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: 8/29/2018

 

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:

 

• Prior-filed Application Pending
• Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion (Partial Refusal)
• Identification of Goods and Services – Amendment Required
• Multiple-Class Applications Advisory
• Request for Information

 

PRIOR-FILED APPLICATION PENDING

 

The filing date of pending U.S. Application Serial No. 87636729 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.

 

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. 2144044.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registration.

 

Applicant has applied for the mark, NURAPHONE, in standard character, for the following goods and services: “Headphones and earphones for delivering audio; headphones and earphones for delivering personalized sound based on the listener's hearing; home and car audio systems for delivering audio; home and car audio systems for delivering personalized sound based the listener's hearing; headphones with combined ear-cup and ear-bud design; hearing aids; Software for electronic commerce” in International Class 9, “Services for delivering information regarding personalized audio content, namely, transmission of information regarding personalized audio content by means of telecommunications networks, wireless communication networks, and the Internet; services for delivering information regarding a listener's hearing; services for gathering information regarding a listener's hearing; services for delivering personalized audio content by means of the communication networks, wireless communication networks, and the Internet; Services for electronic commerce; Services for technical support; retail services for electronic commerce” in International Class 38, “Provision of information in the field of leisure activities, namely, consumption of audio; provision of information in the field of education, namely, consumption of audio” in International Class 41, and “Technical support services, namely, troubleshooting in the nature of diagnosing consumer electronics, headphone, earphone, and hearing aid hardware and software problems” in International Class 42.

 

The mark, NEUROPHONE, in standard character, is registered for “electronic hearing devices, namely, saccule tissue sensing hearing aids” in International Class 10.

 

Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that so resembles a registered mark that it is likely a consumer would be confused, mistaken, or deceived as to the source of the goods and/or services of the applicant and registrant(s).  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).  Determining likelihood of confusion is made on a case-by-case basis by applying 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).  In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1322, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1747 (Fed. Cir. 2017). 

 

A.    APPLICANT’S MARK IS SIMILAR TO REGISTRANT’S MARK

 

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).

 

The marks are both compound terms that feature the similar elements “NURA” and “NEURO” and the identical element “PHONE”. Marks may be confusingly similar in appearance where similar terms or phrases or similar parts of terms or phrases appear in the compared marks and create a similar overall commercial impression.  See Crocker Nat’l Bank v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 228 USPQ 689, 690-91 (TTAB 1986), aff’d sub nom. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 811 F.2d 1490, 1495, 1 USPQ2d 1813, 1817 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (finding COMMCASH and COMMUNICASH confusingly similar); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65, 66 (TTAB 1985) (finding CONFIRM and CONFIRMCELLS confusingly similar); In re Pellerin Milnor Corp., 221 USPQ 558, 560 (TTAB 1983) (finding MILTRON and MILLTRONICS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii).

 

Additionally, the first four letters in applicant’s mark, “NURA” are similar in sound to the first five letters in registrant’s mark, “NEURO”, as they both begin with the letter “N”, have a “U” sound in the middle, and a vowel sound at the end. These phonetically similar terms added to the identical term “PHONE” results in marks that are phonetically quite similar. Similarity in sound alone may be sufficient to support a finding that the marks are confusingly similar.  In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB 1988); see In re 1st USA Realty Prof’ls, Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1581, 1586 (TTAB 2007); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iv).

 

Moreover, the attached dictionary entries show the shared term “PHONE” in both marks operates as a suffix that means “sound or voice”. Thus, this wording conveys the commercial impression of something that is auditory in nature.  The meaning of the term appears to be the same as applied to applicant and registrant’s goods.

 

Accordingly, given the similarities in appearance, sound and meaning of the marks, the marks convey similar commercial impressions and, therefore, are confusingly similar.

 

B.    APPLICANT’S GOODS/SERVICES ARE RELATED TO REGISTRANT’S GOODS/SERVICES

 

The goods and/or services are compared to determine whether they are similar, commercially related, or travel in the same trade channels.  See Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369-71, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722-23 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 1165, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2002); TMEP §§1207.01, 1207.01(a)(vi).

 

The application uses broad wording to describe “hearing aids”, which presumably encompasses all goods and/or services of the type described, including registrant’s more specific “electronic hearing devices, namely, saccule tissue sensing hearing aids”.  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).  Additionally, the goods and/or services of the parties have no restrictions as to nature, type, channels of trade, or classes of purchasers and 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)). 

