services security, namely, providing a virtual currency for use by members of an on-line community via a global computer network

 

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 may amend the identification to clarify or limit the goods and/or services, but not to broaden or expand the goods and/or services 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 and/or services may not later be reinserted.  See TMEP §1402.07(e).

 

 

NEW ISSUE: Owner Name Clarification Required

 

Applicant has listed its owner name as “Axiom Faundation.”  If “Faundation” is a misspelling and applicant’s correct name is “Axiom Foundation”, applicant must correct its name information to reflect the actual spelling of its corporation name.

 

 

MAINTAINED & CONTINUED: Section 2(d) Likelihood of Confusion with U.S. Reg. Nos. 4526188, 4526203, and 5408439

 

While applicant has restricted its services to virtual currency services, virtual currency is still closely related to the banking services offered in U.S. Reg. Nos. 4526188, 4526203, and 5408439.  The examining attorney has attached three articles discussing banks that are launching their own digital currencies and digital currency services.  Thus, the marks are still susceptible to consumer confusion and the Section 2(d) refusal with respect to these registrations is maintained and continued.

 

 

MAINTAINED & CONTINUED: Registration Refusal – Specimen Unacceptable

 

In the previous Office action, Applicant was refused registration and required to submit a verified substitute specimen to show use of the applied-for mark in commerce because the original specimen was merely a rendering of the mark.  An application based on Trademark Act Section 1(a) must include a specimen showing the applied-for mark in use in commerce for each international class of goods and/or services identified in the application or amendment to allege use.  15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a), 2.76(b)(2); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a). 

 

In response to each refused international class, applicant provided a substitute specimen that appears to show use of the applied-for mark in commerce but is not verified.  The USPTO does not accept materials submitted as specimens without proper verification.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1), 2.59(a)-(b)(1), 2.76(b)(2); In re Adair, 45 USPQ2d 1211, 1212 n.2 (TTAB 1997).   

 

Examples of specimens for services include advertising and marketing materials, brochures, photographs of business signage and billboards, and webpages that show the mark used in the actual sale, rendering, or advertising of the services.  See TMEP §1301.04(a), (h)(iv)(C).  Specimens comprising advertising and promotional materials must show a direct association between the mark and the services.  TMEP §1301.04(f)(ii).

 

Applicant may resolve this issue by satisfying one of the following for each applicable international class: 

 

(1)       Submit a verification of the previously submitted substitute specimen, attesting that it was in actual use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application or prior to the filing of an amendment to allege use.  A “verified substitute specimen” is a specimen that is accompanied by the following statement made in a signed affidavit or supported by a declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20:  “The substitute (or new, or originally submitted, if appropriate) specimen(s) was/were in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application or prior to the filing of the amendment to allege use.”  The substitute specimen cannot be accepted without this statement.

 

(2)       Submit a different and properly verified specimen (a verified “substitute” specimen) that (a) was in actual use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application or prior to the filing of an amendment to allege use and (b) shows the mark in actual use in commerce for the goods and/or services identified in the application or amendment to allege use.  The substitute specimen cannot be accepted without the verified statement referenced in (1).

 

(3)       Amend the filing basis to intent to use under Section 1(b), for which no specimen is required.  This option will later necessitate additional fee(s) and filing requirements such as providing a specimen.

 

For an overview of all the response options referenced above and instructions on how to satisfy these options online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, please go to http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/law/specimen.jsp.

 

Therefore, at this time the specimen refusal is maintained and continued.

 

 

Applicant May Wish to Seek Trademark Counsel

 

Because of the legal technicalities and strict deadlines involved in the USPTO application process, applicant may wish to hire a private attorney specializing in trademark matters to represent applicant in this process and provide legal advice.  Although the undersigned trademark examining attorney is permitted to help an applicant understand the contents of an Office action as well as the application process in general, no USPTO attorney or staff is permitted to give an applicant legal advice or statements about an applicant’s legal rights.  TMEP §§705.02, 709.06. 

 

For attorney referral information, applicant may consult the American Bar Association’s Consumers’ Guide to Legal Help; an online directory of legal professionals, such as FindLaw®; or a local telephone directory.  The USPTO, however, may not assist an applicant in the selection of a private attorney.  37 C.F.R. §2.11.

 

 

Response Guidelines

 

Proposed rulemaking

 

The USPTO proposes to change federal trademark rules to require applicants and registrants to (1) file submissions concerning applications and registrations online using the USPTO’s Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) and (2) provide and maintain an accurate email address for receiving correspondence from the USPTO.  See the Mandatory Electronic Filing Rules webpage for more information.

 

Responding to this Office action

 

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(a)(1), (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(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.

Dinisha Fernando Nitkin

/dfn/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 110

(571) 272-0212

dinisha.nitkin@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 6/7/2018 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 87861933

 

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 6/7/2018, 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. 

 

Dinisha Fernando Nitkin

/dfn/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 110

(571) 272-0212

dinisha.nitkin@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.