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: 1/24/2019

 

 

The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney.  Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issue 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

 

A trademark counsel advisory is also included herein.

 

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. 5002235; 4508090; 4508091; 4404119; 4523368; 4404143.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registrations.

 

Here, the applicant’s mark is ZOMBIE for "baseball caps; sweatshirts; tank-tops; hooded sweatshirts; short-sleeved or long-sleeved t-shirts" in International Class 025.

 

Registrant’s mark in registration number 4508090 is ZOMBIE BASEBALL for "apparel for dancers, namely, tee shirts, sweatshirts, pants, leggings, shorts and jackets; athletic apparel, namely, shirts, pants, jackets, footwear, hats and caps, athletic uniforms; athletic shirts; athletic shorts; bermuda shorts; boxer shorts; button down shirts; camouflage shirts; camp shirts; clothing for athletic use, namely, padded shirts; clothing for athletic use, namely, padded shorts; cycling shorts; gym shorts; rugby shirts; shirt fronts; shirts; shirts and short-sleeved shirts; short-sleeved or long-sleeved t-shirts; short-sleeved shirts; shorts; sleep shirts; snap crotch shirts for infants and toddlers; sport shirts; sports shirts; sports shirts with short sleeves; sweat shirts; sweat shorts; t-shirts; tee shirts; wind shirts" in International Class 025.

 

Registrant’s mark in registration number 4508091 is ZOMBIE FOOTBALL for "apparel for dancers, namely, tee shirts, sweatshirts, pants, leggings, shorts and jackets; athletic apparel, namely, shirts, pants, jackets, footwear, hats and caps, athletic uniforms; athletic shirts; athletic shorts; bermuda shorts; board shorts; boxer shorts; boxing shorts; button down shirts; camouflage shirts; camp shirts; clothing for babies, toddlers and children, treated with fire and heat retardants, namely, pajamas, jackets, shirts, pants, jumpers; collared shirts; cycling shorts; golf pants, shirts and skirts; golf shirts; gym shorts; hooded sweat shirts; hunting shirts; long-sleeved shirts; polo shirts; rugby shirts; shirts; shirts and short-sleeved shirts; short-sleeved shirts; shorts; sport shirts; sports shirts; sweat shirts; sweat shorts; t-shirts; tee shirts" in International Class 025.

 

Registrant’s mark in registration number 4404119 is ZOMBIE LACROSSE for "athletic apparel, namely, shirts, pants, jackets, footwear, hats and caps, athletic uniforms; athletic footwear; athletic shoes; athletic tights; athletic uniforms; baseball caps and hats; body shirts; boxer shorts; button down shirts; camouflage pants; clothing for athletic use, namely, padded pants; clothing for athletic use, namely, padded shirts; clothing for athletic use, namely, padded shorts; clothing, namely, athletic sleeves; collared shirts; footwear for track and field athletics; gloves as clothing; gloves for apparel; golf shorts; gym shorts; headbands for clothing; hooded sweatshirts; hoods; jackets; jerseys; perspiration absorbent underwear clothing; short sets; short-sleeved or long-sleeved t-shirts; short-sleeved shirts; shorts; sports shirts with short sleeves; stretch pants; sweatshirts; t-shirts; t-shirts for men, women, adults, children, babies; triathlon clothing, namely, triathlon tights, triathlon shorts, triathlon singlets, triathlon shirts, triathlon suits; wearable garments and clothing, namely, shirts; women's athletic tops with built-in bras; women's clothing, namely, shirts, dresses, skirts, blouses" in International Class 025.

 

Registrant’s mark in registration number 4523368 is ZOMBIE SOCCER for "apparel for dancers, namely, tee shirts, sweatshirts, pants, leggings, shorts and jackets; athletic apparel, namely, shirts, pants, jackets, footwear, hats and caps, athletic uniforms; athletic shirts; athletic shorts; bermuda shorts; boxer shorts; boxing shorts; button down shirts; camouflage shirts; camp shirts; collared shirts; cycling shorts; golf shirts; gym shorts; hooded sweat shirts; hunting shirts; long-sleeved shirts; polo shirts; rugby shirts; shirts; shirts and short-sleeved shirts; short-sleeved shirts; shorts; sport shirts; sports shirts; sports shirts with short sleeves; sweat shirts; sweat shorts; t-shirts; tee shirts" in International Class 025.

