Offc Action Outgoing

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application

 

 

 

NONFINAL OFFICE ACTION

 

The USPTO must receive applicant’s response to this letter within six months of the issue date below or the application will be abandoned.  Respond using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS).  A link to the appropriate TEAS response form appears at the end of this Office action. 

 

 

Issue date:  August 29, 2019

 

The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney.  Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issue(s) 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)     Likelihood of Confusion Refusal.

2)     Prior Pending Applications.

3)     CBD Related Goods Refusal – No Bona fide Intent to Lawfully Use in Commerce as of Filing Date.

4)     Drug Paraphernalia – Based On Evidence – No Bona Fide Intent to Lawfully Use in Commerce.

5)     Requirement for Information.

6)     Identification of Goods Requirement.

 

SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration Nos. 3137263 and 5597547.  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 that a potential consumer would be confused, mistaken, or deceived as to the source of the goods of the applicant and registrant.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).  In the seminal decision In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973), the court listed the principal factors to be considered when determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d).  See TMEP §1207.01.  However, not all the factors 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 1344, 1355, 98 USPQ2d 1253, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2011); 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 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.

 

The applicant has applied for registration of the proposed mark, VIBE.  The registrant’s marks are VIBE and VῙB.

 

Marks are compared in their entireties for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression.  In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973)); TMEP §1207.01(b)-(b)(v).  Similarity in any one of these elements may be sufficient to find the marks 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).

 

While the mark in U.S. Registration No. 5597547 employs the phonetic spelling of the shared word VIBE (VĪB), the fact that the proposed mark uses the correct spelling does not obviate a likelihood of confusion between the marks.  The attached dictionary definition from Merriam-Webster.com demonstrates that the horizontal line over the letter I in VĪB is a macron that indicates that the letter I should be pronounced as a long I.  Additionally,, the attached dictionary definition of the word VIBE from Merriam-Webster.com shows that the word VIBE is pronounced with a long I sound.  In fact, the phonetic spelling used as pronunciation guidance in the definition spells the word VIBE as VĪB, which is identical to the mark in U.S. Registration.  This evidence demonstrates that the words VIBE as VĪB are phonetic equivalents.  The examining attorney has also attached a definition of VĪB from Merriam-Webster.com showing that it has the same meaning as VIBE, i.e. a shortened form of the word vibration.  Accordingly, in the present case, the marks are considered nearly identical for the purposes of determining likelihood of confusion under the Trademark Act.

 

With respect to the similarities of the goods of the parties, the goods of the applicant are identified as “Oral vaporizers for smoking purposes; Electric cigarettes (electronic cigarettes); Smokeless cigarette vaporizer pipe; Smokers' oral vaporizer refill cartridges sold empty and sold as a component of electronic cigarettes; Electronic cigarette refill cartridges sold empty and sold as a component of electronic cigarettes; Electronic cigarette liquid (e-liquid) comprised of flavorings in liquid form, other than essential oils, used to refill electronic cigarette cartridges; Flavorings, other than essential oils, for use in electronic cigarettes.”  The goods in the cited registrations are “cigars” (U.S. Registration No. 3137263) and “oral vaporizers for smoking purposes” (U.S. Registration No. 5597547).  

 

The goods of the parties need not be identical or directly competitive to find a likelihood of confusion.  See Safety-Kleen Corp. v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 518 F.2d 1399, 1404, 186 USPQ 476, 480 (C.C.P.A. 1975); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).  Rather, it is sufficient to show that because of the conditions surrounding their marketing, or because they are otherwise related in some manner, the goods would be encountered by the same consumers under circumstances such that offering the goods under confusingly similar marks would lead to the mistaken belief that they come from, or are in some way associated with, the same source.  In re Iolo Techs., LLC, 95 USPQ2d 1498, 1499 (TTAB 2010); see In re Martin’s Famous Pastry Shoppe, Inc., 748 F.2d 1565, 1566-68, 223 USPQ 1289, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 1984); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).

