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: 2/24/2019

 

 

 

 

 

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.  

 

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:

• Likelihood of Confusion Refusal
• POTENTIAL Section 2(d) Refusal Advisory
• Identification of Goods and/or Services Amendment Requirement
• Declaration Requirement

 

Section 2(d) – Likelihood of Confusion Refusal

 

Registration of the applied-for mark, HYDROFLOW, is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 4250134, 4253748 and 4144315, all HYDRO FLOW marks.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registrations, all owned by the same registrant.

 

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.

 

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).

 

            Similarity of the Marks

 

The subject marks here are highly similar, and their sources are likely to be confused by consumers.  Consumer confusion has been held likely for marks that do not physically sound or look alike but that convey the same idea, stimulate the same mental reaction, or may have the same overall meaning.  Proctor & Gamble Co. v. Conway, 419 F.2d 1332, 1336, 164 USPQ 301, 304 (C.C.P.A. 1970) (holding MISTER STAIN likely to be confused with MR. CLEAN on competing cleaning products); see In re M. Serman & Co., 223 USPQ 52, 53 (TTAB 1984) (holding CITY WOMAN for ladies’ blouses likely to be confused with CITY GIRL for a variety of female clothing); H. Sichel Sohne, GmbH v. John Gross & Co., 204 USPQ 257, 260-61 (TTAB 1979) (holding BLUE NUN for wines likely to be confused with BLUE CHAPEL for the same goods); Ralston Purina Co. v. Old Ranchers Canning Co., 199 USPQ 125, 128 (TTAB 1978) (holding TUNA O’ THE FARM for canned chicken likely to be confused with CHICKEN OF THE SEA for canned tuna); Downtowner Corp. v. Uptowner Inns, Inc., 178 USPQ 105, 109 (TTAB 1973) (holding UPTOWNER for motor inn and restaurant services likely to be confused with DOWNTOWNER for the same services); TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

Here, the dominant features of applicant’s mark and registrant’s marks, “HYDROFLOW” v. “HYDRO FLOW”, are virtually identical.  The compared marks are identical except for a slight difference in appearance between applicant’s mark, which appears as a compound word with no space separating the words, that is, HYDROFLOW; and registrant’s marks, which appear as multiple words with space separating the words, that is, HYDRO FLOW.  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.”). 

 

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)).  The word portions of the marks are nearly identical in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression; therefore, the addition of a design element does not obviate the similarity of the marks in this case.  See In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1206, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1993); TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii).  Thus, the wording “HYDRO FLOW” in one of registrant’s marks is more significant than the design element and the font stylization.

A mark in typed or standard characters may be displayed in any lettering style; the rights reside in the wording or other literal element and not in any particular display or rendition.  See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1363, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1909 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 1348, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010); 37 C.F.R. §2.52(a); TMEP §1207.01(c)(iii).  Thus, a mark presented in stylized characters and/or with a design element like one of the cited marks here generally will not avoid likelihood of confusion with a mark in typed or standard characters like the proposed mark here, because the word portion could be presented in the same manner of display.  See, e.g., In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d at 1363, 101 USPQ2d at 1909; Squirtco v. Tomy Corp., 697 F.2d 1038, 1041, 216 USPQ 937, 939 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (stating that “the argument concerning a difference in type style is not viable where one party asserts rights in no particular display”).

 

            Relatedness of the Goods and/or Services

 

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).

 

The goods and/or services in this case are highly related, as it is common that the same party offers both applicant’s “Wholesale/retail agriculture products: soil permeability, water mitigation” and registrant’s “Hoses made of rubber or plastic for indoor gardening”/“Non-metal hose fittings” to the same or similar consumers for the same or similar uses.  Thus, they presumably travel to the same consumers through the same channels of trade.

 

 Where the marks of the respective parties are identical or virtually identical, as in this case, the degree of similarity or relatedness between the goods and/or services needed to support a finding of likelihood of confusion declines.  See In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 116 USPQ2d 1406, 1411 (TTAB 2015) (citing In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1207, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1993)), aff’d, 866 F.3d 1315, 123 USPQ2d 1744 (Fed. Cir. 2017); TMEP §1207.01(a).

