Offc Action Outgoing

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application

 

 

 

FINAL OFFICE ACTION

 

The USPTO must receive applicant’s response to this letter within six months of the issue date below or the application will be abandoned.  Respond using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) and/or Electronic System for Trademark Trials and Appeals (ESTTA).  A link to the appropriate TEAS response form and/or to ESTTA for an appeal appears at the end of this Office action. 

 

 

Issue date:  August 22, 2019

 

INTRODUCTION

 

This Office action is in response to Applicant’s communication filed on August 5, 2019 (“Applicant’s Response”).

 

In a previous Office action dated February 4, 2019 (“The First Action”), the trademark examining attorney refused registration of the applied-for mark based on the following:  Trademark Act Section 2(d) for a likelihood of confusion with a registered mark.  In addition, Applicant was required to satisfy the following requirement: amend the identification of services.

 

The trademark examining attorney maintains and now makes FINAL the refusal and requirement in the summary of issues below.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b); TMEP §714.04.

 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES MADE FINAL that Applicant must address:

 

• Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion
• Amended Identification of Services Required

 

SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

 

Registration of the applied-for mark, FUEL (“The Applied for Mark”) is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration Nos. 4668146 (“Registration 1” or “FUEL” owned by “Registrant 1”) and 5043523 (“Registration 2” or “FUEL INTERACTIVE” owned by “Registrant 2”) (jointly referred to as “The Registered Marks” owned separately by “The Registrants”).  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the registrations attached to The First Action owned by The Registrants.

 

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).

 

Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that so resembles a registered mark that it is likely a potential consumer would be confused, mistaken, or deceived as to the source of the goods and/or services of the applicant and registrant.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).  A determination of likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d) is made on a case-by case basis and 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) aid in this determination.  Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp., Inc., 637 F.3d 1344, 1349, 98 USPQ2d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing On-Line Careline, Inc. v. Am. Online, Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1085, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2000)).  Not all the du Pont factors, however, are necessarily relevant or of equal weight, and any one of the factors may control in a given case, depending upon the evidence of record.  Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp., Inc., 637 F.3d at 1355, 98 USPQ2d at 1260; In re Majestic Distilling Co., 315 F.3d 1311, 1315, 65 USPQ2d 1201, 1204 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d at 1361-62, 177 USPQ at 567.

 

In this case, the following factors are the most relevant:  similarity of the marks, similarity and nature of the services, and similarity of the trade channels of the services.  See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1361-62, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Dakin’s Miniatures Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593, 1595-96 (TTAB 1999); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.

 

Similarity of the Marks

 

In a likelihood of confusion determination, the marks in their entireties are compared for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression. In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973); TMEP §1207.01(b)-(b)(v). 

 

In the present case, the word portion of Applicant’s mark is FUEL and Registration 1 is FUEL. The word portion of these marks are identical in appearance, sound, and meaning, “and have the potential to be used . . . in exactly the same manner.”  In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 116 USPQ2d 1406, 1411 (TTAB 2015). Additionally, because the word portions are identical, these marks are likely to engender the same connotation and overall commercial impression when considered in connection with Applicant’s and The Registrants’ respective goods and/or services.  In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 116 USPQ2d at 1411.

 

Therefore, The Applied for Mark is confusingly similar to Registration 1.

 

The Applied for Mark is FUEL and Registration 2 is FUEL INTERACTIVE. The Applied for Mark is similar in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression to Registration 2.

 

When comparing marks, “[t]he proper test is not a side-by-side comparison of the marks, but instead whether the 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.”  Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., __ F.3d __, 127 USPQ2d 1797, 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1368, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(b).  The proper focus is on the recollection of the average purchaser, who retains a general rather than specific impression of trademarks.  In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1746 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re St. Helena Hosp., 774 F.3d 747, 750-51, 113 USPQ2d 1082, 1085 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Geigy Chem. Corp. v. Atlas Chem. Indus., Inc., 438 F.2d 1005, 1007, 169 USPQ 39, 40 (CCPA 1971)); TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

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 word portion of The Applied for Mark, FUEL, is considered the dominant feature and accorded greater weight than the design.

 

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”). The word portion of The Applied for Mark is FUEL and the first word in Registration 2 is FUEL. ”). This weighs in favor of finding The Applied for Mark confusingly similar to Registration 2.

 

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). Registrant 2 disclaims “INTERACTIVE” because the term is merely descriptive of the services offered under the mark, thus the more significant or dominant portion of Registration 2, “FUEL”, is identical to the word portion of The Applied for Mark, FUEL. This weighs also in favor of finding The Applied for Mark confusingly similar to Registration 2.

