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: 1/22/2019

 

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:

• Partial Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion
• Partial Requirement of Acceptable Identification and Classification
• Multiple-Class Application Requirements

 

PARTIAL SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

 

This partial refusal applies only to the following goods within International Class 25:

• "[i]nsoles";
• "performance engineered insoles";
• "insoles for ski boots, snowboard boots, shoes, athletic shoes, running shoes, hiking shoes, biking shoes, golf shoes, tennis shoes, general use shoes and footwear";
• "inserts, pads and cushions for ski boots, snowboard boots, shoes, athletic shoes, running shoes, hiking shoes, biking shoes, golf shoes, tennis shoes, general use shoes and footwear"; and
• "inner soles".

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 1354243.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registration.

 

Applicant has applied to register SUREFOOT for the following goods in International Class 25:

 

Class 25:  Insoles; custom insoles; custom molded insoles; performance engineered insoles; insoles for ski boots, snowboard boots, shoes, athletic shoes, running shoes, hiking shoes, biking shoes, golf shoes, tennis shoes, general use shoes and footwear; inserts, pads and cushions for ski boots, snowboard boots, shoes, athletic shoes, running shoes, hiking shoes, biking shoes, golf shoes, tennis shoes, general use shoes and footwear; inner soles; midsoles; ski boot liners; and custom ski boot liners.

 

Registrant has registered SURE FOOT for "a self-adhesive non-skid pad for shoe soles" in International Class 25.

 

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 and/or services 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 and/or services.  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.

 

Comparison of the Marks

 

Marks are compared in their entireties for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression.  Stone Lion Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 1321, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1371, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 2005)); TMEP §1207.01(b)-(b)(v).  “Similarity in any one of these elements may be sufficient to find the marks confusingly similar.”  In re 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).

 

The applied-for mark SUREFOOT and the registered mark SURE FOOT are similar in sound, appearance, connotation, and overall commercial impression because they are identical except for a single space that applicant has removed in combining registrant's literal elements of "SURE" and "FOOT" into one word.  

 

Marks may be confusingly similar in appearance where similar terms or phrases or similar parts of terms or phrases appear in the compared marks and create a similar overall commercial impression.  See Crocker Nat’l Bank v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 228 USPQ 689, 690-91 (TTAB 1986), aff’d sub nom. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 811 F.2d 1490, 1495, 1 USPQ2d 1813, 1817 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (finding COMMCASH and COMMUNICASH confusingly similar); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65, 66 (TTAB 1985) (finding CONFIRM and CONFIRMCELLS confusingly similar); In re Pellerin Milnor Corp., 221 USPQ 558, 560 (TTAB 1983) (finding MILTRON and MILLTRONICS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii).

 

Likewise, incorporating the entirety of one mark within another 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 Wella Corp. v. Cal. Concept Corp., 558 F.2d 1019, 1022, 194 USPQ 419, 422 (C.C.P.A. 1977) (finding CALIFORNIA CONCEPT and surfer design and CONCEPT confusingly similar); 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 LANCER and design and BENGAL confusingly similar); In re Integrated Embedded, 120 USPQ2d 1504, 1513 (TTAB 2016) (finding BARR GROUP and BARR confusingly similar); In re Mr. Recipe, LLC, 118 USPQ2d 1084, 1090 (TTAB 2016) (finding JAWS DEVOUR YOUR HUNGER and JAWS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iii).  In the present case, the marks are almost completely identical. 

 

Again, the only difference between the marks is the extra space in registrant's mark, which applicant has removed in combining registrant's literal elements of SURE FOOT into the single word that is the applied-for mark:  SUREFOOT.  As such, the marks are identical in sound and virtually identical in appearance, and are thus confusingly similar for the purposes of determining likelihood of confusion.  See, e.g., Seaguard Corp. v. Seaward Int’l, Inc., 223 USPQ 48, 51 (TTAB 1984) (“[T]he marks ‘SEAGUARD’ and ‘SEA GUARD’ are, in contemplation of law, identical [internal citation omitted].”); In re Best W. Family Steak House, Inc., 222 USPQ 827, 827 (TTAB 1984) (“There can be little doubt that the marks [BEEFMASTER and BEEF MASTER] are practically identical”); Stock Pot, Inc., v. Stockpot Rest., Inc., 220 USPQ 52, 52 (TTAB 1983), aff’d 737 F.2d 1576, 222 USPQ 665 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (“There is no question that the marks of the parties [STOCKPOT and STOCK POT] are confusingly similar.  The word marks are phonetically identical and visually almost identical.”). 

 

Accordingly, giving each feature of the marks the appropriate weight and comparing them in their entireties, SUREFOOT and SURE FOOT are sufficiently similar to cause consumer confusion or mistake as to the source of the relevant goods in International Class 25 (i.e., those identified in bold above at the beginning of this section).

 

Similarity of the Goods

 

Again, applicant seeks to register SUREFOOT for the following, relevant goods in International Class 25:

 

Class 25:  Insoles; . . . performance engineered insoles; insoles for ski boots, snowboard boots, shoes, athletic shoes, running shoes, hiking shoes, biking shoes, golf shoes, tennis shoes, general use shoes and footwear; inserts, pads and cushions for ski boots, snowboard boots, shoes, athletic shoes, running shoes, hiking shoes, biking shoes, golf shoes, tennis shoes, general use shoes and footwear; inner soles; . . . .

