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: 4/8/2019

 

THIS IS A FINAL ACTION.

 

This Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on March 29, 2019.

 

In a previous Office action dated February 1, 2019, the trademark examining attorney refused registration of the applied-for mark based on the following: Trademark Act Section 2(e)4 primarily merely a surname. In addition, applicant agreed to the following requirements: amend the identification of services.

 

Based on applicant’s response, the examining attorney maintains and now makes FINAL the Section 2(e)4 refusal as primarily merely a surname for the reasons set forth herein. See TMEP §§713.02, 714.04. All arguments and evidence included in the February 1, 2019, Office Actions are incorporated herein by reference.

 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES MADE FINAL that applicant must address:

• Section 2(e)4 Refusal – Primarily Merely a Surname

 

SECTION 2(e)(4) REFUSAL – PRIMARILY MERELY A SURNAME

Registration was refused and the refusal is now maintained and made FINAL because the applied-for mark is primarily merely a surname. Trademark Act Section 2(e)(4), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(4); see TMEP §1211. 

Applicant’s mark is CORCORAN in stylized lettering for “real estate brokerage services; franchising services, namely, providing financial information and advice regarding the establishment and/or operation of real estate brokerage business; real estate brokerage services, namely, arrangement of title insurance and real estate financing for others; real estate property management services; real estate agency services; leasing of real estate; real estate appraisal and valuation; real estate rental services, namely, rental of residential housing; providing information in the field of real estate by means of linking the website to other websites featuring real estate information; real estate investment services; real estate escrow services; real estate services, namely, rental property management; providing real estate listings and real estate information via the Internet; providing information in the field of real estate via the Internet; commercial and residential real estate agency services; real estate services, namely, providing online questions to help users determine the best neighborhoods and communities suited to their individual needs and preferences; providing a database of information about residential real estate listings in different neighborhoods and communities; real estate consultancy services in association with the valuation, appraisal, brokerage, listing, management, letting and/or leasing of real estate; financial evaluation of real estate; mortgage advisory and administration services, namely, mortgage compliance consulting services concerning financial requirements for mortgages, mortgage financial planning services and mortgage refinancing; providing an interactive web portal in the field of real estate, featuring news, information and user generated content” in class 036.

An applicant’s mark is primarily merely a surname if the surname, when viewed in connection with the applicant’s recited goods and services, “‘is the primary significance of the mark as a whole to the purchasing public.’”  Earnhardt v. Kerry Earnhardt, Inc., 864 F.3d 1374, 1377, 123 USPQ2d 1411, 1413 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting In re Hutchinson Tech. Inc., 852 F.2d 552, 554, 7 USPQ2d 1490, 1492 (Fed. Cir. 1988)); TMEP §1211.01.

The following five inquiries are often used to determine the public’s perception of a term’s primary significance:

(1)       Whether the surname is rare;

(2)       Whether anyone connected with applicant uses the term as a surname;

(3)       Whether the term has any recognized meaning other than as a surname;

(4)       Whether the term has the structure and pronunciation of a surname; and

(5)       Whether the term is sufficiently stylized to remove its primary significance from that of a surname.

In re Eximius Coffee, LLC, 120 USPQ2d 1276, 1278 & n.2, 1282-83 (TTAB 2016) (citing In re Benthin Mgmt. GmbH, 37 USPQ2d 1332, 1333-34 (TTAB 1995) for the Benthin inquiries/factors); TMEP §1211.01; see also In re Etablissements Darty et Fils, 759 F.2d 15, 16-18, 225 USPQ 652, 653 (Fed. Cir. 1985). 

These inquiries are not exclusive, and any of these circumstances – singly or in combination – and any other relevant circumstances may be considered when making this determination.  In re Eximius Coffee, LLC, 120 USPQ2d at 1277-78; TMEP §1211.01.  For example, when the applied-for mark is not stylized, it is unnecessary to consider the fifth inquiry.  In re Yeley, 85 USPQ2d 1150, 1151 (TTAB 2007); TMEP §1211.01.

