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: 3/16/2019

 

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

 

(1) Section 2(d) Likelihood of Confusion Refusal

(2) Amendment of Identification of Goods and Services Required

 

SECTION 2(D) LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION REFUSAL

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration Nos. 4320778 and 3952533.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registrations.

 

Applicant has applied to register the standard character mark FAR AWAY for use in connection with “Computer game software and entertainment software in the nature of computer games for use on mobile and cellular phones, mobile digital electronic devices, handheld computers, computers, video game consoles, both handheld and free standing, and other wireless POS (point of service) devices; computer game software” which applicant has classified in International Class 9 and “Entertainment services, namely, providing on-line computer games” in International Class 41.

 

Registrant in Registration No. 4320778 has registered the standard character mark FARAWAY for use in connection with “Computer game software; Computer game software for use on mobile and cellular phones; Downloadable electronic game programs; Electronic game software for cellular telephones; Electronic game software for handheld electronic devices; Electronic game software for wireless devices” in International Class 9.

 

Registrant in Registration No. 3952533 has registered the special form mark FARAWAY FRONTIERS (with design) for use in connection with “Designing and developing computer game software and video game software for use with computers, video game program systems and computer networks” in International Class 42.

 

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.

 

In this case, the following factors are the most relevant: similarity of the marks, similarity and nature of the goods, and similarity of the trade channels of the goods. 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.

 

Similarity 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).

 

Here, applicant’s standard character mark, FAR AWAY, is confusingly similar to the registered standard character mark FARAWAY and the registered special form mark FARAWAY FRONTIERS (with design). Specifically, the applied-for mark and the mark in Registration No. 4320778 both consist entirely of the words “FAR” and “AWAY”. In fact, the compared marks are identical except for a slight difference in appearance between registrant’s mark, which appears as a compound word with no space separating the words, that is, FARAWAY; and applicant’s mark, which appears as multiple words with space separating the words, that is, FAR AWAY.  As such, the marks are identical in sound and virtually identical in appearance, and are thus confusingly similar for the purposes of determining likelihood of confusion.  See, e.g., Seaguard Corp. v. Seaward Int’l, Inc., 223 USPQ 48, 51 (TTAB 1984) (“[T]he marks ‘SEAGUARD’ and ‘SEA GUARD’ are, in contemplation of law, identical [internal citation omitted].”); In re Best W. Family Steak House, Inc., 222 USPQ 827, 827 (TTAB 1984) (“There can be little doubt that the marks [BEEFMASTER and BEEF MASTER] are practically identical”); Stock Pot, Inc., v. Stockpot Rest., Inc., 220 USPQ 52, 52 (TTAB 1983), aff’d 737 F.2d 1576, 222 USPQ 665 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (“There is no question that the marks of the parties [STOCKPOT and STOCK POT] are confusingly similar.  The word marks are phonetically identical and visually almost identical.”). 

 

Moreover, both the applied-for mark and the mark in Registration No. 3952533 consist in large part or entirely of the terms “FAR” and “AWAY” in identical sequence.  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, because both the applied-for mark and the mark in Registration No. 3952533 consist in large part or entirely of the terms “FAR” and “AWAY” in identical sequence, they are confusingly similar in appearance and sound.

 

Although the mark in Registration No. 3952533 includes additional wording not found in the applied-for mark (i.e. “FRONTIERS”), that fact does not obviate this refusal. Applicant’s mark is likely to appear to prospective purchasers as a shortened form of registrant’s mark.  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 mark because it contains some of the wording in the registered mark and does not add any wording that would distinguish it from that mark.

