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:  September 09, 2019

 

 

The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney.  Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issues below.  15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(a), 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.

 

Summary of Issues:

• Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion
• Sections 1 and 45 Refusal – No Bona Fide Intent for Lawful Use in Commerce – FDCA Refusal
• Identification of Goods
• Disclaimer Required

 

Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 4408442 (CALIFORNIA GOLD NUTRITION) and 5331355 (CALIGOLD).  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registrations.

 

 

In any likelihood of confusion determination, two key considerations are similarity of the marks and similarity or relatedness of the goods.  In re Aquamar, Inc., 115 USPQ2d 1122, 1126 (TTAB 2015) (citing Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co., 544 F.2d 1098, 1103, 192 USPQ 24, 29 (C.C.P.A. 1976)); In re Iolo Techs., LLC, 95 USPQ2d 1498, 1499 (TTAB 2010); see TMEP §1207.01.  That is, the 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).  Additionally, the goods are compared to determine whether they are similar or commercially related or travel in the same trade channels.  See Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369-71, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722-23 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 1165, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2002); TMEP §1207.01, (a)(vi).

 

Comparison of 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).

 

The registered marks CALIFORNIA GOLD NUTRITION and CALIGOLD.  Applicant’s mark is CALIFORNIA GOLD.  The marks all have identical connotation, and as such, create a similar overall commercial impression.

 

The registered mark CALIFORNIA GOLD NUTRITION wholly encompasses applicant’s mark.  Incorporating the entirety of one mark within another does not obviate the similarity between the compared marks, as in the present case, nor does it overcome a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d).  See Wella Corp. v. Cal. Concept Corp., 558 F.2d 1019, 1022, 194 USPQ 419, 422 (C.C.P.A. 1977) (finding CALIFORNIA CONCEPT and surfer design and CONCEPT confusingly similar); Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Jos. E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 526 F.2d 556, 557, 188 USPQ 105, 106 (C.C.P.A. 1975) (finding BENGAL LANCER and design and BENGAL confusingly similar); In re Integrated Embedded, 120 USPQ2d 1504, 1513 (TTAB 2016) (finding BARR GROUP and BARR confusingly similar); In re Mr. Recipe, LLC, 118 USPQ2d 1084, 1090 (TTAB 2016) (finding JAWS DEVOUR YOUR HUNGER and JAWS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iii).  In the present case, the marks are identical in part.

 

Registrant has properly disclaimed NUTRITION as being descriptive of the goods.  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 Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 1058, 224 USPQ 749, 751 (Fed. Cir. 1985); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii).  Disclaimed matter that is descriptive of or generic for a party’s goods is typically less significant or less dominant when comparing marks.  In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1305, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re Dixie Rests., Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 1407, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533-34 (Fed. Cir. 1997)); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii).

 

As the attached pages from Acronym Finder, Wikipedia, and Wiktionary show, CALI is a common shortening of CALIFORNIA.  Hence CALIGOLD and CALIFORNIA GOLD mean the same thing.  Consumer confusion has been held likely for marks that do not physically sound or look alike but that convey the same idea, stimulate the same mental reaction, or may have the same overall meaning.  Proctor & Gamble Co. v. Conway, 419 F.2d 1332, 1336, 164 USPQ 301, 304 (C.C.P.A. 1970) (holding MISTER STAIN likely to be confused with MR. CLEAN on competing cleaning products); see In re M. Serman & Co., 223 USPQ 52, 53 (TTAB 1984) (holding CITY WOMAN for ladies’ blouses likely to be confused with CITY GIRL for a variety of female clothing); H. Sichel Sohne, GmbH v. John Gross & Co., 204 USPQ 257, 260-61 (TTAB 1979) (holding BLUE NUN for wines likely to be confused with BLUE CHAPEL for the same goods); Ralston Purina Co. v. Old Ranchers Canning Co., 199 USPQ 125, 128 (TTAB 1978) (holding TUNA O’ THE FARM for canned chicken likely to be confused with CHICKEN OF THE SEA for canned tuna); Downtowner Corp. v. Uptowner Inns, Inc., 178 USPQ 105, 109 (TTAB 1973) (holding UPTOWNER for motor inn and restaurant services likely to be confused with DOWNTOWNER for the same services); TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

 

For the above reasons, applicant’s and registrants’ marks have a similar overall commercial impression, and as such, are confusingly similar.