 

The respective goods are similar in that they all are used for smoking purposes.  Moreover, the goods travel in the same trade channels.  As evidence of this, the examining attorney has attached a small sample of commercial websites showing that cigars, including e-cigars, vaporizers for smoking, and electronic cigarettes and their components are sold via the same retail establishments.  The examining attorney has also attached evidence that these goods may also emanate from a common source.  This evidence indicates that the goods are marketed to the same class of consumers and via the same trade channels.  Therefore, not only are the goods similar, they also are considered very closely related for the purposes of determining likelihood of confusion under the Trademark Act.

  

Accordingly, based on the nearly identical nature of the marks and the similarity of the goods of the parties, there is a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.

 

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.

 

PRIOR PENDING APPLICATIONS

 

Additionally, the filing dates of pending U.S. Application Serial Nos. 88098863 and 88211099 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.

 

Applicant should note the following additional grounds for refusal.

 

CBD RELATED GOODS REFUSAL – NO BONA FIDE INTENT TO LAWFULLY USE IN COMMERCE AS OF FILING DATE.

 

This Refusal is Limited to the Following Goods:

 

Electronic cigarette liquid (e-liquid) comprised of flavorings in liquid form, other than essential oils, used to refill electronic cigarette cartridges; Flavorings, other than essential oils, for use in electronic cigarettes

 

Registration is refused because applicant does not have a bona fide intent to lawfully use the applied-for mark in commerce.  Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; see TMEP §907. 

 

To qualify for federal trademark/service mark registration, the use of a mark in commerce must be lawful.  Gray v. Daffy Dan’s Bargaintown, 823 F.2d 522, 526, 3 USPQ2d 1306, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (stating that “[a] valid application cannot be filed at all for registration of a mark without ‘lawful use in commerce’”); TMEP §907; see In re Stellar Int’l, Inc., 159 USPQ 48, 50-51 (TTAB 1968); Coahoma Chemical Co., Inc. v. Smith, 113 USPQ 413 (Com’r Pat. & Trademarks 1957) (concluding that “use of a mark in connection with unlawful shipments in interstate commerce is not use of a mark in commerce which the [Office] may recognize.”).  Thus, the goods and/or services to which the mark is applied must comply with all applicable federal laws.  See In re Brown, 119 USPQ2d 1350, 1351 (TTAB 2016) (citing In re Midwest Tennis & Track Co., 29 USPQ2d 1386, 1386 n.2 (TTAB 1993) (noting that “[i]t is settled that the Trademark Act’s requirement of ‘use in commerce,’ means a ‘lawful use in commerce’”)); In re Pepcom Indus., Inc., 192 USPQ 400, 401 (TTAB 1976); TMEP §907. 

 

Here, the items or activities to which the proposed mark are applied were unlawful under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 U.S.C. §§801-971.  The evidence of record indicates that at least some of the items or activities to which the proposed mark may be applied are unlawful under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 U.S.C. §§801-971.  Specifically, the applicant’s own website indicates that its goods feature CBD and THC.  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).

 

As evidenced by the indicate applicant’s website, the goods within the scope of the identification bearing the mark contain cannabidiol.  Cannabidiol (CBD) is a nonpsychoactive constituent of the cannabis plant.  Applicant’s identified goods are broad enough to include products produced from “all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L., whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of such plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such plant, its seeds or resin” (subject to certain exceptions). 21 U.S.C. §802(16)(definition of “marihuana” – commonly referred to as “marijuana”).   

 

In order for an application to have a valid basis that could properly result in a registration, the use of the mark has to be lawful.  See In re Pepcom Indus., Inc., 192 USPQ 400, 401 (TTAB 1976)  Because use of the applied-for mark in connection with such goods was not lawful as of the filing date, applicant did not have a bona fide intent to lawfully use the applied-for mark in commerce in connection with such goods.  See In re JJ206, LLC, 120 USPQ2d 1568, 1569 (TTAB 2016) (“where the identified goods are illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), the applicant cannot use its mark in lawful commerce, and ‘it is a legal impossibility’ for the applicant to have the requisite bona fide intent to use the mark.”); see also In re Brown, 119 USPQ2d, 1351-1352; TMEP §907.   

