UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
|
U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 88223140
MARK: TEAM
|
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
CLICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER: http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp
|
|
APPLICANT: Talent Plus, Inc.
|
|
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: CORRESPONDENT E-MAIL ADDRESS: |
|
OFFICE ACTION
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.
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.
Summary of Issues Applicant Must Address
(1) Refusal under Trademark Act Section 2(d) – Likelihood of Confusion;
(2) Refusal under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1) – Merely Descriptive Mark; and
(3) Requirement to Submit Signed Declaration in Support of Application
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. 2231153, 2489975, 3562648, 3686530, 3802032, 4706688, 4719004, 4865645, 5133451 and 5369645. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the enclosed registrations.
Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that so resembles a registered mark that it is likely a potential consumer would be confused, mistaken, or deceived as to the source of the services of the applicant and registrants. See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d). A determination of likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d) is made on a case-by case basis and the factors set forth in In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973) aid in this determination. Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp., Inc., 637 F.3d 1344, 1349, 98 USPQ2d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing On-Line Careline, Inc. v. Am. Online, Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1085, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). Not all the du Pont factors, however, are necessarily relevant or of equal weight, and any one of the factors may control in a given case, depending upon the evidence of record. Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp., Inc., 637 F.3d at 1355, 98 USPQ2d at 1260; In re Majestic Distilling Co., 315 F.3d 1311, 1315, 65 USPQ2d 1201, 1204 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d at 1361-62, 177 USPQ at 567.
In this case, the following factors are the most relevant: similarity of the marks, similarity and nature of the services, and similarity of the trade channels of the services. See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1361-62, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Dakin’s Miniatures Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593, 1595-96 (TTAB 1999); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.
A. Comparison of Services
Applicant’s “business management, personnel and human resources consulting services in the field of recruitment, staff and succession planning, performance management and evaluation, skill assessment, and competency evaluation of current and future personnel”, “psychometric testing services, namely, development and application of standardized, statistically based protocols for the quantitative measurement, profiling and analysis of cognitive and problem solving ability, psychological and personality traits, occupational competencies, aptitude, and work preferences, all for use in the recruitment, selection, placement, retention and professional development and enhancement of personnel” and “consulting and analysis relating to customer interaction and engagement and customer satisfaction” are identical and closely related to the registrants’ “business management”, “business management consultancy”, “assistance and advice regarding business management”, “assistance in management of business activities”, “assistance to industrial or commercial enterprises in the running of their business”, “assistance with business management and planning”, “assistance, advisory services and consultancy with regard to business planning, business analysis, business management, business organization, marketing and customer analysis”, “business management for a trade company and for a service company”, “business management assistance”, “physician, physician assistant, nursing, and other medical, hospital, clinical, surgical, and general and specialized health care provider personnel staffing, placement, and locum tenens services and administrative management and support services related thereto”, “hospital-based clinical outsourcing”, “physician and medical personnel staffing”, “employee recruitment services for the benefit of others and for the assistance of employers in the greater Kansas City area of Missouri and Kansas related to the economic development of the area”, “employee leasing services, namely, providing information technology professionals to others”, “customer relationship management services”, “business data analysis services in the field of customer relationship management and customer support management”, “business services, namely, developing customer service improvement programs . . . employee handbooks . . . training materials” and “customer relationship marketing” because they are business management services, including business management in the fields of recruitment, staff and succession planning, performance management and evaluation, skill assessment and competency evaluation of current and future personnel, and consultation relating thereto, employment/personnel services and customer relationship services likely to travel through the same channels of trade to the same class of purchasers. For example, the services are likely to be advertised together in business and employment/HR service provider directories and trade publications.
Furthermore, with respect to applicant’s and registrants’ services, the question of likelihood of confusion is determined based on the description of the services stated in the application and registrations at issue, not on extrinsic evidence of actual use. See, e.g., Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369-70, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Octocom Sys. Inc. v. Hous. Computers Servs. Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 942, 16 USPQ2d 1783, 1787 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Absent restrictions in an application and/or registration, the identified services are “presumed to travel in the same channels of trade to the same class of purchasers.” In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1268, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). Additionally, unrestricted and broad identifications are presumed to encompass all services of the type described. See In re Jump Designs, LLC, 80 USPQ2d 1370, 1374 (TTAB 2006) (citing In re Elbaum, 211 USPQ 639, 640 (TTAB 1981)); In re Linkvest S.A., 24 USPQ2d 1716, 1716 (TTAB 1992).
In this case, the identifications set forth in the application and registrations have no restrictions as to channels of trade or classes of purchasers. Therefore, it is presumed that these services travel in all normal channels of trade and are available to the same class of purchasers.