 

Comparison of Goods

 

 

Registrants’ goods are,

 

CALIFORNIA GOLD NUTRITION: dietary and nutritional supplements

 

CALIGOLD: cartridges sold filled with chemical flavorings in liquid form for electric cigarettes; cigarette lighters not for land vehicles; cigarette rolling papers; containers for tobacco and other plant material, namely, tobacco jars; electric cigarette accessories, namely, boxes for electric cigarettes; electric cigarette refill cartridges sold empty; electric vaporizers, namely, oral vaporizers for smokers; smokeless cigar vaporizer pipes; smokeless cigarette vaporizer pipes; tobacco grinders

 

Applicant’s goods are, “edible oil including cannabinoids derived directly from Cannabis sativa L. also known as ‘hemp’ in compliance with the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 and relevant state and United States of America federal laws and regulations,” and “pre-rolls, flower crushed and derived directly from the Cannabis sativa L. also known as ‘hemp’ in compliance with the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 and relevant state and United States of America federal laws and regulations.”

 

As the attached pages from Ordinary Vegan and PlusCBD Oil show, CBD oil is a type of dietary and nutritional supplement.  The page from applicant’s website shows that applicant’s edible oils are CBD oils.  Determining likelihood of confusion is based on the description of the goods stated in the application and registration 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 registration uses broad wording to describe dietary and nutritional supplements, which presumably encompasses all goods of the type described, including applicant’s more narrow edible oils from hemp.  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 goods 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 goods of the parties have no restrictions as to channels of trade or classes of purchasers and are “presumed to travel in the same channels of trade to the same class of purchasers.”  In re Viterra 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 goods and/or services are related.

 

 

However, the goods of the parties need not be identical or even competitive to find a likelihood of confusion.  See On-line Careline Inc. v. Am. Online Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1086, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1475 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Recot, Inc. v. Becton, 214 F.3d 1322, 1329, 54 USPQ2d 1894, 1898 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“[E]ven if the goods in question are different from, and thus not related to, one another in kind, the same goods can be related in the mind of the consuming public as to the origin of the goods.”); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i). 

 

The respective goods need only be “related in some manner and/or if the circumstances surrounding their marketing [be] such that they could give rise to the mistaken belief that [the goods] emanate from the same source.”  Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting 7-Eleven Inc. v. Wechsler, 83 USPQ2d 1715, 1724 (TTAB 2007)); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).

 

The attached Internet evidence, consisting of pages from applicant, Caliva, Canndescent and Royals Cannabis, establishes that the same entity commonly produces the relevant goods, in this instance, hemp flowers and pre-rolls, as well as oral vaporizers and cartridges with flavorings, and markets the goods under the same mark.  Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods are considered related for likelihood of confusion purposes.  See, e.g., In re Davey Prods. Pty Ltd., 92 USPQ2d 1198, 1202-04 (TTAB 2009); In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d 1266, 1268-69, 1271-72 (TTAB 2009).

 

 

 

The overriding concern is not only to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods, but to protect the registrant from adverse commercial impact due to use of a similar mark by a newcomer.  See In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1208, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1690 (Fed. Cir. 1993).  Therefore, any doubt regarding a likelihood of confusion determination is resolved in favor of the registrant.  TMEP §1207.01(d)(i); see Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1265, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2002); In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 464-65, 6 USPQ2d 1025, 1026 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

 

Because applicant’s and registrant’s marks are confusingly similar and their goods are closely related, applicant’s mark must be refused due to a likelihood of confusion.

 

Please note the following refusal.

 

Sections 1 and 45 Refusal – No Bona Fide Intent for Lawful Use in Commerce – FDCA Refusal

 

This Refusal Applies to Class 29 Only

 

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. 

