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: 2/25/2019

 

The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney.  Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issues below.  15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(a), 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.

 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES:

• Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion
• Mark Description Requirement

 

SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 4392266, 5231834, 3604253, 3204987 and 3944250.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registrations.

 

The applicant has applied to register the mark VAULT in a stylized format for “printed materials, namely, comic books” in class 016 and “clothing, namely, T-Shirts and sweatshirts; hats” in class 025.

 

The mark in Registration No. 4392266 is VAULT in standard character format for “Magazines featuring fashion, nightlife, entertainment, movies, music, books, ecology, arts, restaurants, travel, home entertaining, and home design” in class 016 and “Providing non-downloadable online magazines featuring fashion, nightlife, entertainment, movies, music, books, ecology, arts, restaurants, travel, home entertaining, and home design” in class 041.

 

The mark in Registration No. 5231834 is THE COMIC VAULT in standard character format for “On-line retail store services featuring comic books” in class 035.

 

The mark in Registration No. 3604253 is VAULT in standard character format for “Footwear” in class 025.

 

The mark in Registration No. 3204987 is VAULT BY VANS in a stylized format for “Footwear” in class 025.

 

The mark in Registration No. 3944250 is “VAULT” in a stylized format with skateboard design for “Footwear and t-shirts” in class 025.

 

Please note, the registrations with Registration Nos. 3604253, 3204987 and 3944250 are all owned by the same registrant, Vans, Inc.

 

Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that is so similar to a registered marks 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 [or services] and differences in the marks.”); TMEP §1207.01.

 

Comparison of the Marks

 

Marks are compared in their entireties for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression.  Stone Lion Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 1321, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1371, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 2005)); TMEP §1207.01(b)-(b)(v).  “Similarity in any one of these elements may be sufficient to find the marks confusingly similar.”  In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1746 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Davia, 110 USPQ2d 1810, 1812 (TTAB 2014)); TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

In this case, applicant’s mark VAULT is confusingly similar to the marks VAULT in Registration No. 4392266, THE COMIC VAULT in Registration No. 5231834, VAULT in Registration No. 3604253, VAULT BY VANS in Registration No. 3204987 and “VAULT” in Registration No. 3944250. Specifically, VAULT in applicant’s mark is highly similar in sound and appearance to the VAULT in registrants’ marks in Registration Nos. 4392266, 5231834, 3604253, 3204987 and 3944250. Further, this shared word means “a large room or chamber used for storage, especially an underground one.” See http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/vault.

 

Moreover, 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 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)). In this case, even though applicant’s mark VAULT is in a stylized font, registrant’s mark VAULT BY VANS in Registration No. 3204987 is in a stylized font and registrant’s mark “VAULT” in Registration No. 3944250 is in a stylized font with skateboard design, the dominant portion of the marks is the word portion, which are VAULT in applicant’s mark, VAULT BY VANS in registrant’s mark in Registration No. 3204987 and “VAULT” in registrant’s mark in Registration No. 3944250. Therefore, the dominant portion of applicant’s mark VAULT is nearly identical to the dominant portion of registrant’s mark “VAULT” in Registration No. 3944250.

 

In addition, 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 services is typically less significant or less dominant when comparing marks.  In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1305, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re Dixie Rests., Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 1407, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533-34 (Fed. Cir. 1997)); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii). In this case, the word COMIC is disclaimed in registrant’s mark THE COMIC VAULT in Registration No. 5231834, because it is descriptive of registrant’s services. Thus, this wording is less significant in terms of affecting the mark’s commercial impression, and renders the wording THE VAULT the more dominant element of the mark. Therefore, the dominant portion of applicant’s mark VAULT is nearly identical to the dominant portion of registrant’s mark THE VAULT in Registration No. 5231834.

 

Additionally, the applicant’s mark VAULT is wholly encompassed within the registrants’ marks THE COMIC VAULT in Registration No. 5231834 and VAULT BY VANS in Registration No. 3204987, thus, purchasers are likely to believe that registrants’ marks merely identify additional lines of footwear goods and online retail store services featuring comic books. Specifically, purchasers are likely to believe that the marks THE COMIC VAULT in Registration No. 5231834 and VAULT BY VANS in Registration No. 3204987 identify new lines of footwear goods and online retail store services featuring comic books offered under the VAULT line of comic book, t-shirt, sweatshirt and hat goods. 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, although applicant’s mark does not contain the entirety of the registered marks in Registration Nos. 3204987 and 5231834, applicant’s mark is likely to appear to prospective purchasers as a shortened form of registrants’ marks.  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 marks in Registration Nos. 3204987 and 5231834 because it contains some of the wording in the registered marks and does not add any wording that would distinguish it from those marks.

 

Furthermore, registrants’ marks VAULT in Registration Nos. 3604253 and 4392266 are in standard character format, which means the registrants can put their marks in any design, therefore, applicant’s design elements do not rule out the similarity of the word VAULT in the marks. 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 generally will not avoid likelihood of confusion with a mark in typed or standard characters 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”).

