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: 12/19/2018

 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES:

• Prior Filed Application Advisory
• Section 2(d) Refusal - Likelihood of Confusion
• Description of Mark – Amendment Required
• Disclaimer Required
• Amended Identification of Goods Required, as to Class 005
• Information About Goods Required

 

PRIOR-FILED APPLICATION

 

The filing date of pending U.S. Application Serial No. 87937143 precedes applicant’s filing date.  See attached referenced application.  If the mark in the referenced application registers, applicant’s mark may be refused registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d) because of a likelihood of confusion between the two marks.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §§1208 et seq.  Therefore, upon receipt of applicant’s response to this Office action, action on this application may be suspended pending final disposition of the earlier-filed referenced application.

 

In response to this Office action, applicant may present arguments in support of registration by addressing the issue of the potential conflict between applicant’s mark and the mark in the referenced application.  Applicant’s election not to submit arguments at this time in no way limits applicant’s right to address this issue later if a refusal under Section 2(d) issues.

 

 

SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 3921679 and 4949041.  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 is so similar to a registered mark that it is likely consumers would be confused, mistaken, or deceived as to the commercial source of the goods of the parties.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).  Likelihood of confusion is determined 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) (called the “du Pont factors”).  In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1322, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1747 (Fed. Cir. 2017).  Only those factors that are “relevant and of record” need be considered.  M2 Software, Inc. v. M2 Commc’ns, Inc., 450 F.3d 1378, 1382, 78 USPQ2d 1944, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Shen Mfg. Co. v. Ritz Hotel Ltd., 393 F.3d 1238, 1241, 73 USPQ2d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2004)); see In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1744 (TTAB 2018). 

 

Standard of Analysis

 

Although not all du Pont factors may be relevant, there are generally two key considerations in any likelihood of confusion analysis:  (1) the similarities between the compared marks and (2) the relatedness of the compared goods.  See 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)); Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co.,544 F.2d 1098, 1103, 192 USPQ 24, 29 (C.C.P.A. 1976) (“The fundamental inquiry mandated by [Section] 2(d) goes to the cumulative effect of differences in the essential characteristics of the goods [or services] and differences in the marks.”); TMEP §1207.01.

 

That is, 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 Inn at St. John’s, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1746 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Davia, 110 USPQ2d 1810, 1812 (TTAB 2014)); TMEP §1207.01(b). Additionally, the goods are compared to determine whether they are similar, commercially related, or travel in the same trade channels.  See Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369-71, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722-23 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 1165, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2002); TMEP §§1207.01, 1207.01(a)(vi).

 

The applicant has applied to register the mark ORGANIC LIFE in standard characters for the following goods:

 

• “Organic fertilizers” class 001.
• “Insecticides” in class 005.

 

 

The cited marks are as follows:

 

• LIFE (in standard characters), in Registration No. 3921679 for “Fertilizers" and a variety of fertilizers, in Class 001.

 

• LIFE (in standard characters), in Registration No. 4949041 for "Fertiliser for soil and potting soil; Fertilisers for soil and potting soil," in Class 001.

 

 

Comparison of the Marks:

 

The cited marks in registrations 3921679 and 4949041 and the applied for mark all contain the term LIFE in dominant and significant part. Specifically, the cited marks consist entirely of the term, LIFE; and term LIFE dominantly engenders the applied-for mark's overall commercial impression. The addition of the wording ORGANIC and the design, in the applied-for mark, do not significantly distinguish the applied-for mark in overall commercial impression from the registered marks nor obviate a likelihood of confusion. ORGANIC is descriptive, as more fully explained below, and so LIFE in the applied-for mark remains the dominant and source-indicating essence of the mark. The design effectively serves as an illustration of LIFE, also as more fully explained below, and so again does not alter the mark’s overall commercial impression. The possible difference gained by the inclusion of the term ORGANIC and the design is minimal. LIFE remains the dominant term in applicant’s mark.