Please see the previously attached evidence from the LEXISNEXIS® surname database, establishing the surname significance of CORCORAN.  This evidence shows the applied-for mark appearing 25,185 times as a surname in a weekly updated directory of cell phone and other phone numbers (such as voice over IP) from various data providers. The examining attorney also has attached evidence from Forebears.io, an online surname database, that shows Corcoran’s incidence in the United States at nearly 25,000.  See attached evidence from Forebrears.io. 

Surname Rareness

The issue of determining whether a surname is common or rare is not determined solely by comparing the number of listings of the surname to the total number of listings in a computerized database, because even the most common surname would represent only a small fraction of the database.  In re Gregory, 70 USPQ2d 1792, 1795 (TTAB 2004).  Rather, if a surname appears routinely in news reports or articles and receives media publicity so as to be broadly exposed to the general public, then such surname is not rare and its primary significance to purchasers would be that of a surname, such as in this case.  See In re Beds & Bars Ltd., 122 USPQ2d 1546, 1551 (TTAB 2017); In re Gregory, 70 USPQ2d at 1795; TMEP §1211.01(a)(v).

In addition to the evidence of record regarding the prevalence of Corcoran in the United States, the previously attached Wikipedia.com entry establishes the surname significance of CORCORAN.  Specifically, CORCORAN is prominent enough to have its own Wikipedia® entry identifying it as a surname.

Further, the public is routinely exposed to CORCORAN in a surname context. See previously attached articles from CNYCentral.com, WVLT 8, and KUsports.com. Similarly, well-known institutions and companies have been named for persons with the surname Corcoran, increasing the public’s awareness of “Corcoran” as a surname.  For example, The Corcoran Gallery of Art is named for William Wilson Corcoran.  The full name of Corcoran High School in Syracuse, New York is Thomas J. Corcoran High School.  From caterers, to college professors, to high ranking members of the military, the Corcoran surname repeatedly appears as a surname to the general public such that it will immediately be perceived as primarily and merely a surname.  (See Attached Evidence, e.g., Corcoran Caterers, Merrimack College “Michael Corcoran” Faculty Page, U.S. Air Force Brigadier General Charles S. Corcoran Biography).  Thus, not only are there numerous listings of the name used as a surname in national databases, but also the public is routinely exposed to this use in news reports, press releases, articles, and other everyday contexts.   As such, Corcoran is not a rare or unknown surname. Therefore, this factor weighs in favor of surname significance.

Surname Connected with Applicant

Here, Corcoran Group, the applicant, was founded by Barbara Corcoran. See previously attached New York Times article. Thus CORCORAN has surname significance, as it is the surname of someone connected with the applicant, namely the company’s founder. Therefore, this factor weighs in favor of surname significance.

A term that is the surname of an individual applicant or that of an officer, founder, owner, or principal of applicant’s business is probative evidence of the term’s surname significance.  TMEP §1211.02(b)(iv); see, e.g., In re Etablissements Darty et Fils, 759 F.2d 15, 16, 225 USPQ 652, 653 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (holding DARTY primarily merely a surname where “Darty” was the surname of applicant’s corporate president); In re Eximius Coffee, LLC, 120 USPQ2d 1276, 1278-80 (TTAB 2016) (holding ALDECOA primarily merely a surname where ALDECOA was the surname of the founder and individuals continuously involved in the business); In re Integrated Embedded, 120 USPQ2d 1504, 1507 (TTAB 2016) (holding BARR GROUP primarily merely a surname where BARR was the surname of the co-founder and applicant’s corporate officer and GROUP was found “incapable of lending source-identifying significance to the mark”); Miller v. Miller, 105 USPQ2d 1615, 1620, 1622-23 (TTAB 2013) (holding MILLER LAW GROUP primarily merely a surname where “Miller” was the surname of the applicant and the term “law group” was found generic).

