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: 6/18/2019

THIS IS A FINAL ACTION.

This Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on May 29, 2019.  In the response, applicant presented argument in favor of registration. 

Applicant’s arguments stated in the response of May 29, 2019 have been considered and found unpersuasive for the reason(s) set forth below.  The refusal under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1) is maintained and made final. 

REFUSAL- MARK MERELY DESCRIPTIVE OF GOODS

Registration was refused because the applied-for mark merely describes a purpose of applicant’s goods.  Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); see TMEP §§1209.01(b), 1209.03 et seq.

A mark is merely descriptive if it describes an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose, or use of an applicant’s goods.  TMEP §1209.01(b); see, e.g., In re TriVita, Inc., 783 F.3d 872, 874, 114 USPQ2d 1574, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 1173, 71 USPQ2d 1370, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004)); In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293, 1297, 75 USPQ2d 1420, 1421 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Estate of P.D. Beckwith, Inc. v. Comm’r of Patents, 252 U.S. 538, 543 (1920)). 

The determination of whether a mark is merely descriptive is made in relation to an applicant’s goods, not in the abstract.  DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1254, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re The Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 1300, 102 USPQ2d 1217, 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2012); TMEP §1209.01(b); see, e.g., In re Polo Int’l Inc., 51 USPQ2d 1061, 1062-63 (TTAB 1999) (finding DOC in DOC-CONTROL would refer to the “documents” managed by applicant’s software rather than the term “doctor” shown in a dictionary definition); In re Digital Research Inc., 4 USPQ2d 1242, 1243-44 (TTAB 1987) (finding CONCURRENT PC-DOS and CONCURRENT DOS merely descriptive of “computer programs recorded on disk” where the relevant trade used the denomination “concurrent” as a descriptor of a particular type of operating system). 

“Whether consumers could guess what the goods is from consideration of the mark alone is not the test.”  In re Am. Greetings Corp., 226 USPQ 365, 366 (TTAB 1985).

“A mark may be merely descriptive even if it does not describe the ‘full scope and extent’ of the applicant’s goods.”  In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 1173, 71 USPQ2d 1370, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing In re Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp., 240 F.3d 1341, 1346, 57 USPQ2d 1807, 1812 (Fed. Cir. 2001)); TMEP §1209.01(b).  It is enough if a mark describes only one significant function, attribute, or property.  In re The Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 1300, 102 USPQ2d 1217, 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2012); TMEP §1209.01(b); see In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d at 1173, 71 USPQ2d at 1371.

Finally, marks comprising more than one element must be considered as a whole and should not be dissected; however, a trademark examining attorney may consider the significance of each element separately in the course of evaluating the mark as a whole.  See DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1253, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1756-57 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (reversing Board’s denial of cancellation for SNAP! with design for medical syringes as not merely descriptive when noting that the Board “to be sure, [could] ascertain the meaning and weight of each of the components that ma[de] up the mark”); In re Hotels.com, L.P., 573 F.3d 1300, 1301, 1304, 1306, 91 USPQ2d 1532, 1533, 1535, 1537 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (holding HOTELS.COM generic for information and reservation services featuring temporary lodging when noting that the Board did not commit error in considering “the word ‘hotels’ for genericness separate from the ‘.com’ suffix”).

In the instant matter, applicant seeks the registration of the proposed mark HEALTH & SOLE for Foot massage apparatus; Orthopaedic soles; Orthopaedic inner soles incorporating arch supports; Orthopedic soles, in Class 10 and Soles; Soles for footwear; Inner soles; Non-slip soles for footwear; Shoe soles, in Class 25.

 As used by applicant, the term HEALTH refers to the condition of being sound in body, mind, or spirit; the general condition of the body; and the term SOLE refers to the part of an item of footwear on which the sole rests and upon which the wearer treads and is a generic term for applicant’s goods. See attached dictionary definitions and applicant’s identification of goods. 

