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: 5/10/2019

 

 

THIS IS A FINAL ACTION.

 

 

 

 

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.  

 

Introduction

 

This Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on April 30, 2019.  In the initial Office action, the Examining Attorney issued a Section 2(e)(1) Refusal.  The applicant has responded with argument and evidence.  However, for the reasons discussed below, the refusal is maintained and made final.

 

Summary of Issues Applicant Must Address

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

 

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

 

The refusal under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1) is now made FINAL for the reasons set forth below.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b).

 

The applicant has applied for registration of the mark ADAPT in standard character form for:

 

Vacuum cleaners, in Class 7.

 

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

 

The applicant’s argument begins by correctly stating the case law for Section 2(e)(1) refusals.  Specifically, the applicant’s response includes the following statements:

 

A term is merely descriptive if it conveys an immediate idea as to the ingredients, quality or characteristics of the goods or services in connection with which it is used.  In re Gyulay, 820 F.2d 1216, 3 USPQ2d 1009, 1009 (Fed. Cir. 1987); In re Abcor Development Corp, 200 U.S.P.Q.  215 (CCPA 1978).  Not only must the wording immediately impart information about the goods or services, but it must do so with a “degree of particularity.”  In re Intelligent Medical Systems Inc., 5 U.S.P.Q.2d 1674 (TTAB 1986); Holiday Inns v.  Monolith Enterprises, 212 U.S.P.Q.  949 (TTAB 1981). 

A descriptiveness refusal is only proper if the mark is descriptive of the goods for which registration is sought. In re Sterotaxis Inc., 429 F.3d 1039, 77 USPQ2d 1087, 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (emphasis added); In re Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, 102 USPQ2d 1217 (Fed. Cir. 2012).  . . . .

This is in accord with TMEP §1209.01(b), which indicates that the determination of whether a mark is descriptive must be made in relation to the goods for which registration is sought, not in the abstract.  Id. Thus, in holding a mark merely descriptive, the Examining Attorney must find more than simply some connection between the mark and the goods with which it is used. The relationship must be such that the wording conveys an immediate impression of the goods. A mark that, when applied to the goods at issue, requires imagination, thought, or perception to reach a conclusion about the nature of the goods is not merely descriptive, but suggestive, and, thus, registrable. In re George Weston Ltd., 228 USPQ 57 (TTAB 1985); Nautilus Grp., Inc. v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. 372 F.3d 1330, 1340, 71 USPQ2d 1173, 1180 (Fed. Cir. 2004). To be merely descriptive, the wording must literally, and with particularity, “describe” the goods. Thus, for example, in TMS of the Americas, 200 U.S.P.Q. 57 (TTAB 1978), the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, in reversing a decision of the Examining Attorney, found the mark “THE MONEY STORE” not descriptive when applied to financial services that involved the remote transfer of funds.

 

Applicant’s Response, 4/30/2019, TSDR, at 1.

 

Nonetheless, after specifically acknowledging that the determination of whether a mark is merely descriptive is made in relation to an applicant’s goods and/or services, not in the abstract, the applicant then asserts that the applicant’s goods cannot be guessed from the mark alone.  Specifically, the applicant’s response states that

 

the customer must exercise a degree of imagination to make a connection between the mark (ADAPT) and the goods (vacuum cleaners).  It is not inherently apparent to a consumer – nor is there evidence that suggests it would be inherently apparent to a consumer – that Applicant’s ADAPT product is a vacuum cleaner. Indeed, a consumer would be obliged to engage in at least some mental gymnastics to connect the term ADAPT to vacuum cleaners. . . . [T]the term ADAPT elicit[s] images of a whole host of goods and services that have nothing to do with Applicant’s goods or a feature thereof, such as ADAPT for thermostats, or toys, or highchairs, or closet storage, or modular furniture, or occupational therapy services, or rehabilitation services, or retirement services. . . . [I]t does not, standing alone, merely describe Applicant’s goods. . . .  In short, no one looking at Applicant’s ADAPT mark would immediately associate the mark with vacuum cleaners.

