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: 3/4/2019

 

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 THE ISSUES:

 

-       Section 2(d) Likelihood of Confusion – Refusal

-       Disclaimer Required

-       Color Claim and Mark Description – Clarification Required

-       Owner and Legal Entity Type – Clarification Required

 

SECTION 2(d) LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION – REFUSAL

 

Applicant seeks registration of the mark LAUDIS BIOTECH. Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 5015557.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registration.

 

Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that is so similar to a registered mark that it is likely consumers would be confused, mistaken, or deceived as to the commercial source of the goods of the parties.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).  Likelihood of confusion is determined on a case-by-case basis by applying the factors set forth in In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973) (called the “du Pont factors”).  In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1322, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1747 (Fed. Cir. 2017).  Only those factors that are “relevant and of record” need be considered.  M2 Software, Inc. v. M2 Commc’ns, Inc., 450 F.3d 1378, 1382, 78 USPQ2d 1944, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Shen Mfg. Co. v. Ritz Hotel Ltd., 393 F.3d 1238, 1241, 73 USPQ2d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2004)); see In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1744 (TTAB 2018). 

 

Although not all du Pont factors may be relevant, there are generally two key considerations in any likelihood of confusion analysis:  (1) the similarities between the compared marks and (2) the relatedness of the compared goods.  See In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d at 1322, 123 USPQ2d at 1747 (quoting Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 1164-65, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2002)); Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co.,544 F.2d 1098, 1103, 192 USPQ 24, 29 (C.C.P.A. 1976) (“The fundamental inquiry mandated by [Section] 2(d) goes to the cumulative effect of differences in the essential characteristics of the goods and differences in the marks.”); TMEP §1207.01.

 

Applicant seeks registration of the mark LAUDIS BIOTECH for “Medicinal creams for skin care; Medicinal herb extracts; Medicinal herbal extracts for medical purposes; Medicinal herbal preparations; Medicinal herbs; Medicinal herbs in dried or preserved form; Medicinal preparations for the mouth to be applied in the form of drops, capsules, tablets and compressed tablets; Medicinal preparations for the treatment of infectious diseases and for use in oncology; Medicinal radix glycyrrhizae; Medicinal roots; Medicines for dental purposes; Medicines for intestinal disorders; Medicines for the treatment of gastrointestinal diseases; Bacteriostats for medicinal, dental and veterinary use; Bee venom for medicinal or therapeutic purposes; Diagnostic reagents for medicinal use; Dried Chinese boxthorn fruits for Chinese medicinal use; Ginseng for medicinal use; Herbs for medicinal purposes; Molecular complex for the delivery of non-radical oxygen for medicinal, surgical, therapeutic or veterinary purposes; Prescription and non-prescription medicines, namely, pills, tablets, capsules, caplets, liquid drops, sachets and pharmaceutical preparations for the treatment of cardiovascular disorders; Processed bee pollen for medicinal or therapeutic purposes; Processed cactus for medicinal or therapeutic purposes; Sugar replacement for medicinal or therapeutic purposes” in International Class 005.

 

The registered mark is LAUDISS PARIS for “After-sun gels; After-sun milks; After-sun oils; Argan oil for cosmetic purposes; Body and beauty care cosmetics; Cleansing creams; Cleansing milk for cosmetic purposes; Colognes, perfumes and cosmetics; Concealers; Cosmetic balls; Cosmetic body scrubs for the face, feet, hands, body; Cosmetic cotton wool; Cosmetic creams; Cosmetic creams for skin care; Cosmetic hair dressing preparations; Cosmetic hand creams; Cosmetic masks; Cosmetic massage creams; Cosmetic milks; Cosmetic nourishing creams; Cosmetic oils; Cosmetic pencils; Cosmetic preparations; Cosmetic preparations against sunburn; Cosmetic preparations for body care; Cosmetic preparations for skin care; Cosmetic preparations for skin renewal; Cosmetic preparations for slimming purposes; Cosmetic preparations for the hair and scalp; Cosmetic preparations, namely, firming creams; Cosmetic preparations, namely, firming lotions; Cosmetic preparations, namely, skin balsams; Cosmetic products in the form of aerosols for skin care; Cosmetic rouges; Cosmetic sun milk lotions; Cosmetic sun oils; Cosmetic sun-protecting preparations; Cosmetic tanning preparations; Cosmetics; Cosmetics and cosmetic preparations; Cosmetics and make-up; Cosmetics in general, including perfumes; Cosmetics in the form of milks, lotions and emulsions; Cosmetics, namely, compacts; Cosmetics, namely, lip primer; Cosmetics, namely, lip repairers; Cotton balls for cosmetic purposes; Cotton for cosmetic purposes; Cotton swabs for cosmetic purposes; Eyebrow cosmetics; Face creams for cosmetic use; Gels for cosmetic purposes; Gift baskets containing non-medicated bath preparations and cosmetic preparations; Grape seed oil for cosmetic use; Impregnated cleaning pads impregnated with cosmetics; Lip stains; Lotions for cosmetic purposes; Make-up kits comprised of lipstick, lip gloss, foundation, blush, brushes; Mascara; Mascaras; Mask pack for cosmetic purposes; Milk for cosmetic purposes; Mineral powder for use in cosmetic body wrap applications; Non-foaming cosmetic preparations for skin, face, body, hair; Nutritional oils for cosmetic purposes; Oils for cosmetic purposes; Pencils for cosmetic purposes; Perfume oils for the manufacture of cosmetic preparations; Plant and herb extracts sold as components of cosmetics; Pre-moistened cosmetic towelettes; Pre-moistened cosmetic wipes; Private label cosmetics; Retinol cream for cosmetic purposes; Shea butter for cosmetic purposes; Skin and body topical lotions, creams and oils for cosmetic use; Skin conditioning creams for cosmetic purposes; Skin fresheners; Solid powder for compacts; Tanning and after-sun milks, gels and oils; Tissues impregnated with cosmetic lotions; Toners; Wrinkle-minimizing cosmetic preparations for topical facial use” in International Class 003.

