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: 3/12/2019

 

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) Partial Refusal for Likelihood of Confusion
• Identification and Classification of Goods and Services Requirement
• Multiple-Class Application Requirements

 

THIS PARTIAL REFUSAL APPLIES TO CLASS 1 ONLY

 

The stated refusal refers to International Class 1 only and does not bar registration in the other classes.

 

Applicant may respond to the stated refusal by submitting evidence and arguments against the refusal.  In addition, applicant may respond by doing one of the following:

 

(1)  Deleting the class to which the refusal pertains;

 

(2)  Filing a request to divide out the goods and services that have not been refused registration, so that the mark may proceed toward publication for opposition in the classes to which the refusal does not pertain.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.87.  See generally TMEP §§1110 et seq. (regarding the requirements for filing a request to divide).  If applicant files a request to divide, then to avoid abandonment, applicant must also file a timely response to all outstanding issues in this Office action, including the refusal.  37 C.F.R. §2.87(e).; or

 

(3)  Amending the basis, if appropriate.  TMEP §806.03(h).  (The basis cannot be changed for applications filed under Trademark Act Section 66(a).  TMEP §1904.01(a).)

 

 

SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL FOR LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 4050365.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registration.

 

Applicant’s applied-for mark is ARSENAL in standard characters for, in relevant part, “Chemicals used in the oil and gas industry, namely, drilling muds, drilling chemicals, cement blends, fracturing fluids and chemicals, production chemicals, and additives for same” in International Class 1.

 

Registrant’s mark is ARSENAL in standard characters for “Chemical additives for fuel treatment” in International Class 1.

 

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.

 

Similarity of the Marks

 

Applicant’s and registrant’s mark is ARSENAL in standard characters.

 

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 mark is ARSENAL and registrant’s mark is ARSENAL.  These marks are identical in appearance, sound, and meaning, “and have the potential to be used . . . in exactly the same manner.”  In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 116 USPQ2d 1406, 1411 (TTAB 2015), aff’d, 866 F.3d 1315, 123 USPQ2d 1744 (Fed. Cir. 2017).  Additionally, because they are identical, 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.  Id.

 

Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar. 

 

Relatedness of the Goods

 

Applicant’s goods are for, in relevant part, “Chemicals used in the oil and gas industry, namely, drilling muds, drilling chemicals, cement blends, fracturing fluids and chemicals, production chemicals, and additives for same” in International Class 1.

 

Registrant’s goods are for “Chemical additives for fuel treatment” in International Class 1.

 

Here, applicant and registrant provide related chemical 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).

 

The attached Internet evidence consists of website screenshots from Baker Hughes, Chevron, Dow, Evergreen Chemical, and Solvay, which all provide chemical additives for fuel offered by registrant and also chemicals related to drilling in the oil and gas industry offered by applicant.  This evidence establishes that the same entity commonly manufactures, produces, or provides the relevant goods and markets the goods under the same mark.  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).

 

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

 

In summary, the applicant’s and registrants’ marks create the same commercial impression and the respective goods are highly related.  Therefore, consumers are likely to be confused and mistakenly believe that these goods originate from a common source.  Accordingly, registration must be refused under 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.

 

If applicant responds to the refusal, applicant must also respond to the requirements set forth below.

 

 

IDENTIFICATION AND CLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND SERVICES REQUIREMENT

 

International Class 1

 

The wording “additives for same” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified by specifying the nature of the additives.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01. 

 

International Class 6

 

The identification for “Metallic equipment….” in International Class 6 must be clarified because it is indefinite as further clarification of the nature of the equipment is needed.  See TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03.  In addition, this identification is too broad and includes goods in International Class 7.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03.  For example, the wording “casing centralizers, tubing centralizers, packers, liner hangers, float shoes and float collars, stop collars, casing collars, frac plugs, scrapers, toe sleeves, sliding sleeves, vibration tools, wellhead, frac stacks, fishing tools, drill bits and drill bit cutters” appears to be in International Class 7, and some of the wording needs further clarification.  Please see the suggested wording below. 

 

Therefore, applicant must amend this wording to specify either (1) the common generic name of each piece of equipment or (2) the nature and purpose or function of the equipment.  See TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03.

 

International Class 7

 

The wording “drill bits and drill bit cutters” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified by further specifying the nature of the goods, such as power drill bits and drill bit cutters.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01. 

 

The wording “workover rigs, torque and drag tools, friction reduction tools, artificial lift systems, solid control equipment, wireline cable heads and related equipment, and drill pipe protectors” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified because the nature of the goods are not clear.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.  Applicant must amend this wording to specify the common commercial or generic name of the goods.  See TMEP §1402.01.  If the goods have no common commercial or generic name, applicant must describe the product, its main purpose, and its intended uses.  See id.

 

Further, the wording “thread protectors” appears to be misclassified in International Class 7; however, the proper classification appears to be in International Class 6, but still needs further clarification.  See TMEP §1400.  Please see the suggested wording below. 

 

International Class 9

 

The wording “measuring tools, logging tools, wireline tools” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified because the nature of the goods are not clear.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.  Applicant must amend the identification to specify the common commercial or generic name of the goods.  See TMEP §1402.01.  If the goods have no common commercial or generic name, applicant must describe the product, its main purpose, and its intended uses.  See id.

 

The wording “Software for use in petroleum exploration and production, namely, well modeling and projection, torque modeling, drag modeling, friction modeling, drilling measurement, centralizer placement modeling, and hydraulic modeling” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified by specifying the nature of the software.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01. 

 

International Class 13

 

The wording “perforating tools” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified because the nature of the tools are not clear.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01. 