 

On December 20, 2018, the CSA was amended to remove “hemp” from the definition of marijuana and specifically exclude “tetrahydrocannabinols in hemp (as defined under section 297A of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946)” from Schedule I, 21 U.S.C. §812(c)(17).  Because the identified goods that feature cannabidiol consist of or include items or activities that are still prohibited under the Controlled Substances Act, namely those containing cannabidiol derived from marijuana, the applicant did not have a valid filing basis for any such items or activities.  To the extent the applicant’s goods are derived solely from cannabis plants that meet the current statutory definition of hemp, such goods may be lawful.

 

Therefore, in order to overcome this refusal, applicant must amend the identification of goods and services to specify that all cannabidiol-containing items are “solely derived from hemp with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol [THC] concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.”  Please see the complete requirement for an acceptable identification of goods and/or services below.

 

The applicant may also present arguments and evidence against this refusal. 

 

DRUG PARAPHERNALIA – BASED ON EVIDENCE – NO BONA FIDE INTENT TO LAWFULLY USE IN COMMERCE

 

This Refusal is Limited to the Following Goods:

 

Oral vaporizers for smoking purposes; Electric cigarettes (electronic cigarettes); Smokeless cigarette vaporizer pipe; Smokers' oral vaporizer refill cartridges sold empty and sold as a component of electronic cigarettes; Electronic cigarette refill cartridges sold empty and sold as a component of electronic cigarettes

 

Registration is refused because the applied-for mark is not in lawful use in commerce.  Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; see TMEP §907. 

 

To qualify for federal trademark/service mark registration, the use of a mark in commerce must be lawful.  Gray v. Daffy Dan’s Bargaintown, 823 F.2d 522, 526, 3 USPQ2d 1306, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (stating that “[a] valid application cannot be filed at all for registration of a mark without ‘lawful use in commerce’”); TMEP §907; see In re Stellar Int’l, Inc., 159 USPQ 48, 50-51 (TTAB 1968); Coahoma Chemical Co., Inc. v. Smith, 113 USPQ 413 (Com’r Pat. & Trademarks 1957) (concluding that “use of a mark in connection with unlawful shipments in interstate commerce is not use of a mark in commerce which the [Office] may recognize.”).  Thus, the goods and/or services to which the mark is applied must comply with all applicable federal laws.  See In re Brown, 119 USPQ2d 1350, 1351 (TTAB 2016) (citing In re Midwest Tennis & Track Co., 29 USPQ2d 1386, 1386 n.2 (TTAB 1993) (noting that “[i]t is settled that the Trademark Act’s requirement of ‘use in commerce,’ means a ‘lawful use in commerce’”)); In re Pepcom Indus., Inc., 192 USPQ 400, 401 (TTAB 1976); TMEP §907. 

 

Here, the items or activities to which the proposed mark will be applied are unlawful under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 U.S.C. §§801-971.    The CSA makes it unlawful to sell, offer for sale, or use any facility of interstate commerce to transport “drug paraphernalia,” which is defined as “any equipment, product, or material of any kind which is primarily intended or designed for use in manufacturing, compounding, converting, concealing, producing, processing, preparing, injecting, ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise introducing in the human body a controlled substance.”  21 U.S.C. § 863.  Under the CSA, marijuana is a controlled substance.  21 U.S.C. §§ 812(a), (c), 841, 844.

 

The identification of goods/services includes the following item(s):

 

Oral vaporizers for smoking purposes; Electric cigarettes (electronic cigarettes); Smokeless cigarette vaporizer pipe; Smokers' oral vaporizer refill cartridges sold empty and sold as a component of electronic cigarettes; Electronic cigarette refill cartridges sold empty and sold as a component of electronic cigarettes

 

In determining whether an item is drug paraphernalia, relevant evidence may include instructions or descriptive materials provided with the item concerning its use; advertising concerning its use; and the manner in which the item is displayed for sale. See 21 U.S.C. §863(e); In re Brown, 119 USPQ2d 1350, 1351-52 (TTAB 2016) (relying on applicant’s specimen and website to establish that its retail store services included the sale of marijuana). 

 

The following evidence establishes that the goods on which the mark will be used are primarily intend for use with marijuana/controlled substances:  The applicant’s own website indicates that its goods feature devices for use in inhaling and/or ingesting into the body products containing CBD and THC.