 

Determining likelihood of confusion is based on the description of the goods and/or services stated in the application and registration at issue, not on 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)). 

 

It should be noted that although applicant classified its hearing aids in International Class 9 and registrant’s hearing aids are properly classified in International Class 10, the determination concerning the proper classification of goods or services is a purely administrative determination unrelated to the determination of likelihood of confusion.  Jean Patou, Inc. v. Theon, Inc., 9 F.3d 971, 975, 29 USPQ2d 1771, 1774 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Nat’l Football League v. Jasper Alliance Corp., 16 USPQ2d 1212, 1216 n.5 (TTAB 1990). Moreover, as explained in the Identification of Goods and Services section below, applicant’s “hearing aids” are not properly classified as Class 9 goods and must be identified as Class 10 goods.

 

Furthermore, applicant’s hearing aid troubleshooting services, retail services, provision of information related to audio consumption and diagnostic services are related to registrant’s hearing aids, as the attached screenshot evidence from Miracle Ear, Widex and ZipHearing shows that manufacturers of hearing devices also offer troubleshooting services, retail services, provision of information related to audio consumption and diagnostic services related to those devices under the same source-identifying mark. In this regard, the goods and/or services are for use by the hearing impaired and are related.

 

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

 

Accordingly, applicant’s hearing aids and troubleshooting services for hearing aid hardware and software are related to registrant’s “saccule tissue sensing hearing aids” and the relatedness of the parties’ goods is likely to cause confusion.

 

C.    CONCLUSION – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

 

The overriding concern is not only to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods and/or services, 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).

 

Ultimately, the similarity between applicant’s and registrant’s marks and the relatedness of the parties’ goods and services are so great as to create a likelihood of confusion. It is likely that consumers would believe, mistakenly, that the goods and services come from a common source. Thus, applicant’s mark “NURAPHONE” must be refused.

 

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

 

If applicant responds to the refusal(s), applicant must also respond to the requirement(s) set forth below.

 

IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS AND SERVICES – AMENDMENT REQUIRED

 

The wording in the identification of goods and services is (1) indefinite and must be clarified, (2) overbroad because it includes goods and/or services in more than one international classification and/or (3) misclassified.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03. 

 

Specifically, the goods listed in International Class 9 include “home and car audio systems for delivering audio” and “home and car audio systems for delivering personalized sound based on the listener’s hearing,” which is indefinite and must specify the primary components of the systems. Additionally, the goods listed in International Class 9 include “hearing aids”, which are misclassified. The proper classification for “hearing aids”, which are considered medical devices, is International Class 10.

With respect to the services listed in International Class 38, “services for delivering personalized audio content by means of the communication networks, wireless communication networks, and the Internet” is indefinite and must specify what the specific services are; “services for delivering information regarding a listener's hearing” and “services for gathering information regarding a listener's hearing” is indefinite because it is unclear what the services are. If they are telecommunications services, applicant should clarify what information is being transmitted and how (e.g., communications services, namely, transmitting streamed sound and audiovisual recordings via the internet). Furthermore, “Services for electronic commerce”, “Services for technical support,” and “retail services for electronic commerce” are all indefinite and overbroad because the services are not clear and encompass services in other classes. For example, “services for electronic commerce” could include “electronic commerce services, namely providing information about products via the Internet for advertising” in International Class 35, “services for technical support” could include technical support services, namely troubleshooting of computer network problems in International Class 42, and “retail services for electronic commerce” could include “retail on-line ordering services featuring audio equipment” in International Class 35.

 

In International Class 41, “provision of information in the field of leisure activities, namely, consumption of audio” and “provision of information in the field of education, namely consumption of audio” is indefinite and should specify that the consumption of audio is an entertainment activity and specify the field.

 

Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate (applicant’s wording in original font, examiner’s suggested language in bold, additional suggestions are bracketed, in bold and italics): 

 

CLASS 9:       Headphones and earphones for delivering audio; headphones and earphones for delivering personalized sound based on the listener's hearing; home and car audio systems for delivering audio comprised of {indicate component parts of system, e.g., audio speakers and audio receivers}; home and car audio systems for delivering personalized sound based on the listener's hearing comprised of {indicate component parts of system, e.g., audio speakers and audio receivers}; headphones with combined ear-cup and ear-bud design; Software for electronic commerce

 

CLASS 10:     Hearing aids

 

CLASS 35:     Electronic commerce services, namely, providing information about products via telecommunication networks for advertising purposes; online retail store services for electronic commerce featuring {specify types of goods, e.g., headphones, earphones, hearing aids}