Further, the registrations covering the marks TEAM, THE TEAM COMPANIES, TEAMSUPPORT, TEAM DETROIT (Registration No. 4865645) and TEAMSUPPORT use broad wording to describe the services and this wording is presumed to encompass all services of the type described including (1) business management and consultation relating thereto in the fields of (a) recruitment, staff and succession planning, performance management and evaluation, skill assessment and competency evaluation of current and future personnel, (b) personnel/employment testing and (c) customer interaction, engagement and satisfaction, (2) customer relationship management consulting and analysis services relating to customer interaction and engagement and customer satisfaction and (3) business data analysis services relating to customer interaction, engagement and satisfaction, which are identical to the applicant’s services.
Similarly, the application uses broad wording to describe the services and this wording is presumed to encompass all services of the type described including (1) business management, personnel and human resources consulting services in the fields of recruitment, staff and succession planning, performance management and evaluation, skill assessment and competency evaluation of current and future personnel all relating to (a) physicians, physician assistants, nurses and other medical, hospital, clinical, surgical and health care personnel, (b) employment in Kansas City and (c) IT professionals, (2) psychometric testing services, namely, development and application of standardized, statistically based protocols for the quantitative measurement, profiling and analysis of cognitive and problem solving ability, psychological and personality traits, occupational competencies, aptitude and work preferences, all for use in the recruitment, selection, placement, retention and professional development and enhancement of (a) medical and healthcare personnel, (b) employees in Kansas City and (c) IT professionals, (3) customer service program development consultation for improving customer interaction, engagement and satisfaction and (4) consulting and analysis relating to customer interaction and engagement through marketing, which are undeniably commercially-related to the services associated with the registered marks TEAM HEALTH, TEAMKC, TEAMSOURCING, TEAM GEORGIA and TEAM DETROIT (Registration No. 3562648).
What’s more, with regard to the services associated with the registered marks TEAMSOURCING, TEAM HEALTH, TEAMKC, TEAM DETROIT (Registration No. 3562648) and TEAM GEORGIA, where the marks of the respective parties are highly similar, the relationship between the relevant services need not be as close to support a finding of likelihood of confusion. See In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1207, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Davey Prods. Pty Ltd., 92 USPQ2d 1198, 1202 (TTAB 2009); In re Thor Tech, Inc., 90 USPQ2d 1634, 1636 (TTAB 2009); TMEP §1207.01(a).
B. Comparison of Marks
Applicant’s mark TEAM is virtually identical and highly similar to the registered marks TEAM, TEAMSOURCING, TEAM HEALTH, TEAM HEALTH, TEAM DETROIT, TEAM DETROIT, TEAM GEORGIA, THE TEAM COMPANIES, TEAMKC and TEAMSUPPORT in sound, appearance and commercial impression.
Regarding the registered mark TEAM, the only difference between the marks is the oval and curved line designs in the registered mark. However, when evaluating a composite mark consisting of words and a design, the word portion is 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 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 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, consumers will undoubtedly call for the services in the marketplace in a similar manner, namely, TEAM business management services, including business management in the fields of recruitment, staff and succession planning, performance management and evaluation, skill assessment and competency evaluation of current and future personnel.
As for the remaining cited registrations, 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). Greater weight is often given to this dominant feature when determining whether marks are confusingly similar. See In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d at 1058, 224 USPQ at 751.
In the present case, the word “TEAM” in the applied-for mark is identical to the word “TEAM” in the registered marks. This word also comprises the dominant portion of the marks as consumers are generally more inclined to focus on the first word, prefix or syllable in any 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); see also Mattel Inc. v. Funline Merch. Co., 81 USPQ2d 1372, 1374-75 (TTAB 2006); Presto Prods., Inc. v. Nice-Pak Prods., Inc., 9 USPQ2d 1895, 1897 (TTAB 1988) (“it is often the first part of a mark which is most likely to be impressed upon the mind of a purchaser and remembered” when making purchasing decisions).
Moreover, the word “TEAM” is the dominant portion of the registered mark as the words “SOURCING”, “HEALTH”, “DETROIT”, “GEORGIA”, “COMPANIES”, “KC” and “SUPPORT” are generic, highly descriptive and primarily geographically descriptive in relation to the services associated with the marks. As such, the respective marks create similar overall commercial impressions.
Similarity in sound alone may be sufficient to support a finding that the marks are confusingly similar. In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB 1988); see In re 1st USA Realty Prof’ls, Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1581, 1586 (TTAB 2007); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iv).