 

Registrant’s mark in registration number 4404143 is ZOMBIE SPORTS for "a-shirts; apparel for dancers, namely, tee shirts, sweatshirts, pants, leggings, shorts and jackets; athletic apparel, namely, shirts, pants, jackets, footwear, hats and caps, athletic uniforms; babies' pants; balloon pants; baseball caps and hats; bermuda shorts; board shorts; body shirts; boxer shorts; boxing shorts; button down shirts; button-front aloha shirts; camouflage pants; camouflage shirts; camp shirts; capri pants; cargo pants; chef's hats; clothing for athletic use, namely, padded pants; clothing for athletic use, namely, padded shirts; clothing for athletic use, namely, padded shorts; clothing for babies, toddlers and children, treated with fire and heat retardants, namely, pajamas, jackets, shirts, pants, jumpers; collared shirts; crop pants; cycling shorts; denims; dress pants; dress shirts; fleece shorts; flood pants; fur hats; golf pants, shirts and skirts; golf shirts; golf shorts; gym pants; gym shorts; hat bands; hats; hats for infants, babies, toddlers and children; hooded sweat shirts; hunting pants; hunting shirts; jeggings, namely, pants that are partially jeans and partially leggings; jogging pants; knit shirts; leather hats; leather pants; leather shirts; leg shielding device, attachable to and detachable from a person's pants, comprised of padding to shield the legs from flying debris when mowing with a string trimmer; long-sleeved shirts; lounge pants; moisture-wicking sports pants; moisture-wicking sports shirts; non-disposable cloth training pants; open-necked shirts; pants; polo shirts; rugby shirts; rugby shorts; shirts; shirts and short-sleeved shirts; shirts for suits; short-sleeved or long-sleeved t-shirts; short-sleeved shirts; shorts; ski pants; sleep pants; sleep shirts; snow pants; snowboard pants; sport shirts; sports caps and hats; sports pants; sports shirts; sports shirts with short sleeves; stretch pants; sweat pants; sweat shirts; sweat shorts; t-shirts; t-shirts for children, infants, adults; tee shirts; toboggan hats, pants and caps; track pants; travel clothing contained in a package comprising reversible jackets, pants, skirts, tops and a belt or scarf; triathlon clothing, namely, triathlon tights, triathlon shorts, triathlon singlets, triathlon shirts, triathlon suits; turtle neck shirts; underwear, namely, boy shorts; walking shorts; waterproof jackets and pants; wearable garments and clothing, namely, shirts; wind pants; wind shirts" in International Class 025.

 

Registrant’s mark in registration number 5002235 is CYCLE ZOMBIES for "apparel, namely, shirts, tops, hats, pants, shorts, jackets, socks, underwear, belts" in International Class 025.

 

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.

 

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).

 

Applicant’s mark is ZOMBIE in standard character format.

 

Registrant’s mark in registration number 4508090 is ZOMBIE BASEBALL in standard character format.

 

Registrant’s mark in registration number 4508091 is ZOMBIE FOOTBALL in standard character format.

 

Registrant’s mark in registration number 4404119 is ZOMBIE LACROSSE in standard character format.

 

Registrant’s mark in registration number 4523368 is ZOMBIE SOCCER in standard character format.

 

Registrant’s mark in registration number 4404143 is ZOMBIE SPORTS in standard character format.

 

Registrant’s mark in registration number 5002235 is CYCLE ZOMBIES in standard character format.