 

Applicant’s Response, 4/30/2019, TSDR, at 1. 

 

However, “[w]hether consumers could guess what the product [or service] is from consideration of the mark alone is not the test.”  In re Am. Greetings Corp., 226 USPQ 365, 366 (TTAB 1985).

 

Determining the descriptiveness of a mark is done in relation to an applicant’s goods and/or services, the context in which the mark is being used, and the possible significance the mark would have to the average purchaser because of the manner of its use or intended use.  See In re The Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 1300, 102 USPQ2d 1217, 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, 488 F.3d 960, 963-64, 82 USPQ2d 1828, 1831 (Fed. Cir. 2007)); TMEP §1209.01(b).  In re George Weston Ltd., 228 USPQ 57 (TTAB 1985), cited by the applicant in support of its argument, does not discuss guessing the goods from the mark alone; instead, throughout that opinion, the meaning of the mark is analyzed in the context of the relevant goods (frozen dough).

 

The applicant has also cited In re Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, 82 USPQ2d 1828, 1831 (Fed. Cir. 2007) regarding the evidentiary standard for Section 2(e)(1) refusals.  Specifically, in that case, the court stated the following:

 

The examining attorney has the burden to establish that a mark is merely descriptive.

 

The determination that a mark is merely descriptive is a factual finding, and this court reviews the Board's fact finding for substantial evidence.  Substantial evidence "means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Consol. Edison Co. v. N.L.R.B., 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938).

 

In re Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, 82 USPQ2d at 1831 (some internal citations omitted).

 

In the initial Office action, this refusal was supported with dictionary evidence, the applicant’s advertising material, and other Internet evidence.  The applicant’s argument summarily dismisses all of this evidence because the applicant asserts that it does not show that consumers could guess the goods from the mark alone.  Applicant’s Response, 4/30/2019, TSDR, at 1.  As discussed above, this is not the correct test for Section 2(e)(1) refusals.

 

Dictionary Evidence

 

The term “adapt” is defined as “To change in order to meet the requirements of new circumstances or conditions.”  The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language (5th ed. 2018), http://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=adapt, Office action, 10/302/2018, TSDR, at 2.

 

Vacuum cleaners are commonly sold with a number of attachments and features to address the conditions of different surfaces.  Thus, the term ADAPT in the mark merely describes this characteristic of the applicant’s goods.

 

Applicant’s Website and Other Advertising

 

The previous Office action included a number of screenshots for an advertising video for the applicant’s goods sold under this mark.  Youtube, Adapt™ Ion Pet 2-in-1 Cordless Vacuum Overview | BISSELL, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12PlvyqWKqc (viewed on Oct-29-2018, 09:35 EDT), Office action, 10/30/2018, TSDR, at 3-10  These screenshots highlight a number of attachments and features that enable the applicant’s vacuum cleaner to adapt to various surfaces and conditions.  These features include:  an on/off brush roll (for transitioning between carpet and hard floors), swivel steering (for cleaning around furniture legs), 2 way folding handle (for fitting below furniture, and for storage), and a removable hand vacuum with upholstery and crevice tools.

 

The applicant’s website describes similar features of the goods, and even uses “adapts” a form of the term ADAPT in the mark to describe these features.  Specifically, the applicant’s website includes the following statements:

 

Adapts to Clean Wherever Pets Go!

 

[T[he Adapt™ Ion Pet's 2-Way Folding Handle conveniently adapts to clean far under furniture and collapses to fit your compact storage needs.

 

2-Way Folding Handle adapts to reach far under furniture and collapses for easy, compact storage.

 

Adapts to clean where you need it, including under furniture and other tricky spots your pet may go.

 

Bissell, Adapt™ Ion Pet 2-in-1 Cordless Vacuum | 2286A, http://www.bissell.com/adapt-ion-pet-2-in-1-cordless-vacuum-2286a (viewed on Oct-29-2018, 09:43 EDT), Office action, 10/30/2018, TSDR, at 11-13.