 

The trademark examining attorney has attached evidence from the USPTO’s X-Search database consisting of a number of third-party marks registered for use in connection with the same or similar goods and/or services as those of both applicant and registrant in this case.  This evidence shows that the goods and/or services listed therein, namely agricultural products and “Hoses made of rubber or plastic for indoor gardening”/“Non-metal hose fittings”, are of a kind that may emanate from a single source under a single mark.  See In re I-Coat Co., 126 USPQ2d 1730, 1737 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Infinity Broad. Corp., 60 USPQ2d 1214, 1217-18 (TTAB 2001); In re Albert Trostel & Sons Co.,29 USPQ2d 1783, 1785-86 (TTAB 1993); In re Mucky Duck Mustard Co., 6 USPQ2d 1467, 1470 n.6 (TTAB 1988)); TMEP §1207.01(d)(iii).

 

Please see attached Internet evidence also supporting the relatedness of the goods and/or services as those of the parties here.  Material obtained from the Internet is generally accepted as competent evidence.  See In re Davey Prods. Pty Ltd., 92 USPQ2d 1198, 1202-03 (TTAB 2009) (accepting Internet evidence to show relatedness of goods in a likelihood of confusion determination); TBMP §1208.03; TMEP §710.01(b).  The Internet has become integral to daily life in the United States, with Census Bureau data showing approximately three-quarters of American households used the Internet in 2013 to engage in personal communications, to obtain news, information, and entertainment, and to do banking and shopping.  See In re Nieves & Nieves LLC, 113 USPQ2d at 1642 (taking judicial notice of the following two official government publications:  (1) Thom File & Camille Ryan, U.S. Census Bureau, Am. Cmty. Survey Reports ACS-28, Computer & Internet Use in the United States:  2013 (2014), available at http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2014/acs/acs-28.pdf, and (2) The Nat’l Telecomms. & Info. Admin. & Econ. & Statistics Admin., Exploring the Digital Nation:  America’s Emerging Online Experience (2013), available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/exploring_the_digital_nation_-_americas_emerging_online_experience.pdf).  Thus, the widespread use of the Internet in the United States suggests that Internet evidence may be probative of public perception in trademark examination.

 

Determining likelihood of confusion is based on the description of the goods and/or services stated in the application and registration at issue, not on extrinsic evidence of actual use.  See In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1307, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1052 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1325, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1749 (Fed. Cir. 2017)).  

 

In this case, the application use(s) broad wording to describe “Wholesale/retail agriculture products: soil permeability, water mitigation”, which presumably encompasses all goods and/or services of the type described, including registrant(s)’s more narrow  “Hoses made of rubber or plastic for indoor gardening”/“Non-metal hose fittings”.  See, e.g., In re Solid State Design Inc., 125 USPQ2d 1409, 1412-15 (TTAB 2018); Sw. Mgmt., Inc. v. Ocinomled, Ltd., 115 USPQ2d 1007, 1025 (TTAB 2015).  Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods/services are legally identical.  See, e.g., In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 127 USPQ2d 1627, 1629 (TTAB 2018) (citing Tuxedo Monopoly, Inc. v.Gen. Mills Fun Grp., Inc., 648 F.2d 1335, 1336, 209 USPQ 986, 988 (C.C.P.A. 1981); Inter IKEA Sys. B.V. v. Akea, LLC, 110 USPQ2d 1734, 1745 (TTAB 2014); Baseball Am. Inc. v. Powerplay Sports Ltd., 71 USPQ2d 1844, 1847 n.9 (TTAB 2004)).

 

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

 

Finally, 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, 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

 

Accordingly, applicant’s mark is refused on grounds of likelihood of confusion under Trademark Act Section 2(d).

 

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

 

POTENTIAL Section 2(d) Refusal Advisory

 

Note:  This is merely an advisory section and not a requirement.

 

Additionally, please be advised that a potentially conflicting mark in a prior-filed pending application may present a bar to registration.

 

The effective filing date of pending U.S. Application Serial No. 88140914 precedes applicant’s filing date.  See attached referenced application.  If the mark in the referenced application registers, applicant’s mark may be refused registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d) because of a likelihood of confusion between the two marks.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §§1208 et seq.  Therefore, upon receipt of applicant’s response to this Office action, action on this application may be suspended pending final disposition of the earlier-filed referenced application.

 

In response to this Office action, applicant may present arguments in support of registration by addressing the issue of the potential conflict between applicant’s mark and the mark in the referenced application.  Applicant’s election not to submit arguments at this time in no way limits applicant’s right to address this issue later if a refusal under Section 2(d) issues.

