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: 10/19/2018

 

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

 

·       Prior Pending Applications—Advisory

 

·       Section 2(d) Refusal—Likelihood of Confusion

 

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

 

·       Identification of Goods and Services—Clarification Required

 

·       Requirement for Information

 

PRIOR PENDING APPLICATIONS—ADVISORY:

 

The filing dates of pending U.S. Application Serial Nos. 87777926, BANC COIN, 87847475, BANK COIN, and 88001155, BANCCOIN, 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 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.

 

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:

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 5337515, COINSBANK.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registration.

 

Summary of the Marks and Goods/Services

 

Applicant’s BANK OF COIN, in standard characters, is for:

 

• Class 009: Computer software for use as a cryptocurrency wallet; computer hardware for use with blockchain technology; computer software for use with blockchain technology; computer software for facilitating secure commercial transactions through electronic means via wireless networks, global computer networks and mobile telecommunication devices using blockchain technology; software platform using blockchain technology accommodating multiple types of blockchain-based software applications in an integrated mobile device and web-based environment using blockchain technology; computer software system for use in blockchain enabled platforms; computer software using blockchain technology for use in connection with the electronic storage, transmission, presentation, verification, and authentication of personal data; cryptocurrency; cryptocurrency wallets; mobile wallets, digital currencies; electronic wallets; software application interfaces using blockchain technology; computer systems for person-to-person sharing using blockchain technology; computer systems for business-to-business sharing using blockchain technology.

 

• Class 036: Credit card and debit card issuing and processing services; electronic credit card issuing and processing services; electronic transaction services, namely, blockchain-based electronic processing and transmission of digital currency, cryptocurrency, cryptocurrency wallets, mobile wallets, electronic wallets, and wireless credits, using blockchain technology; financial transaction services, namely, providing secure commercial transactions and payment options using blockchain technology; online banking services using blockchain technology; initial coin offering; cryptocurrency trading services; cryptocurrency exchange services.

 

Registrant’s COINSBANK, in standard characters, is for the following relevant goods and services:

 

• Class 009: Computer software for analyzing market information; computer software programs for database management; software for facilitating secure credit card transactions; computer e-commerce software to allow users to perform electronic business transactions via a global computer network; magnetically encoded credit cards; magnetically encoded debit cards.

 

• Class 035: Administrative data processing; business consulting services in the field of cryptocurrency; advisory services relating to electronic data processing; arranging of trading transactions and commercial contracts; business advice and analysis of cryptocurrency market; electronic processing of orders for others; market analysis and research; providing business information via a website; providing business information in the field of cryptocurrency.

 

• Class 036: Electronic cash transactions; electronic money transfer services; advisory services relating to financial investments; brokerage of currency; currency exchange and advice; currency trading and exchange services; financial advisory and consultancy services; financial analysis and research services; financial information for investors; financial information in the nature of rates of exchange; foreign currency exchange; provision of stock market information; provision of stock exchange quotations.

 

Basis for Likelihood of Confusion

 

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 services 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 re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1322, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1747 (Fed. Cir. 2017).

 

However, “[n]ot all of the [du Pont] factors are relevant to every case, and only factors of significance to the particular mark need be considered.”  Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1366, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1719 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601. F.3d 1342, 1346, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1259 (Fed. Cir 2010)).  The USPTO may focus its analysis “on dispositive factors, such as similarity of the marks and relatedness of the goods [and/or services].”  In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d at 1322, 123 USPQ2d at 1747 (quoting Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 1164-65, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2002)); see TMEP §1207.01. 

 

Similarity of the Marks

 

Marks are compared in their entireties for similarities in sound, appearance, meaning, 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 BANK OF COIN in standard characters, and registrant’s mark is COINSBANK in standard characters.  Both applicant’s mark and registrant’s mark share identical wording, being “BANK” and “COIN”, and 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).

 

As such, both marks largely derive their commercial impression—involving storage or transaction of currencies—from “BANK” and “COIN”.  Although the marks utilize this wording in different orders, “[t]he proper test is not a side-by-side comparison of the marks, but instead ‘whether the marks are sufficiently similar in terms of their commercial impression’ such that [consumers] who encounter the marks would be likely to assume a connection between the parties.”  In re U.S. Warriors Ice Hockey Program, Inc., 122 USPQ2d 1790, 1795 (TTAB 2017) (citing Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1368, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(b).  The proper focus is on the recollection of the average purchaser, who retains a general rather than specific impression of trademarks.  In re Bay State Brewing Co., 117 USPQ2d 1958, 1960 (TTAB 2016) (citing Spoons Rests. Inc. v. Morrison Inc., 23 USPQ2d 1735, 1741 (TTAB 1991), aff’d per curiam, 972 F.2d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1992)); TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

Accordingly, taking into account the similarity in appearance and commercial impression, as well as average consumers’ general recollection, applicant’s applied-for mark would likely confuse consumers as to the origin of applicant’s and registrant’s goods and services.

