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: 4/1/2019

 

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
• Amendment to Identification of Goods Required 

 

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. 4724455, 4899562, 5106434, and 3242563.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registration.

 

Applicant’s mark is OPPO for “Tablet computers; recorded computer operating programs; recorded computer game programs; computer programs, recorded, for authentication, identification, online payment, and receiving and processing voices and photographies; computer game software; downloadable computer game software via a global computer network and wireless devices; computer peripheral devices; computer programs for network management; computer programs for word processing; computer programs for video and computer games; computer programs for using the internet and the worldwide web; computer programs for use in teaching children to read; downloadable computer programs featuring positionable game piece figures for use in the field of computer games; computer programs for processing digital music files; computer application software for mobile phones, namely, software for information sharing services and photograph sharing services, social interaction in the nature of social networking, dating, developing games and playing games, making dining reservations and viewing restaurant ratings, calorie counting, tracking product delivery, math instruction, reading instruction, spelling instruction, history instruction, language instruction, traffic and location guidance, products reviews and sourcing, information on entertainment and sports events, entertainment and sports events ticketing, child and pet locating, language translation, providing information on medical services and treatment, information on art, financial investment advice, information on style and fashion, matching and viewing clothing styles together, accessing workout routines, currency conversion, planning vacations, retrieving information on weather conditions, event calendaring, and personal and home security monitoring; computer application software for mobile phones, smart watches, and smart bands, namely, software for use in instant messaging between mobile devices, smart watches, and smart bands; smart watches; smart glasses; virtual reality glasses; interactive touch screen terminals; humanoid robots with artificial intelligence; wearable computers in the nature of smartwatches; wearable computers in the nature of smartglasses; wearable computers in the nature of activity trackers sold as integral components of running shoes; wearable computer peripherals in the nature of wireless mice; gesture recognition software; virtual reality game software; optical character recognition (OCR) apparatus; facsimile machines; electric navigational instruments; wearable activity trackers; smart phones; cases for smart phones; protective films adapted for smartphones; covers for smartphones; cell phone straps; keyboards for mobile phones; wireless speaker; portable media players; earphones; E-learning machines; camcorders; virtual reality headsets; security surveillance robots; cameras; monopods for cameras; monopods used to take photographs by positioning a smartphone or camera beyond the normal range of the arm; USB cables; USB cables for cellphones; blank electronic chip cards; blank smart cards; touch screens; batteries, electric; chargers for electric batteries; mobile electric power generators; rechargeable battery; video disks and video tapes with recorded animated cartoons; air analysis apparatus; surveying machines and instruments; bio-chips for research or scientific purposes.”

 

The cited registrations are OPPO (Reg. No. 4724455) for “Portable telephones; mobile telephones; DVD players; earphones; batteries; battery chargers.”

 

OPPO (Reg. No. 4899562) for “Computers; electronic pocket translators; video disc player; power amplifiers; cabinets for loudspeakers; speech reread apparatus, namely, electronic audio recorder, converter and playback units; telephones; incoming call displays, namely, caller identification boxes; television sets; audio CD players; radios; loudspeakers; cassette players; video tape players; MP3 players; computer software to control and improve computer and audio equipment sound quality and for recording, transmitting, and reproducing sound and images; mobile telephones; mobile phone accessories, namely, batteries, headsets and chargers; phonograph records featuring music and speech; compact discs and pre-recorded audio tapes all featuring music and words; blank re-writable and recordable optical discs; pre-recorded video tapes and video discs featuring music, words and images; blank compact discs, audio tapes and video tapes; audio conferencing equipment comprised of loudspeakers, headphones, wire and wireless microphones, audio mixers and related accessories, namely, speaker stands, microphone stands, and audio cables; video cameras and related accessories, namely, lenses, batteries, tripods, and camera bags; video conferencing systems sold as a unit comprised of video monitors, video cameras, video graphics controllers, cabinets specifically adapted for video conferencing equipment, microphones, and related accessories, namely, camera stands, microphone stands and audio and video cables; video projectors; large screen video display units and related accessories, namely, desktop stands specially adapted for large screen video display units, attached and detachable speakers for such display units; video printers; video camera housings; camcorders; computer game programs; notebook computers; laptop computers; photo-telegraphy apparatus; portable telephones; telephone apparatus; satellite navigational apparatus, namely, a global positioning system (GPS); switchboards; cabinets for loudspeakers; sound transmitting apparatus; television apparatus for projection purposes; DVD players; portable media players; cameras; flashlights for photography; telephone wires; electrical plugs, sockets and contacts; electric connections; burglar alarms; electric batteries; battery chargers” in International Class 9.

