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: 10/30/2018

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:

• Likelihood of Confusion – Section 2(d) – Partial Refusals
• Specimen
• Information Request

Likelihood of Confusion – Section 2(d) - Refusals

THIS PARTIAL REFUSAL APPLIES ONLY TO THE GOODS SPECIFIED THEREIN

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 1455084 and 5462675.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registrations.

Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that so resembles a registered mark that it is likely a consumer would be confused, mistaken, or deceived as to the source of the goods and/or services of the applicant and registrant(s).  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).  Determining likelihood of confusion is made on a case-by-case basis by applying the factors set forth in In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973).  In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1322, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1747 (Fed. Cir. 2017).  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.

Facts

Applicant proposes, “BEBEDATA” for use in connection with, in pertinent part, “anti-theft locks specially adapted to personal electronic devices, namely, laptops and PC tablets; batteries, electric; computer monitors.”

With respect to the mark in U.S. Registration No. 1455084, registrant provides, “electric storage batteries,” in connection with the mark, “BEEBE” and design.

With respect to the mark in U.S. Registration No. 5462675, registrant provides, in pertinent part, “carrying cases for cell phones; laptop carrying cases; protective covers and cases for tablet computers, electronic reading devices and portable media players; earphones and headphones; earphone accessories, namely, earphone cushions, earphone pads, cord management systems, earphone cases, and earphone extension cords; electronic docking stations,” in connection with the mark, “BEBE”.

Similarity of the Marks

When considering the similarities of the marks for purposes of a likelihood of confusion determination, “[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).

In this case, applicant’s mark is comprised of the terms “BEBE” and “DATA” merged into a single term “BEBEDATA”.  The mark in U.S. Registration No. 1455084, is the single term “BEEBE” and a design of bees within the letters “B”.  When evaluating a composite mark containing both words and designs, the word portion is more likely to indicate the origin of the goods and/or 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 design elements in registrant’s marks are small and are incorporated in the letters “B”.  Further, as designs of bees, they merely reinforce the lettering in the mark.  Consequently, the design elements do not detract from the literal element of the mark being that portion of the mark that consumers would use when referring to or requesting the goods. 

The marks are also different because applicant’s mark has the added term “data” and registrant’s mark has an additional letter “E” as compared to the term “bebe” in the mark of the applicant.  However, adding a term to a registered mark generally does not obviate the similarity between the compared marks, as in the present case, nor does it overcome a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d).  See Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Jos. E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 526 F.2d 556, 557, 188 USPQ 105, 106 (C.C.P.A. 1975) (finding BENGAL and BENGAL LANCER and design confusingly similar); In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d 1266, 1269 (TTAB 2009) (finding TITAN and VANTAGE TITAN confusingly similar); In re El Torito Rests., Inc., 9 USPQ2d 2002, 2004 (TTAB 1988) (finding MACHO and MACHO COMBOS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iii). 

Further, the additional letter “E” in registrant’s mark does not distinguish the similarities in the sound of the mark of the registrant and the word “bebe” in applicant’s mark.  That is, these terms are phonetic equivalents.

Finally, where the goods and/or services of an applicant and registrant are identical or virtually identical, the degree of similarity between the marks required to support a finding of likelihood of confusion is not as great as in the case of diverse goods and/or services.  See In re Bay State Brewing Co., 117 USPQ2d 1958, 1960 (TTAB 2016) (citing Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1368, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); United Global Media Grp., Inc. v. Tseng, 112 USPQ2d 1039, 1049 (TTAB 2014) (quoting Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Century Life of Am., 970 F.2d 874, 877, 23 USPQ2d 1698, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 1992)); TMEP §1207.01(b).

Here, the applicant provides, in pertinent part, “batteries, electric,” and the registrant provides, in pertinent part, “electric storage batteries.”  The goods are essentially identical.  Because the mark of the applicant is very similar to the first portion of applicant’s mark and because the goods of the parties are essentially identical, the marks are confusingly similar.

With respect to the mark in U.S. Registration No. 5462675, the mark of the registrant is comprised solely of the word, “BEBE”.  This is the identical word that comprises the first portion of the mark of the applicant such that applicant has merely added the term, “data,” to the mark of the registrant.  And, as provided above, , adding a term to a registered mark generally does not obviate the similarity between the compared marks, as in the present case, nor does it overcome a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d).  See Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Jos. E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 526 F.2d 556, 557, 188 USPQ 105, 106 (C.C.P.A. 1975) (finding BENGAL and BENGAL LANCER and design confusingly similar); In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d 1266, 1269 (TTAB 2009) (finding TITAN and VANTAGE TITAN confusingly similar); In re El Torito Rests., Inc., 9 USPQ2d 2002, 2004 (TTAB 1988) (finding MACHO and MACHO COMBOS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iii).  In this case, the marks are identical in part and the additional term in applicant’s mark does not distinguish the overall commercial impressions of the marks.  Therefore, there is a likelihood of confusion with respect to the marks.