Other Recognized Meanings Absent

Evidence that a term has no recognized meaning or significance other than as a surname is relevant to determining whether the term would be perceived as primarily merely a surname.  See In re Weiss Watch Co., 123 USPQ2d 1200, 1203 (TTAB 2017); In re Eximius Coffee, LLC, 120 USPQ2d 1276, 1280 (TTAB 2016); TMEP §1211.02(b)(vi).  The previously attached evidence from OneLook shows that there are seven dictionary results for CORCORAN, one of which is a slang dictionary and one of which is a baby name list. Of the remaining five, four of them either have no definition or define the name as a surname. See previously attached evidence from OneLook and previously attached definitions. The Wikipedia® entries list the term as a surname first and as the name of an Amtrak station second. See previously attached Wikipedia® Corcoran disambiguation page.  None of the dictionaries have any additional meaning for the word other than of a name, and then primarily that of a surname. This evidence shows the lack of a non-surname significance to the term. Therefore, this factor weighs in favor of surname significance.

Structure and Pronunciation

Evidence that a term has the structure and pronunciation of a surname may contribute to a finding that the primary significance of the term is that of a surname.  In re Eximius Coffee, LLC, 120 USPQ2d 1276, 1280 (TTAB 2016); see In re Giger, 78 USPQ2d 1405, 1409 (TTAB 2006); In re Gregory, 70 USPQ2d 1792, 1796 (TTAB 2004); TMEP §1211.01(a)(vi).

Here, “an” is a common surname suffix in multiple languages. See previously attached Wikipedia® evidence of common surname prefixes. Further, as previously made of record, “Corcoran” is an Irish surname.  The examining attorney has attached evidence that “-ran”, “uran”, “oran”, and similar endings, some of which are preceded by hard “CU” or “CA” prefixes, are common structures in Irish surnames.   (See Attached Forebears.io and Behind the Name Evidence).  For example, Curran and Carran are both Irish surnames, the latter of which occurs over 34,000 times in the United States.  (See Attached).  Likewise, Doran and Halloran both end with the identical –oran suffix and are fairly common in the United States, with over 23,000 and 7,000 incidence in the United States, respectively.  (See Attached).  The presence of this common surname suffix and overall structure causes the look and feel of CORCORAN to be that of a surname. In combination with the common nature of this surname, as demonstrated by the attached articles previously discussed, it is likely that consumers will perceive it is as having the structure and pronunciation of a surname. Therefore, this factor weighs in favor of surname significance.

No Sufficient Stylization

This mark is in a script like font rather than standard characters. Adding a non-distinctive design element or letter stylization to a term that is primarily merely a surname does not change the surname significance of the term.  The primary significance of such a mark would still be that of a surname.  TMEP §1211.01(b)(ii); see In re Pickett Hotel Co., 229 USPQ 760, 763 (TTAB 1986) (holding PICKETT a surname despite use of stylized lettering); cf. In re Benthin Mgmt. GmbH, 37 USPQ2d 1332, 1333-34 (TTAB 1995). Therefore, this factor weighs in favor of surname significance.

Conclusion

In sum, all five factors show that the primary significance of the term CORCORAN is that of a surname. Additionally, applicant has registered with a claim of acquired distinctiveness due to CORCORAN being primarily merely a surname for multiple prior registrations. See attached registrations. For the foregoing reasons, the applied-for mark is primarily merely a surname and registration is refused pursuant to Section 2(e)(4) of the Trademark Act.

Additionally, it is noted that applicant owns numerous registrations for which there is a claim of acquired distinctiveness, due to CORCORAN being primarily merely a surname. See attached registrations. A claim of distinctiveness under §2(f), whether made in the application as filed or in a subsequent amendment, may be construed as conceding that the matter to which it pertains is not inherently distinctive and, thus, not registrable on the Principal Register absent proof of acquired distinctiveness. TMEP §1212.02(b).