Generally, if the individual components of a mark retain their descriptive meaning in relation to the services, the combination results in a composite mark that is itself descriptive and not registrable.  In re Fat Boys Water Sports LLC, 118 USPQ2d 1511, 1516 (TTAB 2016) (citing In re Tower Tech, Inc., 64 USPQ2d 1314, 1317-18 (TTAB (2002)); TMEP §1209.03(d); see, e.g., Apollo Med. Extrusion Techs., Inc. v. Med. Extrusion Techs., Inc., 123 USPQ2d 1844, 1851 (TTAB 2017) (holding MEDICAL EXTRUSION TECHNOLOGIES merely descriptive of medical extrusion goods produced by employing medical extrusion technologies); In re Cannon Safe, Inc., 116 USPQ2d 1348, 1351 (TTAB 2015) (holding SMART SERIES merely descriptive of metal gun safes); In re King Koil Licensing Co., 79 USPQ2d 1048, 1052 (TTAB 2006) (holding THE BREATHABLE MATTRESS merely descriptive of beds, mattresses, box springs, and pillows). 

Only where the combination of descriptive terms creates a unitary mark with a unique, incongruous, or otherwise nondescriptive meaning in relation to the goods is the combined mark registrable.  See In re Colonial Stores, Inc., 394 F.2d 549, 551, 157 USPQ 382, 384 (C.C.P.A. 1968); In re Positec Grp. Ltd., 108 USPQ2d 1161, 1162-63 (TTAB 2013).

In this case, both the individual components and the composite result are descriptive of applicant’s goods and do not create a unique, incongruous, or nondescriptive meaning in relation to the identified goods.  Specifically, and in relationship to the identified goods, the proposed mark HEALTH & SOLE is merely descriptive of a purpose of applicant’s goods, namely, soles whi8ch promote the health of a user. Accordingly, registration on the Principal Register is denied.

It is noted that in response to the descriptive refusal, applicant presents argument that its mark, HEALTH AND SOLE is: (a) not merely descriptive of applicant’s services; but rather it is suggestive; (b) the mark is incongruous with the identified services; and (c) the term SOLE has multiple meanings.    Specifically, applicant argues: “The words “HEALTH” and “SOLE” when combined to form HEALTH AND SOLE are grammatically incongruent.” 

Before addressing applicant’s argument, the examining attorney notes that in examining applicant’s proposed mark for any descriptive significance, he did not violate the anti-dissection rule.  Rather, the examining attorney merely considered the significance of each element separately in the course of evaluating the mark as a whole. That is because while marks comprising more than one element must be considered as a whole and should not be dissected, a trademark examining attorney may consider the significance of each element separately in the course of evaluating the mark as a whole.  See DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1253, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1756-57 (Fed. Cir. 2012)

The examining attorney notes that it has long been held that determining the descriptiveness of a mark is done in relation to an applicant’s goods, the context in which the mark is being used, and the possible significance the mark would have to the average purchaser because of the manner of its use or intended use.  See In re The Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 1300, 102 USPQ2d 1217, 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, 488 F.3d 960, 963-64, 82 USPQ2d 1828, 1831 (Fed. Cir. 2007)); TMEP §1209.01(b).  Descriptiveness of a mark is not considered in the abstract.  In re Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, 488 F.3d at 963-64, 82 USPQ2d at 1831.

Finally, a mark is suggestive only if some imagination, thought, or perception is needed to understand the nature of the goods described in the mark; whereas a descriptive term immediately and directly conveys some information about the goods.  See Stoncor Grp., Inc. v. Specialty Coatings, Inc., 759 F.3d 1327, 1332, 111 USPQ2d 1649, 1652 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citing DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1251-52, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1209.01(a).

With these guidelines in mind, the examining attorney has attached online dictionary definitions which clearly show that in relation to applicant’s identified goods, the context in which the mark is being used, and the possible significance the mark would have to the average consumer because of the manner of its use or intended use, the proposed mark HEALTH AND SOLE has at least some descriptive meaning in relationship to the identified goods, namely, orthopedic soles; Orthopedic inner soles incorporating arch supports; Orthopedic soles, in Class 10 and Soles; Soles for footwear; Inner soles; Non-slip soles for footwear; Shoe soles, in Class 25.