 

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 Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1305, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re Dixie Rests., 105 F.3d 1405, 1407, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533-34 (Fed. Cir. 1997)); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii).  Matter that is descriptive of or generic for a party’s goods, such as ORGANIC for applicant’s goods, is typically less significant or less dominant in relation to other wording in a mark.  See Anheuser-Busch, LLC v. Innvopak Sys. Pty Ltd., 115 USPQ2d 1816, 1824-25 (TTAB 2015) (citing In re Chatam Int’l Inc., 380 F.3d 1340, 1342-43, 71 USPQ2d 1944, 1946 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). As LIFE comprises the only element in the cited marks and the distinctive literal element in the applied-for mark, it follows that for both, LIFE is the dominant mark feature and that the marks, as a result, engender a highly similar commercial impression.

 

Additionally, the applicant’s mark contains a design element. However, when evaluating a composite mark consisting of words and a design, the word portion is normally accorded greater weight because it is likely to make a greater impression upon purchasers, be remembered by them, and be used by them to refer to or request the goods.  In re Aquitaine Wine USA, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1181, 1184 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii).  In this case, the design consists of a depiction of a barn with fence and chicken in brown. Behind this is a large yellow circle. In front of the barn and fence is a green banner with the words “ORGANIC LIFE.” This image evokes the idea of an idyllic life, and effectively illustrates the literal element of the mark as promoted by the applicant and applicant’s goods. Thus, the design does not significantly alter the mark's overall commercial impression, which is still dominantly engendered by the word LIFE. Therefore, LIFE remains the dominate aspect of the applicant’s mark despite the addition of the design.

 

Thus, as LIFE comprises the entirety of the registered marks, and LIFE dominantly engenders the overall commercial impression of the applicant's mark, with ORGANIC LIFE conveying the impression of a particular line of products that emanate from the source identified by the term LIFE and that are organic in quality, the applicant's mark so resembles the registrant's marks as to create a likelihood of source confusion.

 

Of further consideration, where the goods of an applicant and registrant are “similar in kind and/or closely related,” as they are in this case, as explained below, 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.  In re J.M. Originals Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1393, 1394 (TTAB 1987); see Shen Mfg. Co. v. Ritz Hotel Ltd., 393 F.3d 1238, 1242, 73 USPQ2d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2004); TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

Comparison of the Goods:

 

Here, the cited marks in Registration Nos. 3921679 and 4949041 are both registered in connection with “fertilizer” and a variety of fertilizer products in class 001.

 

Applicant seeks registration for “organic fertilizers” in class 001.

 

Determining likelihood of confusion is based on the description of the goods stated in the application and registration at issue, not on extrinsic evidence of actual use.  See In re Detroit Athletic Co., __ F.3d __, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1052 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1325, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1749 (Fed. Cir. 2017)). In this case, “Fertilizers” clearly encompasses “organic fertilizer”. Thus, the applicant's goods are encompassed within the registrant's goods. Hence, the applicant's goods are considered similar, commercially related, and to travel in the same trade channels as the registrant's goods.

 

The goods of the parties have no restrictions as to channels of trade or classes of purchasers, and as such, are “presumed to travel in the same channels of trade to the same class of purchasers.”  In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1268, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).

 

With respect to the applicant's goods in International Class 005, "insecticides", the attached internet evidence, consisting of various third party websites, establishes that the same entity commonly produces and provides both fertilizers and insecticides, which are a kind of pesticide as shown by the attached definition, under the same mark. See attached evidence from Graco, Garden’s Alive!, and Zamzows. This evidence further shows that both fertilizers and insecticides are sold through the same trade channels and encountered by the same classes of consumers. Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods are considered related for likelihood of confusion purposes.  See, e.g., In re Davey Prods. Pty Ltd., 92 USPQ2d 1198, 1202-04 (TTAB 2009); In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d 1266, 1268-69, 1271-72 (TTAB 2009).

