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: 10/31/2018

 

 

 

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:

 

• Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion
• Section 44 – Foreign Registration Certificate Required
• Identification of Goods and Services
• Multiple-Class Application Requirements
• Response Guidelines

 

 

 

I.                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. 3847593.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registration.

 

The applicant has applied for ENEX (standard character form) for “Automotive engine oils; automotive greases; automotive lubricants; aviation fuel; crude oils; diesel fuel; diesel oil; engine oils; fuel from crude oil; fuel gas; fuel oil; industrial gasoline; industrial greases; industrial lubricants; industrial lubricating oils; industrial oils; heating furnaces for industrial purposes; hot blast furnaces for industrial purposes; boilers for heating installations; heat generators; heating boilers; heating elements; heating radiators; radiators for heating buildings; solar heating panels; industrial furnaces; hot water tanks; heat pumps; fuel tanks; fuel tanks for aircraft,” and “Advertising services for promoting oil, natural gas, fuel, energy in the field of aviation; distributorship services in the field of oils, greases, lubricant, fuels and energy in the aviation sector; insurance services; financial analyses; financial analysis consultation services; financial evaluation for insurance purposes; leasing of heavy equipment; repair, maintenance and installation of heating equipment; sale and installation of furnaces, hot water tanks and oil tanks; sales, financing and leasing of the water, fuel and lubricant tanks, pumps and dispensing equipment; transport of goods by air, rail, ship and truck, namely, the transportation, delivery, transmission and distribution of fuel, oil, gas, lubricants, greases, process oils, solvents, antifreeze and fluids for industrial applications; provision of cardlock and other automated, unattended fueling sites designed for vehicles.” 

 

U.S. Registration No. 3847593 is the mark ENEX and design which has been registered for “Engineering services, namely, engineering for refining, petrochemicals, chemicals and fertilizer; Technology consultation and research in the field of refining, petrochemicals, chemicals and fertilizer.”

 

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(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).  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. 

 

A.    Comparison of the Marks

 

Marks are compared in their entireties for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression.  Stone Lion Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 1321, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1371, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 2005)); TMEP §1207.01(b)-(b)(v).  “Similarity in any one of these elements may be sufficient to find the marks confusingly similar.”  In re Davia, 110 USPQ2d 1810, 1812 (TTAB 2014) (citing In re 1st USA Realty Prof’ls, Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1581, 1586 (TTAB 2007)); In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB 1988)); TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

In this case, applicant’s standard character mark and registrant’s mark are legally identical in terms of stylization since a mark in typed or standard characters may be displayed in any lettering style; the rights reside in the wording or other literal element and not in any particular display or rendition.  See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1363, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1909 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 1348, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010); 37 C.F.R. §2.52(a); TMEP §1207.01(c)(iii).  Thus, a mark presented in stylized characters and/or with a design element generally will not avoid likelihood of confusion with a mark in typed or standard characters because the marks could be presented in the same manner of display.  See, e.g., In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d at 1363, 101 USPQ2d at 1909; Squirtco v. Tomy Corp., 697 F.2d 1038, 1041, 216 USPQ 937, 939 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (stating that “the argument concerning a difference in type style is not viable where one party asserts rights in no particular display”).

 

Although marks are compared in their entireties, 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).  Greater weight is often given to this dominant feature when determining whether marks are confusingly similar.  See In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d at 1058, 224 USPQ at 751. When evaluating a composite mark containing both words and designs, the word portion is more likely to indicate the origin of the goods and services because it is that portion of the mark that consumers use when referring to or requesting the goods and/or services.  Bond v. Taylor, 119 USPQ2d 1049, 1055 (TTAB 2016) (citing In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908, 1911 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii).  Thus, although marks must be compared in their entireties, the word portion is often considered the dominant feature and is accorded greater weight in determining whether marks are confusingly similar, even where the word portion has been disclaimed.  In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d at 1366-67, 101 USPQ2d at 1911 (citing Giant Food, Inc. v. Nation’s Foodservice, Inc., 710 F.2d 1565, 1570-71, 218 USPQ2d 390, 395 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).  Here, the wording “ENEX” constitutes the dominant portion of registrant’s mark since it is the sole wording in the mark and only surrounded by a simple geometric shape on the top and bottom.

 

In this case, applicant and registrant’s respective marks are identical in terms of the wording used. 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).  Any differences in appearance due to the differences in stylization are substantially outweighed by the marks’ virtually identical commercial impressions.  As such, despite the absence of a design element in applicant’s mark, the use of identical dominant wording in the respective marks evoke a highly similar overall commercial impression.  Thus, considered in their entireties, the marks are confusingly similar pursuant to Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.