 

This evidence supports the conclusion that applicant is producing and selling equipment, product, as well as material for the processing, inhaling, or introducing to the body marijuana. 

 

In order for an application to have a valid basis that could properly result in a registration, the use of the mark has to be lawful.  See In re Pepcom Indus., Inc., 192 USPQ 400, 401 (TTAB 1976).  Accordingly, because use of the applied-for mark in connection with such goods was not lawful as of the filing date, applicant did not have a bona fide intent to lawfully use the applied-for mark in commerce.  See In re JJ206, LLC, 120 USPQ2d 1568, 1569 (TTAB 2016) (“where the identified goods are illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), the applicant cannot use its mark in lawful commerce, and ‘it is a legal impossibility’ for the applicant to have the requisite bona fide intent to use the mark.”); see also In re Brown, 119 USPQ2d, 1351-1352; TMEP §907.   

 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED

 

To permit proper examination of the application, applicant must submit additional information about the goods.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b); TMEP §814.  The requested information should include fact sheets, brochures, advertisements, and/or similar materials relating to the goods.  If such materials are not available, applicant must provide a detailed factual description of the goods.  Any information submitted in response to this requirement must clearly and accurately indicate the nature of the goods identified in the application. 

 

In addition, applicant must submit a written statement indicating whether the goods identified in the application comply with the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 U.S.C. §§801-971.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.69; TMEP §907.

 

The CSA prohibits, among other things, manufacturing, distributing, dispensing, or possessing certain controlled substances, including marijuana and marijuana-based preparations.  21 U.S.C. §§812, 841(a)(1), 844(a); see also 21 U.S.C. §802(16) (defining “[marijuana]”).  The CSA also makes it unlawful to sell, offer for sale, or use any facility of interstate commerce to transport drug paraphernalia, i.e., “any equipment, product, or material of any kind which is primarily intended or designed for use in manufacturing, compounding, converting, concealing, producing, processing, preparing, injecting, ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise introducing into the human body a controlled substance, possession of which is unlawful under [the CSA].” 21 U.S.C. §863.  

 

Finally, applicant must provide written responses to the following questions:

1. Do or will applicant’s identified goods include any oils, extracts, ingredients or derivatives from the plant Cannabis sativa L (also known as cannabis, marijuana or hemp)?
2. If the answer to Question 1 is “yes,” does the hemp used or to be used in applicant’s goods contain more than 0.3 percent delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) on a dry weight basis?
3. If applicant has any documentation relative to the THC content of the oils, extracts or derivatives used or to be used in the goods, please submit them with the response.
4. If applicant’s goods do or will contain oils, extracts, ingredients or derivatives from the plant Cannabis sativa L which has more than 0.3 percent delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol on a dry weight basis, identify the part or parts of the plant used in obtaining the oils, extracts, ingredients or derivatives.
5. If the “hemp” is grown in the United States of America, was the hemp used in the goods obtained from an authorized grower or supplier of industrial hemp from a hemp growing pilot program set up under the 2014 Farm Bill?
6. Do the applicant’s goods contain “naturally occurring trace amounts” of CBD and/or hemp?
7. Does the applicant’s goods feature hemp which is obtained from the mature stalks and sterilized seeds?
8. Do or will applicant’s identified goods include CBD which is derived from, oils, extracts or ingredients from plants other than Cannabis sativa L?
9. Do or will applicant’s goods feature any equipment, product, or material of any kind which is primarily intended or designed for use in manufacturing, compounding, converting, concealing, producing, processing, preparing, injecting, ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise introducing in the human body a controlled substance?
10. Upon information and belief, do applicant’s goods comply with the Controlled Substances Act?
11. Upon information and belief, do applicant’s goods comply with the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act?
12. Is the applicant seeking FDA approval for its goods?