By definition, and in relationship to applicant’s identified goods, the term HEALTH refers to the general condition of the body being sound; and the term SOLE refers to the part of an item of footwear on which the sole rests and upon which the wearer treads.  As reflected by the definitions and applicant’s identification of goods, the proposed mark HEALTH AND SOLE is merely descriptive of various soles for footwear, which promote health, aka the condition of being sound in body.  

 In further support of the refusal, the examining attorney has enclosed stories from the Google search engine, in which the wording HEALTH is used in a descriptive manner in relationship to inner soles/ shoe inserts.

Applicant is reminded that a mark may be merely descriptive even if it does not describe the ‘full scope and extent’ of the applicant’s goods.”  In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 1173, 71 USPQ2d 1370, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing In re Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp., 240 F.3d 1341, 1346, 57 USPQ2d 1807, 1812 (Fed. Cir. 2001)); TMEP §1209.01(b).  It is enough if a mark describes only one significant function, attribute, or property.  In re The Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 1300, 102 USPQ2d 1217, 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2012); TMEP §1209.01(b); see In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d at 1173, 71 USPQ2d at 1371.

While it is true that a mark comprising a combination of merely descriptive components is registrable if the combination of terms creates a unitary mark with a unique, nondescriptive meaning, or if the composite has a bizarre or incongruous meaning was applied to the goods, it is also true that the wording in the mark at hand does not have an incongruous meaning as applied to  inner soles/ shoe soles.   See In re Shutts, 217 USPQ 363, 364–5 (TTAB 1983) (SNO-RAKE held not merely descriptive of a snow-removal hand tool); see also In re Vienna Sausage Mfg. Co., 156 USPQ 155, 156 (TTAB 1967) (FRANKWURST held not merely descriptive for wieners, the Board finding that although "frank" may be synonymous with "wiener," and "wurst" is synonymous with "sausage," the combination of the terms is incongruous and results in a mark that is no more than suggestive of the nature of the goods).  The record herein is devoid of evidence that the wording HEALTH AND SOLES has a bizarre or incongruous meaning when applied to applicant’s medical services.  Accordingly, consumers seeking applicant’s orthopedic services for a inner soles/ shoe inserts.  Accordingly, people in the market for inner soles/inserts and armed with the knowledge of the nature of applicant’s goods would not pause for a moment before reaching the conclusion that applicant’s inserts/inner soles are for or promote health.

In further support of this refusal, applicant has provided stories from the Google search engine.  The stories clearly show that the wording HEALTH and SOLE are commonly used with reference to promoting show inner soles/ shoe inserts. These stories state the following:

“Custom foot orthotics can increase the mobility of the foot, reducing the symptoms of common orthopedic conditions. Orthotics are designed to change the way your foot naturally impacts the ground by angling them in a corrected formation. The following will describe a few of the ways orthotics help cope with your respective orthopedic condition.”

“Here are some additional medical conditions that orthotic inserts can treat to relieve pain and improve your overall health. Increase circulation for diabetic patients; Relieves pain for those affected by various arthritic symptoms; Bunions; Corns and Callus; Shin Splints; Achilles Pain.  Custom foot orthotics from Impact Physical Therapy will provide you with a wide range of health benefits that surpass the effectiveness of general over-the-counter foot support.”  See article from Impact therapy entitled “How Foot Orthotics Improve Your Orthopedic Health”

“Reflex points on the feet relate to the organs, glands and other parts of the body. When stimulated, they enhance the nerve and blood supply, helping to balance the body and promote its natural healing ability. 16 magnets are strategically placed to stimulate the vital reflex points on your feet, further enhancing the reflexology effects of the soles. Made from durable synthetic resin and permanent ferrous magnets.”  See article entitled HEALTH SOLE