 

Therefore, applicant’s applied-for mark is highly similar to registrant’s mark and creates a likelihood of confusion.

 

Relatedness of the Goods and Services

 

The goods and 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 registration uses broad wording in Class 009—“computer software programs for database management; computer e-commerce software to allow users to perform electronic business transactions via a global computer network”—that presumably encompasses applicant’s various forms of transactional software and storage databases for cryptocurrencies.  Further, registrant’s broadly worded identification in Class 036—e.g., “electronic cash transactions; electronic money transfer services; brokerage of currency; currency trading and exchange services”—presumably encompasses applicant’s various exchange, trading, funding, and transaction services involving cryptocurrencies.  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 services of the parties have no restrictions 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 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)). 

 

Finally, the attached evidence from bbt.com, wellsfargo.com, td.com, and tdameridtrade.com establishes that the same entity provides financial advice, banking, and card services, they are marketed under the same mark, and they are sold or provided through the same trade channels.  Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s Class 036 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).

 

Conclusion

 

Taken together, the similarity of the marks and the relatedness of applicant’s goods and services to registrant’s services result in the determination that there is a likelihood of confusion.  Therefore, registration of the applied-for mark is refused under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.

 

SECTION 2(e)(1) REFUSAL—MERELY DESCRIPTIVE:

 

Registration is also refused because the applied-for mark merely describes 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.

 

A mark is merely descriptive if “it immediately conveys information concerning a feature, quality, or characteristic of [an applicant’s] goods or services.”  In re N.C. Lottery, 866 F.3d 1363, 1367, 123 USPQ2d 1707, 1709 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing In re Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, 488 F.3d 960, 963, 82 USPQ2d 1828, 1831 (Fed. Cir. 2007)); TMEP §1209.01(b); see DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1251, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Abcor Dev. Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 814, 200 USPQ 215, 218 (C.C.P.A. 1978)). 

 

Applicant’s applied-for mark is BANK OF COIN, and applicant’s identified goods and services involve cryptocurrencies, “cryptocurrency wallet[s],” and various forms of financial transaction services.  “BANK” is defined as “an establishment for the custody, loan, exchange, or issue of money, for the extension of credit, and for facilitating the transmission of funds,” and “COIN” is defined as “a unit of a cryptocurrency.”  See attachments from merriam-webster.com.

 

Taking these definitions into account, “cryptocurrency wallet[s]” “store, send, and receive digital currency.”  See attachment from cryptocurrencyfacts.com.  Additionally, third parties appear to be using “BANK” and “COIN” descriptively for their own similar services.  See attachment from medium.com (“Cryptocurrency bank Karatcoin Bank to open in June.”).

 

Accordingly, applicant’s applied-for mark immediately conveys a feature and characteristic of applicant’s identified goods and services—a central location from which to store cryptocurrency and to facilitate the transmission and transaction of cryptocurrency—and registration is refused under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act.

 

Supplemental Register—Advisory

 

A mark in an application under Trademark Act Section 1(b) is not eligible for registration on the Supplemental Register until an acceptable amendment to allege use under 37 C.F.R. §2.76 has been filed.  37 C.F.R. §§2.47(d), 2.75(b); TMEP §§815.02, 1102.03.  When a Section 1(b) application is successfully amended to the Supplemental Register, the application effective filing date will be the date applicant met the minimum filing requirements under 37 C.F.R. §2.76(c) for the amendment to allege use.  TMEP §§816.02, 1102.03; see 37 C.F.R. §2.75(b).

 

Although registration on the Supplemental Register does not afford all the benefits of registration on the Principal Register, it does provide the following advantages to the registrant:

 

(1)       Use of the registration symbol ® with the registered mark in connection with the designated goods and/or services, which provides public notice of the registration and potentially deters third parties from using confusingly similar marks.

 

(2)       Inclusion of the registered mark in the USPTO’s database of registered and pending marks, which will (a) make it easier for third parties to find it in trademark search reports, (b) provide public notice of the registration, and thus (c) potentially deter third parties from using confusingly similar marks.

 

(3)       Use of the registration by a USPTO trademark examining attorney as a bar to registering confusingly similar marks in applications filed by third parties.

 

(4)       Use of the registration as a basis to bring suit for trademark infringement in federal court, which, although more costly than state court, means judges with more trademark experience, often faster adjudications, and the opportunity to seek an injunction, actual damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

 

(5)       Use of the registration as a filing basis for a trademark application for registration in certain foreign countries, in accordance with international treaties.

 

See 15 U.S.C. §§1052(d), 1091, 1094; J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks & Unfair Competition §§19:33, 19:37 (rev. 4th ed. Supp. 2017).

