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: 10/3/2018

 

 

 

 

INTRODUCTION

 

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:

·         Advisory: Prior-filed Applications

·         Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion

·         Section 2(e)(1) Refusal – Merely Descriptive

 

ADVISORY: PRIOR-FILED APPLICATIONS

 

The filing dates of pending U.S. Application Serial Nos. 79151197, 87041764, 87499246, 87511391, and 87724877 precede applicant’s filing date.  See attached referenced applications.  If one or more of the marks in the referenced applications register, applicant’s mark may be refused registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d) because of a likelihood of confusion with the registered mark(s).  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.

 

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.

 

SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION – PARTIAL REFUSAL AS TO SPECIFIED CLASSES ONLY

 

The stated refusal applies to Classes 32 and 33 only and does not bar registration in the other classes.

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 1483750, 2393573, 2881734, and 4450260. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registration.

 

Applicant’s mark is CREAM for:

•  “Aerated mineral waters; Beer; Beer, ale, lager, stout and porter; Beer-based cocktails; Energy drinks; Flavored beers; Flavored waters; Fruit drinks and juices; Mineral water; Non-alcoholic beer; Soft drinks; Water beverages” in International Class 32;
• “Herb liqueurs; Alcoholic beverages, except beer; Alcoholic cocktails containing milk; Alcoholic fruit beverages; Blended spirits; Distilled spirits; Potable spirits; Prepared alcoholic cocktail; Spirits and liqueurs; Whiskey spirits; Wines and fortified wines” in International Class 33;

 

The cited registrations are:

1. Registration No. 1483750, CREME DREAMS for “soft drinks for consumption on or off premises” in International Class 32;
2. Registration No. 2393573, LA CREMA for “wines” in International Class 33;
3. Registration No. 2881734, CASK & CREAM for “brandy” in International Class 33; and
4. Registration No. 4450260, CASK & CREAM for “distilled spirits” in International Class 33.

 

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 of the applicant and registrant.  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 this case, the relevant factors are the similarity of the marks, the similarity of the goods, and the similarity of the channels of trade and classes of consumers of those goods.

 

Similarity of the Marks

 

In a likelihood of confusion determination, the marks in their entireties are compared for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression.  In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1323, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2017); 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)); In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973); TMEP §1207.01(b)-(b)(v). 

                                                                                           

In the present case, applicant’s mark is CREAM. The cited marks are the following:

 

• CREME DREAMS in Reg. No. 1483750;
• LA CREMA, in Reg. No. 2393573; and
• CASK & CREAM, in Reg. Nos. 2881734 and 4450260.

 

Applicant’s mark CREAM, or its foreign equivalent, is encompassed wholly within the cited registrations. As such, the marks share similar meanings, sounds, and commercial impressions.

 

1. CREME DREAMS, Reg. No. 1483750

 

In regard to the mark CREME DREAMS in Registration No. 1483750, which features the terms “CREME” rather than “CREAM”, the attached evidence from Collins English Dictionary shows that the word “creme” means “cream.” Further, these terms are phonetic equivalents.  Although the cited mark contains the additional term “DREAMS”, 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, 120 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). Thus, in this case, where applicant’s mark is CREAM and the dominant feature of registrant’s mark is “CREME,” there is a likelihood of confusion.

 

2. CASK & CREAM, Reg. Nos. 2881734 and 4450260

 

In regard to the CASK & CREAM marks in Registration Nos. 2881734 and 4450260, while the cited marks contain additional wording—namely, “CASK &”— these differences do not obviate a likelihood of source confusion. Although applicant’s mark does not contain the entirety of the registered marks, applicant’s mark is likely to appear to prospective purchasers as a shortened form of registrants’ marks.  See In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 1348, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting United States Shoe Corp., 229 USPQ707, 709 (TTAB 1985)).  Thus, merely omitting some of the wording from a registered mark may not overcome a likelihood of confusion.  See In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 94 USPQ2d 1257; In re Optica Int’l, 196 USPQ 775, 778 (TTAB 1977); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii). Additionally, CREAM is the dominant feature of registrant’s mark. 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).   Matter that is descriptive of or generic for a party’s goods and/or services 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). The attached evidence shows that brandy can be cask-aged; therefore cask is descriptive of a feature of registrant’s goods and as such, is afforded less weight in the comparison analysis. Thus, there is a likelihood of confusion between applicant’s and registrant’s marks because (i) CREAM is the dominant and source-indicating feature of registrant’s mark, and (ii), applicant’s mark does not create a distinct commercial impression from the registered mark, as it contains some of the wording in the registered mark and does not add any wording that would distinguish it from that mark.