 

Conclusion:

 

Given the similarity of the goods concerned, applicant’s and registrant’s 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 summary, the similarity between the applicant's mark and the registered marks, and the relatedness of the applicant's goods to the registrants' goods, is so great as to create a likelihood of confusion. Thus, registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 3921679 and 4949041.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.

 

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

 

 

DESCRIPTION OF MARK

 

Applicant must amend the color claim and description to identify all the colors in the drawing of the mark.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.52(b)(1); TMEP §807.07(a)-(a)(ii). The following colors have been omitted from the color claim:  cream.  In addition, the following colors have been omitted from the description:  cream.

 

A complete color claim must reference all the colors appearing in the drawing of the mark.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.52(b)(1); TMEP §§807.07(a) et seq. Similarly, a complete description of a mark depicted in color must specify where the colors appear in the literal and design elements of the mark.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.37, 2.52(b)(1); TMEP §§807.07(a) et seq. If black, white, and/or gray represent background, outlining, shading, and/or transparent areas and are not part of the mark, applicant must so specify in the description.  See TMEP §807.07(d).

 

Color claim:  The colors yellow, brown, green, and cream are claimed as a feature of the mark.

 

Mark Description:  The mark consists of a yellow circular background, featuring a brown barn with a brown fence protruding horizontally from the barn on both sides. There is a solid brown rooster standing erect upon the top rail of the fence on the right-hand side of the barn. There is a curved green ribbon banner extending horizontally across the bottom portion of the circle, partially covering the bottom of the barn. The banner is surrounded by a cream-colored border; and inside the banner are the words "ORGANIC LIFE", in all capital letters in the color cream, surrounded by the outline of a curved rectangular shape formed by cream-colored dashes.

 

See TMEP §807.07(b).

 

 

DISCLAIMER REQUIRED

 

Applicant must provide a disclaimer of the unregistrable part of the applied-for mark.  See 15 U.S.C. §1056(a); TMEP §§1213, 1213.03(a).  A disclaimer of an unregistrable part of a mark will not affect the mark’s appearance.  See Schwarzkopf v. John H. Breck, Inc., 340 F.2d 978, 979-80, 144 USPQ 433, 433 (C.C.P.A. 1965).

 

In this case, applicant must disclaim the wording “ORGANIC” because it is not inherently distinctive.  The unregistrable term is at best merely descriptive of a quality of applicant’s goods.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1251, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2012); TMEP §§1213, 1213.03(a). 

 

In this case, applicant must disclaim the wording “ORGANIC” because it is not inherently distinctive.  The unregistrable term is at best merely descriptive of a quality of applicant’s goods.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1251, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2012); TMEP §§1213, 1213.03(a). 

 

With respect to the goods identified in International Classes 001, the attached evidence from third party websites shows “ORGANIC” is commonly used in connection with identical goods to mean fertilizers that are produced from materials such as animal and vegetable matter rather than those produced industrially or from minerals. Further, with respect to the goods identified in International Classes 005, the attached evidence from third party websites shows “ORGANIC” is commonly used in connection with identical goods to refer to naturally occurring chemicals that kill insects and other pests. Thus, the wording merely describes a quality of the applicant’s goods in each class. As such, "ORGANIC" is an unregistrable component of the applied-for mark that must be disclaimed.

 

Applicant may respond to this issue by submitting a disclaimer in the following format: 

 

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

 

For an overview of disclaimers and instructions on how to satisfy this issue using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), see the Disclaimer webpage. 

 

 

AMENDED IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS REQUIRED

 

THE STATED REQUIREMENT APPLIES TO CLASS 005, ONLY.

 

Applicant’s mark includes the wording “ORGANIC”, which indicates that applicant’s goods have the following feature or characteristic:  they are comprised of organic materials. 