 

Disclaimer Advisory—“BANK”

 

Applicant is advised that, if the application is amended to seek registration on the Supplemental Register, applicant will be required to disclaim “BANK” because such wording appears to be generic in the context of applicant’s goods and/or services.  See 15 U.S.C. §1056(a); In re Wella Corp., 565 F.2d 143, 144, 196 USPQ 7, 8 (C.C.P.A. 1977); In re Creative Goldsmiths of Wash., Inc., 229 USPQ 766, 768 (TTAB 1986); TMEP §1213.03(b).

 

The following is the standardized format for a disclaimer:

 

No claim is made to the exclusive right to use “BANK” apart from the mark as shown.

 

TMEP §1213.08(a)(i).

 

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

 

If applicant responds to the refusals, applicant must also respond to the requirements set forth below.

 

IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS AND SERVICES—CLARIFICATION REQUIRED:

 

Wording in the identification of goods and services is indefinite and must be clarified.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.  An application’s identification of goods/services must be specific, definite, clear, accurate, and concise.  In this case, certain wording in the application’s identification—noted below—is indefinite because the nature of the goods/services is not sufficiently clear.  For example, “cryptocurrency” could be “computer hardware” in Class 009 or “issuance of tokens of value” in Class 036.  Additionally, “cryptocurrency wallets” could be “hardware” or “software.”

 

Suggested Wording

 

Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate:

 

CLASS 009:    computer software for use as a cryptocurrency wallet; computer hardware for use with blockchain technology; computer software for use in {specify purpose or use, e.g., data encryption, data transmission, data storage} featuring blockchain technology; computer software for facilitating secure commercial transactions through electronic means via wireless networks, global computer networks and mobile telecommunication devices using blockchain technology; software platform using blockchain technology in the nature of an electronic financial software platform that accommodates multiple types of payment and debt transactions in an integrated mobile phone, PDA, and web based environment; computer software system for use in blockchain enabled platforms, namely, computer software for use in {specify purpose or use, e.g., data encryption, data transmission, data storage} featuring blockchain technology; computer software using blockchain technology for use in connection with the electronic storage, transmission, presentation, verification, and authentication of personal data; cryptocurrency {specify nature in Class 009, computer hardware for mining}; cryptocurrency {specify, e.g., hardware, software} wallets; mobile wallets being cryptocurrency software wallets for digital currencies; electronic wallets being computer software for use as a cryptocurrency wallet; software application interfaces for use in {specify purpose or use, e.g., data encryption, data transmission, data storage} using blockchain technology; computer systems being software for person-to-person sharing of data and information using blockchain technology; computer systems being software for business-to-business sharing of data and information using blockchain technology

 

CLASS 036:    credit card and debit card issuing and transaction processing services; electronic credit card issuing and transaction processing services; electronic transaction services, namely, blockchain-based electronic transaction processing and subsequent transmission of digital currency, cryptocurrency, cryptocurrency wallets, mobile wallets, electronic wallets, and wireless credits, using blockchain technology; financial transaction services, namely, providing secure commercial transactions and payment options using blockchain technology; online banking services using blockchain technology; initial coin offering, namely, on-line business fundraising for others; cryptocurrency trading services; cryptocurrency exchange services; cryptocurrency, namely, {specify nature in Class 036, e.g., issuance of tokens of value, 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.

 

Scope Advisory

 

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

 

REQUIREMENT FOR INFORMATION:

 

Due to the descriptive nature of the applied-for mark, applicant must provide the following information and documentation regarding the goods and services and wording appearing in the mark: 

 

(1)       Fact sheets, instruction manuals, brochures, advertisements and pertinent screenshots of applicant’s website as it relates to the goods and services in the application, including any materials using the terms in the applied-for mark.  Merely stating that information about the goods and services is available on applicant’s website is insufficient to make the information of record.; 

 

(2)       If these materials are unavailable, applicant should submit similar documentation for goods and services of the same type, explaining how its own product or services will differ.  If the goods and services feature new technology and information regarding competing goods and services is not available, applicant must provide a detailed factual description of the goods and services.  Factual information about the goods must make clear how they operate, salient features, and prospective customers and channels of trade.  For services, the factual information must make clear what the services are and how they are rendered, salient features, and prospective customers and channels of trade.  Conclusory statements will not satisfy this requirement.; and

 

(3)       Applicant must respond to the following question:

 

·       Do applicant’s goods and services serve as a central location from which to store, transmit, or facilitate the transaction of cryptocurrencies?

 

·       Do applicant’s goods and services generally store, transmit, or facilitate the transaction of cryptocurrencies?

 

See 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b); TMEP §§814, 1402.01(e). 

 

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. 

 

GENERAL RESPONSE GUIDELINES

 

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 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.  

 

 

 

/Jeffrey Sjogren/

Jeffrey Sjogren

Examining Attorney—Law Office 122

Jeffrey.Sjogren@USPTO.gov

Phone: 571-272-5279

Fax: 571-273-5578

 

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 10/19/2018 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 88023035

 

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 10/19/2018 (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.