 

OPO (Reg. No. 5106434) for, in part, “Computer peripheral devices”.

 

OPPO (Reg. No. 3242563) for “video disc player; mobile telephones; audio and video cables”  

 

Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that is so similar to a registered mark that it is likely consumers would be confused, mistaken, or deceived as to the commercial source of the goods and/or services of the parties.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).  Likelihood of confusion is determined on a case-by-case basis by applying the factors set forth in In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973) (called the “du Pont factors”).  In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1322, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1747 (Fed. Cir. 2017).  Only those factors that are “relevant and of record” need be considered.  M2 Software, Inc. v. M2 Commc’ns, Inc., 450 F.3d 1378, 1382, 78 USPQ2d 1944, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Shen Mfg. Co. v. Ritz Hotel Ltd., 393 F.3d 1238, 1241, 73 USPQ2d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2004)); see In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1744 (TTAB 2018). 

 

Although not all du Pont factors may be relevant, there are generally two key considerations in any likelihood of confusion analysis:  (1) the similarities between the compared marks and (2) the relatedness of the compared goods and/or services.  See In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d at 1322, 123 USPQ2d at 1747 (quoting Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 1164-65, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2002)); Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co.,544 F.2d 1098, 1103, 192 USPQ 24, 29 (C.C.P.A. 1976) (“The fundamental inquiry mandated by [Section] 2(d) goes to the cumulative effect of differences in the essential characteristics of the goods [or services] and differences in the marks.”); TMEP §1207.01.

 

Comparison of 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).

 

Although marks are compared in their entireties, one feature of a mark may be more significant or dominant in creating a commercial impression.  See In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1305, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re Dixie Rests., 105 F.3d 1405, 1407, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533-34 (Fed. Cir. 1997)); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii).  Greater weight is often given to this dominant feature when determining whether marks are confusingly similar.  See In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d at 1305, 128 USPQ2d at 1050 (citing In re Dixie Rests., 105 F.3d at 1407, 41 USPQ2d at 1533-34).

 

Registration Numbers 4724455, 4899562, and 3242563

 

In this case, the applied-for mark and the marks in the above referenced registration numbers all contain one term that is composed of the identical lettering of OPPO. In a likelihood of confusion determination, the marks in their entireties are compared for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression.  In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1323, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2017); 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)); 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). 

 

In the present case, applicant’s mark is OPPO and registrant’s marks are OPPO.  These marks are identical in terms of the sound, and meaning, “and have the potential to be used . . . in exactly the same manner.”  In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 116 USPQ2d 1406, 1411 (TTAB 2015), aff’d, 866 F.3d 1315, 123 USPQ2d 1744 (Fed. Cir. 2017).  Additionally, because they are identical, these marks are likely to engender the same connotation and overall commercial impression when considered in connection with applicant’s and registrant’s respective goods and/or services.  Id.

 

Registration Number 5106434

 

In this case, the applied-for mark and the mark in Reg. No. 5106434 are both composed of one term that begins with the letter “O” and ends with the letter “O”.  The terms also contain the letter “P” in middle of the term with only the minor difference of the applied-for mark adding an additional “P” to the term.  The minor difference in look would not negate the similarity of sound. There is no correct pronunciation of a mark because it is impossible to predict how the public will pronounce a particular mark.  See Embarcadero Techs., Inc. v. RStudio, Inc., 105 USPQ2d 1825, 1835 (TTAB 2013) (quoting In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1367, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1912 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re The Belgrade Shoe Co., 411 F.2d 1352, 1353, 162 USPQ 227, 227 (C.C.P.A. 1969)); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iv).  The marks in question could clearly be pronounced the same; such similarity in sound alone may be sufficient to support a finding that the marks are confusingly similar.  In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB 1988); see In re 1st USA Realty Prof’ls, Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1581, 1586 (TTAB 2007); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iv).