Relatedness of the Goods

When considering the relatedness of the goods/services for purposes of a likelihood of confusion determination, the goods and/or services of the parties 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) (“[E]ven if the goods in question are different from, and thus not related to, one another in kind, the same goods can be related in the mind of the consuming public as to the origin of the goods.”); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i). 

The respective goods and/or services need only be “related in some manner and/or if the circumstances surrounding their marketing [be] 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).

In the instant case, applicant provides, “anti-theft locks specially adapted to personal electronic devices, namely, laptops and PC tablets; batteries, electric; computer monitors.”

With respect to the mark in U.S. Registration No. 1455084, registrant provides, “electric storage batteries.”  The applicant’s “batteries, electric,” are essentially identical goods with respect to applicant’s batteries, electric.  Therefore, there is a likelihood of confusion with respect to goods.

With respect to the mark in U.S. Registration No. 5462675, registrant provides, in pertinent part, “carrying cases for cell phones; laptop carrying cases; protective covers and cases for tablet computers, electronic reading devices and portable media players; earphones and headphones; earphone accessories, namely, earphone cushions, earphone pads, cord management systems, earphone cases, and earphone extension cords; electronic docking stations.”  The applicant’s “anti-theft locks specially adapted to personal electronic devices, namely, laptops and PC tablets,” are for use on the same goods as registrant’s carrying cases and protective covers. 

Finally, as is evidenced by the attached third-party registrations, it is common for entities that provide anti-theft for personal electronic devices and monitors to also provide carrying cases and/or protective covers for electronic goods such as cell phones, laptops, tablet computers, electronic reading devices and/or portable media players.

The trademark examining attorney has attached evidence from the USPTO’s X-Search database consisting of a number of third-party marks registered for use in connection with the same or similar goods as those of both applicant and registrant in this case.  This evidence shows that the goods listed therein, are of a kind that may emanate from a single source under a single mark.  See In re Anderson, 101 USPQ2d 1912, 1919 (TTAB 2012); In re Albert Trostel & Sons Co.,29 USPQ2d 1783, 1785-86 (TTAB 1993); In re Mucky Duck Mustard Co., 6 USPQ2d 1467, 1470 n.6 (TTAB 1988); TMEP §1207.01(d)(iii). 

Because the goods of the parties are commonly provided by single entities, they are of a type that they would be encountered by consumers under circumstances that would give rise to the mistaken belief that the goods emanate from the same source.  Therefore, there is a likelihood of confusion with respect to the goods.

Conclusion

The overriding concern is not only to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods and/or services, but to protect the registrant from adverse commercial impact due to use of a similar mark by a newcomer.  See In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1208, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1690 (Fed. Cir. 1993).  Therefore, any doubt regarding a likelihood of confusion determination is resolved in favor of the registrant.  TMEP §1207.01(d)(i); see Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1265, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2002); In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 464-65, 6 USPQ2d 1025, 1026 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

For the foregoing reasons, there is a likelihood of confusion as to source with regard to the marks and the pertinent goods.  Because there is a likelihood of confusion as to source with regard to the marks and the pertinent goods, registration is refused under Trademark Action Section 2(d) 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).

Options

Applicant may respond to the stated refusal by submitting evidence and arguments against the refusal.  In addition, applicant may respond by doing one of the following:

(1)       Deleting the goods and/or services to which the refusal pertains;

(2)       Filing a request to divide out the goods and/or services that have not been refused registration, so that the mark may proceed toward publication for opposition for those goods or services to which the refusal does not pertain.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.87.  See generally TMEP §§1110 et seq. (regarding the requirements for filing a request to divide).  If applicant files a request to divide, then to avoid abandonment, applicant must also file a timely response to all outstanding issues in this Office action, including the refusal.  37 C.F.R. §2.87(e).; or

(3)       Amending the basis for the goods and/or services identified in the refusal, if appropriate.  TMEP §806.03(h).  (The basis cannot be changed for applications filed under Trademark Act Section 66(a).  TMEP §1904.01(a).)

If applicant chooses to respond to the refusal(s) to register, then applicant must also respond to the following refusal.

Specimen

Registration is refused because the specimen appears to consist of a digitally altered image or a mock-up of the intended depiction of the mark on the goods or their packaging for future use in commerce; however, these provisional samples do not show the applied-for mark in actual use in commerce.  Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a). 