 

B.    Comparison of the Goods and Services

 

The compared goods and services 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 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).

 

In this case, the applicant and registrant’s goods and services are highly similar in terms of their nature, use, and marketing channels.  For instance, the applicant listed in the identification of goods and services that it will provide “Automotive engine oils; automotive greases; automotive lubricants; aviation fuel; crude oils; diesel fuel; diesel oil; engine oils; fuel from crude oil; fuel gas; fuel oil; industrial gasoline; industrial greases; industrial lubricants; industrial lubricating oils; industrial oils; heating furnaces for industrial purposes; hot blast furnaces for industrial purposes; boilers for heating installations; heat generators; heating boilers; heating elements; heating radiators; radiators for heating buildings; solar heating panels; industrial furnaces; hot water tanks; heat pumps; fuel tanks; fuel tanks for aircraft,” and “Advertising services for promoting oil, natural gas, fuel, energy in the field of aviation; distributorship services in the field of oils, greases, lubricant, fuels and energy in the aviation sector; insurance services; financial analyses; financial analysis consultation services; financial evaluation for insurance purposes; leasing of heavy equipment; repair, maintenance and installation of heating equipment; sale and installation of furnaces, hot water tanks and oil tanks; sales, financing and leasing of the water, fuel and lubricant tanks, pumps and dispensing equipment; transport of goods by air, rail, ship and truck, namely, the transportation, delivery, transmission and distribution of fuel, oil, gas, lubricants, greases, process oils, solvents, antifreeze and fluids for industrial applications; provision of cardlock and other automated, unattended fueling sites designed for vehicles.” 

 

Registrant provides “Engineering services, namely, engineering for refining, petrochemicals, chemicals and fertilizer; Technology consultation and research in the field of refining, petrochemicals, chemicals and fertilizer.”

 

The attached Internet evidence, consisting of industry websites such as Exxon Mobil, Shell, Getty, and Marathon, establishes that the same entity commonly manufactures and provides the relevant fuel and lubricant goods and also provides engineering and technological services related thereto and markets the goods and services under the same mark.  Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods and 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).

 

As such, the evidence discussed above demonstrates that the goods and services in the application and registration are highly similar, particularly with respect to the nature of goods and services, use of the goods and services, and marketing channels involved.  Since the marks are confusingly similar and the goods and services are related, there is a likelihood of confusion as to the source of the respective goods and services.  Therefore, applicant’s mark is not entitled to registration.

 

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

 

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

 

II.               SECTION 44 – FOREIGN REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE REQUIRED

 

The application specifies both an intent to use basis under Trademark Act Section 1(b) and a claim of priority under Section 44(d) based on a foreign application.  See 15 U.S.C. §§1051(b), 1126(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(2), (a)(4).  However, no copy of a foreign registration has been provided even though the application indicates applicant’s intent to rely on Section 44(e) as an additional basis for registration.  See 15 U.S.C. §1126(e).

 

An application with a Section 44(e) basis must include a true copy, photocopy, certification, or certified copy of a foreign registration from an applicant’s country of origin.  15 U.S.C. §1126(e); 37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(3)(ii); TMEP §§1004, 1004.01, 1016.  In addition, an applicant’s country of origin must be a party to a convention or treaty relating to trademarks to which the United States is also a party, or must extend reciprocal registration rights to nationals of the United States by law.  15 U.S.C. §1126(b); TMEP §§1002.01, 1004.

 

Therefore, applicant must provide a copy of the foreign registration from applicant’s country of origin when it becomes available.  TMEP §1003.04(a).  A copy of a foreign registration must consist of a document issued to an applicant by, or certified by, the intellectual property office in applicant’s country of origin.  TMEP §1004.01.  If applicant’s country of origin does not issue registrations or Madrid Protocol certificates of extension of protection, applicant may submit a copy of the Madrid Protocol international registration that shows that protection of the international registration has been extended to applicant’s country of origin.  TMEP §1016.  In addition, applicant must also provide an English translation if the foreign registration is not written in English.  37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(3)(ii); TMEP §1004.01(a)-(b).  The translation should be signed by the translator.  TMEP §1004.01(b).

 

If the foreign registration has not yet issued, or applicant requires additional time to procure a copy of the foreign registration (and English translation, as appropriate), applicant should so inform the trademark examining attorney and request that the U.S. application be suspended until a copy of the foreign registration is available.  TMEP §§716.02(b), 1003.04(b).