 

In summary, because of the contemporaneous use of the distinctive word VAULT, it follows that purchasers are likely to believe that the marks identify the same source for comic book, t-shirt, sweatshirt, hat, magazine and footwear goods and online retail store services featuring comic books. Thus, the marks are confusingly similar.

 

Comparison of the Goods & 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).

 

The applicant’s goods are “printed materials, namely, comic books” in class 016 and “clothing, namely, T-Shirts and sweatshirts; hats” in class 025.

 

The registrant’s goods and services in Registration No. 4392266 are “Magazines featuring fashion, nightlife, entertainment, movies, music, books, ecology, arts, restaurants, travel, home entertaining, and home design” in class 016 and “Providing non-downloadable online magazines featuring fashion, nightlife, entertainment, movies, music, books, ecology, arts, restaurants, travel, home entertaining, and home design” in class 041.

 

The registrant’s services in Registration No. 5231834 are “On-line retail store services featuring comic books” in class 035.

 

The registrant’s goods in Registration No. 3604253 are “Footwear” in class 025.

 

The registrant’s goods in Registration No. 3204987 are “Footwear” in class 025.

 

The registrant’s goods in Registration No. 3944250 are “Footwear and t-shirts” in class 025.

 

As the attached evidence shows, the applicant's comic book, t-shirt, sweatshirt and hat goods, registrant’s magazine and non-downloadable magazine goods in Registration No. 4392266, registrant’s online retail store services featuring comic books in Registration No. 5231834 and registrant’s footwear and t-shirt goods in Registration Nos. 3604253, 3204987 and 3944250 are commercially related, because many companies provide these types of goods and services.

 

The attached Internet evidence consists of screenshots from American Eagle, GAP, Nike, Ralph Lauren, New Kadia, Things from Another World, Midtown Comics, Mile High Comics, Rainbow Comics and Cards, D3 Comic Book Spot, Forbidden Planet and Nostalgia Zone. See http://www.ae.com/, http://www.ae.com/women-tops/web/s-cat/10049?cm=sUS-cUSD&navdetail=mega:womens:c1:p2, http://www.ae.com/men-hats/web/s-cat/2380019?cm=sUS-cUSD, http://www.gap.com/#, http://www.gap.com/browse/category.do?cid=5300#department=75&style=23437, http://www.nike.com/, http://store.nike.com/us/en_us/pw/womens-hats-visors-headbands/7ptZof1, http://www.ralphlauren.com/, http://www.newkadia.com/, http://www.tfaw.com/Comics/Profile/Buffy-The-Vampire-Slayer-1-Main___587673?qt=ia_ComicsNR_Comics_ttl1, http://www.tfaw.com/More-Products/Apparel/, http://www.tfaw.com/Apparel/Profile/Captain-Marvel-Movie-Logo-Fitted-Cap-7-1-2___596770, http://www.midtowncomics.com/store/dp.asp?PRID=100+Bullets+%2320_413448, http://www.midtowncomics.com/store/magazines.asp?pl=102, http://www.midtowncomics.com/store/apparel.asp?pl=227, http://www.milehighcomics.com/cgi-bin/backissue.cgi?action=direct&issue=80641378418%2040%20MILE%20HIGH, http://www.milehighcomics.com/cgi-bin/backissue.cgi?action=enlarge&issue=90265134288%201, http://www.rainbowcomicsandcards.com/2352-240929/2018-comics/comic-books_comic-books_2018-comics/unexpected-2.aspx, http://www.rainbowcomicsandcards.com/p/c/2210/d/1/8/1/0/magazines.aspx, http://www.rainbowcomicsandcards.com/p/c/2210/d/1/8/1/0/magazines.aspx, http://d3comicbookspot.com/collections/magazines-books/products/mad-magazine-5, http://d3comicbookspot.com/collections/comics/products/classic-battlestar-galactica-12, http://d3comicbookspot.com/collections/t-shirts-apparel, http://www.fpnyc.com/action-comics-1006/76194134388400611/comics/dc-comics/dc-comics/, http://www.fpnyc.com/illustrators-magazine-22/978190708146052499/comics/magazines/book/, http://www.fpnyc.com/apparel/?=undefined&sort=name&order=, http://www.nostalgiazone.com/proddetail.asp?prod=1941Official%281979%290000%28C%29Mag&cat=39 and http://www.nostalgiazone.com/proddetail.asp?prod=3DAdventureComics%281986%290001%28C%293D&cat=14. This evidence establishes that the same entity commonly provides the relevant goods and services and markets the goods and services under the same mark and 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. Thus, applicant’s goods 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). Accordingly, purchasers are likely to be confused as to the source of the goods and services when they encounter comic book, t-shirt, sweatshirt, hat, magazine and footwear goods and online retail store services featuring comic books offered under highly similar marks. Therefore, applicant's goods and registrants’ goods are considered related for likelihood of confusion purposes.

 

In summary, the marks are confusingly similar and the goods and services are related.  Therefore, purchasers are likely to be confused as to the source of the goods and services. Thus, registration is refused pursuant to Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.