 

And registrant has registered SURE FOOT for "a self-adhesive non-skid pad for shoe soles" in International Class 25. 

 

Thus, as is discussed further below, the marks are used on related goods. 

 

As an initial matter, the goods and/or 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).

 

Moreover, the compared goods and/or services need not be identical or even competitive to find a likelihood of confusion.  See On-line Careline Inc. v. Am. Online Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1086, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1475 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Recot, Inc. v. Becton, 214 F.3d 1322, 1329, 54 USPQ2d 1894, 1898 (Fed. Cir. 2000); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).  They need only be “related in some manner and/or if the circumstances surrounding their marketing are such that they could give rise to the mistaken belief that [the goods and/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 this case, the attached internet evidence, consisting of screenshots from the Kiwi and American Duchess websites, establishes that the same entity commonly produces/provides the relevant goods, even marketing them under the same mark.  See the attached evidence from these websites, available at the internet locations listed below.

 

Kiwi

http://www.kiwicare.com/en-us/products

http://www.kiwicare.com/en-us/products/kiwi-sure-steps

http://www.kiwicare.com/en-us/products/kiwi-heel-savers

http://www.kiwicare.com/en-us/products/kiwi-sport-soles

 

American Duchess

http://www.american-duchess.com/rubber-non-slip-sole-protector-pads

http://www.american-duchess.com/historic-shoe-buckles-accessories/foot-petals-tip-toes 

 

Moreover, the relevant goods are also sold or provided through the same trade channels, used by the same classes of consumers in the same fields of use, and/or are similar or complementary in terms of purpose or function.  Id.  Thus, applicant’s relevant goods (identified above) 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).

 

Accordingly, use of the similar SURE FOOT and SUREFOOT marks by different parties on the above-identified, relevant goods is likely to lead to consumer confusion or mistake as to the source of those goods.  Thus, registration is refused under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.

 

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

 

PARTIAL REQUIREMENT OF ACCEPTABLE IDENTIFICATION AND CLASSIFICATION

 

This partial requirement applies to International Class 40 only, as is further explained below.

 

Certain wording in the identification of goods and services is indefinite and must be clarified for the reasons discussed below.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.

 

International Class 40

 

First, the identification entries "Custom computerized foot scanning and measuring and custom manufacturing and fitting of molded orthotics, molded insoles, molded orthotic supports and molded insole supports, for ski boots, snowboard boots, shoes, athletic shoes, running shoes, hiking shoes, biking shoes, golf shoes, tennis shoes, general use shoes and footwear, for purposes of performance, support, comfort and efficiency" and "custom computerized foot scanning and measuring and custom manufacturing and fitting of liners for ski boots for purposes of performance, support, comfort and efficiency" are too broad and can encompass services that are in more than one International Class.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.  For example, "custom manufacturing of shoe insoles" are services in International Class 40, but "fitting of orthotic devices" are services in International Class 44, and "customizing sports equipment, namely, snowboard boots" are services in International Class 37.  Accordingly, applicant should further specify the nature of the services being referenced, so that they can be classified appropriately.  Suggested amendments are offered below.   

 

Applicant may adopt the following identification, if accurate: 

 

Class 25:  Insoles; custom insoles; custom molded insoles; performance engineered insoles; insoles for ski boots, snowboard boots, shoes, athletic shoes, running shoes, hiking shoes, biking shoes, golf shoes, tennis shoes, general use shoes and footwear; inserts, pads and cushions for ski boots, snowboard boots, shoes, athletic shoes, running shoes, hiking shoes, biking shoes, golf shoes, tennis shoes, general use shoes and footwear; inner soles; midsoles; ski boot liners; and custom ski boot liners

 

Class 35:  Retail store services, computerized online ordering services, online ordering services, telephone ordering services, e-mail ordering services, and mail order services, featuring insoles, custom insoles, custom molded insoles, performance engineered insoles, insoles for ski boots, snowboard boots, shoes, athletic shoes, running shoes, hiking shoes, biking shoes, golf shoes, tennis shoes, general use shoes and footwear, inserts, pads and cushions for ski boots, snowboard boots, shoes, athletic shoes, running shoes, hiking shoes, biking shoes, golf shoes, tennis shoes, general use shoes and footwear, inner soles, and midsoles; retail store services, computerized online ordering services, online ordering services, telephone ordering services, e-mail ordering services, and mail order services, featuring custom orthotics for the foot, custom molded orthotics for the foot, custom molded supports for the foot, and custom molded orthotics and custom molded orthotic supports for ski boots, snowboard boots, shoes, athletic shoes, running shoes, hiking shoes, biking shoes, golf shoes, tennis shoes, general use shoes and footwear; and retail store services, computerized online ordering services, online ordering services, telephone ordering services, e-mail ordering services, and mail order services, featuring outdoor recreation products, sporting goods, athletic equipment, ski boots, custom ski boots, alpine ski boots, heated ski boots, ski boot heaters, ski boot foot warmers, boot dryers, ski boot dryers, glove dryers, ski glove dryers, mitten dryers, ski mitten dryers, batteries, replacement batteries, battery chargers, ski boot liners, custom ski boot liners, ski boot traction devices, helmets, ski helmets, ski helmet audio systems, ski helmet microphones, goggles, ski goggles, ski accessories, clothing, ski clothing, socks, ski socks, heated socks, compression socks, gloves, heated gloves, mittens, heated mittens, ski caps, ski hats, ski face masks, duffle bags, rolling duffle bags, luggage, wheeled luggage, packs, day packs, avalanche packs, avalanche air bag packs, ski boot bags, heated ski boot bags, heated ski boot backpacks, and gift certificates