 

If applicant cannot satisfy the requirements of a Section 44(e) basis, applicant may request that the mark be approved for publication based solely on the Section 1(b) basis.  See 15 U.S.C. §§1051(b), 1126(e); 37 C.F.R. §2.35(b)(1); TMEP §§806.02(f), 806.04(b), 1003.04(b).  Although the mark may be approved for publication on the Section 1(b) basis, it will not register until an acceptable allegation of use has been filed.  See 15 U.S.C. §1051(c)-(d); 37 C.F.R. §§2.76, 2.88; TMEP §1103.  Please note that, if the U.S. application satisfied the requirements of Section 44(d) as of the U.S. application filing date, applicant may retain the priority filing date under Section 44(d) without perfecting the Section 44(e) basis, provided there is a continuing valid basis for registration.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.35(b)(3)-(4); TMEP §§806.02(f), 806.04(b). 

 

Alternatively, applicant has the option to amend the application to rely solely on the Section 44(e) basis and request deletion of the Section 1(b) basis.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.35(b)(1); TMEP §806.04.  The foreign registration alone may serve as the basis for obtaining a U.S. registration.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(3); TMEP §806.01(d).

 

III.             IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS AND SERVICES

 

Certain wording in the identification of goods and services is indefinite and overly broad, and therefore could include a wide array of goods and services, including goods and services found in other international classes, as indicated below.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.  Applicant must amend the identification to specify the common commercial or generic name of the goods and services.  See TMEP §1402.01.  If the services have no common commercial or generic name, applicant must describe or explain the nature of the goods and services using clear and succinct language.  See id. 

 

More specifically, the wording “heating furnaces for industrial purposes; hot blast furnaces for industrial purposes; boilers for heating installations; heat generators; heating boilers; heating elements; heating radiators; radiators for heating buildings;” appears to refer to definite goods classified in International Class 011.  Similarly, the wording “solar heating panels; industrial furnaces; hot water tanks; heat pumps;” is indefinite as to the overall nature of the goods provided but appears to most closely describe goods resembling “Heating panels used for indoor heating purposes” in International Class 011. 

 

The wording “fuel tanks” is likewise indefinite as to the nature of the goods provided and could refer to goods such as standalone and empty metal or plastic or wood tanks for fuel in International Classes 006 or 020, respectively, or tanks that are components of vehicles in International Class 012.  Additionally, while the wording “fuel tanks for aircraft” is definite, it is misclassified since tanks that are components of vehicles are classified in International Class 012.

 

Turning to applicant’s identification of services, the wording “insurance services” refers to services classified in International Class 035 or 036 depending on the nature of applicant’s service activity.  For instance, this wording could refer to “Providing insurance agent referrals,” in International Class 035 or “insurance brokerage services,” in International Class 036. 

 

Although the following wording is definite, “financial analyses; financial analysis consultation services; financial evaluation for insurance purposes;” all of these clauses refer to services classified in International Class 036.

 

The wording “leasing of heavy equipment” is overly broad and could refer to services ranging from “leasing of heavy agricultural equipment” in International Class 044 to “leasing of construction equipment” in International Class 037.  The wording “repair, maintenance and installation of heating equipment,” also appears to be classified in International Class 037.  

 

The word “sale” in the identification of services in International Class 035 is indefinite and must be clarified.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.11.  To be a registrable service, the activity must be primarily for the benefit of someone other than the applicant.  See In re Reichhold Chems., Inc., 167 USPQ 376, 377 (TTAB 1970).  “Sales” or “selling” normally refers to selling one’s own goods or services and is not a registrable service rendered for the benefit of others.  See TMEP §§1301.01(a)(ii), 1402.11.

 

Therefore, applicant must delete “sale” from the identification and indicate with greater specificity the nature of the service in International Class 35; e.g., “retail store services featuring furnaces, hot water tanks, and oil tanks,” “wholesale distributorships featuring water, fuel and lubricant tanks, pumps and dispensing equipment,” and “on-line wholesale and retail store services featuring water tanks and oil tanks.”

 

Additionally, the wording “installation of furnaces, hot water tanks and oil tanks” refers to an International Class 037 service, and the wording “financing and leasing of the water, fuel and lubricant tanks, pumps and dispensing equipment” is indefinite as to the nature of applicant’s service activity being performed for the benefit of others.  For example, applicants “financing and leasing” appears to refer to “lease-purchase financing” in International Class 036, or alternatively financing services that are apart from leasing those goods to others as “leasing construction equipment in the nature of water, fuel, and lubricant tanks, pumps and dispensing equipment,” in International Class 037 or “leasing of transport tanks for water, fuel, and lubricant” in International Class 039.