 

In this case, the applicant's mark along with registration numbers 4508090; 4508091; 4404119; 4523368; and 4404143 are confusingly similar because they feature the word ZOMBIE as the first portion of the marks. The word ZOMBIE appears at the beginning of the registered marks and as the entirety of the applied-for mark. As such, a consumer’s eye would be drawn to this word and the consumer would be more likely to utilize it in calling for the goods.  Consumers are generally more inclined to focus on the first word, prefix, or syllable in any trademark or service mark.  See Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1372, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1692 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (finding similarity between VEUVE ROYALE and two VEUVE CLICQUOT marks in part because “VEUVE . . . remains a ‘prominent feature’ as the first word in the mark and the first word to appear on the label”); Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Century Life of Am., 970 F.2d 874, 876, 23 USPQ2d 1698, 1700 (Fed Cir. 1992) (finding similarity between CENTURY 21 and CENTURY LIFE OF AMERICA in part because “consumers must first notice th[e] identical lead word”); see also In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1303, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1049 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding “the identity of the marks’ two initial words is particularly significant because consumers typically notice those words first”).

 

Although applicant’s mark does not contain the entirety of the registered mark, applicant’s mark is likely to appear to prospective purchasers as a shortened form of registrant’s mark.  See In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 1348, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting United States Shoe Corp., 229 USPQ 707, 709 (TTAB 1985)).  Thus, merely omitting some of the wording from a registered mark may not overcome a likelihood of confusion.  See In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 94 USPQ2d 1257; In re Optica Int’l, 196 USPQ 775, 778 (TTAB 1977); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii).  In this case, applicant’s mark does not create a distinct commercial impression from the registered mark because it contains some of the wording in the registered mark and does not add any wording that would distinguish it from that mark.

 

In fact, 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 goods and/or 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).  In this case, the marks are identical in substantial part.  The registered marks wholly encompass the applied for mark, which simply removes the descriptive portion of the mark from its applied-for mark.  Accordingly, a consumer encountering the marks are likely to believe the applicant's mark originates from the same source as the registered marks.

 

With regard to registration number 5002235, CYCLE ZOMBIES, the applicant has similarly deleted the disclaimed portion of the mark, CYCLE.  The descriptive portion of the mark adds no significant source indicating value to the marks.  Accordingly, a consumer considering the dominant portion of the marks would find ZOMBIES and ZOMBIE to be confusingly similar.

 

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

 

Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar.

 

Comparison of the Goods

 

A description of the goods at issue are included above and will not be restated here.

 

However, one must note that the compared goods 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).

 

 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 registrations use broad wording to describe its goods, which presumably encompasses all goods of the type described, including applicant’s more narrow goods.  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). 

 

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.

 

Thus, upon encountering ZOMBIE, CYCLE ZOMBIES, ZOMBIE FOOTBALL, ZOMBIE LACROSSE, ZOMBIE BASEBALL, ZOMBIE SPORTS and ZOMBIE SOCCER used on the identified goods, consumers are likely to be confused and mistakenly believe that the respective goods emanate from a common source. Accordingly, registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration Nos. 5002235; 4508090; 4508091; 4404119; 4523368; 4404143.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.

 

Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.

 

TRADEMARK COUNSEL ADVISORY

 

Because of the legal technicalities and strict deadlines involved in the USPTO application process, applicant may wish to hire a private attorney specializing in trademark matters to represent applicant in this process and provide legal advice.  Although the undersigned trademark examining attorney is permitted to help an applicant understand the contents of an Office action as well as the application process in general, no USPTO attorney or staff is permitted to give an applicant legal advice or statements about an applicant’s legal rights.  TMEP §§705.02, 709.06. 

 

For attorney referral information, applicant may consult the American Bar Association’s Consumers’ Guide to Legal Help; an online directory of legal professionals, such as FindLaw®; or a local telephone directory.  The USPTO, however, may not assist an applicant in the selection of a private attorney.  37 C.F.R. §2.11.

 

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.

 

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.  

 

Radcliff, Brent

/Brent M. Radcliff/

Examining Attorney

Trademark Law Office 123

(571) 270-0855

brent.radcliff@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 1/24/2019 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 88154133

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

(2)  Respond within 6 months (or sooner if specified in the Office action), calculated from 1/24/2019, using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) response form located at http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp.  A response transmitted through TEAS must be received before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period.

 

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

 

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

 

Radcliff, Brent

/Brent M. Radcliff/

Examining Attorney

Trademark Law Office 123

(571) 270-0855

brent.radcliff@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.