Selecting a shoe insert from the wide variety of devices on the market can be overwhelming. Here are some podiatrist-tested tips to help you find the insert that best meets your needs: Consider your health. Do you have diabetes? Problems with circulation? An over-the-counter insert may not be your best bet. Diabetes and poor circulation increase your risk of foot ulcers and infections, so schedule an appointment with a podiatrist. He or she can help you select a solution that won't cause additional health problems; Think about the purpose. Are you planning to run a marathon, or do you just need a little arch support in your work shoes? Look for a product that fits your planned level of activity; Bring your shoes. For the insert to be effective, it has to fit into your shoes. So bring your sneakers, dress shoes, or work boots—whatever you plan to wear with your insert. Look for an insert that will fit the contours of your shoe; Try them on. If all possible, slip the insert into your shoe and try it out. Walk around a little. How does it feel? Don't assume that feelings of pressure will go away with continued wear. (If you can't try the inserts at the store, ask about the store's return policy and hold on to your receipt.) See article entitled “Choosing an Over the Counter Shoe Insert”

“Shoe inserts, or foot orthotics, are sometimes used to treat lower back pain in people who have some type of foot dysfunction or imbalance. The prevailing medical theory is that foot or ankle problems can cause lower back misalignment, or imbalances, which over time can lead to lower back pain.” See article entitled “Shoe Insoles for Lower Back Pain”

“Thanks to our exclusive TriPlanar patented technology, our insoles are designed for full body health and alignment. By addressing the structural, root level causes of pain instead of just symptoms, we achieve proper body support and proven, lasting relief. Our industry leading foot comfort is just a bonus.”  See article from Protalus website.

“Acupuncture Points Foot Magnetic Insoles, Newest Health Promoting Meridians insoles with acupuncture points.”   See article from Alibaba website.

“Soumit Silicone Gel Massage Health Care Insoles for Men Women Promote Blood Circulation Shoes Insole Soles Shoe Inserts Foot Pad.”  See article from Airexpress website.

“Footbalance insoles support your feet in proper alignment to promote healthy foot function and improve overall body alignment. The patented Footbalance energy return core helps keep foot muscles and arches active and toned. Studies have shown that improving overall body alignment helps improve biomechanical efficiency and reduce the incidence of stress injuries. Proper support underfoot can reduce foot fatigue and improve circulation for better endurance.”  See article from The Whydham Centre website.

“It is placed in the shoes. It stimulates the pressure points on the feet while you walk. This health promoting insole helps channelizing the energy through out the body by improving blood circulation. As a result the cells and tissues in the body get properly nourished and they work better.”  See article entitled “MedSole (Health in Sole)”.

“Apart from helping manage flat arches, insoles also add many other benefits to your feet. So, you’re looking for 5 reasons to purchase insoles, then here’s all the information you need: (1) For treating flat feet; (2) For improving posture; (3) For reducing foot pain; (4) For preventing sports injuries; and (5) For healthier feet.” See article entitled 5 Reasons Why Insoles are Necessary.”

“Whether consumers could guess what the goods is from consideration of the mark alone is not the test.”  In re Am. Greetings Corp., 226 USPQ 365, 366 (TTAB 1985).  The question is not whether someone presented only with the mark could guess what the services are, but “whether someone who knows what the services are will understand the mark to convey information about them.”  DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1254, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Tower Tech, Inc.,64 USPQ2d 1314, 1316-17 (TTAB 2002)); In re Mueller Sports. Med., Inc., 126 USPQ2d 1584, 1587 (TTAB 2018).   Accordingly, consumers seeking insoles for shoes would immediately conclude that  applicant’s goods promote health.