Applicant’s Arguments in Response

Applicant argues in response that while they do own four CORCORAN marks that contain a claim of acquired distinctiveness under Section 2(f), all of these marks were registered between 2000 and 2008. Further, they state that applicant also owns four additional marks that do not contain a claim of acquired distinctiveness, namely Registration Nos. 2576142, 4772592, 4844204, and 4844205, three of which were registered as recently as 2015. They argue that this shows that half of their registered marks have not required to show acquired distinctiveness and their most recent marks have not required such a claim.

However, this argument is not persuasive in that it misses the central difference between the four marks that have registered with a claim of acquired distinctiveness under Section 2(f) and those that have not required such a claim. Specifically, the four marks that have required a claim of acquired distinctiveness are the following (all in standard characters): CORCORAN (2533288), THE CORCORAN GROUP (2366134), WWW.CORCORAN.COM (2499454), and CORCORAN (3417729). All four of these marks consist either solely of the surname CORCORAN, or primarily of the surname with some additional descriptive, generic, or merely informational wording. For example, the addition of a non-source-identifying generic top-level domain (gTLD) merely indicates an Internet address and generally adds no source-identifying significance.  See TMEP §1215.02. Thus, the primary meaning of all of these marks remains primarily of a surname, CORCORAN, which, as demonstrated below, is connected closely with the applicant.

In contrast, the four more recently registered marks cited by the applicant are the following: CORCORAN WEXLER (2576142) in standard characters, CORCORAN SUNSHINE (4772592) in standard characters, CS CORCORAN SUNSHINE (4844204) with design, and CS CORCORAN SUNSHINE MARKETING GROUP (4844205) with design. These marks all consist of the name CORCORAN combined with additional distinctive matter and two with additional designs. Thus, the analysis to determine if these marks are primarily merely a surname would be very different than that of the four marks cited in the original office action. Specifically, the analysis under sections 3 and 5 would have different outcomes.  Notably, unlike with descriptive wording in a trademark, the Office does not require the disclaimer of surnames when joined with distinctive wording, in part because the composite mark created is no longer primarily merely a surname.  See TMEP §1213.03(a).  As such, registered marks containing surnames joined with distinctive matter have no indication of the surname significance the term would have if it appeared alone or only with generic or descriptive wording.  Accordingly, applicant’s argument based on the ownership of these prior registrations is not persuasive.

Further, applicant appears to argue that the date on which the marks were registered is material to the question of surname significance.  It is not.  While applicant’s prior registrations including claims under Section 2(f) do indicate that applicant has, in the past, recognized the surname significance of the applied-for mark, the examining attorney’s argument does not rely solely upon the presence or absence of applicant’s prior registrations.  Rather, the examining attorney has created a record that confirms the present significance of the applied-for mark as primarily merely a surname.

Here, applicant’s applied for mark fits squarely into the group of marks that have required a claim of acquired distinctiveness. The mark consists of the name CORCORAN in a stylized font. As stated in the original office action, adding a non-distinctive design element or letter stylization to a term that is primarily merely a surname does not change the surname significance of the term.  The primary significance of such a mark would still be that of a surname.  TMEP §1211.01(b)(ii); see In re Pickett Hotel Co., 229 USPQ 760, 763 (TTAB 1986) (holding PICKETT a surname despite use of stylized lettering); cf. In re Benthin Mgmt. GmbH, 37 USPQ2d 1332, 1333-34 (TTAB 1995). Thus, the current mark is in line with the marks where the office has required a claim of acquired distinctiveness under Section 2(f) and distinct from those where such a claim was not required.

The same issues applies to the six additional CORCORAN marks cited by the applicant that are not owned by the applicant. All of these marks have additional distinctive matter that would change the surname analysis. The office is not acting inconsistently by maintaining this refusal. In fact, as applicant helpfully points out, the owners of two the additional six CORCORAN marks that have additional descriptive matter and no claim of acquired distinctiveness have also registered two marks that consist of CORCORAN alone and that have registered with a claim of acquired distinctiveness under Section 2(f). This only further demonstrates the delineation between the CORCORAN marks with and without a claim of acquired distinctiveness on the register.