Furthermore, when comparing marks, “[t]he proper test is not a side-by-side comparison of the marks, but instead whether the marks are sufficiently similar in terms of their commercial impression such that [consumers] who encounter the marks would be likely to assume a connection between the parties.” Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., __ F.3d __, 127 USPQ2d 1797, 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1368, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(b). The proper focus is on the recollection of the average purchaser, who retains a general rather than specific impression of trademarks. In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1746 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re St. Helena Hosp., 774 F.3d 747, 750-51, 113 USPQ2d 1082, 1085 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Geigy Chem. Corp. v. Atlas Chem. Indus., Inc., 438 F.2d 1005, 1007, 169 USPQ 39, 40 (CCPA 1971)); TMEP §1207.01(b).
In this case, consumers will undoubtedly retain a similar recollection of the marks, namely, TEAM, TEAM HEALTH, TEAMSUPPORT, TEAM COMPANIES, TEAMSOURCING, TEAM DETROIT, TEAM GEORGIA and TEAMKC employment/personnel services, business management services and customer relationship services.
What’s more, with regard to the registered marks TEAM, THE TEAM COMPANIES, TEAMSUPPORT, TEAM DETROIT (Registration No. 3562648) and TEAMSUPPORT, where the services of an applicant and registrant are “similar in kind and/or closely related,” the degree of similarity between the marks required to support a finding of likelihood of confusion is not as great as in the case of diverse services. In re J.M. Originals Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1393, 1394 (TTAB 1987); see Shen Mfg. Co. v. Ritz Hotel Ltd., 393 F.3d 1238, 1242, 73 USPQ2d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2004); TMEP §1207.01(b).
Finally, the overriding concern is not only to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the services, but to protect the registrants from adverse commercial impact due to use of a similar mark by a newcomer. See In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1208, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1690 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, any doubt regarding a likelihood of confusion determination is resolved in favor of the registrants. TMEP §1207.01(d)(i); see Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1265, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2002); In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 464-65, 6 USPQ2d 1025, 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Based on the foregoing remarks, because confusion as to source is likely, registration is refused under Trademark Act Section 2(d) based on a likelihood of confusion.
Applicant should also note the following refusal and potential refusal.
Refusal - Merely Descriptive
Registration is refused because the applied-for mark merely describes a feature and characteristic of applicant’s services. Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); see TMEP §§1209.01(b), 1209.03 et seq.
A mark is merely descriptive if it describes an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose, or use of an applicant’s services. TMEP §1209.01(b); see, e.g., DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1251, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 1173, 71 USPQ2d 1370, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004)); In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293, 1297, 75 USPQ2d 1420, 1421 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Estate of P.D. Beckwith, Inc. v. Comm’r of Patents, 252 U.S. 538, 543 (1920)).
Furthermore, the determination of whether a mark is merely descriptive is made in relation to an applicant’s services, not in the abstract. DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1254, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re The Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 1300, 102 USPQ2d 1217, 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2012); TMEP §1209.01(b); see, e.g., In re Polo Int’l Inc., 51 USPQ2d 1061, 1062-63 (TTAB 1999) (finding DOC in DOC-CONTROL would refer to the “documents” managed by applicant’s software rather than the term “doctor” shown in a dictionary definition); In re Digital Research Inc., 4 USPQ2d 1242, 1243-44 (TTAB 1987) (finding CONCURRENT PC-DOS and CONCURRENT DOS merely descriptive of “computer programs recorded on disk” where the relevant trade used the denomination “concurrent” as a descriptor of a particular type of operating system).
“Whether consumers could guess what the product [or service] is from consideration of the mark alone is not the test.” In re Am. Greetings Corp., 226 USPQ 365, 366 (TTAB 1985).
Rather, the question is “whether someone who knows what the goods and[/or] services are will understand the mark to convey information about them.” DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1254, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Tower Tech, Inc.,64 USPQ2d 1314, 1316-17 (TTAB 2002)); In re Franklin Cnty. Historical Soc’y, 104 USPQ2d 1085, 1087 (TTAB 2012).
In this case, the proposed mark TEAM merely describes business management, personnel and human resources consulting, personnel testing and customer interaction, engagement and satisfaction services all relating to, associated with and/or rendered to a group of people that work together. Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); TMEP §§1209 et seq.
The term “Team” means “a number of persons associated together in work”, “a group of people who work together” and/or “a group of persons who work or play together”. See the attached dictionary definitions.