While it is true that a mark comprising a combination of merely descriptive components is registrable if the combination of terms creates a unitary mark with a unique, nondescriptive meaning, or if the composite has a bizarre or incongruous meaning was applied to the goods, it is also true that the wording in the mark at hand does not have an incongruous meaning as applied to insoles/ shoe inserts.  See In re Shutts, 217 USPQ 363, 364–5 (TTAB 1983) (SNO-RAKE held not merely descriptive of a snow-removal hand tool); see also In re Vienna Sausage Mfg. Co., 156 USPQ 155, 156 (TTAB 1967) (FRANKWURST held not merely descriptive for wieners, the Board finding that although "frank" may be synonymous with "wiener," and "wurst" is synonymous with "sausage," the combination of the terms is incongruous and results in a mark that is no more than suggestive of the nature of the goods).  Put another way, the record is devoid of evidence that the wording HEALTH AND SHOE has a bizarre or incongruous meaning as applied to applicant’s identified goods.  Accordingly, consumers seeking shoe inserts/ soles/inner soles armed with the knowledge of applicant’s goods would not pause for a moment before reaching the conclusion that applicant’s goods promote health.

Finally, the fact that the term SOLE has multiple meanings does not negate the descriptive nature of the term as it relates to shoe inserts/inner soles or soles.  This is because Descriptiveness is considered in relation to the relevant goods.  DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1254, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 2012).  “That a term may have other meanings in different contexts is not controlling.”  In re Franklin Cnty. Historical Soc’y, 104 USPQ2d 1085, 1087 (TTAB 2012) (citing In re Bright-Crest, Ltd., 204 USPQ 591, 593 (TTAB 1979)); TMEP §1209.03(e).  “It is well settled that so long as any one of the meanings of a term is descriptive, the term may be considered to be merely descriptive.”  In re Mueller Sports Med., Inc., 126 USPQ2d 1584, 1590 (TTAB 2018) (quoting In re Chopper Indus., 222 USPQ 258, 259 (TTAB 1984)).

Although any doubt regarding the mark’s descriptiveness should be resolved on applicant’s behalf, in the present case, the evidence of record leaves no doubt that the mark is merely descriptive. E.g., In re Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 828 F.2d 1567, 1571 4 USPQ2d 1141, 1144 (Fed. Cir. 1987); In re Grand Forest Holdings, Inc., 78 USPQ2d 1152, 1156 (TTAB 2006). 

Accordingly, for the above referenced reasons, registration on the Principal Register is denied.

NOT ELIGIBLE FOR SUPPLEMENTAL REGISTER AT THIS TIME

Although an amendment to the Supplemental Register would normally be an appropriate response to this refusal, such a response is not appropriate in the present case.  The instant application was filed under Trademark Act Section 1(b) and is not eligible for registration on the Supplemental Register until an acceptable amendment to allege use meeting the requirements of 37 C.F.R. §2.76 has been timely filed.  37 C.F.R. §2.47(d); TMEP §§816.02, 1102.03.

If applicant files an acceptable allegation of use and also amends to the Supplemental Register, the application effective filing date will be the date applicant met the minimum filing requirements under 37 C.F.R. §2.76(c) for an amendment to allege use.  TMEP §§816.02, 1102.03; see 37 C.F.R. §2.75(b).  In addition, the undersigned trademark examining attorney will conduct a new search of the USPTO records for conflicting marks based on the later application filing date.  TMEP §§206.01, 1102.03.

OTHER

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).

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.  

/William H. Dawe, III/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 108

(571) 272-9337 voice

(571) 273-9337 fax

Bill.Dawe@USPTO.GOV (not for fomal responses)

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 6/18/2019 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 88251276

Your trademark application has been reviewed.  The trademark examining attorney assigned by the USPTO to your application has written an official letter to which you must respond.  Please follow these steps:

(1)  Read the LETTER by clicking on this link or going to http://tsdr.gov.uspto.report/, entering your U.S. application serial number, and clicking 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)  Respond within 6 months (or sooner if specified in the Office action), calculated from 6/18/2019, using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) response form located at http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp.  A response transmitted through TEAS must be received before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period.

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. 

(3)  Questions about the contents of the Office action itself should be directed to the trademark examining attorney who reviewed your application, identified below. 

/William H. Dawe, III/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 108

(571) 272-9337 voice

(571) 273-9337 fax

Bill.Dawe@USPTO.GOV (not for fomal responses)

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.