 

Material obtained from applicant’s website is acceptable as competent evidence.  See In re N.V. Organon, 79 USPQ2d 1639, 1642-43 (TTAB 2006); In re Promo Ink, 78 USPQ2d 1301, 1302-03 (TTAB 2006); TBMP §1208.03; TMEP §710.01(b).

 

Internet Evidence

 

The applicant was also referred to Internet evidence, consisting of articles about vacuums and third-party advertising, all of which shows use of “adapt” to describe similar types of vacuum features.  The following is a summary of that evidence:

 

It is strongly recommended to choose a vacuum cleaner with a power selector: this will allow you to adapt the suction force (along with the noise and the power consumption) to the type of floor cleaned (smooth or carpeted).  Canister Vacuum Cleaner, How to Choose a Canister Vacuum Cleaner, http://www.canistervacuumcleaner.net/how-to-choose-a-canister-vacuum-cleaner/ (viewed on Oct-29-2018, 09:53 EDT), Office action, 10/30/2018, TSDR, at 14-15.

 

With the optional Original Miele accessories you can adapt your Miele vacuum cleaner to changing needs even after purchase: for instance when you get a pet, new floor coverings or if you develop an allergy to house dust.  Miele, What Should your Vacuum Cleaner be Able to do?, http://www.mieleusa.com/domestic/4616.htm?info=200113640-ZST (viewed on Oct-29-2018, 09:55 EDT), Office action, 10/30/2018, TSDR, at 16.

 

A wide range of accessories enables users to customise each vacuum cleaner to adapt it to even more difficult vacuuming requirements. TMB, Industrial Vacuum Cleaners, http://www.tmbvacuum.com/eng/products/4/industrialvacuum-cleaners/index.html (viewed on Oct-29-2018, 09:59 EDT), Office action, 10/30/2018, TSDR, at 17.

 

Canister Vacuum Cleaners easily adapt for use of different tools without overbalancing.  Dobmeier Janitorial Supplies, HEPA Vacuum Cleaners Guide, http://www.dobmeierjanitorialsupplies.com/HEPA-Vacuum-Cleaner-Choice/ (viewed on Oct-29-2018, 10:02 EDT), Office action, 10/30/2018, TSDR, at 18-19.

 

A powerful, high-efficiency suction head removes ground-in dirt and tackles large spills, while tapered nozzles adapt to a wide variety of surfaces. Rowenta, Bagless Vacuum Cleaners, http://www.rowenta.com/Home-Cleaning/Bagless-Vacuum-Cleaners/c/bagless%2Bvacuum%2Bcleaners (viewed on Oct-29-2018, 10:05 EDT), Office action, 10/30/2018, TSDR, at 20-21.

 

Cyclonic vacuum cleaner has an easy to switch on/off power brush to adapt to the needs of different types of floors.  Northwest Ranch Supply, Inc., Kalorik Cordless Stick Vacuum Cleaner - VC 42475 R, http://www.nwranch.com/products/603017 (viewed on Oct-29-2018, 10:15 EDT), Office action, 10/30/2018, TSDR, at 22.

 

Material obtained from the Internet is generally accepted as competent evidence in trademark examination.  See In re Jonathan Drew Inc., 97 USPQ2d 1640, 1641-42 (TTAB 2011); In re Davey Prods. Pty Ltd., 92 USPQ2d 1198, 1202-03 (TTAB 2009); In re Leonhardt, 109 USPQ2d 2091, 2098 (TTAB 2008); TBMP §1208.03; TMEP §710.01(b).

 

Applicant’s Evidence – Third-Party Registrations

 

In support of its response, the applicant has made of record a number of third-party registrations that consist of or include the term ADAPT and are registered on the Principal Register without a disclaimer or Section 2(f) claim.  Applicant’s Response, 4/30/2019, TSDR, at 1-14.  The applicant asserts that “this evidence of third party registrations on the Principal Register of the U.S. Trademark Office for the mark ADAPT is highly relevant and compelling because it shows that the mark ADAPT for a wide variety of goods and services is inherently distinctive and not merely descriptive.”  Applicant’s Response, 4/30/2019, TSDR, at 1. 