 

Although the applied-for mark is a standard character mark and the mark in Registration No. 3952533 is a special form mark, that fact does not obviate this refusal. First, when evaluating a composite mark consisting of words and a design, the word portion is normally accorded greater weight because it is likely to make a greater impression upon purchasers, be remembered by them, and be used by them to refer to or request the goods and/or services.  In re Aquitaine Wine USA, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1181, 1184 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii).  Thus, although marks must be compared in their entireties, the word portion is often considered the dominant feature and is accorded greater weight in determining whether marks are confusingly similar, even where the word portion has been disclaimed.  In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d at 1366-67, 101 USPQ2d at 1911 (citing Giant Food, Inc. v. Nation’s Foodservice, Inc., 710 F.2d 1565, 1570-71, 218 USPQ2d 390, 395 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). Here, the word portion of the registered mark (FARAWAY FRONTIERS) is the dominant part of that mark for purposes of comparison with the applied-for mark FAR AWAY.

 

Second, 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”).

 

Ultimately, when purchasers call for the goods and/or services of the applicant and of the registrants using marks that are very similar in sound, appearance and meaning, they are likely to believe that the marks identify a single source of goods and/or services. Thus, the marks are confusingly similar.

           

Relatedness of the Goods and Services

 

The goods and/or services are compared to determine whether they are similar, commercially related, or travel in the same trade channels.  See Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369-71, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722-23 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 1165, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2002); TMEP §§1207.01, 1207.01(a)(vi).

 

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

 

            Relatedness of the Goods in Registration No. 4320778 to the goods and services of the applicant

 

Applicant’s goods and services are identified as “Computer game software and entertainment software in the nature of computer games for use on mobile and cellular phones, mobile digital electronic devices, handheld computers, computers, video game consoles, both handheld and free standing, and other wireless POS (point of service) devices; computer game software” which applicant has classified in International Class 9 and “Entertainment services, namely, providing on-line computer games” in International Class 41.

 

Registrant’s goods in Registration No. 4320778 are identified as “Computer game software; Computer game software for use on mobile and cellular phones; Downloadable electronic game programs; Electronic game software for cellular telephones; Electronic game software for handheld electronic devices; Electronic game software for wireless devices” in International Class 9.

 

First, the applicant’s goods and services are similar in nature to the registrant’s goods. Both the applicant and registrant use their marks in connection with computer game software that is either downloadable or recorded, and the applicant also uses its mark in connection with computer game software that is not downloadable; but all of these goods and services are computer game software or the provision of computer game software.

 

Second, the applicant’s and the registrant’s identification of goods are identical in part. Both applicant and registrant identify “computer game software.”

 

Here, the application uses broad wording to describe the relevant goods which presumably encompasses all goods of the type described, including the registrant’s more narrowly defined goods. See, e.g., Sw. Mgmt., Inc. v. Ocinomled, Ltd., 115 USPQ2d 1007, 1025 (TTAB 2015); In re N.A.D., Inc., 57 USPQ2d 1872, 1874 (TTAB 2000). Applicant’s broader language “computer game software” encompasses registrant’s narrower language “computer game software for use on mobile and cellular phones,” “Downloadable electronic game programs,” “electronic game software for cellular telephones,” “electronic game software for handheld electronic devices,” and “electronic game software for wireless devices.” See, e.g., Sw. Mgmt., Inc. v. Ocinomled, Ltd., 115 USPQ2d 1007, 1025 (TTAB 2015); In re N.A.D., Inc., 57 USPQ2d 1872, 1874 (TTAB 2000). Moreover, the registration uses broad wording to describe the relevant goods which presumably encompasses all goods of the type described, including the applicant’s more narrowly defined goods. See, e.g., Sw. Mgmt., Inc., 115 USPQ2d at 1025; In re N.A.D., Inc., 57 USPQ2d at 1874. Registrant’s broader language “computer game software” encompasses applicant’s narrower language “computer game software and entertainment software in the nature of computer games for use on mobile and cellular phones, mobile digital electronic devices, handheld computers, computers, video game consoles, both handheld and free standing, and other wireless POS (point of service) devices.” See, e.g., Sw. Mgmt., Inc., 115 USPQ2d at 1025; In re N.A.D., Inc., 57 USPQ2d at 1874. Additionally, 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 Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1268, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).