A mock-up of a product or its packaging that has been digitally created or otherwise altered to include the mark does not show actual use of the mark in commerce.  See 15 U.S.C. §1127; TMEP §§904.04(a), 904.07(a); cf. In re Chica, Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1845, 1848 (TTAB 2007) (holding that “a mere drawing of the goods with an illustration of how the mark may be displayed” was not an acceptable specimen because it did not show actual use in commerce); In re The Signal Cos., 228 USPQ 956, 957-58 n.4 (TTAB 1986) (noting that a printer’s proof of an advertisement would not be an acceptable specimen because it does not show actual use in commerce).  In addition, a photograph of the mark on a label, tag, or piece of paper placed on top of applicant’s or a third party’s goods or packaging is generally not acceptable to show applicant’s use of the applied-for mark in commerce.  See 15 U.S.C. §1127; TMEP §§904.03(a), 904.07(a).  Applicant must show the mark on applicant’s own goods or packaging as it is seen by the purchasing public, with goods that have actually been sold or transported in commerce.  See TMEP §904.07(a).

In this case, the mark as it is presented on the specimens appears to have been added onto the specimens and is not integral to the specimen.  Further, the goods pictured in the specimen appeal to be doorbells; however, the wording beneath applicant’s mark on the specimen suggests they are monitors which contradicts the nature of the actual goods.  Finally, the goods appear to be from a separate manufacturer.  See attached, Soliom.

An application based on Trademark Act Section 1(a) must include a specimen showing the applied-for mark in use in commerce for each international class of goods and/or services identified in the application or amendment to allege use.  15 U.S.C. §1051(a)(1); 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a).  “Use in commerce” means (1) a bona fide use of the applied-for mark in the ordinary course of trade (and not merely to reserve a right in the mark), (2) the mark is placed in any manner on the goods, packaging, tags or labels, or displays of the goods, and (3) the goods are actually sold or transported in commerce.  See 15 U.S.C. §1127.

In addition to the examples of specimens in (2) in the above paragraph, examples of specimens for goods also include instruction manuals, containers, and webpages that include a picture or textual description of the goods associated with the mark and the means to order the goods.  See TMEP §§904.03 et seq. 

Applicant may respond to this refusal by satisfying one of the following for each applicable international class:

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

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

For an overview of both response options referenced above and instructions on how to satisfy either option online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, please go to the Specimen webpage.

Requirements

Information About Specimen Required

A specimen must show the mark as used in commerce, which means use in the ordinary course of trade (not merely to reserve a right in the mark).  15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1052, 1127.  A specimen shows a mark used in commerce for goods only if it shows the mark placed on the goods, packaging, tags or labels affixed to the goods, or displays of the goods, and the goods are actually sold or transported for sale in commerce.  15 U.S.C. §1127.  Because the specimen of record appears to be digitally created or altered, or otherwise a mock-up, it does not appear to show the mark as actually used in commerce.  Therefore, to permit proper examination of the application, applicant must submit additional information for the record about the specimen and how the mark as shown in the specimen is in use in commerce with applicant’s goods.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b); TMEP §814.

Accordingly, applicant must respond to the following questions and requests for documentation to satisfy this request for information:

(1)       How are applicant’s goods sold?  Specify the retail, wholesale, or other sales environment in which the goods are sold.

(2)       Please provide copies of invoices, bills of sale, or other documentation of sales of the goods.

(3)       Was the specimen created for submission with this application?

(4)       Does the specimen show applicant’s product as it is currently being sold to consumers?

(5)       How do applicant’s goods appear in the actual sales environment?  If sold in stores, provide photos showing the goods for sale in the stores.  If sold online, identify the websites and provide copies of the webpages showing the goods for sale.  And if sold in another type of sales environment, provide photos and/or documentation showing the goods for sale in that environment.

(6)       If the information in question (5) about how the goods appear in the actual sales environment is not available to applicant, then please describe how applicant’s goods are transported for sale and provide photos and other documentation showing how applicant’s mark appears on the goods and/or its packaging when the goods are being transported for sale.

See 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b); TMEP §814.  

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

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.  

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. §2.191; 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.

/Paul C. Crowley/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 119

(571) 272-8846

paul.crowley@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 10/30/2018 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 88029163

Your trademark application has been reviewed.  The trademark examining attorney assigned by the USPTO to your application has written an official letter to which you must respond.  Please follow these steps:

(1)  Read the LETTER by clicking on this link or going to http://tsdr.gov.uspto.report/, entering your U.S. application serial number, and clicking on “Documents.”

The Office action may not be immediately viewable, to allow for necessary system updates of the application, but will be available within 24 hours of this e-mail notification. 

(2)  Respond within 6 months (or sooner if specified in the Office action), calculated from 10/30/2018, using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) response form located at http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp.  A response transmitted through TEAS must be received before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period.

Do NOT hit “Reply” to this e-mail notification, or otherwise e-mail your response because the USPTO does NOT accept e-mails as responses to Office actions. 

(3)  Questions about the contents of the Office action itself should be directed to the trademark examining attorney who reviewed your application, identified below. 

/Paul C. Crowley/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 119

(571) 272-8846

paul.crowley@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.