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: 12/28/2018

 

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
• PARTIAL FAILURE TO FUNCTION REFUSAL
• IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS MUST BE AMENDED

 

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. 4873800 and 4468510.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registrations.

 

The applied-for mark is ACTIV for “Computer application software for cell phones, tablets, laptop computers, desktop computers, wearables, and other computing devices, namely, software for providing physical therapy, therapeutic, rehabilitation, and exercise education, instruction, and tracking, and purchasing programs of the same” and “Physical therapy”.

 

US Registration No. 4873800 is ACTIV with design is identified for “Computer application software for mobile phones and tablets, namely, software for providing nutritional, exercise, and overall health guidance and tracking”.

 

US Registration No. 4468510 is ACTIV DOCTORS ONLINE with design for “Medical counseling; Medical services; Providing medical information, consultancy and advisory services; Providing on-line medical record analysis services designed to provide patients with custom tailored information about the range of possible diagnoses and therapies associated with a defined set of symptoms; Telemedicine services”.

 

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). 

 

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.

 

Relatedness of Goods and Services

 

The goods and services are compared to determine whether they are similar, commercially related, or travel in the same trade channels.  See Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369-71, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722-23 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 1165, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2002); TMEP §§1207.01, 1207.01(a)(vi).

 

US Registration No. 4873800

 

The applied-for mark is identified for “Computer application software for cell phones, tablets, laptop computers, desktop computers, wearables, and other computing devices, namely, software for providing physical therapy, therapeutic, rehabilitation, and exercise education, instruction, and tracking, and purchasing programs of the same”.

 

US Registration No. 4873800 is identified for “Computer application software for mobile phones and tablets, namely, software for providing nutritional, exercise, and overall health guidance and tracking”.

 

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., 903 F.3d 1297, 1307, 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, the registration uses broad wording to describe “Computer application software for mobile phones and tablets, namely, software for providing nutritional, exercise, and overall health guidance and tracking”, which presumably encompasses all goods of the type described, including applicant’s more narrow “Computer application software for mobile phones and tablets, namely, software for providing nutritional, exercise, and overall health guidance and tracking”.  See, e.g., In re Solid State Design Inc., 125 USPQ2d 1409, 1412-15 (TTAB 2018); Sw. Mgmt., Inc. v. Ocinomled, Ltd., 115 USPQ2d 1007, 1025 (TTAB 2015).  Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods are legally identical.  See, e.g., In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 127 USPQ2d 1627, 1629 (TTAB 2018) (citing Tuxedo Monopoly, Inc. v.Gen. Mills Fun Grp., Inc., 648 F.2d 1335, 1336, 209 USPQ 986, 988 (C.C.P.A. 1981); Inter IKEA Sys. B.V. v. Akea, LLC, 110 USPQ2d 1734, 1745 (TTAB 2014); Baseball Am. Inc. v. Powerplay Sports Ltd., 71 USPQ2d 1844, 1847 n.9 (TTAB 2004)).

 

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

 

US Registration No. 4468510

 

The applied-for mark is identified for “Physical therapy”.

 

US Registration No. 4468510 is identified for “Medical counseling; Medical services; Providing medical information, consultancy and advisory services; Providing on-line medical record analysis services designed to provide patients with custom tailored information about the range of possible diagnoses and therapies associated with a defined set of symptoms; Telemedicine services”.

 

Determining likelihood of confusion is based on the description of the goods and/or services stated in the application and registration at issue, not on extrinsic evidence of actual use.  See In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1307, 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, the registration uses broad wording to describe “Medical services”, which presumably encompasses all services of the type described, including applicant’s more narrow “Physical therapy”.  See, e.g., In re Solid State Design Inc., 125 USPQ2d 1409, 1412-15 (TTAB 2018); Sw. Mgmt., Inc. v. Ocinomled, Ltd., 115 USPQ2d 1007, 1025 (TTAB 2015).  Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s services are legally identical.  See, e.g., In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 127 USPQ2d 1627, 1629 (TTAB 2018) (citing Tuxedo Monopoly, Inc. v.Gen. Mills Fun Grp., Inc., 648 F.2d 1335, 1336, 209 USPQ 986, 988 (C.C.P.A. 1981); Inter IKEA Sys. B.V. v. Akea, LLC, 110 USPQ2d 1734, 1745 (TTAB 2014); Baseball Am. Inc. v. Powerplay Sports Ltd., 71 USPQ2d 1844, 1847 n.9 (TTAB 2004)).

 

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

 

Similarity of 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 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).

 

US Registration No. 4873800

 

The applied-for mark is ACTIV. US Registration No. 4873800 is ACTIV with design.

 

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 and/or services.  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).  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)). Therefore, the dominant portion of the registered mark is the wording ACTIV.

 

Thus, as the dominant portion of the registered mark is identical to the entirety of the applied-for mark, the marks are substantially similar.

 

US Registration No. 4468510

 

The applied-for mark is ACTIV. US Registration No. 4468510 is ACTIV DOCTORS ONLINE with design.

 

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 and/or services.  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).  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)). Therefore, the dominant portion of the registered mark is the wording ACTIV DOCTORS ONLINE.

 

Additionally, 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).  Disclaimed matter that is descriptive of or generic for a party’s services is typically less significant or less dominant when comparing marks.  In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1305, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re Dixie Rests., Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 1407, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533-34 (Fed. Cir. 1997)); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii). Therefore, as the registered mark disclaims the wording “DOCTORS ONLINE”, the most dominant part of the registered mark is the wording ACTIV.

 

Thus, as the most dominant portion of the registered mark is identical to the entirety of the applied-for mark, the marks are substantially similar.

 

Conclusion

 

For the above reasons, registration is refused under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.

 

Applicant should note the following additional ground for refusal.

