UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)

OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION

 

 

 

PRIORITY ACTION

 

STRICT DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER

TO AVOID ABANDONMENT OF APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION, THE USPTO MUST RECEIVE APPLICANT’S COMPLETE RESPONSE TO THIS LETTER WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF THE ISSUE/MAILING DATE BELOW.  A RESPONSE TRANSMITTED THROUGH THE TRADEMARK ELECTRONIC APPLICATION SYSTEM (TEAS) MUST BE RECEIVED BEFORE MIDNIGHT EASTERN TIME OF THE LAST DAY OF THE RESPONSE PERIOD.

 

 

ISSUE/MAILING DATE: 2/19/2019

 

 

DATABASE SEARCH:  The trademark examining attorney has searched the USPTO’s database of registered and pending marks and has found no conflicting marks that would bar registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d).  TMEP §704.02; see 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).

 

ISSUES APPLICANT MUST ADDRESS:  On February 19, 2019, the trademark examining attorney and Attorney Aleson Clarke discussed the issues below.  Applicant must timely respond to these issues.  See 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §2.62(a); TMEP §§708, 711.

 

Summary of Issues:

• Section 2(d) Partial Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion
• Identification of Services – Partial Requirement
• English Translation Required

 

Section 2(d) Partial Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion

 

THIS PARTIAL REFUSAL APPLIES TO CLASS 38 ONLY.

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 5030378, 5030380, 5036082 and 5036073.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registrations.

 

Applicant’s applied-for mark is LEGADO.TV in standard characters for, in relevant part, “Broadcasting of video and audio programming over the Internet; Internet broadcasting services; video broadcasting services via the Internet; streaming of audio, visual, and audiovisual material via the Internet; video-on-demand transmission services via the Internet.”

 

Registrant’s marks are:

·       Reg. No. 5030378: LIGADO in standard characters for goods and services including “Telecommunications services, namely, local and long distance transmission of voice, data, graphics and video by means of broadband, copper, optical, and satellite wireless networks; telecommunications data broadcasting services, namely, electronic transmission of television and video broadcasting data; satellite communications services; transmission of audio, voice, video, data, and information via satellite and terrestrial networks”;

·       Reg. No. 5030380: LIGADO NETWORKS in standard characters for goods and services including “Telecommunications services, namely, local and long distance transmission of voice, data, graphics and video by means of broadband, copper, optical, and satellite wireless networks; telecommunications data broadcasting services, namely, electronic transmission of television and video broadcasting data; satellite communications services; transmission of audio, voice, video, data, and information via satellite and terrestrial networks”;

·       Reg. No. 5036082: LIGADO NETWORKS and design for goods and services including “Telecommunications services, namely, local and long distance transmission of voice, data, graphics and video by means of broadband, copper, optical, and satellite wireless networks; telecommunications data broadcasting services, namely, electronic transmission of television and video broadcasting data; satellite communications services; transmission of audio, voice, video, data, and information via satellite and terrestrial networks”; and

·       Reg. No. 5036073: LIGADO NETWORKS MAKING STRONGER CONNECTIONS and design for goods and services including “Telecommunications services, namely, local and long distance transmission of voice, data, graphics and video by means of broadband, copper, optical, and satellite wireless networks; telecommunications data broadcasting services, namely, electronic transmission of television and video broadcasting data; satellite communications services; transmission of audio, voice, video, data, and information via satellite and terrestrial networks.”

The same entity owns all the cited registrations.

 

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.

 

Comparison of the Marks

 

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

 

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).

 

In this case, the wording LEGADO in applicant’s applied-for mark is substantially similar to the wording LIGADO in registrant’s marks.  The similarity in this wording creates a similar overall commercial impression in the compared marks.

 

The trademark examining attorney notes that applicant’s mark uses the wording “LEGADO” while registrant’s marks use the wording “LIGADO”.  However, this slight difference in spelling is insufficient to distinguish the marks, because LEGADO and LIGADO look and sound alike, and are essentially phonetic equivalents.  There is no correct pronunciation of a mark because it is impossible to predict how the public will pronounce a particular mark.  See Embarcadero Techs., Inc. v. RStudio, Inc., 105 USPQ2d 1825, 1835 (TTAB 2013) (quoting In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1367, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1912 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re The Belgrade Shoe Co., 411 F.2d 1352, 1353, 162 USPQ 227, 227 (C.C.P.A. 1969)); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iv).  Here, LEGADO and LIGADO could clearly be pronounced the same; such 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).