 

Regardless, prior decisions and actions of other trademark examining attorneys in registering other marks have little evidentiary value and are not binding upon the USPTO or the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. TMEP §1207.01(d)(vi); see In re USA Warriors Ice Hockey Program, Inc. , 122 USPQ2d 1790, 1793 n.10 (TTAB 2017). Each case is decided on its own facts, and each mark stands on its own merits. In re USA Warriors Ice Hockey Program, Inc. , 122 USPQ2d at 1793 n.10 (quoting In re Boulevard Entm’t , 334 F.3d 1336, 1343, 67 USPQ2d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).

Applicant’s assertion that they own 14 of 20 CORCORAN marks on the USPTO registry is irrelevant to the issue at hand. Fame of the mark is not an aspect of the surname analysis. It is possible that applicant intends to suggest that both the predominance of their registered marks as well as the internet evidence showing applicant’s followings on various social media pages shows that the public first associates the name CORCORAN with the company rather than as a surname. However, while this evidence may show that applicant is a well-known source of real estate services, it does not demonstrate that the primary significance of CORCORAN to the general public is the applicant’s business and no longer that of a surname. Again as stated in the original office action, the public is routinely exposed to CORCORAN in a surname context. See, e.g., articles from CNYCentral.com, WVLT 8, and KUsports.com and other evidence of record. Thus, not only are there numerous listings of the name used as a surname in national databases, but also the public is routinely exposed to this use in new reports and other articles and the name is not a rare or unknown surname. Therefore, this argument does not change the surname analysis.

In sum, there is no internal inconstancy between the CORCORAN marks registered with or without a claim of acquired distinctiveness. Applicant’s mark CORCORAN, as a mark composed of the name in only a stylized font, clearly falls within the subset of marks that require a claim of acquired distinctiveness under section 2(f). Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and, as previously argued, the mark is primarily merely a surname and registration is refused pursuant to Section 2(e)(4) of the Trademark Act.

Accordingly, the refusal to register the applied-for mark under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(4) is maintained and made FINAL.

 

Supplemental Register and 2(f) Response Option – Advisory

The applied-for mark has been refused registration on the Principal Register.  Applicant may respond by submitting evidence and arguments against the refusal.  In addition, applicant may respond by doing one of the following:  (1) amending the application to seek registration under Trademark Act Section 2(f), or (2) amending the application to seek registration on the Supplemental Register.  See 15 U.S.C. §§1052(f), 1091.

 

RESPONSE - FINAL OFFICE ACTION

 

Response guidelines.  Applicant must respond within six months of the date of issuance of this final Office action or the application will be abandoned.  15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §2.65(a).  Applicant may respond by providing one or both of the following:

 

(1)       a response filed using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) that fully satisfies all outstanding requirements and/or resolves all outstanding refusals; and/or

 

(2)       an appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board filed using the Electronic System for Trademark Trials and Appeals (ESTTA) with the required filing fee of $200 per class.

 

37 C.F.R. §2.63(b)(1)-(2); TMEP §714.04; see 37 C.F.R. §2.6(a)(18); TBMP ch. 1200.

 

In certain rare circumstances, an applicant may respond by filing a petition to the Director pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b)(2) to review procedural issues.  TMEP §714.04; see 37 C.F.R. §2.146(b); TBMP §1201.05; TMEP §1704 (explaining petitionable matters).  There is a fee required for filing a petition.  37 C.F.R. §2.6(a)(15).

 

Assistance. Please call or email the assigned trademark examining attorney with questions about this Office action.  Although the trademark examining attorney cannot provide legal advice or statements about applicant’s rights, the trademark examining attorney can provide applicant with additional explanation about the refusal(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.  

/Carolyn Detmer/

Carolyn Detmer

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 127

(571) 272-2722

carolyn.detmer1@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 4/8/2019 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 88242626

 

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 4/8/2019 (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.