 

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 LAUDIS BIOTECH mark is confusingly similar to Registrant’s LAUDISS PARIS mark in terms of appearance, sound, and commercial impression.  Marks may be confusingly similar in appearance where similar terms or phrases or similar parts of terms or phrases appear in the compared marks and create a similar overall commercial impression.  See Crocker Nat’l Bank v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 228 USPQ 689, 690-91 (TTAB 1986), aff’d sub nom. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 811 F.2d 1490, 1495, 1 USPQ2d 1813, 1817 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (finding COMMCASH and COMMUNICASH confusingly similar); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65, 66 (TTAB 1985) (finding CONFIRM and CONFIRMCELLS confusingly similar); In re Pellerin Milnor Corp., 221 USPQ 558, 560 (TTAB 1983) (finding MILTRON and MILLTRONICS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii). Here, Applicant’s and Registrant’s marks share the nearly identical terms LAUDIS and LAUDISS; thus, they appear and sound identical in part.

 

Not only do Applicant’s LAUDIS BIOTECH mark and Registrant’s LAUDISS PARIS mark share a nearly identical term, but they share the term that consumers are most likely to focus on when requesting the goods of the parties. Consumers are generally more inclined to focus on the first word, prefix, or syllable in any trademark or service mark.  See Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1372, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1692 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (finding similarity between VEUVE ROYALE and two VEUVE CLICQUOT marks in part because “VEUVE . . . remains a ‘prominent feature’ as the first word in the mark and the first word to appear on the label”); Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Century Life of Am., 970 F.2d 874, 876, 23 USPQ2d 1698, 1700 (Fed Cir. 1992) (finding similarity between CENTURY 21 and CENTURY LIFE OF AMERICA in part because “consumers must first notice th[e] identical lead word”); see also In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1303, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1049 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding “the identity of the marks’ two initial words is particularly significant because consumers typically notice those words first”). Because consumers are most likely to focus on the nearly identical terms LAUDIS and LAUDISS when requesting the goods of the parties, they are likely to get confused as to the source of those goods.

 

Further, Applicant’s LAUDIS BIOTECH mark is confusingly similar to Registrant’s LAUDISS PARIS mark because the additional wording present in the marks is to be given less weight in this analysis. 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 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). Here, as demonstrated by the disclaimer discussion below, Applicant is required to disclaim the term BIOTECH from the mark, as it is merely descriptive of its goods; thus, leaving the term LAUDIS as the dominant portion that must be given greater weight in this analysis. Likewise, Registrant has disclaimed the term PARIS from the mark, as it is primarily geographically descriptive of its goods; thus, leaving the term LAUDISS as the dominant portion that must be given greater weight in this analysis. Accordingly, the dominant portions of the marks are nearly identical.

 

Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar. 

 

Relatedness of the Goods

 

The compared goods need not be identical or even competitive to find a likelihood of confusion.  See On-line Careline Inc. v. Am. Online Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1086, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1475 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Recot, Inc. v. Becton, 214 F.3d 1322, 1329, 54 USPQ2d 1894, 1898 (Fed. Cir. 2000); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).  They need only be “related in some manner and/or if the circumstances surrounding their marketing are such that they could give rise to the mistaken belief that [the goods] emanate from the same source.”  Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting 7-Eleven Inc. v. Wechsler, 83 USPQ2d 1715, 1724 (TTAB 2007)); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).