 

This refusal issues when “(1) a violation of federal law is indicated by the application record or other evidence, such as when a court or a federal agency responsible for overseeing activity in which the applicant is involved, and which activity is relevant to its application, has issued a finding of noncompliance under the relevant statute or regulation, or (2) when the applicant’s application-relevant activities involve a per se violation of a federal law.”  In re Brown, 119 USPQ2d at 1351 (citing Kellogg Co. v. New Generation Foods Inc., 6 USPQ2d 2045, 2047 (TTAB 1988); Santinine Societa v. P.A.B. Produits, 209 USPQ 958, 964 (TTAB 1981)); TMEP §907

 

To qualify for federal trademark 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 to which the mark will be 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. 

The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act prohibits the introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of a food to which has been added a drug or a biological product for which substantial clinical investigations have been instituted and for which the existence of such investigations has been made public.  21 U.S.C. §331(ll); see also 21 U.S.C. §321(ff) (indicating that a dietary supplement is deemed to be a food within the meaning of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act). 

Cannabidiol (CBD) is an active ingredient in an FDA-approved drug, Epidiolex®, (see http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm611046.htm copy attached) and is the subject of substantial clinical investigations before it was marketed in foods or as dietary supplements.  See FDA Regulation of Cannabis and Cannabis-derived Products:  Questions and Answers  http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/PublicHealthFocus/ucm421168.htm copy attached.  The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) placed Epidiolex® on schedule V of the CSA on September 27, 2018.  Nevertheless, marijuana and CBD derived from marijuana remain unlawful.  No other cannabis-derived drug products have been approved by the FDA.  Under the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act (FDCA), any product intended to have a therapeutic or medical use, and any product (other than a food) that is intended to affect the structure or function of the body of humans or animals, is a drug.  21 U.S.C. § 321(g)(1)  An unapproved new drug cannot be distributed or sold in interstate commerce unless it is the subject of an FDA-approved new drug application (NDA) or abbreviated new drug application (ANDA). 21 U.S.C. §§ 331(d) and 355(a), (b), & (j); see also FDA Regulation of Cannabis and Cannabis-Derived Products: Questions and Answers http://www.fda.gov/news-events/public-health-focus/fda-regulation-cannabis-and-cannabis-derived-products-questions-and-answers

Applicant’s goods are broad enough to encompass products that consist of, or include, items or activities that are or were prohibited by the FDCA, namely, foods.

The attached excerpt from applicant’s website plainly indicates that applicant’s foods in the nature of edible oils contain CBD and that such goods are currently being marketed, promoted or offered for sale to consumers.

It is unlawful to introduce food containing added CBD into interstate commerce or to market CBD as, or in, dietary supplements, regardless of whether the substances are hemp-derived.  See  Statement from FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, M.D., on signing of the Agriculture Improvement Act and the agency’s regulation of products containing cannabis and cannabis-derived compounds.

 http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm628988.htm copy attached. 

 

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 introduction of such goods into commerce 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 e.g. 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.   

 

Applicant may respond to the stated refusal by submitting evidence and arguments against the refusal.  In addition, applicant may respond by doing one of the following:

 

(1)  Deleting the class to which the refusal pertains;

 

(2)  Filing a request to divide out the goods that have not been refused registration, so that the mark may proceed toward publication for opposition in the class to which the refusal does not pertain.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.87.  See generally TMEP §§1110 et seq. (regarding the requirements for filing a request to divide).  If applicant files a request to divide, then to avoid abandonment, applicant must also file a timely response to all outstanding issues in this Office action, including the refusal.  37 C.F.R. §2.87(e).; or

 

(3)  Amending the basis for that class, if appropriate.  TMEP §806.03(h).  (The basis cannot be changed for applications filed under Trademark Act Section 66(a).  TMEP §1904.01(a).)

 

 

Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusals by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.  However, if applicant responds to the refusals, applicant must also respond to the requirements set forth below.

 

 

Identification of Goods

 

The proposed February 19, 2019 amendment to the identification is not acceptable because it exceeds the scope of the identification in the application.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(6), 2.71(a); TMEP §§805, 1402.06 et seq., 1402.07.  Applicant’s goods 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.  Therefore, the original identification in the application, and any previously accepted amendments, remain operative for purposes of future amendment.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.07(d).