 

Additionally, the attached Internet evidence, consisting of screenshots from Ninentendo.com, ValveSoftware.com, Store.SteamPowered.com, CallOfDuty.com, GamesRadar.com, and SekiroTheGame.com establishes that the same entity (here, Nintendo, Valve, and Activision) commonly provides the relevant goods and/or services (here, on one hand, computer game software and, on the other hand, providing online computer games) and markets the goods and/or services under the same mark.  Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods and/or 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).

 

Moreover, the trademark examining attorney has attached evidence from the USPTO’s X-Search database consisting of a number of third-party marks registered for use in connection with the same or similar goods and/or services as those of applicant and registrant in this case.  This evidence shows that the goods and/or services listed therein, namely, computer game software and providing online computer games, are of a kind that may emanate from a single source under a single mark.  See In re I-Coat Co., 126 USPQ2d 1730, 1737 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Infinity Broad. Corp., 60 USPQ2d 1214, 1217-18 (TTAB 2001); In re Albert Trostel & Sons Co.,29 USPQ2d 1783, 1785-86 (TTAB 1993); In re Mucky Duck Mustard Co., 6 USPQ2d 1467, 1470 n.6 (TTAB 1988)); TMEP §1207.01(d)(iii). See Reg. Nos. 3949116, 4934818, 4358603, 4900139, 4665885, 4757085, 5117508, 4737520, 5135455, and 5453737.

 

Relatedness of the Services in Registration No. 3952533 to the goods and services of the applicant

 

Applicant’s goods and services are identified as “Computer game software and entertainment software in the nature of computer games for use on mobile and cellular phones, mobile digital electronic devices, handheld computers, computers, video game consoles, both handheld and free standing, and other wireless POS (point of service) devices; computer game software” which applicant has classified in International Class 9 and “Entertainment services, namely, providing on-line computer games” in International Class 41.

 

Registrant’s services in Registration No. 3952533 are identified as “Designing and developing computer game software and video game software for use with computers, video game program systems and computer networks” in International Class 42.

 

The attached Internet evidence, consisting of screenshots from Ninentendo.com, ValveSoftware.com, Store.SteamPowered.com, Activision.Referrals.SelectMinds.com, Activision.com, CallOfDuty.com, GamesRadar.com, and SekiroTheGame.com establishes that the same entity (here, Nintendo, Valve, and Activision) commonly provides the relevant goods and/or services (here, on one hand, designing and developing computer game software and video game software and, on the other hand, computer game software and providing online computer games) and markets the goods and/or services under the same mark.  Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods and/or services are considered related for likelihood of confusion purposes.  See, e.g., In re Davey Prods. Pty Ltd., 92 USPQ2d at 1202-04; In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d at 1268-69, 1271-72.

 

Moreover, the trademark examining attorney has attached evidence from the USPTO’s X-Search database consisting of a number of third-party marks registered for use in connection with the same or similar goods and/or services as those of applicant and registrant in this case.  This evidence shows that the goods and/or services listed therein, namely designing and developing computer game software and video game software and computer game software and providing online computer games, are of a kind that may emanate from a single source under a single mark.  See In re I-Coat Co., 126 USPQ2d at 1737; In re Albert Trostel & Sons Co.,29 USPQ2d at 1785-86; In re Mucky Duck Mustard Co., 6 USPQ2d at 1470 n.6; TMEP §1207.01(d)(iii). See Reg. Nos. 3949116, 4934818, 4358603, 4900139, 4665885, 4757085, 5117508, 4737520, 5135455, and 5453737.

 

Ultimately, when purchasers encounter the applicant’s goods and/or services and the registrants’ goods and/or services, they are likely to be confused as to the source of goods and/or services by the relationship between them. Thus, the goods and/or services are closely related.

 

Therefore, because the marks are confusingly similar and the goods and/or services are closely related, purchasers encountering these goods and/or services are likely to believe, mistakenly, that they emanate from a common source. Accordingly, there is a likelihood of confusion and registration is refused pursuant to Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.