 

International Class 37

 

The wording “Installation, maintenance, and repair services relating to oil and gas exploration, completion, and production, namely, slickline services, directional drilling services, safety consulting services, project engineering, wireline services, pipe recovery, logging services, well drilling, torque and test services, fracturing services, pressure control services, cementing services, and technical consulting for same” in the identification of services is indefinite and must be clarified because the nature of the services are not clear.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.  Please see the suggested wording below.

 

International Class 40

 

The wording “performation services” in the identification of services is indefinite and must be clarified because the nature of the services are not clear.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.  Applicant must amend this wording to specify the common commercial or generic name of the services.  See TMEP §1402.01.  If the services have no common commercial or generic name, applicant must describe or explain the nature of the services using clear and succinct language.  See id.

 

Also, the wording “project engineering” appears to be misclassified in International Class 40; however, the proper classification appears to be in International Class 42.  See TMEP §1400.

 

Further, the wording “transport” appears to be misclassified in International Class 40; however, the proper classification appears to be in International Class 39.  See TMEP §1400.  Therefore, applicant may respond by (1) adding International Class 39 to the application and reclassifying these services in the proper international class, (2) deleting “transport” from the application, or (3) deleting the remainder of the items in the identification and reclassifying the specified services in the proper international class.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.86(a), 6.1; TMEP §§1403.02 et seq.  If applicant adds one or more international classes to the application, applicant must comply with the multiple-class requirements specified in this Office action.

 

International Class 42

 

The wording “telemetry services” in the identification of services is indefinite and must be clarified because the nature of the services are not clear.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.   Please see the suggested wording below.

 

Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate: 

 

International Class 1:  Chemicals used in the oil and gas industry, namely, drilling muds, drilling chemicals, cement blends, fracturing fluids and chemicals, production chemicals, and chemical additives for oils and gasoline

 

International Class 6:  Metallic equipment in the nature of metal hardware for use in oil and gas exploration, completion, and production, namely, slickline wire, drill pipe, casing, tubing, valves not being parts of machines; metal pipe collars specially adapted to protect threads of oil pipe 

 

International Class 7:  Machines and tools for use in oil and gas exploration, completion, and production, namely, metallic and non-metallic casing centralizers, metallic and non-metallic tubing centralizers, metallic and non-metallic packers, metallic and non-metallic frac balls and frac plugs, metallic and non-metallic power drill bits and drill bit cutters, fluid pumps and separators, drilling rigs and workover rigs in the nature of drilling rigs, torque converters, other than for land vehicles and drag-line excavator tools, friction reduction tools in the nature of pumps for tools, artificial lift systems in the nature of springs being parts of machines, solid control equipment in the nature of centrifuges, wireline cable heads and related equipment in the nature of winches, drill guides for protecting oilfield pipes, metallic liner hangers, metallic float shoes and float collars, metallic stop collars, metallic casing collars, metallic scrapers, metallic toe sleeves, metallic sliding sleeves, metallic vibration tools, metallic wellhead machines in the nature of gate valves, metallic frac stacks in the nature of valves as machine components, metallic fishing tools for locating stray drilling equipment, metallic power drill bits and drill bit cutters

 

International Class 9:  Apparatus for use in oil and gas exploration, completion, and production, namely, downhole sensors and tool measuring instruments, logging tools in the nature of electronic data loggers, wireline tools in the nature of extension cables; Downloadable computer software for use in petroleum exploration and production, namely, well modeling and projection, torque modeling, drag modeling, friction modeling, drilling measurement, centralizer placement modeling, and hydraulic modeling

 

International Class 13:  Explosives for use in oil and gas exploration, completion, and production, namely, shaped charges and perforating tools in the nature of {specify type of tools in Class 13}

 

International Class 37:  Installation, maintenance, and repair services relating to oil and gas exploration, completion, and production apparatus and equipment, namely, apparatus and equipment for slickline services, directional drilling services, safety consulting services, project engineering, wireline services, pipe recovery, logging services, well drilling, torque and test services, fracturing services, pressure control services, and cementing services; Technical consulting related to the installation of oil and gas apparatus and equipment

 

International Class 39:  Petroleum midstream services, namely, petroleum transport services, and technical consulting, namely, transportation consulting

 

International Class 40:  Oil and gas production services, namely, performation services of {specify}, well treatment, fluid management, casing and tubing distribution, and technical consulting for same; Petroleum midstream services, namely, processing, treatment, fractionation, compression, and technical consulting for same

 

International Class 42:  Oil and gas exploration services, namely, measurement and downhole telemetry services while drilling, geophysical exploration, computer modeling, and technical consulting for same; engineering services in connection with the custom design, manufacture, and application of specialized downhole tools

 

Scope Advisory

 

Applicant may amend the identification to clarify or limit the goods and services, but not to broaden or expand the goods and services beyond those in the original application or as acceptably amended.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06.  Generally, any deleted goods and/or services may not later be reinserted.  See TMEP §1402.07(e).

 

ID Manual Online

 

For assistance with identifying and classifying goods and services in trademark applications, please see the USPTO’s online searchable U.S. Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual.  See TMEP §1402.04.

 

 

MULTIPLE-CLASS APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS

 

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 fees already paid (view the USPTO’s current fee schedule).  The application identifies goods and services that are classified in at least nine classes; however, applicant submitted fees sufficient for only eight classes.  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.

 

 

RESPONSE GUIDELINES

 

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(s) and/or requirement(s) 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.  

 

 

 

/LaShawnda Elliott/

LaShawnda Elliott

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 125

(571) 272-5409

lashawnda.elliott@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 3/12/2019 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 88210131

 

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 3/12/2019 (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.