  

The wording “transport of goods by air, rail, ship and truck, namely, the transportation, delivery, transmission and distribution of fuel, oil, gas, lubricants, greases, process oils, solvents, antifreeze and fluids for industrial applications;” also refers to a service properly classified in International Class 039.

 

The wording “provision of cardlock and other automated, unattended fueling sites designed for vehicles” is also indefinite as to the specific type of activity performed by the applicant and appears to refer to “vehicle service stations” in International Class 037.  The wording “CARDLOCK” in the identification of services is a registered mark and shortened version of a registered mark not owned by applicant; accordingly, applicant must amend the identification to delete this wording and, if not already included in the identification, provide the common commercial or generic name of the services.  TMEP §1402.09; see 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); Camloc Fastener Corp. v. Grant, 119 USPQ 264, 264 n.1 (TTAB 1958).  See the attached U.S. Registration Nos. 2334452 and 3661264. 

 

Identifications of goods and services should generally be comprised of generic everyday wording for the goods and services, and exclude proprietary or potentially-proprietary wording.  See TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.09.  A registered mark indicates origin in one particular party and so may not be used to identify goods or services that originate in a party other than that registrant.  TMEP §1402.09 (citing Camloc Fastener Corp. v. Grant, 119 USPQ at 264 n.1). 

 

Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate: 

 

International Class 004

 

Automotive engine oils; automotive greases; automotive lubricants; aviation fuel; crude oils; diesel fuel; diesel oil; engine oils; fuel from crude oil; fuel gas; fuel oil; industrial gasoline; industrial greases; industrial lubricants; industrial lubricating oils; industrial oils

 

(Add Class) International Class 006

 

Fuel tanks in the nature of metal storage tanks, sold empty

 

(Add Class) International Class 011

 

heating furnaces for industrial purposes; hot blast furnaces for industrial purposes; boilers for heating installations; heat generators; heating boilers; heating elements; heating radiators; radiators for heating buildings;  solar heating panels, namely, heating panels used for indoor heating purposes; industrial furnaces; hot water tanks; heat pumps;

 

 (Add Class) International Class 012

 

Fuel tanks for aircraft

 

(Add Class) International Class 020

 

            Fuel tanks in the nature of plastic storage tanks, sold empty

 

International Class 035

 

Advertising services for promoting oil, natural gas, fuel, energy in the field of aviation; distributorship services in the field of oils, greases, lubricant, fuels and energy in the aviation sector; retail store services featuring furnaces, hot water tanks, and oil tanks; wholesale distributorships featuring water, fuel and lubricant tanks, pumps and dispensing equipment

 

(Add Class) International Class 036

 

Insurance brokerage services; financial analyses; financial analysis consultation services; financial evaluation for insurance purposes

 

(Add Class) International Class 037

 

Repair, maintenance and installation of heating equipment; installation of furnaces, hot water tanks and oil tanks; leasing of heavy construction equipment; leasing of construction equipment in the nature of water, fuel and lubricant tanks, pumps and dispensing equipment; vehicle service stations, namely, provision of automated, unattended fueling sites designed for vehicles

 

(Add Class) International Class 039

 

transport of goods by air, rail, ship and truck, namely, the transportation, delivery, transmission and distribution of fuel, oil, gas, lubricants, greases, process oils, solvents, antifreeze and fluids for industrial applications

 

(Add Class) International Class 044

 

            Leasing of heavy agricultural equipment

 

See TMEP §1402.01.

 

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

 

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

 

Applicant should note the multiple-class application requirements provided below.

 

IV.             MULTIPLE-CLASS APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS

 

The application identifies goods and services in more than one international class; therefore, applicant must satisfy all the requirements below for each international class based on Trademark Act Sections 1(b) and 44:

 

(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 fees already paid (view the USPTO’s current fee schedule).  The application identifies goods and services that are classified in at least ten classes; however, applicant submitted a fee sufficient for only two 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 Sections 1(b) and 44 multiple-class application and how to satisfy the requirements online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form.

 

V.              RESPONSE GUIDELINES

 

Please call or email the assigned trademark examining attorney with questions about this Office action.  Although the trademark examining attorney cannot provide legal advice or statements about applicant’s rights, the trademark examining attorney can provide applicant with additional explanation about the refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) in this Office action.  See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06.  Although the USPTO does not accept emails as responses to Office actions, emails can be used for informal communications and will be included in the application record.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(c), 2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05. 

 

 

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.  

 

/Amer Raja/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 121

(571) 270-5936

amer.raja@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 10/31/2018 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 88026095

 

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 10/31/2018 (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.