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 27, 2020

 

This Office action is in response to Applicant’s communication filed on April 23, 2020.

 

In the previous Office actions dated January 30, 2019 and October 23, 2019, the trademark examining attorney refused registration of the applied-for mark based on the following: 

 

-            Section 2(d) Likelihood of Confusion – Refusal as to U.S. Registration Nos. 3501357, 4495564, 4606030, 4609038, 4609040, 4281317, 4744608, 5152169, 5550303, and 5550304

-            Identification of the Goods and Services – Further Clarification Required

-            Multiple-Class Application Requirements – Advisory       

 

Based on Applicant’s response, the trademark examining attorney notes that the following requirement have been obviated:

 

-            Section 2(d) Likelihood of Confusion – Refusal as to U.S. Registration Nos. 4495564, 4606030, 4609038, 4609040, 4281317, 4744608, and 5152169

-            Identification of the Goods and Services – Further Clarification Required

-            Multiple-Class Application Requirements – Advisory       

 

See TMEP §§713.02, 714.04. 

 

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

 

SUMMARY OF THE ISSUE MADE FINAL THAT APPLICANT MUST ADDRESS:

 

-            Section 2(d) Likelihood of Confusion – Partial Refusal (U.S. Registration Nos. 3501357, 5550303, and 5550304)

-            Partial Abandonment – Advisory

 

SECTION 2(d) LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION – PARTIAL REFUSAL

 

This refusal is limited to the entire goods and services in Classes 009, 042, 045, and “electronic digital video, audio, and multimedia publishing services for others” in International Class 041.

 

For the reasons set forth below, the refusal under Trademark Act Section 2(d) is now made FINAL. See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b).

 

Applicant seeks registration of the mark LASSO. Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in the registrations listed below.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registrations.

 

Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that is so similar to a registered mark that it is likely consumers would be confused, mistaken, or deceived as to the commercial source of the goods and 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 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 [and services] and differences in the marks.”); TMEP §1207.01.

 

Applicant seeks registration of the mark LASSO, in relevant part, for the following goods and services:

 

“Downloadable computer software for social networking; downloadable computer software for creating, managing, and interacting with an online community; downloadable computer software for creating, editing, uploading, downloading, accessing, viewing, posting, displaying, tagging, blogging, streaming, linking, annotating, indicating sentiment about, commenting on, embedding, transmitting, and sharing or otherwise providing electronic media or information via computer, the internet, and communication networks; downloadable computer software for modifying and enabling transmission of images, audio, audio visual and video content and data; downloadable computer software for modifying photographs, images and audio, video, and audio-visual content with photographic filters and augmented reality (AR) effects, namely, graphics, animations, text, drawings, geotags, metadata tags, hyperlinks; downloadable computer software for the collection, editing, organizing, modifying, transmission, storage and sharing of data and information; downloadable computer software for sending and receiving electronic message alerts, notifications and reminders; downloadable computer software for integrating electronic data with real world environments for the purposes of entertainment, education, communicating, and social networking; downloadable computer software for wireless content, data and information delivery; downloadable computer software, namely, mobile application for social networking; downloadable computer software for creating, managing and accessing groups within virtual communities; downloadable computer software for viewing and interacting with a feed of images, audio, audio-visual and video content and associated text and data; downloadable computer software for sending and receiving electronic messages, graphics, images, audio and audio visual content via computer the internet and communication networks; downloadable computer software for processing images, graphics, audio, video, and text; downloadable computer software for managing social networking content, interacting with a virtual community, and transmission of images, audio, audio-visual and video content, photographs, videos, data, text, messages, comments, advertisements, media advertising communications and information; excluding computer software for e-commerce, e-business, the making and acceptance of offers for the sale of goods and services, job search and recruitment services, and downloadable software for incentivizing in-person group gatherings” in International Class 009

 

“electronic digital video, audio, and multimedia publishing services for others” in International Class 041

 