 

As the applicant has stated, these registrations are for a wide variety of goods and services.  None of the goods have attachments or features like vacuum cleaners.  The services and software goods do not even have any physical components that could incorporate attachments or features like vacuum cleaners.  Thus, these registrations are not probative evidence on the issue of whether ADAPT is merely descriptive for vacuum evidence.

 

Further, even if the third-party registrations made of record by the applicant did include vacuum cleaners or similar goods, the fact that third-party registrations exist for marks allegedly similar to applicant’s mark is not conclusive on the issue of descriptiveness.  See In re Scholastic Testing Serv., Inc., 196 USPQ 517, 519 (TTAB 1977); TMEP §1209.03(a).  An applied-for mark that is merely descriptive does not become registrable simply because other seemingly similar marks appear on the register.  In re Scholastic Testing Serv., Inc., 196 USPQ at 519; TMEP §1209.03(a).

 

It is well settled that each case must be decided on its own facts and the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board is not bound by prior decisions involving different records.  See In re Nett Designs, Inc., 236 F. 3d 1339, 1342, 57 USPQ2d 1564, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re Datapipe, Inc., 111 USPQ2d 1330, 1336 (TTAB 2014); TMEP §1209.03(a).  The question of whether a mark is merely descriptive is determined based on the evidence of record at the time each registration is sought.  In re theDot Commc’ns Network LLC, 101 USPQ2d 1062, 1064 (TTAB 2011); TMEP §1209.03(a); see In re Nett Designs, Inc., 236 F.3d at 1342, 57 USPQ2d at 1566.

 

Thus, when the mark ADAPT is considered within the context of the relevant goods, vacuum cleaners, the mark merely describes characteristics of those goods, namely, that the goods include attachments and features to address the conditions of different surfaces, and the record includes substantial evidence (relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion) to support this finding.

 

The applicant has also argued that the mark “is an innovative play on words.”  Applicant’s Response, 4/30/2019, TSDR, at 1.  In other words, the applicant appears to suggest that the mark creates a double entendre.

 

A “double entendre” is an expression that has a double connotation or significance as applied to the goods and/or services.  TMEP §1213.05(c); see In re Colonial Stores Inc., 394 F.2d 549, 552-53, 157 USPQ 382, 384-85 (C.C.P.A. 1968) (finding SUGAR & SPICE a double entendre and not descriptive for bakery products because it evokes the nursery rhyme “sugar and spice and everything nice”).

 

A mark that comprises a “double entendre” will not be refused registration as merely descriptive if one of its meanings is not merely descriptive in relation to the goods and/or services.  TMEP §1213.05(c).  However, the multiple meanings that make an expression a “double entendre” must be well-recognized by the public and readily apparent from the mark itself.  See In re Calphalon Corp., 122 USPQ2d 1153, 1163-64 (TTAB 2017) (quoting TMEP §1213.05(c)) (finding SHARPIN not a double entendre in relation to cutlery knife blocks with built-in sharpeners and affirming descriptiveness refusal); In re Brown-Forman Corp., 81 USPQ2d 1284, 1287 (TTAB 2006) (finding GALA ROUGE not a double entendre in relation to wines and affirming disclaimer of ROUGE); In re The Place, Inc., 76 USPQ2d 1467, 1470-71 (TTAB 2005) (finding THE GREATEST BAR not a double entendre in relation to restaurant and bar services and affirming descriptiveness refusal).

 

In this case, the applicant has not explained what the other non-descriptive meaning of ADAPT is that creates the play on words, nor is any other meaning obvious from the mark itself.  Thus, the mark does not create a double entendre.

 

Applicant argues that any doubt regarding the mark’s descriptiveness should be resolved on applicant’s behalf.  E.g., In re Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 828 F.2d 1567, 1571 4 USPQ2d 1141, 1144 (Fed. Cir. 1987); In re Grand Forest Holdings, Inc., 78 USPQ2d 1152, 1156 (TTAB 2006).  However, in the present case, the evidence of record leaves no doubt that the mark is merely descriptive.