 

Upon receipt of applicant’s response resolving the following requirement(s), action on this application will be suspended pending the disposition of U.S. Application Serial No(s). 88140914.  37 C.F.R. §2.83(c); TMEP §§716.02(c), 1208.02(c).

 

Identification of Goods and/or Services Amendment Requirement

 

The Trademark Act requires that a trademark or service mark application must include a “specification of … the goods [or services]” in connection with which the mark is being used or will be used.  15 U.S.C. §1051(a)(2) (emphasis added), (b)(2) (emphasis added); see 15 U.S.C. §1053.  Specifically, a complete application must include a “list of the particular goods or services on or in connection with which the applicant uses or intends to use the mark.”  37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6) (emphasis added).  This requirement for a specification of the particular goods and/or services applies to applications filed under all statutory bases.  See 15 U.S.C. §§1051(a)(2), 1051(b)(2), 1053, 1126(d)-(e), 1141(f); 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.01(b)-(c).

 

In an identification, an applicant must use the common commercial or generic name for the goods and/or services, be specific and all-inclusive, and avoid using indefinite words or phrases.  TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03(a).  Further, applicant may amend the identification to list only those items that are within the scope of the goods and/or services set forth in the initial application or as acceptably amended.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §§1402.06 et seq., 1402.07.  Scope is generally determined by the ordinary meaning of the wording in the identification.  TMEP §1402.07(a).

 

In the identification of goods, applicant must use the common commercial or generic names for the goods, be as complete and specific as possible, and avoid the use of indefinite words and phrases.  TMEP §1402.03(a); see 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6).  If applicant uses indefinite words such as “products,” such wording must be followed by “namely,” and a list of each specific product identified by its common commercial or generic name.  See TMEP §§1401.05(d), 1402.03(a).

 

The wording “Wholesale/retail agriculture products: soil permeability, water mitigation” in the identification of goods and/or services in International Class(es) 31 is indefinite and too broad.  This wording must be clarified because it is not clear what the goods and/or services are and could identify goods and/or services in more than one international class.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03, 1904.02(c), (c)(ii).  For example, soil penetrants are in International Class 1, and Wholesale or retail store services featuring agriculture products are in International Class 35.  Applicant must adopt the appropriate international classification number for the goods and/or services identified in the application.  The USPTO follows the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks, established by the World Intellectual Property Organization, to classify goods and services.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.85(a); TMEP §§1401.02, 1401.02(a).  Proper classification of goods and services is a purely administrative matter within the sole discretion of the USPTO.  See In re Faucher Indus. Inc., 107 USPQ2d 1355, 1357 (TTAB 2013) (quoting In re Tee-Pak, Inc., 164 USPQ 88, 89 (TTAB 1969)).  Please see non-exhaustive suggestions below.

 

The current identification reads as follows:

 

            International Class 31: Wholesale/retail agriculture products: soil permeability, water mitigation.

 

Applicant may adopt the following identification of goods and/or services, if accurate (PLEASE SUBMIT YOUR AMENDED IDENTIFICATION IN STANDARD FONT; THE FONT STYLIZATION BELOW IS TO EMPHASIZE THE RECOMMENDED CHANGES ONLY):

 

            International Class 31 1: Wholesale/retail agriculture products for: soil permeability, water mitigation for wholesale and retail sale, namely, {insert common commercial names of agriculture products for soil permeability, water mitigation in this class, e.g., “soil penetrants” and/or “soil surfactants used to promote uniform movement of water in soil”}.

            International Class 31 5: Wholesale/retail agriculture products for: soil permeability, water mitigation for wholesale and retail sale, namely, {insert common commercial names of agriculture products for soil permeability, water mitigation in this class, e.g., “soil sterilizing preparations” and/or “soil disinfectants for the control of soil fungi”}.

            International Class 31 6: Wholesale/retail agriculture products for: soil permeability, water mitigation for wholesale and retail sale, namely, {insert common commercial names of agriculture products for soil permeability, water mitigation in this class, e.g., “stream deflectors in the nature of a metal concave surface for use in distributing an irrigation stream of water onto a soil surface” and/or “metal hoses for agricultural use”}.

            International Class 31 7: Wholesale/retail agriculture products for: soil permeability, water mitigation for wholesale and retail sale, namely, {insert common commercial names of agriculture products for soil permeability, water mitigation in this class, e.g., “plows” and/or “harrowers”}.