Failure to satisfactorily respond to a requirement for information is a ground for refusing registration.  See In re Cheezwhse.com, Inc., 85 USPQ2d 1917, 1919 (TTAB 2008); In re Garden of Eatin’ Inc., 216 USPQ 355, 357 (TTAB 1982); TMEP §814.  Please note that merely stating that information about the goods is available on applicant’s website is an inappropriate response to the above requirement and is insufficient to make the relevant information properly of record.  See In re Planalytics, Inc., 70 USPQ2d 1453, 1457-58 (TTAB 2004). 

 

IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS

 

The identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified because as worded, the exact nature of the goods are is unclear.  Where indicated, the applicant must specify the exact nature of the goods by its common commercial name.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01. 

 

Applicant may adopt the following identification, if accurate: 

 

“Electronic cigarette liquid (e-liquid) comprised of flavorings in liquid form, other than essential oils, used to refill electronic cigarette cartridges; Flavorings, other than essential oils, for use in electronic cigarettes; all of the foregoing solely derived from hemp with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol [THC] concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis; Oral vaporizers for smoking purposes; Electric cigarettes (electronic cigarettes); Smokeless cigarette vaporizer pipe; Smokers' oral vaporizer refill cartridges sold empty and sold as a component of electronic cigarettes; Electronic cigarette refill cartridges sold empty and sold as a component of electronic cigarettes,” in International Class 34. 

 

Applicant may amend the identification to clarify or limit the goods, but not to broaden or expand the goods beyond those in the original application or as acceptably amended.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06.  Generally, any deleted goods may not later be reinserted.  See 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 AND ABANDONMENT ADVISORY – FULL REFUSAL

 

For this application to proceed further, applicant must explicitly address each refusal and/or requirement in this Office action.  For a refusal, applicant may provide written arguments and evidence against the refusal, and may have other response options if specified above.  For a requirement, applicant should set forth the changes or statements.  Please see “Responding to Office Actions” and the informational video “Response to Office Action” for more information and tips on responding.

 

In addition, because applicant filed a TEAS RF application, applicant must respond online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) to avoid incurring an additional fee.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.23(b)(1), (c). 

 

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.  

 

 

How to respond.  Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action  

 

 

 

 

 

/Howard Smiga/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 102

571-272-9220

Howard.Smiga@uspto.gov

 

 

RESPONSE GUIDANCE

• Missing the response deadline to this letter will cause the application to abandon.  A response or notice of appeal must be received by the USPTO before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period.  TEAS and ESTTA maintenance or unforeseen circumstances could affect an applicant’s ability to timely respond.  

 

• Responses signed by an unauthorized party are not accepted and can cause the application to abandon.  If applicant does not have an attorney, the response must be signed by the individual applicant, all joint applicants, or someone with legal authority to bind a juristic applicant.  If applicant has an attorney, the response must be signed by the attorney.

 

• If needed, find contact information for the supervisor of the office or unit listed in the signature block.

 

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

 

USPTO OFFICIAL NOTICE

 

Office Action (Official Letter) has issued

on August 29, 2019 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88248403

 

Your trademark application has been reviewed by a trademark examining attorney.  As part of that review, the assigned attorney has issued an official letter that you must respond to by the specified deadline or your application will be abandoned.  Please follow the steps below.

 

(1)  Read the official letter.

 

(2)  Direct questions about the contents of the Office action to the assigned attorney below. 

 

 

/Howard Smiga/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 102

571-272-9220

Howard.Smiga@uspto.gov

 

Direct questions about navigating USPTO electronic forms, the USPTO website, the application process, the status of your application, and/or whether there are outstanding deadlines or documents related to your file to the Trademark Assistance Center (TAC).

 

(3)  Respond within 6 months (or earlier, if required in the Office action) from August 29, 2019, using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS).  The response must be received by the USPTO before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period.  See the Office action for more information about how to respond.

 

 

 

GENERAL GUIDANCE

·       Check the status of your application periodically in the Trademark Status & Document Retrieval (TSDR) database to avoid missing critical deadlines.

 

·       Update your correspondence email address, if needed, to ensure you receive important USPTO notices about your application.

 

·       Beware of misleading notices sent by private companies about your application.  Private companies not associated with the USPTO use public information available in trademark registrations to mail and email trademark-related offers and notices – most of which require fees.  All official USPTO correspondence will only be emailed from the domain “@uspto.gov.”