 

Although The Applied for Mark does not contain the entirety of Registration 2, The Applied for Mark is likely to appear to prospective purchasers as a shortened form of Registration 2.  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)).  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, The Applied for Mark does not create a distinct commercial impression from Registration 2 because it contains some of the wording in Registration 2 and does not add any wording that would distinguish it from that mark. This, too, weighs in favor of finding The Applied for Mark confusingly similar to Registration 2.

 

In Applicant’s Response, Applicant does not address the similarity of the marks.

 

For the foregoing reasons, The Applied for Mark is confusingly similar to The Registered Mark.

 

Similarity and Nature of the Services and of the Trade Channels

 

Applicant’s services are “Consumer experience design services; development, updating and maintenance of software; developing customized software for others; computer software development in the field of mobile applications; design of information graphics and data visualization materials; design and development of data visualization software generating rich graphics and images; software as a service for data visualization software generating rich graphics and images; platform as a service featuring computer software platforms for use in data visualization generating rich graphics and images” in Class 42.

 

Registrant 1’s services in Class 42 are “Cloud computing featuring software for use in deploying and operating open source platforms; computer services, namely, integration of private and public cloud computing environments; computer software consulting; computer software development, computer programming and maintenance of computer software for deploying and operating open source platforms; consulting services in the field of cloud computing; providing virtual computer systems and virtual computer environments through cloud computing; software as a service (SAAS) services featuring software for deploying and operating open source platforms; technical consulting services in the fields of datacenter architecture, public and private cloud computing solutions, and evaluation and implementation of internet technology and services; technical support services, namely, remote and on-site infrastructure management services for monitoring, administration and management of public and private cloud computing IT and application systems.”

 

Registrant 2’s services in Class 42 are “Web design, namely, website design and website user interface design; webpage design consulting; providing technology consulting in the field of social media technology development; providing a website featuring technology that enables users to make hotel reservations via a global computer information network; website design and development; website architecture design, building, and hosting, namely, providing website architecture and prototyping design services for others featuring flowchart design, website wireframing and sitemapping; computer systems integration; database and application software development; rich media design, namely, graphic design and designing of computer and cell phone and computer tablet device applications; animation design; website management for others; providing quality assurance services in the field of website design and user interface design; website development; custom software and applications, namely, designing and programming custom software application interfaces; customizing transaction solutions, namely, custom development of transaction and enterprise resource planning software and applications for inventory management and customer relationship management integration; email template design; creative and html computer programming; hospitality industry solutions, namely, cloud computing featuring a software suite for making hotel reservations; integration of computer systems and networks for global distribution and Internet distribution systems; mapping services, namely, online data mapping; design, development, and maintenance of online multi-property aggregate websites for third parties.”

 

The goods and/or services of the parties 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) (“[E]ven if the goods in question are different from, and thus not related to, one another in kind, the same goods can be related in the mind of the consuming public as to the origin of the goods.”); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i). 

 

The respective goods and/or services need only be “related in some manner and/or if the circumstances surrounding their marketing [be] such that they could give rise to the mistaken belief that [the goods] 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). Unrestricted and broad identifications are presumed to encompass all goods and/or services of the type described.  See In re Jump Designs, LLC, 80 USPQ2d 1370, 1374 (TTAB 2006) (citing In re Elbaum, 211 USPQ 639, 640 (TTAB 1981)); In re Linkvest S.A., 24 USPQ2d 1716, 1716 (TTAB 1992).

 

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 evidence of actual use.  See Stone Lion Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 1323, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Octocom Sys. Inc. v. Hous. Computers Servs. Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 942, 16 USPQ2d 1783, 1787 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). Applicant’s services, Registrant 1’s services and Registrant 2’s services all include software development; and Applicant’s services and Registrant 1’s services both include software as a service. This weighs heavily in favor of finding Applicant’s services related to The Registrants’ services for likelihood of confusion purposes.

 

In addition the application uses broad wording to describe Applicant’s “Consumer experience design services; development, updating and maintenance of software; developing customized software for others; computer software development in the field of mobile applications… design and development of data visualization software generating rich graphics and images; software as a service for data visualization software generating rich graphics and images;”, which presumably encompasses all services of the type described, including Registrant 1’s more narrow “computer software development, computer programming and maintenance of computer software for deploying and operating open source platforms… technical support services, namely, remote and on-site infrastructure management services for monitoring, administration and management of public and private cloud computing IT and application systems”, and Registrant 2’s more narrow “Web design, namely, website design and website user interface design; webpage design consulting… website design and development; website architecture design, building, and hosting, namely, providing website architecture and prototyping design services for others featuring flowchart design, website wire framing and site mapping… database and application software development; rich media design, namely, graphic design and designing of computer and cell phone and computer tablet device applications… customizing transaction solutions, namely, custom development of transaction and enterprise resource planning software and applications for inventory management and customer relationship management integration.”  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 The Registrants’ services are legally identical with respect to those services.  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)).

 

In Applicant’s Response, Applicant does not address the similarity and relatedness of the services.