 

This feature or characteristic is considered desirable for applicant’s goods because it is a healthier and more eco-friendly option.  However, if some or all of the goods do not (or will not) in fact have or exhibit this feature or characteristic, then registration may be refused because the mark consists of or includes deceptive matter in relation to the identified goods and/or services.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(a); In re Budge Mfg. Co., 857 F.2d 773, 8 USPQ2d 1259 (Fed. Cir. 1988); TMEP §1203.02-.02(b).

 

To avoid such refusal, applicant may amend the identification to specify that the goods possess this relevant characteristic.  See TMEP §§1203.02(e)(ii), (f)(i), 1402.05 et seq.  However, merely amending the identification to exclude goods or services with the named feature or characteristic will not avoid a deceptiveness refusal.  TMEP §1203.02(f)(i).

 

Therefore, applicant may amend the identification to the following, if accurate: 

 

• “Organic insecticides”

 

SCOPE ADVISORY: Applicant may amend the identification to clarify or limit the goods and/or services, but not to broaden or expand the goods and/or services beyond those in the original application or as acceptably amended.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06.  Generally, any deleted goods and/or services may not later be reinserted.  See TMEP §1402.07(e).

 

 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED

 

The nature of the goods with which applicant intends to use or is using the mark is not clear from the present record and additional information is required.  To permit proper examination of the application, applicant must provide the following:

 

• A written statement explaining whether the goods are or will be comprised of organic material.

 

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

 

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

 

Applicant is advised that, if applicant’s response to the request for information indicates that the goods identified in the application do not or will not be comprised of organic materials, registration may be refused on the ground that the applied-for mark is deceptively misdescriptive.  15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); see In re Hinton, 116 USPQ2d 1051, 1052 (TTAB 2015); In re Berman Bros. Harlem Furniture Inc., 26 USPQ2d 1514, 1515-16 (TTAB 1993); TMEP §§1203.02(e), 1209.04.

 

 

RESPONDING TO THIS OFFICE ACTION

 

Response guidelines.  For this application to proceed, applicant must explicitly address each refusal and/or requirement in this Office action.  For a refusal, applicant may provide written arguments and evidence against the refusal, and may have other response options if specified above.  For a requirement, applicant should set forth the changes or statements.  Please see “Responding to Office Actions” and the informational video “Response to Office Action” for more information and tips on responding.

 

Assistance. 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.  

 

/Carolyn Detmer/

Carolyn Detmer

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 127

(571) 272-2722

carolyn.detmer1@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 12/19/2018 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 88113349

 

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 12/19/2018 (or sooner if specified in the Office action).  A response transmitted through the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) must be received before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period.  For information regarding response time periods, see http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/process/status/responsetime.jsp.

 

Do NOT hit “Reply” to this e-mail notification, or otherwise e-mail your response because the USPTO does NOT accept e-mails as responses to Office actions.  Instead, the USPTO recommends that you respond online using the TEAS response form located at http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp.

 

(3)  QUESTIONS:  For questions about the contents of the Office action itself, please contact the assigned trademark examining attorney.  For technical assistance in accessing or viewing the Office action in the Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) system, please e-mail TSDR@uspto.gov.

 

WARNING

 

Failure to file the required response by the applicable response deadline will result in the ABANDONMENT of your application.  For more information regarding abandonment, see http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/basics/abandon.jsp.

 

PRIVATE COMPANY SOLICITATIONS REGARDING YOUR APPLICATION:  Private companies not associated with the USPTO are using information provided in trademark applications to mail or e-mail trademark-related solicitations.  These companies often use names that closely resemble the USPTO and their solicitations may look like an official government document.  Many solicitations require that you pay “fees.” 

 

Please carefully review all correspondence you receive regarding this application to make sure that you are responding to an official document from the USPTO rather than a private company solicitation.  All official USPTO correspondence will be mailed only from the “United States Patent and Trademark Office” in Alexandria, VA; or sent by e-mail from the domain “@uspto.gov.”  For more information on how to handle private company solicitations, see http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/solicitation_warnings.jsp.