 

3. LA CREMA, Reg. No. 2393573

 

In regard to the mark in Registration No. 2393573, which features the terms "LA CREMA" rather than "cream," the registrant’s mark is the foreign equivalent of the applied-for mark, CREAM. The attached evidence from Collins Spanish to English Dictionary shows that “CREMA” is Spanish for “CREAM” and “LA” is Spanish for “the”. Under the doctrine of foreign equivalents, a mark in a common, modern foreign language and a mark that is its English equivalent may be held confusingly similar.  TMEP §1207.01(b)(vi); see, e.g., In re Aquamar, Inc., 115 USPQ2d 1122, 1127-28 (TTAB 2015); In re Thomas, 79 USPQ2d 1021, 1025 (TTAB 2006).  Consequently, marks comprised of foreign wording are translated into English to determine similarity in meaning and connotation with English word marks.  See Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee en 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1377, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1696 (Fed. Cir. 2005).  Equivalence in meaning and connotation may be sufficient to find such marks confusingly similar.  See In re Aquamar, Inc., 115 USPQ2d at 1127-28; In re Thomas, 79 USPQ2d at 1025.

 

The doctrine is applied when “the ordinary American purchaser” would “stop and translate” the foreign term into its English equivalent.  Palm Bay, 396 F.3d at 1377, 73 USPQ2d at 1696 (quoting In re Pan Tex Hotel Corp., 190 USPQ 109, 110 (TTAB 1976)); TMEP §1207.01(b)(vi)(A).  The ordinary American purchaser includes those proficient in the foreign language.  In re Spirits Int’l, N.V., 563 F.3d 1347, 1352, 90 USPQ2d 1489, 1492 (Fed. Cir. 2009); see In re Thomas, 79 USPQ2d at 1024.

 

In this case, the ordinary American purchaser would likely stop and translate the mark because the Spanish language is a common, modern language spoken by an appreciable number of consumers in the United States.  See In re Aquamar, Inc., 115 USPQ2d 1122.

 

Here the term “LA” in registrant’s mark does not distinguish applicant’s mark from registrant’s mark because “[t]he addition of the word ‘The’ at the beginning of the registered mark does not have any trademark significance.”); In re Narwood Prods. Inc., 223 USPQ 1034, 1034 (TTAB 1984) (finding THE MUSIC MAKERS and MUSIC-MAKERS “virtually identical” marks; the inclusion of the definite article “the” is “insignificant in determining likelihood of confusion”).

 

Thus, the terms “LA CREMA” and "CREAM” are equivalent in meaning and are therefore confusingly similar.

 

Thus, for the reasons set forth above, the applicant's mark is confusingly similar to the cited registered marks.

 

Relatedness of the Goods

 

In a likelihood of confusion determination, the goods 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).

 

Determining likelihood of confusion is based on the description of the goods and/or services stated in the application and registration at issue.  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)). 

 

Applicant’s goods are:

• “Aerated mineral waters; Beer; Beer, ale, lager, stout and porter; Beer-based cocktails; Energy drinks; Flavored beers; Flavored waters; Fruit drinks and juices; Mineral water; Non-alcoholic beer; Soft drinks; Water beverages”;
• “Herb liqueurs; Alcoholic beverages, except beer; Alcoholic cocktails containing milk; Alcoholic fruit beverages; Blended spirits; Distilled spirits; Potable spirits; Prepared alcoholic cocktail; Spirits and liqueurs; Whiskey spirits; Wines and fortified wines”;

 

Registrant’s goods are:

• Registration No. 1483750, CREME DREAMS for “soft drinks for consumption on or off premises”;
• Registration No. 2393573, LA CREMA for “wines;”
• Registration No. 2881734, CASK & CREAM for “brandy;” and
• Registration No. 4450260, CASK & CREAM for “distilled spirits.”