“Computer services, namely, creating online virtual communities for registered users to engage in social, business and community networking; providing temporary use of non-downloadable computer software for social networking, creating a virtual community, and for transmission of audio, video, images, text, content and data; providing temporary use of non-downloadable software for electronic messaging; application service provider featuring application programming interface (API) software for electronic messaging and transmission of audio, video, images, text, content and data; providing temporary use of non-downloadable computer software for electronic messaging; computer software design in the field of augmented reality and virtual reality effects for use in modifying photographs, images, videos and audio-visual content; providing temporary use of non-downloadable computer software for modifying photographs, images and audio, video, and audio-video content with photographic filters and augmented reality (AR) effects, namely, graphics, animations, text, drawings, geotags, metadata tags, hyperlinks; platform as a service (PAAS) featuring software platforms for social networking, managing social networking content, creating a virtual community, and for transmission of images, audio-visual and video content, photographs, videos, data, text, messages, advertisements, media advertising communications and information; providing online facilities, namely, web interfaces and mobile interfaces in the nature of providing temporary use of non-downloadable software for sending and receiving electronic messages, instant messages, electronic message alerts and reminders, photographs, images, graphics, data, audio, videos and audio-visual content via the internet and communication networks; providing temporary use of non-downloadable computer software for use in facilitating online social networking services; application service provider (ASP) services featuring software for enabling or facilitating online social networking services; providing temporary use of non-downloadable computer software for use in taking and editing photographs and recording and editing videos; application service provider (ASP) featuring software for enabling or facilitating taking and editing photographs and recording and editing videos; providing online facilities, namely, application service provider (ASP) featuring software for use in enabling users to upload, modify, and share audio, video, photographic images, text, graphics and data; user verification services, namely, providing user authentication of personal identification information using single sign-on technology for online network environments and software applications; identification verification services, namely, providing user authentication of personal identification information using single sign-on technology for online network environments and software applications; excluding non-downloadable software in the field of real estate” in International Class 042

 

“Internet-based social networking services; online social networking services” in International Class 045

 

The registered marks are:

 

U.S. Registration No. 5550303 LASSO for “Computer application software for mobile phones, namely, software for incentivizing users to bring together friends for group gatherings” in International Class 009.

 

U.S. Registration No. 5550304 LASSO for “Computer application software for mobile phones, namely, software for incentivizing users to bring together friends for group gatherings” in International Class 009.

 

U.S. Registration No. 3501357 LASSO PRODUCTIONS for “Multimedia entertainment services in the nature of recording, production and post-production services in the fields of music, video, and films” in International Class 041.

 

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 i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1323, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2017); 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)); 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, Applicant’s LASSO mark is confusingly similar to U.S. Registration Nos. 5550303 and 5550304 LASSO marks because the marks are comprised of identical wording. These marks are identical in appearance, sound, and meaning, in terms of their wording, “and have the potential to be used . . . in exactly the same manner.”  In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 116 USPQ2d 1406, 1411 (TTAB 2015), aff’d, 866 F.3d 1315, 123 USPQ2d 1744 (Fed. Cir. 2017).  Additionally, because they are identical in terms of their wording, these marks are likely to engender the same connotation and overall commercial impression when considered in connection with Applicant’s and Registrant’s respective goods and services.  Id. Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar. 

 

Likewise, Applicant’s LASSO mark is confusingly similar to U.S. Registration No. 3501357 LASSO PRODUCTIONS mark in terms of appearance, sound, and commercial impression. 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 identical in part.

 

Further, Applicant’s LASSO mark is confusingly similar to U.S. Registration No. 3501357 LASSO PRODUCTIONS mark that contains additional matter because the mere deletion of matter from the registered mark is insufficient to obviate a likelihood of confusion between the marks. 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 marks and does not add any wording that would distinguish it from that mark.

 

Moreover, please note that 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).

 

Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar. 

 

Relatedness of the Goods and Services

 

The compared goods and 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 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 and 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 goods and services of the parties have no restrictions as to 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)). 

 

Additionally, the goods and services of the parties are related because they are identical in part, encompassing or legally identical in part, or related as demonstrated by the attached evidence.

 

Specifically, U.S. Registration No. 3501357 LASSO PRODUCTIONS uses broad wording to describe “Multimedia entertainment services in the nature of recording, production and post-production services in the fields of music, video, and films” in International Class 041, which presumably encompasses all services of the type described, including Applicant’s “electronic digital video, audio, and multimedia publishing services for others” in International Class 041.  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). 

 

Further, Applicant’s goods and services in Classes 009, 042, and 045 are related to the U.S. Registration Nos. 5550303 and 5550304 LASSO “Computer application software for mobile phones, namely, software for incentivizing users to bring together friends for group gatherings” in International Class 009, as demonstrated by the attached evidence. The attached Internet evidence, consisting of screenshots of entities similar to Applicant and Registrant, namely, Instagram, Reddit, and Meetup, establishes that the same entity commonly provides the relevant goods and services – software products and services for both in-person and virtual gathering or networking, messaging, and communicating – and that the relevant goods and services are sold or provided through the same trade channels and used by the same classes of consumers in the same fields of use. See attached evidence. Thus, Applicant’s and Registrants’ goods and services 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).