 

Response to Section 2(d) – Likelihood of Confusion Refusal

 

Although the examining attorney has refused registration, the applicant may respond to the refusal to register by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.

 

REQUIREMENT

 

If applicant chooses to respond to the refusal to register, then applicant must also respond to the following requirement:

 

AMENDMENT OF IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS AND SERVICES REQUIRED

 

The identification of goods in International Class 9 must be clarified because the wording “computer game software and entertainment software in the nature of computer games for use on mobile and cellular phones, mobile digital electronic devices, handheld computers, computers, video game consoles, both handheld and free standing, and other wireless POS (point of service) devices” is indefinite and overly broad. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01. It is indefinite because the nature of the goods is unclear. It is overly broad because it could encompass goods and/or services in more than one International Class, for example, downloadable computer game software and entertainment software in the nature of computer games for use on mobile and cellular phones, mobile digital electronic devices, handheld computers, computers, video game consoles, both handheld and free standing, and other wireless POS (point of service) devices in Class 9 or providing on-line non-downloadable computer game software and entertainment software in the nature of computer games for use on mobile and cellular phones, mobile digital electronic devices, handheld computers, computers, video game consoles, both handheld and free standing, and other wireless POS (point of service) devices in Class 41. Applicant must specify whether the software is (a) recorded/downloadable or (b) non-downloadable, and classify the goods and/or services accordingly.

 

Additionally, the wording “computer game software” is indefinite and overly broad. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01. It is indefinite because the nature of the goods is unclear. It is overly broad because it could encompass goods and/or services in more than one International Class, for example, downloadable computer game software in Class 9 or providing on-line non-downloadable computer game software in Class 41. Applicant must specify whether the software is (a) recorded/downloadable or (b) non-downloadable, and classify the goods and/or services accordingly.

 

Specific guidance for all requirements has been provided below.

 

Applicant may adopt the following wording, if accurate:

 

Class 9 –         {Specify type of software, e.g., Downloadable} computer game software and entertainment software in the nature of computer games for use on mobile and cellular phones, mobile digital electronic devices, handheld computers, computers, video game consoles, both handheld and free standing, and other wireless POS (point of service) devices; {Specify type of software, e.g., Downloadable} computer game software

 

Class 41 –       Entertainment services, namely, providing on-line computer games; {Specify type of software, e.g. Providing on-line non-downloadable} computer game software and entertainment software in the nature of computer games for use on mobile and cellular phones, mobile digital electronic devices, handheld computers, computers, video game consoles, both handheld and free standing, and other wireless POS (point of service) devices; {Specify type of software, e.g., Providing on-line non-downloadable} computer game software

 

Stylized wording indicates changes.

 

Applicant’s goods and/or services may be clarified or limited, but may not be expanded beyond those originally itemized in the application or as acceptably amended.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06.  Applicant may clarify or limit the identification by inserting qualifying language or deleting items to result in a more specific identification; however, applicant may not substitute different goods and/or services or add goods and/or services not found or encompassed by those in the original application or as acceptably amended.  See TMEP §1402.06(a)-(b).  The scope of the goods and/or services sets the outer limit for any changes to the identification and is generally determined by the ordinary meaning of the wording in the identification.  TMEP §§1402.06(b), 1402.07(a)-(b).  Any acceptable changes to the goods and/or services will further limit scope, and once goods and/or services are deleted, they are not permitted to be reinserted.  TMEP §1402.07(e).

 

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

 

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. 

 

To expedite prosecution of the application, applicant is encouraged to file its response to this Office action online via the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), which is available at http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/index.jsp.  If applicant has technical questions about the TEAS response to Office action form, applicant can review the electronic filing tips available online at http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/e_filing_tips.jsp and e-mail technical questions to TEAS@uspto.gov.

 

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.  

 

 

 

/Dana Dickson/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 113

(571) 270-7552

dana.dickson@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 3/16/2019 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 88228697

 

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 3/16/2019 (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.