This refusal is supported by the attached sample Internet printouts from applicant’s website showing descriptive use of the term “team” in relation to team personnel assessments and analyses, team building and development and team planning. Material obtained from applicant’s website is acceptable as competent evidence. See In re N.V. Organon, 79 USPQ2d 1639, 1642-43 (TTAB 2006); In re Promo Ink, 78 USPQ2d 1301, 1302-03 (TTAB 2006); TBMP §1208.03; TMEP §710.01(b).
In addition, applicant’s attention is respectfully directed to the attached sample third-party registrations demonstrating the descriptive significance of the word “TEAM” in relation to HR, personnel and business management services. Third-party registrations featuring services the same as or similar to applicant’s services are probative evidence on the issue of descriptiveness where the relevant word or term is disclaimed, registered under Trademark Act Section 2(f) based on acquired distinctiveness, or registered on the Supplemental Register. See Inst. Nat’l des Appellations D’Origine v. Vintners Int’l Co., 958 F.2d 1574, 1581-82, 22 USPQ2d 1190, 1196 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Box Solutions Corp., 79 USPQ2d 1953, 1955 (TTAB 2006); In re Finisar Corp., 78 USPQ2d 1618, 1621 (TTAB 2006).
Moreover third-party registrations are similar to dictionaries showing how language is generally used. See, e.g., Tektronix, Inc. v. Daktronics, Inc., 534 F.2d 915, 917, 189 USPQ 693, 694-95 (C.C.P.A. 1976); In re J.M. Originals Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1393, 1394 (TTAB 1987); United Foods Inc. v. J.R. Simplot Co., 4 USPQ2d 1172, 1174 (TTAB 1987). TMEP §1207.01(d)(iii).
Based on the foregoing remarks, registration must be refused under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1).
Application to Supplemental Register Not Permitted Until Allegation of Use is Filed
A mark in an application under Trademark Act Section 1(b) is not eligible for registration on the Supplemental Register until an acceptable amendment to allege use under 37 C.F.R. §2.76 has been filed. 37 C.F.R. §§2.47(d), 2.75(b); TMEP §§815.02, 1102.03. When a Section 1(b) application is successfully amended to the Supplemental Register, the effective filing date of the application will be the date on which applicant met the minimum filing requirements of 37 C.F.R. §2.76(e) for the amendment to allege use. 37 C.F.R. §2.75(b); TMEP §§816.02, 1102.03.
Please note, however, that an amendment to the Supplemental Register may only overcome the refusal based on the descriptive nature of the mark under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1) and will not affect the stated refusal and potential refusal under Section 2(d) based on a likelihood of confusion with the cited references.
Prior Pending Applications
The filing dates of pending Application Serial Nos. 79250886, 88033918 and 88161426 precede applicant’s filing date. See attached referenced applications. If one or more of the marks in the referenced applications register, applicant’s mark may be refused registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d) because of a likelihood of confusion with the registered mark(s). 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 applications.
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 marks in the referenced applications. 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.
Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusals and potential refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.
If applicant responds to the refusals and potential refusal, applicant must also respond to the requirement set forth below.
Unsigned Application – Signed Verification Required
The following statements must be verified: That applicant has a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce and had a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce as of the application filing date; that applicant believes applicant is entitled to use the mark in commerce on or in connection with the goods or services specified in the application; that to the best of the signatory’s knowledge and belief, no other persons, except, if applicable, concurrent users, have the right to use the mark in commerce, either in the identical form or in such near resemblance as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods/services of such other persons, to cause confusion or mistake, or to deceive; and that the facts set forth in the application are true. 37 C.F.R. §§2.33(b)(2), (c), 2.34(a)(2), (a)(3)(i), (a)(4)(ii). For more information about this, see the Verified statement webpage.
To provide these verified statements. After opening the correct TEAS response form, answer “yes” to wizard question #10, and follow the instructions within the form for signing. In this case, the form will require two signatures: one in the “Declaration Signature” section and one in the “Response Signature” section.
Miscellaneous
If applicant has questions about its application or needs assistance in responding to this Office action, please telephone the assigned trademark examining attorney directly at the number below.
Advisory Regarding E-mail Communications
If applicant has questions regarding this Office action, please telephone or e-mail the assigned trademark examining attorney. All relevant e-mail communications will be placed in the official application record; however, an e-mail communication will not be accepted as a response to this Office action and will not extend the deadline for filing a proper response. See 37 C.F.R. §2.191; TMEP §§709.04-.05. Further, although the trademark examining attorney may provide additional explanation pertaining to the refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) in this Office action, the trademark examining attorney may not provide legal advice or statements about applicant’s rights. See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06.
/David Yontef/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 118
(571) 272-8274
david.yontef@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.