 

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

 

MARK DESCRIPTION REQUIREMENT

 

Applicant must submit an amended description of the mark because the current one is incomplete and does not describe all the significant aspects of the mark. 37 C.F.R. §2.37; see TMEP §§808.01, 808.02.  Descriptions must be accurate and identify all the literal and design elements in the mark.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.37; TMEP §§808 et seq. 

 

The following description is suggested, if accurate: 

 

The mark consists of the word “VAULT” in stylized font with the lower right corner of the letter “T” missing.

 

RESPONSE GUIDELINES

 

For this application to proceed, applicant must explicitly address each refusal and/or requirement in this Office action.  For a refusal, applicant may provide written arguments and evidence against the refusal, and may have other response options if specified above.  For a requirement, applicant should set forth the changes or statements.  Please see “Responding to Office Actions” and the informational video “Response to Office Action” for more information and tips on responding.

 

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

 

TEAS PLUS OR TEAS REDUCED FEE (TEAS RF) APPLICANTS – TO MAINTAIN LOWER FEE, ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS MUST BE MET, INCLUDING SUBMITTING DOCUMENTS ONLINE:  Applicants who filed their application online using the lower-fee TEAS Plus or TEAS RF application form must (1) file certain documents online using TEAS, including responses to Office actions (see TMEP §§819.02(b), 820.02(b) for a complete list of these documents); (2) maintain a valid e-mail correspondence address; and (3) agree to receive correspondence from the USPTO by e-mail throughout the prosecution of the application. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.22(b), 2.23(b); TMEP §§819, 820.  TEAS Plus or TEAS RF applicants who do not meet these requirements must submit an additional processing fee of $125 per class of goods. 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.  

 

 

 

/Rebecca Lee/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 122

(571) 272 - 7809

Rebecca.Lee1@uspto.gov

 

TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER:  Go to http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp.  Please wait 48-72 hours from the issue/mailing date before using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), to allow for necessary system updates of the application.  For technical assistance with online forms, e-mail TEAS@uspto.gov.  For questions about the Office action itself, please contact the assigned trademark examining attorney.  E-mail communications will not be accepted as responses to Office actions; therefore, do not respond to this Office action by e-mail.

 

All informal e-mail communications relevant to this application will be placed in the official application record.

 

WHO MUST SIGN THE RESPONSE:  It must be personally signed by an individual applicant or someone with legal authority to bind an applicant (i.e., a corporate officer, a general partner, all joint applicants).  If an applicant is represented by an attorney, the attorney must sign the response. 

 

PERIODICALLY CHECK THE STATUS OF THE APPLICATION:  To ensure that applicant does not miss crucial deadlines or official notices, check the status of the application every three to four months using the Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) system at http://tsdr.gov.uspto.report/.  Please keep a copy of the TSDR status screen.  If the status shows no change for more than six months, contact the Trademark Assistance Center by e-mail at TrademarkAssistanceCenter@uspto.gov or call 1-800-786-9199.  For more information on checking status, see http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/process/status/.

 

TO UPDATE CORRESPONDENCE/E-MAIL ADDRESS:  Use the TEAS form at http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/correspondence.jsp.

 

 

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)

 

 

IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING YOUR

U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION

 

USPTO OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) HAS ISSUED

ON 2/25/2019 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 88199204

 

Please follow the instructions below:

 

(1)  TO READ THE LETTER:  Click on this link or go to http://tsdr.uspto.gov,enter the U.S. application serial number, and click on “Documents.”

 

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

 

(2)  TIMELY RESPONSE IS REQUIRED:  Please carefully review the Office action to determine (1) how to respond, and (2) the applicable response time period.  Your response deadline will be calculated from 2/25/2019 (or sooner if specified in the Office action).  A response transmitted through the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) must be received before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period.  For information regarding response time periods, see http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/process/status/responsetime.jsp.

 

Do NOT hit “Reply” to this e-mail notification, or otherwise e-mail your response because the USPTO does NOT accept e-mails as responses to Office actions.  Instead, the USPTO recommends that you respond online using the TEAS response form located at http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp.

 

(3)  QUESTIONS:  For questions about the contents of the Office action itself, please contact the assigned trademark examining attorney.  For technical assistance in accessing or viewing the Office action in the Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) system, please e-mail TSDR@uspto.gov.

 

WARNING

 

Failure to file the required response by the applicable response deadline will result in the ABANDONMENT of your application.  For more information regarding abandonment, see http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/basics/abandon.jsp.

 

PRIVATE COMPANY SOLICITATIONS REGARDING YOUR APPLICATION:  Private companies not associated with the USPTO are using information provided in trademark applications to mail or e-mail trademark-related solicitations.  These companies often use names that closely resemble the USPTO and their solicitations may look like an official government document.  Many solicitations require that you pay “fees.” 

 

Please carefully review all correspondence you receive regarding this application to make sure that you are responding to an official document from the USPTO rather than a private company solicitation.  All official USPTO correspondence will be mailed only from the “United States Patent and Trademark Office” in Alexandria, VA; or sent by e-mail from the domain “@uspto.gov.”  For more information on how to handle private company solicitations, see http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/solicitation_warnings.jsp.