 

Absent restrictions in an application and/or registration, the identified goods and/or services are presumed to travel in the same channels of trade to the same class of purchasers.  In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1268, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).  Additionally, unrestricted and broad identifications are presumed to encompass all goods and/or services of the type described.  See, e.g., Sw. Mgmt., Inc. v. Ocinomled, Ltd., 115 USPQ2d 1007, 1025 (TTAB 2015); In re N.A.D., Inc., 57 USPQ2d 1872, 1874 (TTAB 2000). 

 

Applicant's goods, identified as soft drinks, wine, and distilled spirits are identical to the registrants’ goods, identified as soft drinks for the consumption on or off premises, wines, and distilled spirits. These goods, as identified in the application and registrations, have no restrictions as to nature, type, channels of trade, or classes of purchasers; therefore, it is presumed that these goods travel in all normal channels of trade, and are available to the same class of purchasers.  See Midwestern Pet Foods, Inc. v. Societe des Produits Nestle S.A., 685 F.3d 1046, 1053, 103 USPQ2d 1435, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2012). 

 

Further, the application uses broad wording to describe distilled spirits; potable spirits” and “spirits and liqueurs, which presumably encompasses all goods and/or services of the type described, including registrants’ more narrow “brandy.” See attached evidence from Fine Wine and Good Spirits showing brandy is a spirit distilled from fruit that can be imbibed straight up or mixed in a cocktail.  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 regard to the other goods identified in the application that are not identical to those identified in the cited registrations, the compared goods 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); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i). They need only be “related in some manner and/or if the circumstances surrounding their marketing are such that they could give rise to the mistaken belief that [the goods and/or services] emanate from the same source.”  Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting 7-Eleven Inc. v. Wechsler, 83 USPQ2d 1715, 1724 (TTAB 2007)); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).

 

Here, applicant’s goods and registrant’s goods are related because they are sold through the same trade channels to the same consumers and/or used together such that they have complementary purposes. Where evidence shows that the goods at issue have complementary uses, and thus are often used together or otherwise purchased by the same purchasers for the same or related purposes, such goods have generally been found to be sufficiently related such that confusion would be likely if they are marketed under the same or similar marks.  See In re Martin’s Famous Pastry Shoppe, Inc., 748 F.2d 1565, 1567, 223 USPQ 1289, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (holding bread and cheese to be related because they are often used in combination and noting that “[s]uch complementary use has long been recognized as a relevant consideration in determining a likelihood of confusion”); In re Hester Indus., Inc., 231 USPQ 881, 882-83 (TTAB 1986) (holding bread and frozen chicken parts to be related because they are complementary goods that are appropriate for use together in sandwiches and may otherwise be sold to the same purchasers for use in a single meal).

 

The attached Internet evidence consists of printouts from online retailers and websites consisting of recipes for beverages.

 

The attached evidence from Total Wine shows that mineral water, beer, juice, soft drinks, cocktails, wine, spirits and liqueurs are all sold through the same channels of trade to the same class of consumers. Evidence from Bai, Bon Appetit, Epicurious, and Marie Claire shows that mineral and flavored water, juice, beer, soft drinks, spirits and liqueurs are all used in various combinations in cocktails.  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 and that the goods and/or services are similar or complementary in terms of purpose or function.  Thus, applicant’s and registrants’ goods and/or services are considered related for likelihood of confusion purposes.  See, e.g., In re Davey Prods. Pty Ltd., 92 USPQ2d 1198, 1202-04 (TTAB 2009); In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d 1266, 1268-69, 1271-72 (TTAB 2009).

 

In sum, based on the foregoing, the applicant’s goods are considered to be similar, commercially related, and to travel in the same trade channels and to the same classes of purchasers as the registrants' goods. Accordingly, the applicant’s goods are highly related to registrants’ goods for the purposes of likelihood of confusion.

 

In total, based on the similarity of the marks, of the goods the respective marks identify, and of the trade channels for these goods, there is a likelihood of source confusion. Therefore, registration is of the applied-for mark is refused under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.

 

SECTION 2(e)(1) REFUSAL-MERELY DESCRIPTIVE

 

Registration is refused because the applied-for mark merely describes a feature, characteristic, and ingredient of applicant’s goods and services.  Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); see TMEP §§1209.01(b), 1209.03 et seq.