 

In this case, the application originally identified the Class 34 goods as follows:  “pre-rolls, flower crushed and derived directly from the Cannabis sativa L. also known as ‘hemp’ in compliance with the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 and relevant state and United States of America federal laws and regulations.”

 

However, the proposed amendment identifies the following goods:  “Smokeless cigarette vaporizer pipes, electronic cigarettes, oral vaporizers for smoking purposes, electronic vaporizers, E-vaporizers, vapes, electronic-vaporizer juice, E-juice, electronic cigarette liquid, E-liquid, electronic-vaporizer cartridges, electronic cigarette cartridges; Pre-rolls, flower crushed and derived directly from the Cannabis sativa L. also known as "Hemp" in compliance with the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 and relevant state and United States of America federal laws and regulations.” 

 

This proposed amendment is beyond the scope of the original identification because it adds a number of goods. 

 

Looking at the original identification of goods, the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified because the wording “including” makes it unclear what type of oils applicant is providing, and because applicant has not specified a purpose of the class 34 goods.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01. 

 

Applicant may adopt the following identification, if accurate: 

 

Class 29:  Edible oil containing cannabinoids derived directly from Cannabis sativa L. also known as Hemp in compliance with the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 and relevant state and United States of America federal laws and regulations

Class 34: Pre-rolled hemp and flower crushed for smoking purposes derived directly from the Cannabis sativa L. also known as Hemp in compliance with the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 and relevant state and United States of America federal laws and regulations.

 

Applicant’s goods 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 or add goods 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 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 will further limit scope, and once goods 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.

 

Disclaimer Required

 

 

Applicant must provide a disclaimer of the unregistrable part of the applied-for mark even though the mark as a whole appears to be registrable.  See 15 U.S.C. §1056(a); TMEP §§1213, 1213.03(a).  A disclaimer of an unregistrable part of a mark will not affect the mark’s appearance.  See Schwarzkopf v. John H. Breck, Inc., 340 F.2d 978, 979-80, 144 USPQ 433, 433 (C.C.P.A. 1965).

                                                     

Applicant must disclaim the wording “CALIFORNIA” because it is not inherently distinctive.  These unregistrable term is at best primarily geographically descriptive of the origin of applicant’s goods.  See 15 U.S.C. §§1052(e)(2); In re Societe Generale des Eaux Minerales de Vittel S.A., 824 F.2d 957, 959, 3 USPQ2d 1450, 1451-52 (Fed. Cir. 1987); TMEP §§1210.01(a), 1210.06(a), 1213.03(a).

 

The attached evidence from Columbia Gazetteer shows that CALIFORNIA is a generally known geographic place or location.  See TMEP §§1210.02 et seq.  The goods for which applicant seeks registration originate in this geographic place or location as shown by applicant’s address.  See TMEP §1210.03.  Because the goods originate in this place or location, a public association of the goods with the place is presumed.  See In re Hollywood Lawyers Online, 110 USPQ2d 1852, 1858 (TTAB 2014) (citing In re Spirits of New Merced, LLC, 85 USPQ2d 1614, 1621 (TTAB 2007)); TMEP §§1210.02(a) 1210.04. 

 

Applicant may respond to this issue by submitting a disclaimer in the following format:

 

No claim is made to the exclusive right to use “CALIFORNIA” apart from the mark as shown.

 

For an overview of disclaimers and instructions on how to satisfy this issue using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), see the Disclaimer webpage.

 

 

Responding to this Action

 

 

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.  

 

 

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

 

 

/Leslee A. Friedman/

Leslee A. Friedman

Trademark Examining Attorney

Office 120

leslee.friedman@uspto.gov

(571) 272 - 5278

 

 

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 September 09, 2019 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88256897

 

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. 

 

 

/Leslee A. Friedman/

Leslee A. Friedman

Trademark Examining Attorney

Office 120

leslee.friedman@uspto.gov

(571) 272 - 5278

 

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 September 09, 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.”