 

CLASS 38:     Services for delivering information regarding personalized audio content, namely, transmission of audio content by means of telecommunications networks, wireless communication networks, and the Internet; communications services for delivering information regarding a listener's hearing, namely {specify type of communications service, e.g., transmitting streamed sound and audiovisual recordings via the Internet, transmission of audio by means of the Internet}; communications services, namely {specify type of communications service, e.g., transmission of voice, audio and data by telecommunications networks, data networks, wireless communication networks and the Internet} for gathering information regarding a listener's hearing; communications services for delivering personalized audio material by means of the communication networks, wireless communication networks, and the Internet

 

CLASS 41:     Provision of information in the field of leisure activities relating to {specify field, e.g, audio production, music appreciation}; provision of information about education in the field of {specify field, e.g., music appreciation}

 

CLASS 42:     Acceptable as is.

 

 

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).

 

For assistance with identifying and classifying goods and services in trademark applications, please see the USPTO’s online searchable U.S. Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual.  See TMEP §1402.04.

 

MULTIPLE-CLASS APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS

 

The application identifies goods and/or services in more than one international class; therefore, applicant must satisfy all the requirements below for each international class based on Trademark Act Section 1(b):

 

(1)       List the goods and/or services by their international class number in consecutive numerical order, starting with the lowest numbered class.

 

(2)       Submit a filing fee for each international class not covered by the fee(s) already paid (view the USPTO’s current fee schedule).  The application identifies goods and/or services that are classified in at least six classes; however, applicant submitted fees sufficient for only four classes.  Applicant must either submit the filing fees for the classes not covered by the submitted fees or restrict the application to the number of classes covered by the fees already paid.

 

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

 

See an overview of the requirements for a Section 1(b) multiple-class application and how to satisfy the requirements online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form.

 

If applicant responds to the refusal and requirements above, applicant must also respond to the request for information below.

 

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

 

To permit proper examination of the application, applicant must submit additional information about applicant’s goods and/or services.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b); TMEP §§814, 1402.01(e).  Specifically, applicant must submit the following:

 

1.     Please explain the meaning of the following terms/phrases used in the identification of goods and/or services: “personalized sound based on the listener’s hearing”, “personalized audio content”, “consumption of audio”, “information regarding a listener’s hearing”.

 

2.     Product information about applicant’s goods, including fact sheets, instruction manuals, advertisements and promotional materials, and/or a photograph of the identified goods.  If these materials are unavailable, applicant should submit similar documentation for goods of the same type, explaining how its own product will differ.  Applicant must also describe in detail the following:

 

a.      Are any of the goods for people with hearing loss or other hearing-related difficulties?

b.     What is the nature of the goods? Please provide a detailed description of all goods.

c.      What is the purpose of the goods?

d.     What are the specific channels of trade where the goods are bought and sold?

e.      Who are the consumers of the goods?

 

3.     Information regarding applicant’s identified services, including fact sheets, brochures, and/or advertisements and promotional materials.  If these materials are unavailable, applicant should submit similar documentation for services of the same type, explaining how its own services will differ.  If the services feature new technology and no information regarding competing services is available, applicant must provide a detailed factual description of the services. Applicant must also answer the following:

 

a.      Are any of the services for people with hearing loss or other hearing-related difficulties?

b.     What is the nature of the services? Please provide a detailed description of all services and provide any related brochures or information sheets that describe the services.

c.      What is the purpose of the services?

d.     What are the specific channels of trade where the services are provided?

e.      Who are the consumers of the services?

 

Factual information about the goods must clearly indicate how they operate, their salient features, and their prospective customers and channels of trade.  Factual information about the services must clearly indicate what the services are and how they are rendered, their salient features, and their prospective customers and channels of trade.  Conclusory statements will not satisfy this requirement for information.

 

Failure to comply with a request for information is grounds for refusing registration.  In re Harley, 119 USPQ2d 1755, 1757-58 (TTAB 2016); TMEP §814.  Merely stating that information about the goods or services is available on applicant’s website is an insufficient response and will not make the relevant information of record.  See In re Planalytics, Inc., 70 USPQ2d 1453, 1457-58 (TTAB 2004).

 

CONTACT INFORMATION

 

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.

 

 

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.  

 

 

 

/Jennifer Tosh/

Trademark Attorney

Law Office 105

(571) 270-7392

jennifer.tosh@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 8/29/2018 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 87882026

 

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 8/29/2018 (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.