 

Thus, for the foregoing reasons, the proposed mark is merely descriptive, and the refusal to register the mark on the Principal Register under Section 2(e)(1) is maintained and made final.

 

ADVISORY—Applicant May Amend to Supplemental Register After Filing Acceptable Allegation of Use

 

Although an amendment to the Supplemental Register would normally be an appropriate response to this refusal, such a response is not appropriate in the present case.  The instant application was filed under Trademark Act Section 1(b) and is not eligible for registration on the Supplemental Register until an acceptable amendment to allege use meeting the requirements of 37 C.F.R. §2.76 has been timely filed.  37 C.F.R. §2.47(d); TMEP §§816.02, 1102.03.

 

If applicant files an acceptable allegation of use and also amends 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 an amendment to allege use.  TMEP §§816.02, 1102.03; see 37 C.F.R. §2.75(b).  In addition, the undersigned trademark examining attorney will conduct a new search of the USPTO records for conflicting marks based on the later application filing date.  TMEP §§206.01, 1102.03.

 

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).

 

To amend an intent-to-use application under Trademark Act Section 1(b) to use in commerce, an applicant must file, prior to approval of the mark for publication, an acceptable amendment to allege use.  See 15 U.S.C. §1051(c); 37 C.F.R. §2.76; TMEP §§806.01(b), 1103.  An amendment to allege use must satisfy the following requirements:

 

(1)        STATEMENTS:  The following statements:  “The applicant is the owner of the mark sought to be registered.” and “The applicant is using the mark in commerce on or in connection with all the goods/services in the application or notice of allowance, or as subsequently modified.”

 

(2)        DATES OF FIRST USE:  The date of first use of the mark anywhereon or in connection with the goods and/or services, and the date of first use of the mark in commerceas a trademark or service mark.  See more information about dates of use.

 

(3)        GOODS AND/OR SERVICES:  The goods and/or services specified in the application.

 

(4)        SPECIMEN:  A specimen showing how applicant uses the mark in commerce for each class of goods and/or services for which use is being asserted.  If a single specimen supports multiple classes, applicant should indicate which classes the specimen supports rather than providing multiple copies of the same specimen.  See more information about specimens.

 

(5)        FEE(S):  A filing fee for each international class of goods and/or services for which use is being asserted (find current fee information).

 

(6)        VERIFICATION:  Verification of (1) through (4) above in an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20.  See more information about verification.

 

See 37 C.F.R. §2.76(b); TMEP §1104.08.

 

An amendment to allege use may be filed online via the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS).  Filing an amendment to allege use is not considered a response to an Office action.  37 C.F.R. §2.76(h); TMEP §1104.  An applicant must file a separate response to any outstanding Office action.  TMEP §1104; see 37 C.F.R. §2.76(h). 

 

Response Options

 

Applicant must respond within six months of the date of issuance of this final Office action or the application will be abandoned.  15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §2.65(a).  Applicant may respond by providing one or both of the following:

 

(1)        a response filed using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) that fully satisfies all outstanding requirements and/or resolves all outstanding refusals; and/or

 

(2)        an appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board filed using the Electronic System for Trademark Trials and Appeals (ESTTA) with the required filing fee of $200 per class.

 

37 C.F.R. §2.63(b)(1)-(2); TMEP §714.04; see 37 C.F.R. §2.6(a)(18); TBMP ch. 1200.

 

In certain rare circumstances, an applicant may respond by filing a petition to the Director pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b)(2) to review procedural issues.  TMEP §714.04; see 37 C.F.R. §2.146(b); TBMP §1201.05; TMEP §1704 (explaining petitionable matters).  There is a fee required for filing a petition.  37 C.F.R. §2.6(a)(15).

 

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. 

 

 

 

 

/Kim Teresa Moninghoff/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 113

Phone:  571-272-4738

Fax: 571-273-9113

Email:  kim.moninghoff@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 5/10/2019 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 88032203

 

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 5/10/2019 (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.