            International Class 31 9: Wholesale/retail agriculture products for: soil permeability, water mitigation for wholesale and retail sale, namely, {insert common commercial names of agriculture products for soil permeability, water mitigation in this class, e.g., “electrical controls for agricultural irrigation sprinkler systems” and/or “liquid level sensors for use in agriculture”}.

            International Class 31 11: Wholesale/retail agriculture products for: soil permeability, water mitigation for wholesale and retail sale, namely, {insert common commercial names of agriculture products for soil permeability, water mitigation in this class, e.g., “agricultural irrigation units” and/or “dripper irrigation system for use in agriculture comprised of {insert components of system, e.g., “valves” and/or “filters”}”}.

            International Class 31 17: Wholesale/retail agriculture products for: soil permeability, water mitigation for wholesale and retail sale, namely, {insert common commercial names of agriculture products for soil permeability, water mitigation in this class, e.g., “plastic sheeting that absorbs water and slowly releases it into the soil of a plant” and/or “watering hoses for agricultural use”}.

            International Class 31 19: Wholesale/retail agriculture products for: soil permeability, water mitigation for wholesale and retail sale, namely, {insert common commercial names of agriculture products for soil permeability, water mitigation in this class, e.g., “geotextiles for drainage of soil” and/or “non-metal water pipes for agricultural use”}.

            International Class 31 20: Wholesale/retail agriculture products for: soil permeability, water mitigation for wholesale and retail sale, namely, {insert common commercial names of agriculture products for soil permeability, water mitigation in this class, e.g., “stream deflectors in the nature of a non-metal concave surface for use in distributing an irrigation stream of water onto a soil surface” and/or “water tanks of plastic for agricultural use”}.

            International Class 31 21: Wholesale/retail agriculture products for: soil permeability, water mitigation for wholesale and retail sale, namely, {insert common commercial names of agriculture products for soil permeability, water mitigation in this class, e.g., “glass pellets for drainage of soil, as a trickle medium, and for otherwise conditioning soil” and/or “plastic buckets hanging from free standing platform incorporating a micro-drip irrigation system for use in agriculture”}.

            International Class 31 22: Wholesale/retail agriculture products for: soil permeability, water mitigation for wholesale and retail sale, namely, {insert common commercial names of agriculture products for soil permeability, water mitigation in this class, e.g., “irrigation bags for watering plants”}.

            International Class 31: Wholesale/retail agriculture products for: soil permeability, water mitigation for wholesale and retail sale, namely, {insert common commercial names of agriculture products for soil permeability, water mitigation in this class, e.g., “wood mulch overs” and/or “hay”}.

            International Class 31 35: Wholesale and /retail {insert type of wholesale and retail services, e.g., “store” and/or “buying club”} services featuring agriculture products for: soil permeability, water mitigation.

 

See TMEP §1402.01.

 

            Amendment Guidelines

 

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 at http://tess2.gov.uspto.report/netahtml/tidm.html.  See TMEP §1402.04.

 

The application identifies goods and/or services in more than one international class; therefore, applicant must satisfy all the requirements below for each international class based on Trademark Act Section 1(b):

 

(1)       List the goods and/or services by their international class number in consecutive numerical order, starting with the lowest numbered class.

 

(2)       Submit a filing fee for each international class not covered by the fee(s) already paid (view the USPTO’s current fee schedule).  The application identifies goods and/or services that are classified in at least 13 classes; however, applicant submitted a fee(s) sufficient for only 1 class(es).  Applicant must either submit the filing fees for the classes not covered by the submitted fees or restrict the application to the number of classes covered by the fees already paid.

 

See 15 U.S.C. §§1051(b), 1112, 1126(e); 37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(6)-(7), 2.34(a)(2)-(3), 2.86(a); TMEP §§1403.01, 1403.02(c).

 

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

 

The fee for adding classes to a TEAS Reduced Fee (RF) application is $275 per class.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(1)(iii), 2.23(a).  See more information regarding the requirements for maintaining the lower TEAS RF fee and, if these requirements are not satisfied, for adding classes at a higher fee using regular TEAS.