 

Further, LEGADO/ LIGADO is the dominant wording in each of the respective marks.

 

LIGADO is the only wording in Reg. No. 5030378 and is the first word in Reg. Nos. 5030380, 5036082 and 5036073, and LEGADO is the first word in applicant’s applied-for mark.  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) (“VEUVE . . . remains a ‘prominent feature’ as the first word in the mark and the first word to appear on the label”); In re Integrated Embedded, 102 USPQ2d 1504, 1513 (TTAB 2016) (“[T]he dominance of BARR in [a]pplicant’s mark BARR GROUP is reinforced by its location as the first word in the mark.”); 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).  Therefore, consumers are inclined to focus on the virtually identical wording in applicant’s applied-for mark and in registrant’s marks when making their purchasing decisions.

 

The wording NETWORKS in Reg. Nos. 5030380, 5036082 and 5036073 is insufficient to overcome a likelihood of confusion in this case because this wording is descriptive in the context of registrant’s goods and services and has therefore been disclaimed.  Similarly, the abbreviation “TV” in applicant’s mark is insufficient to distinguish the marks because this wording is descriptive in the context of applicant’s video and audiovisual broadcasting services and ongoing television programs and television show production.  The attached evidence from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language shows that the wording “TV” means “Television.”  Hence, the wording TV in the applied-for mark is merely descriptive of the registrant’s services.

 

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 Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1305, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re Dixie Rests., 105 F.3d 1405, 1407, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533-34 (Fed. Cir. 1997)); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii).  Matter that is descriptive of or generic for a party’s goods and/or services is typically less significant or less dominant in relation to other wording in a mark.  See Anheuser-Busch, LLC v. Innvopak Sys. Pty Ltd., 115 USPQ2d 1816, 1824-25 (TTAB 2015) (citing In re Chatam Int’l Inc., 380 F.3d 1340, 1342-43, 71 USPQ2d 1944, 1946 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).  Thus, the wording NETWORKS in registrant’s marks and the wording TV in applicant’s mark is less significant in terms of affecting the respective mark’s commercial impression, and renders the wording LEGADO and LIGADO, respectively, the more dominant element of the registrant’s and applicant’s mark.

 

The design elements of the marks in Reg. Nos. 5036082 and 5036073 are also insufficient to overcome a likelihood of confusion in this case.  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)).

 

Moreover, even if potential purchasers realize the apparent differences between the marks, they could still reasonably assume, due to the overall similarities in dominant wording and commercial impression in the respective marks, that applicant's services provided under the LEGADO.TV mark constitute a new or additional line of services from the same source as the services provided under the previous LIGADO, LIGADO NETWORKS and LIGADO NETWORKS MAKING STRONGER CONNECTIONS marks with which they are acquainted or familiar, and that applicant’s mark is merely a variation of the registrant’s marks.  See, e.g., SMS, Inc. v. Byn-Mar Inc. 228 USPQ 219, 220 (TTAB 1985) (applicant’s marks ALSO ANDREA and ANDREA SPORT were “likely to evoke an association by consumers with opposer's preexisting mark [ANDREA SIMONE] for its established line of clothing.”).

 

Based on the foregoing, the applicant’s applied-for mark and registrant’s marks are sufficiently similar to find a likelihood of confusion.

 

Comparison of the Services

 

Determining likelihood of confusion is based on the description of the services stated in the application and registrations 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 registrations use broad wording to describe “Telecommunications services, namely, local and long distance transmission of voice, data, graphics and video by means of broadband, copper, optical, and satellite wireless networks; telecommunications data broadcasting services, namely, electronic transmission of television and video broadcasting data; satellite communications services; transmission of audio, voice, video, data, and information via satellite and terrestrial networks,” which presumably encompasses all services of the type described, including applicant’s more narrow “Broadcasting of video and audio programming over the Internet; Internet broadcasting services; video broadcasting services via the Internet; streaming of audio, visual, and audiovisual material via the Internet; video-on-demand transmission services via the Internet.”  See, e.g., In re Solid State Design Inc., 125 USPQ2d 1409, 1412-15 (TTAB 2018); Sw. Mgmt., Inc. v. Ocinomled, Ltd., 115 USPQ2d 1007, 1025 (TTAB 2015).  Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s services are legally identical.  See, e.g., In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 127 USPQ2d 1627, 1629 (TTAB 2018) (citing Tuxedo Monopoly, Inc. v.Gen. Mills Fun Grp., Inc., 648 F.2d 1335, 1336, 209 USPQ 986, 988 (C.C.P.A. 1981); Inter IKEA Sys. B.V. v. Akea, LLC, 110 USPQ2d 1734, 1745 (TTAB 2014); Baseball Am. Inc. v. Powerplay Sports Ltd., 71 USPQ2d 1844, 1847 n.9 (TTAB 2004)).