 

PARTIAL FAILURE TO FUNCTION REFUSAL

 

Registration is refused because the following goods in International Class 9 in the application do not appear to be “goods in trade”:  “Computer application software for cell phones, tablets, laptop computers, desktop computers, wearables, and other computing devices, namely, software for providing …purchasing programs of the same”.  Trademark Act Sections 1, 2, and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051-1052, 1127; TMEP §1202.06(b).

 

“Goods in trade” are items that an applicant sells or transports in commerce for use by others.  See Lens.com, Inc. v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc., 686 F.3d 1376, 1379-80, 103 USPQ2d 1672, 1675 (Fed. Cir. 2012); TMEP §1202.06.  Incidental items that an applicant uses to conduct its business, such as letterhead, invoices, and business forms, are generally not “goods in trade,” because these items are only useful to the applicant and are not separately sold or distributed to consumers.  TMEP §1202.06; see, e.g., Lens.com, Inc. v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc., 686 F.3d at 1380, 1382, 103 USPQ2d at 1675-76 (holding computer software used for ordering contact lenses not goods in trade where applicant solely provided online retail stores for eyewear products, and software was not sold separately and had no independent value apart from applicant’s primary service); In re S’holders Data Corp., 495 F.2d 1360, 1361, 181 USPQ 722, 723 (C.C.P.A. 1974) (holding reports on subscribers’ securities portfolios not goods in trade where applicant solely provided financial reporting services, and reports were not sold separately and had no independent value apart from applicant’s primary service).

 

Although determining whether an applicant’s goods are independent goods in trade, or merely incidental to the applicant’s services, is made on a case-by-case basis, factors to consider include whether:

 

(1)       The goods are simply the conduit or necessary tool useful only to obtain applicant’s services;

 

(2)       The goods are so inextricably tied to and associated with applicant’s services as to have no viable existence apart from them; and

 

(3)       The goods are neither sold separately from nor have any independent value apart from applicant’s services.

 

In re Thomas White Int’l, Ltd., 106 USPQ2d 1158, 1161-62 (TTAB 2013) (citing Lens.com, Inc. v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc., 686 F.3d at 1382, 103 USPQ2d at 1676); TMEP §1202.06.  None of these factors is necessarily dispositive.  Lens.com, Inc. v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc., 686 F.3d at 1382, 103 USPQ2d at 1676; TMEP §1202.06.

 

In this case, applicant’s “Computer application software for …purchasing programs of the same” are not independent goods in trade but rather are merely incidental to applicant’s services because the purpose of the goods is merely to facilitate purchasing other goods.

 

Applicant cannot overcome this refusal by submitting a claim of acquired distinctiveness under Trademark Act Section 2(f) or amending the application to the Supplemental Register.  TMEP §1202.06(b).

 

Applicant may, however, respond to this refusal by (1) amending the identification of goods in the application to delete any item(s) that are not goods in trade, and/or (2) providing evidence that the specified goods are in fact goods-in-trade applicant sells or transports in commerce for use by others.  See TMEP §1202.06(b).  In the present case, applicant may overcome this refusal by deleting the following language in International Class 9:  “and purchasing programs of the same”.

 

Providing a program to facilitate the sale of applicant’s goods is merely incidental to the sale of the goods and is not a registrable service because it is done primarily for applicant’s own benefit and not for the benefit of others.  TMEP §1301.01(b)(iii); see In re Alaska Nw. Publ’g Co., 212 USPQ 316 (TTAB 1981); In re Landmark Commc’ns, Inc., 204 USPQ 692 (TTAB 1979); In re Television Digest, Inc., 169 USPQ 505 (TTAB 1971).

 

Additionally, providing advertising or promotional goods and services to retail or wholesale businesses that sell applicant’s products is not a sufficiently separate activity from the sale of applicant’s goods to constitute a registrable service as contemplated by the Trademark Act.  See In re Radio Corp. of Am., 205 F.2d 180, 98 USPQ 157 (C.C.P.A. 1953) (holding that “package” radio programs using only applicant’s records are advertising for applicant’s records and not a registrable service); In re SCM Corp., 209 USPQ 278 (TTAB 1980) (holding that supplying retailers with merchandising aids and store displays for applicant’s goods does not constitute a separate, registrable service but is merely promotional matter intended to facilitate the sale of applicant’s goods); Ex parte Wembley, Inc., 111 USPQ 386 (Comm’r Pats. 1956) (holding that national advertising program for wholesalers and retailers selling applicant goods not a registrable service because such advertising is normally expected of manufacturers of nationally distributed products, and is done in furtherance of the sale of the advertised products); TMEP §1301.01(b)(i).

 

Applicant may cure this refusal by amending the identification of goods.

 

Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusals by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.  However, if applicant responds to the refusals, applicant must also respond to the requirement set forth below.

 

IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS MUST BE AMENDED

 

The wording “Computer application software for cell phones, tablets, laptop computers, desktop computers, wearables, and other computing devices, namely, software for providing physical therapy, therapeutic, rehabilitation, and exercise education, instruction, and tracking, and purchasing programs of the same” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified because the purpose and use of the purchasing program is unclear.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.  Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate:  “Computer application software for cell phones, tablets, laptop computers, desktop computers, wearables, and other computing devices, namely, software for providing physical therapy, therapeutic, rehabilitation, and exercise education, instruction, and tracking”.

 

Applicant may amend the identification to clarify or limit the goods, but not to broaden or expand the goods 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 may not later be reinserted.  See 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.

 

INFORMATION REGARDING THIS APPLICATION

 

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.  

 

 

 

Michael Larkey

/Michael Larkey/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 116

(571) 270-5492

michael.larkey@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 12/28/2018 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 88117130

 

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 12/28/2018 (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.