 

Declaration Requirement

 

The application was unsigned, resulting in the application not being properly verified.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.2(n), 2.33(a), (b)(2), 2.34(a)(2), (a)(3)(i), (a)(4)(ii), 2.193(e)(1).  Applicant must properly sign and therefore verify the application in an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.2(n), 2.33(a), (b)(2), 2.34(a)(2), (a)(3)(i), (a)(4)(ii), 2.193(e)(1); TMEP §804.02.

 

To respond to this requirement online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) response Office action form, answer “yes” to the TEAS response form wizard question #10, and follow the instructions within the form for signing.  The TEAS online form will require two signatures:  one in the “Declaration Signature” section and one in the “Response Signature” section.  For more information about a signed declaration and required verified statement and how to provide them using TEAS, please go to http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademark/laws-regulations/verified-statement.

 

TEAS instructions for providing a declaration.  Open the TEAS form, answer “yes” to wizard question #10, and follow the instructions within the form for signing.  In this case, the form requires two signatures:  one in the “Declaration Signature” section and one in the “Response Signature” section. 

 

A verified statement, which includes statements supported by a signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20, must be signed by the applicant or a person “properly authorized to verify facts” and sign on behalf of the applicant.  37 C.F.R. §2.193(e)(1); TMEP §804.04; see 37 C.F.R. §2.33(a).  The following persons are properly authorized:  (1) a person with legal authority to bind a juristic applicant (e.g., a corporate officer of a corporate applicant or a general partner of a partnership applicant); (2) a person with firsthand knowledge of the facts and actual or implied authority to act on behalf of applicant; and (3) an attorney who is authorized to represent the applicant and to practice before the USPTO.  37 C.F.R. §2.193(e)(1); TMEP §804.04. 

 

Applicant must use one of the following methods for signing Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) forms:

 

(1)       Electronic typed signature.  In the TEAS signature block, the signer personally types any combination of letters, numbers, spaces, and/or punctuation marks that the signer has adopted as a signature, placed between two forward slash (/) symbols (e.g., /john doe/).  And if the filer is not the actual signer of the form, the filer may email the completed unsigned form from within TEAS to the signer to personally type his or her e-signature, after which the form will be automatically returned to the filer for submission.

 

(2)       Pen-and-ink traditional handwritten signature.  The filer prints out the completed form in text format and mails or faxes it to the signer who reviews and personally signs and dates it in the usual pen-and-ink manner.  The signature and date portion, together with the wording of a declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20, if required, is then scanned by the filer as a jpg or pdf image file and attached to the form for submission. 

 

See 37 C.F.R. §2.193(a); TMEP §611.01(c). 

 

In addition, the name of the signer must be clearly printed or typed near the signature.  37 C.F.R. §2.193(d); TMEP §611.01(c).  The signer’s particular title or position should also be specified.  See TMEP §804.04.

 

Any party who presents a document to the USPTO is subject to 37 C.F.R. §11.18(b).  Thus, an attorney, applicant, or other party who signs or submits a document in connection with a trademark application is certifying that:

 

(1)       All statements made in the document of the party’s own knowledge are true, all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true, and all statements made are made with the knowledge that, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the USPTO, any party who knowingly and willfully makes any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or representations, is subject to the penalties under 18 U.S.C. §1001, including fines and imprisonment;

 

(2)       To the best of the party’s knowledge, information and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, the document is not being presented for any improper purpose;

 

(3)       All allegations or other factual contentions in the document have evidentiary support or are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and

 

(4)       All denials of factual contentions in the document are warranted on the evidence or are reasonably based on a lack of information or belief.

 

See 37 C.F.R. §11.18(b); TMEP §§302, 611.01(a).

 

Violating 37 C.F.R. §11.18(b) may jeopardize the validity of an application and any resulting registration, and may lead the USPTO to impose sanctions and/or take other appropriate actions under 37 C.F.R. §11.18(c), which may include the following:  rejecting the relevant document or according it less probative value; referring the practitioner’s conduct to the USPTO’s Office of Enrollment and Discipline for possible disciplinary action; excluding the practitioner or other party from practicing before, or otherwise submitting documents to, the USPTO; and requiring a party to be represented by a qualified practitioner in any current or future trademark matters before the USPTO. 

 

 

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.

 

/Tina H. Mai/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 117

571-272-4110

tina.mai@uspto.gov (for informal communications)

 

 

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 2/24/2019 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 88198619

 

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 2/24/2019, 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. 

 

/Tina H. Mai/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 117

571-272-4110

tina.mai@uspto.gov (for informal communications)

 

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.