 

Additionally, the services of the parties have no restrictions as to nature, type, 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)).  Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s services are related.

 

Because applicant’s and registrant’s marks are similar and the services are related, there is a likelihood of confusion and applicant’s applied-for mark 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(s) by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.  However, if applicant responds to the refusal(s), applicant must also respond to the requirements set forth below.

 

Identification of Services – Partial Requirement

 

The wording “Entertainment services, namely, ongoing television programs” in the identification of services for International Class 41 is indefinite and must be clarified because applicant must specify the subject matter of the ongoing television programs.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.

 

The wording “entertainment services, namely, ongoing entertainment programs presented on the Internet in the field of business, entertainment, medicine, healthcare, psychology, legal, sports, accomplished artists, scholars, philanthropists, and entrepreneurs” in the identification of services for International Class 41 is indefinite and must be clarified because applicant must specify the nature or type of entertainment programs, e.g. television, radio.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.  Further, applicant must clarify the “… field of … entertainment...”  Identifications of goods and services must be clear enough to enable trademark examining attorneys to reach informed judgments concerning likelihood of confusion, and also provide adequate notice to third parties as to the scope of the applicant’s rights in the mark. Id.

 

The wording “providing entertainment programs in the field of business, entertainment, medicine, healthcare, psychology, legal, sports, accomplished artists, scholars, philanthropists, and entrepreneurs accessible by satellite, television, Internet, wireless networks, and through transmission of audio and/or video signals to any type of visual display device” in the identification of services for International Class 41 is indefinite and must be clarified because applicant must specify the nature of the entertainment programs, e.g. ongoing multimedia programs.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.  As mentioned above, applicant must also clarify the “… field of … entertainment...”

 

Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate:

 

Class 041:  Entertainment services, namely, ongoing television programs in the field of {indicate specific field or subject matter, e.g. children's entertainment, news, comedy, variety}; entertainment services, namely, ongoing entertainment programs, in particular, {specify nature or type of entertainment programs, e.g. television programs, radio programs} presented on the Internet in the field of business, entertainment in the nature of {specify type, e.g. children's entertainment, entertainment news}, medicine, healthcare, psychology, legal, sports, accomplished artists, scholars, philanthropists, and entrepreneurs; providing entertainment programs, in particular, {specify, e.g. ongoing multimedia programs, ongoing television programs, ongoing radio programs} in the field of business, entertainment in the nature of {specify type, e.g. children's entertainment, entertainment news}, medicine, healthcare, psychology, legal, sports, accomplished artists, scholars, philanthropists, and entrepreneurs accessible by satellite, television, Internet, wireless networks, and through transmission of audio and/or video signals to any type of visual display device; production and distribution of television shows

 

For the avoidance of doubt, the identification of services for International Class 38 is acceptable as currently worded.

 

Applicant’s 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.

 

English Translation Required

 

To permit proper examination of the application, applicant must submit an English translation of the foreign wording in the mark, LEGADO.  37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(9), 2.61(b); see TMEP §809.  The following English translation is suggested:  The English translation of “LEGADO” in the mark is “legacy”.  TMEP §809.03.  See attached translation evidence.

 

Response Guidelines

 

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. §§2.62(c), 2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 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.

 

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.  

 

 

 

/Leslie Ann Thomas-Riggs/

Leslie Ann Thomas-Riggs

Trademark Examining Attorney

USPTO, Law Office 125

(571) 272-5469

leslie.thomas-riggs@uspto.gov

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)

 

 

IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING YOUR

U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION

 

USPTO OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) HAS ISSUED

ON 2/19/2019 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 88237821

 

Please follow the instructions below:

 

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

 

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

 

(2)  TIMELY RESPONSE IS REQUIRED:  Please carefully review the Office action to determine (1) how to respond, and (2) the applicable response time period.  Your response deadline will be calculated from 2/19/2019 (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.