 

The fact that the goods of the parties differ is not controlling in determining likelihood of confusion.  The issue is not likelihood of confusion between particular goods, but likelihood of confusion as to the source or sponsorship of those goods.  In re Majestic Distilling Co., 315 F.3d 1311, 1316, 65 USPQ2d 1201, 1205 (Fed. Cir. 2003); In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1208, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1993); TMEP §1207.01.

 

For the foregoing reasons, Applicant’s services and The Registrants’ services are related for likelihood of confusion purposes.

 

With respect to trade channels, absent restrictions in an application and/or registration, the identified goods and/or services 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)). 

 

The identifications set forth in the application and registrations have no restrictions as to nature, type, channels of trade, or classes of purchasers.  Therefore, for purpose of a likelihood of confusion analysis, it is presumed that Applicant’s services and The Registrants’ services travel in all normal channels of trade, and are available to the same class of purchasers.

 

Section 2(d) Analysis Conclusion

 

In total, The Applied for Mark is confusingly similar to The Registered Marks; Applicant’s services are legally identical to The Registrants’ services; and Applicant’s services travel in the same trade channels as The Registrants’ services. Consequently, consumers are likely to be confused by the marks and mistakenly believe that the services that these marks identify originate from a common source. Therefore, registration of The Applied for Mark must be refused under Trademark Act Section 2(d) because of a likelihood of confusion with The Registered Marks and this refusal is now made FINAL.

 

 

AMENDED IDENTIFICATION OF SERVICES REQUIRED

 

The wording “Consumer experience design services” and “software as a service for data visualization software generating rich graphics and images” in the identification of services is indefinite and must be clarified because it does not state with specificity the type of design services Applicant intends to provide.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.  Applicant must amend this wording to specify the common commercial or generic name of the services.  See TMEP §1402.01.  If the services have no common commercial or generic name, applicant must describe or explain the nature of the services using clear and succinct language.  See id. This requirement is now made FINAL.

 

Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate:

 

Consumer experience design services, namely, providing graphic design services to create specialty interior and website settings; development, updating and maintenance of software; developing customized software for others; computer software development in the field of mobile applications; design of information graphics and data visualization materials; design and development of data visualization software generating rich graphics and images; software as a service, namely, hosting software for use by others for use in data visualization software that generates rich graphics and images; platform as a service featuring computer software platforms for use in data visualization generating rich graphics and images

 

Applicant’s 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 services in the application 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 services will further limit scope, and once 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.

 

RESPONSE GUIDELINES

 

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.  

 

 

How to respond.  Click to file a response to this final Office action and/or appeal it to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB).

 

 

/Louis Kolodner/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 122

(571)272-7562

Louis.Kolodner@uspto.gov

 

 

RESPONSE GUIDANCE

• Missing the response deadline to this letter will cause the application to abandon.  A response or notice of appeal must be received by the USPTO before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period.  TEAS and ESTTA maintenance or unforeseen circumstances could affect an applicant’s ability to timely respond.  

 

• Responses signed by an unauthorized party are not accepted and can cause the application to abandon.  If applicant does not have an attorney, the response must be signed by the individual applicant, all joint applicants, or someone with legal authority to bind a juristic applicant.  If applicant has an attorney, the response must be signed by the attorney.

 

• If needed, find contact information for the supervisor of the office or unit listed in the signature block.

 

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

 

USPTO OFFICIAL NOTICE

 

Office Action (Official Letter) has issued

on August 22, 2019 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88165563

 

Your trademark application has been reviewed by a trademark examining attorney.  As part of that review, the assigned attorney has issued an official letter that you must respond to by the specified deadline or your application will be abandoned.  Please follow the steps below.

 

(1)  Read the official letter.

 

(2)  Direct questions about the contents of the Office action to the assigned attorney below. 

 

 

/Louis Kolodner/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 122

(571)272-7562

Louis.Kolodner@uspto.gov

 

Direct questions about navigating USPTO electronic forms, the USPTO website, the application process, the status of your application, and/or whether there are outstanding deadlines or documents related to your file to the Trademark Assistance Center (TAC).

 

(3)  Respond within 6 months (or earlier, if required in the Office action) from August 22, 2019, using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS).  The response must be received by the USPTO before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period.  See the Office action for more information about how to respond.

 

 

 

GENERAL GUIDANCE

·       Check the status of your application periodically in the Trademark Status & Document Retrieval (TSDR) database to avoid missing critical deadlines.

 

·       Update your correspondence email address, if needed, to ensure you receive important USPTO notices about your application.

 

·       Beware of misleading notices sent by private companies about your application.  Private companies not associated with the USPTO use public information available in trademark registrations to mail and email trademark-related offers and notices – most of which require fees.  All official USPTO correspondence will only be emailed from the domain “@uspto.gov.”