 

Applicant’s mark is CREAM for the following goods:

 

In Class 25:     “shirts; golf shirts; graphic t-shirts; hooded sweat shirts; polo shirts; sweat shirts; t-shirts;”

 

In Class 32:     “aerated mineral waters; beer; beer, ale, lager, stout porter; beer-based cocktails; energy drinks; flavored beers; flavored waters; fruit drinks and juices; mineral water; non-alcoholic beer; soft drinks; water beverages;”

 

In Class 33:     “herb liqueurs; alcoholic beverages, except beer; alcoholic cocktails containing milk; alcoholic fruit beverages; blended spirits; distilled spirits; potable spirits; prepared alcoholic cocktail; spirits and liqueurs; whiskey spirits; wines and fortified wines;”

 

In Class 34:     “herbs for smoking; cigarettes; electric cigarettes; electronic cigarette liquid (e-liquid) comprised of flavorings in liquid form, other than essential oils, used to refill electronic cigarette cartridges; electronic cigarette liquid (e-liquid) comprised of vegetable glycerin; electronic cigarettes; filtered cigars and cigarettes; flavorings for tobacco substitutes, other than essential oils; flavorings for tobacco, other than essential oils; flavorings, other than essential oils, for use in electronic cigarettes; smoking tobacco;” and

 

In Class 35:     “retail apparel stores; retail bakery shops; retail convenience stores; retail gift shops; retail grocery stores; retail store services featuring a wide variety of consumer goods of others; retail variety stores.”

 

A mark is merely descriptive if it describes an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose, or use of an applicant’s goods and/or services.  TMEP §1209.01(b); see, e.g., In re TriVita, Inc., 783 F.3d 872, 874, 114 USPQ2d 1574, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 1173, 71 USPQ2d 1370, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004)); In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293, 1297, 75 USPQ2d 1420, 1421 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Estate of P.D. Beckwith, Inc. v. Comm’r of Patents, 252 U.S. 538, 543 (1920)). 

First, with respect to the International Class 25 goods, “CREAM” is a color, specifically, “a pale yellow to yellowish white,” as defined by The American Heritage Dictionary. The attached evidence from ModCloth shoes that “CREAM” describes yellow to yellowish-white colored clothing. Therefore, “CREAM” describes a feature of the goods in International Class 25 because it describes their color.

Second, “CREAM,” also defined as “any of various substances resembling or containing cream,” is also used to describe a flavor or type of food, beverage, or e-cigarette liquids. See definition of CREAM from The American Heritage Dictionary.  Here, the attached evidence from The Word on Cheese shows that cream ales are a type of beer. Evidence from Bell’s Beer, Beersmith, Beer Advocate, and Homebrew Talk shows that beer is made with cream flavor and cream consistency. Similarly, with respect to the other types of beverages and e-cigarette liquid, evidence from Forager Project, Galco’s Soda Pop Stop, Influenster, Migvapor, The Spruce Eats, Total Wine, The Whiskey Exchange, and Zamplebox shows that “CREAM” describes juice beverages containing coconut cream, a type of cream flavored soda, a water flavor, dairy-based cocktails, a type of liqueur or distilled spirit made with cream or flavored to taste like cream, and cream-flavored e-cigarette liquid. Additionally, based on the above-mentioned evidence, “CREAM” is descriptive of a feature of applicant’s retail services, namely, clothing stores featuring cream colored clothing, bakery shops featuring baked goods and confections made with cream, retail convenience stores, gift shops, grocery and variety stores which sell cream or cream flavored beer, soda, fruit beverages, liquors, spirits, premade cocktails, and/or e-cigarette liquids.  

In sum, this evidence shows that “CREAM” merely describes (i) a characteristic of applicant’s Class 25 goods, namely, the color, (ii) an ingredient, feature, or characteristic of applicant’s Class 32, 33, and 34 goods, namely, their flavor, and (iii) a feature of applicant’s Class 35 services, namely, the color or flavor of the featured goods. Accordingly, the applied-for mark is merely descriptive. Therefore, registration of the applied-for mark on the Principal Register is refused under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act.

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

RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION

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.

 

Jillian Michaud-King

/Jillian Michaud-King/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 122

571-272-5153

jillian.michaud-king@uspto.gov

 

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.  

 

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 10/3/2018 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 88017845

 

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 10/3/2018 (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.