 

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

 

In this case, the goods 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)). 

 

Further, Applicant’s goods are related to Registrant’s goods, as demonstrated by the attached evidence. The attached Internet evidence, consisting of screenshots of the webpages of entities similar to Applicant and Registrant, establishes that the same entity commonly produces the relevant goods, such as cosmetics, non-medicated skincare, and medicated skincare, and that the relevant goods are sold or provided through the same trade channels and used by the same classes of consumers in the same fields of use.  See:

 

-       http://www.goldbond.com/

-       http://www.baar.com/storefront

-       http://dermae.com/collections/all-products

 

Thus, Applicant’s and Registrant’s goods 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).

 

Conclusion

 

Because Applicant's and Registrant's marks are similar and because the goods are related, Applicant's mark must be refused registration pursuant to Section 2(d) of the Lanham 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 requirements set forth below.

 

DISCLAIMER REQUIRED

 

Applicant must provide a disclaimer of the unregistrable part of the applied-for mark even though the mark as a whole appears to be registrable.  See 15 U.S.C. §1056(a); TMEP §§1213, 1213.03(a).  A disclaimer of an unregistrable part of a mark will not affect the mark’s appearance.  See Schwarzkopf v. John H. Breck, Inc., 340 F.2d 978, 979-80, 144 USPQ 433, 433 (C.C.P.A. 1965).

 

In this case, applicant must disclaim the word BIOTECH because it is not inherently distinctive.  This unregistrable term at best are merely descriptive of a feature of applicant’s goods.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1251, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2012); TMEP §§1213, 1213.03(a). 

 

The attached evidence from Merriam-Webster shows that the word BIOTECH refers to “a company that utilizes biotechnology (as in the development of drugs or diagnostics for medicine).” See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/biotech. Thus, the word BIOTECH merely describes applicant’s goods because it immediately conveys to consumers that applicant’s products are made by a company that uses biotechnology in its product development; thus, it must be disclaimed from the mark.

 

Applicant may respond to this issue by submitting a disclaimer in the following format: 

 

No claim is made to the exclusive right to use “BIOTECH” apart from the mark as shown. 

 

For an overview of disclaimers and instructions on how to satisfy this issue using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), see the Disclaimer webpage. 

 

Applicant must also address the following requirement.

 

COLOR CLAIM AND MARK DESCRIPTION – CLARIFICATION REQUIRED

 

Applicant must amend the color claim and description to identify all the colors in the drawing of the mark.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.52(b)(1); TMEP §807.07(a)-(a)(ii).  The following colors have been omitted from the color claim:  gray, white, and black. 

 

A complete color claim must reference all the colors appearing in the drawing of the mark.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.52(b)(1); TMEP §§807.07(a) et seq.  Similarly, a complete description of a mark depicted in color must specify where the colors appear in the literal and design elements of the mark.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.37, 2.52(b)(1); TMEP §§807.07(a) et seq.  If black, white, and/or gray represent background, outlining, shading, and/or transparent areas and are not part of the mark, applicant must so specify in the description.  See TMEP §807.07(d).

 

The following color claim and description are suggested, if accurate:

 

Color claim:  The colors green, gray, white, and black are claimed as a feature of the mark.

 

Description:  The mark consists of a green water drop with a thin white line in the middle, to the right of which appears the stylized black word “LAUDIS”, below which appears the stylized gray word “BIOTECH”.

 

Lastly, Applicant must also address the following requirement.

 

OWNER AND LEGAL ENTITY TYPE – CLARIFICATION REQUIRED

 

The name of an individual person appears in the section of the application intended for the trademark owner’s name; however, the legal entity is set forth as a corporation.  Applicant must clarify this inconsistency.  TMEP §803.02(a); see 37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(2), (a)(3)(i)-(ii), 2.61(b).

 

If applicant is an individual, applicant must request that the legal entity be amended to “individual” and must indicate his or her country of citizenship.  See TMEP §803.03(a).  Alternatively, if applicant is a corporation, applicant must provide the legal name of the corporation and U.S. state or foreign country of incorporation or organization.  See TMEP §803.03(c).

 

If, in response to the above request, applicant provides information indicating that it is not the owner of the mark, registration will be refused because the application was void as filed.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(d); TMEP §§803.06, 1201.02(b).  An application must be filed by the party who owns or is entitled to use the mark as of the application filing date.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(d); TMEP §1201.02(b).

 

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.

 

ASSISTANCE

 

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 requirements 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 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.  

 

 

 

/Xheneta Ademi/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 122

(571) 272-7151

xheneta.ademi@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 3/4/2019 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 88203656

 

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 3/4/2019, 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. 

 

/Xheneta Ademi/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 122

(571) 272-7151

xheneta.ademi@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.