 

Applicant’s Arguments are Unpersuasive

 

In response, Applicant has unpersuasively argued against the confusing similarity of the marks and the relatedness of the goods and services.

 

First, Applicant’s argument that the term LASSO is weak such that it should be given less protection is unpersuasive. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board have recognized that marks deemed “weak” or merely descriptive are still entitled to protection under Section 2(d) against the registration by a subsequent user of a similar mark for closely related goods and services.  TMEP §1207.01(b)(ix); see King Candy Co. v. Eunice King’s Kitchen, Inc., 496 F.2d 1400, 1401, 182 USPQ 108, 109 (C.C.P.A. 1974); In re Max Capital Grp. Ltd., 93 USPQ2d 1243, 1246 (TTAB 2010).  Thus, this protection under Section 2(d) extends to marks registered on the Supplemental Register.  TMEP §1207.01(b)(ix); see, e.g., In re Morinaga Nyugyo Kabushiki Kaisha, 120 USPQ2d 1738, 1743 (TTAB 2016) (citing Towers v. Advent Software, Inc., 913 F.2d 942, 946, 16 USPQ2d 1039, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Research & Trademark Corp., 793 F.2d 1276, 1278, 230 USPQ 49, 49 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Clorox Co., 578 F.2d 305, 307-08, 198 USPQ 337, 340 (C.C.P.A. 1978)). Because the marks in this case are either identical or identical in part, they are confusingly similar.

 

Second, with respect to the social gathering software products and services listed in U.S. Registration Nos. 5550303 and 5550304 LASSO, Applicant has argued that the goods and services of the parties are unrelated because one party provides software for fostering in-person gatherings while the other party provides software for fostering virtual gatherings. Applicant’s argument, however, is insufficient to obviate the relatedness of the goods and services, because, as the attached Internet evidence demonstrates, the same entity commonly provides software products and services for incentivizing in-person and virtual gatherings, as well as for sharing messages, data, etc. Thus, Applicant’s and Registrant’s goods and services 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).

 

Third, Applicant should note that, generally, the greater degree of similarity between the applied-for mark and the registered mark, as is the case here, the lesser the degree of similarity between the goods and services of the parties is required to support a finding of likelihood of confusion.  In re C.H. Hanson Co., 116 USPQ2d 1351, 1353 (TTAB 2015) (citing In re Opus One Inc., 60 USPQ2d 1812, 1815 (TTAB 2001)); In re Thor Tech, Inc., 90 USPQ2d 1634, 1636 (TTAB 2009). 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.Thus, the goods and services of the parties are related for likelihood of confusion purposes.

 

In summary, Applicant has failed to establish that the marks are not confusingly similar and that the goods and services of the parties are not related.

 

Conclusion

 

Because Applicant's and Registrants’ marks are similar and because the goods and services are related, Applicant's mark must be refused registration pursuant to Section 2(d) of the Lanham Act.

 

Lastly, the overriding concern is not only to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods and 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 Registrants.  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).

 

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

 

PARTIAL ABANDOMENT – ADVISORY

 

If Applicant does not timely respond within six months of the issue date of this final Office action, the following goods and/or services to which the final refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) apply will be deleted from the application by Examiner’s Amendment:  the entire goods and services in Classes 009, 042, 045, and “electronic digital video, audio, and multimedia publishing services for others” in International Class 041.  37 C.F.R. §2.65(a); see 15 U.S.C. §1062(b).

 

In such case, the application will proceed with the remainder of the goods and services.

 

Applicant may respond to this final Office action by providing one or both of the following:

 

(1)       A request for reconsideration that fully resolves all outstanding requirements and refusals; and/or

 

(2)       An appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board with the required filing fees.

 

TMEP §715.01; see 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b)(1)-(2).

 

 

How to respond.  Click to file a request for reconsideration of this final Office action that fully resolves all outstanding requirements and refusals and/or click to file a timely appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) with the required filing fee(s).

 

 

/Xheneta Ademi/

Xheneta Ademi

Trademark Attorney

Law Office 130/Innovation Lab

571-272-7151

xheneta.ademi@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 27, 2020 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88187086

 

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. 

 

 

/Xheneta Ademi/

Xheneta Ademi

Trademark Attorney

Law Office 130/Innovation Lab

571-272-7151

xheneta.ademi@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 27, 2020, 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.”