 

Class 37:  Customizing sports equipment, namely, custom fitting via computerized foot scanning and measuring of liners for ski boots for purposes of improving ski boot performance, support, comfort, and efficiency 

 

Class 40:  Custom manufacturing of molded orthotics, molded insoles, molded orthotic supports and molded insole supports, for use in ski boots, snowboard boots, shoes, athletic shoes, running shoes, hiking shoes, biking shoes, golf shoes, tennis shoes, general use shoes and footwear, for purposes of improving performance, support, comfort and efficiency; custom manufacturing of liners for ski boots

 

Class 44:  Fitting of orthotic devices, namely, custom fitting via computerized foot scanning and measuring of molded orthotics, molded insoles, molded orthotic supports and molded insole supports, for use in ski boots, snowboard boots, shoes, athletic shoes, running shoes, hiking shoes, biking shoes, golf shoes, tennis shoes, general use shoes and footwear, for purposes of performance, support, comfort and efficiency

 

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

 

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

 

MULTIPLE-CLASS APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS

 

The application references goods and/or services based on use in commerce in more than one international class; therefore, applicant must satisfy all the requirements below for each international class:

 

(1)       List the goods and/or services by their international class number in consecutive numerical order, starting with the lowest numbered class (for example, International Class 3: perfume; International Class 18: cosmetic bags sold empty).

 

(2)       Submit a filing fee for each international class not covered by the fee(s) already paid (view the USPTO’s current fee schedule).  Specifically, the application identifies goods and/or services based on use in commerce that could potentially be classified in at least 4 classes; however, applicant submitted fee(s) sufficient for only 3 classes.  Applicant must either (a) submit the filing fees for the classes not covered by the submitted fees or (b) restrict the application to the number of classes covered by the fees already paid.

 

(3)       Submit verified dates of first use of the mark anywhere and in commerce for each international class.  See more information about verified dates of use.

 

(4)       Submit a specimen for each international class.  The current specimen is acceptable for Classes 25, 35, and 40; and applicant needs a specimen for any additional class(es).  See more information about specimens.

 

            Examples of specimens for goods include tags, labels, instruction manuals, containers, and photographs that show the mark on the actual goods or packaging, or displays associated with the actual goods at their point of sale.  Webpages may also be specimens for goods when they include a picture or textual description of the goods associated with the mark and the means to order the goods. 

 

            Examples of specimens for services include advertising and marketing materials, brochures, photographs of business signage and billboards, and website printouts that show the mark used in the actual sale, rendering, or advertising of the services. 

 

(5)       Submit a verified statement that “The specimen was in use in commerce on or in connection with the goods and/or services listed in the application at least as early as the filing date of the application.”  See more information about verification.

 

See 15 U.S.C. §§1051(a), 1112; 37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(6)-(7), 2.34(a)(1), 2.86(a); TMEP §§904, 1403.01, 1403.02(c).

 

See an overview of the requirements for a Section 1(a) multiple-class application and how to satisfy the requirements online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form.

 

RESPONSE GUIDELINES 

 

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

 

TEAS PLUS OR TEAS REDUCED FEE (TEAS RF) APPLICANTS – TO MAINTAIN LOWER FEE, ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS MUST BE MET, INCLUDING SUBMITTING DOCUMENTS ONLINE:  Applicants who filed their application online using the lower-fee TEAS Plus or TEAS RF application form must (1) file certain documents online using TEAS, including responses to Office actions (see TMEP §§819.02(b), 820.02(b) for a complete list of these documents); (2) maintain a valid e-mail correspondence address; and (3) agree to receive correspondence from the USPTO by e-mail throughout the prosecution of the application.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.22(b), 2.23(b); TMEP §§819, 820.  TEAS Plus or TEAS RF applicants who do not meet these requirements must submit an additional processing fee of $125 per class of goods and/or services.  37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(1)(v), 2.22(c), 2.23(c); TMEP §§819.04, 820.04.  However, in certain situations, TEAS Plus or TEAS RF applicants may respond to an Office action by authorizing an examiner’s amendment by telephone or e-mail without incurring this additional fee.  

 

 

 

/Victor Cerda/

Examining Attorney

Trademark Law Office 123

(571) 270-1280

victor.cerda@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 1/22/2019 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 88140321

 

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 1/22/2019 (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.