 

Therefore, applicant’s mark and registrants’ marks share the same commercial impression and are confusingly similar.

 

Comparison of Goods/Services

 

Determining likelihood of confusion is based on the description of the goods and/or services 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)).  

 

When analyzing an applicant’s and registrant’s goods and/or services for similarity and relatedness, that determination is based on the description of the goods and/or services in the application and registration at issue, not on extrinsic evidence of actual use.  See Stone Lion Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 1323, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Octocom Sys. Inc. v. Hous. Computers Servs. Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 942, 16 USPQ2d 1783, 1787 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). 

 

In this case, the goods in the application and registrations are identical in part, specifically, “earphones” in both the applied-for mark and Reg. No. 4724455; “electric batteries”, “camcorders”, and “cameras” in both the applied-for mark and Reg. No. 4899562; and “computer peripheral devices” in both the applied-for mark and Reg. No. 5106434.  Therefore, it is presumed that the channels of trade and classes of purchasers are the same for these goods.  See Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., __ F.3d __, 27 USPQ2d 1797, 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012)).  Thus, applicant’s and registrants’ goods are related.  

 

Further, Registration No. 4724455 uses broad wording to describe “portable telephones; mobile telephones; batteries; battery chargers”, which presumably encompasses all goods of the type described, including applicant’s more narrow “smart phones” and “batteries, electric; chargers for electric batteries; rechargeable battery.” Registration No. 4899562 uses broad wording to describe “computers”, “video cameras and related accessories, namely, lenses, batteries, tripods, and camera bags”, “pre-recorded video tapes and video discs featuring music, words and images”, and “battery chargers”, which presumably encompasses all goods of the type described, including applicant’s more narrow “tablet computers”, “chargers for electric batteries”, “camcorders”, and “video disks and video tapes with recorded animated cartoons”, and “wearable computers in the nature of smartwatches; wearable computers in the nature of smartglasses; wearable computers in the nature of activity trackers sold as integral components of running shoes”. Registration No. 3242563 uses broad wording to describe “mobile telephones; audio and video cables”, which presumably encompasses all goods of the type described, including applicant’s more narrow “USB cables; USB cables for cellphones” and “smart phones”.  The application also uses broad wording to describe “computer programs, recorded, for authentication, identification, online payment, and receiving and processing voices and photographies”, which presumably encompasses all goods of the type described, including Registrant 4899562’s more narrow “computer software to control and improve computer and audio equipment sound quality and for recording, transmitting, and reproducing sound and images”.  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 registrants’ 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 nature, type, channels of trade, or classes of purchasers and are “presumed to travel in the same channels of trade to the same class of purchasers.”  In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1268, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).  Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods are related.

 

The attached Internet evidence, consisting of screen shots from www.microsoft.com, establishes that the same entity commonly manufactures and produces the relevant goods, such as computers and computer operating software and computer game software, and markets the goods under the same mark.  Thus, applicant’s and registrants’ 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).

 

Because the marks are confusingly similar and the goods are related, there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks.  Consequently, registration is refused pursuant to Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act for applicant’s goods in International Class 9.

 

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

 

AMENDMENT TO IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS REQUIRED

 

The wording “computer programs, recorded, for authentication, identification, online payment, and receiving and processing voices and photographies; computer programs for network management; computer programs for word processing; computer programs for video and computer games; computer programs for using the internet and the worldwide web; computer programs for use in teaching children to read; computer programs for processing digital music files; computer application software for mobile phones, namely, software for information sharing services and photograph sharing services, social interaction in the nature of social networking, dating, developing games and playing games, making dining reservations and viewing restaurant ratings, calorie counting, tracking product delivery, math instruction, reading instruction, spelling instruction, history instruction, language instruction, traffic and location guidance, products reviews and sourcing, information on entertainment and sports events, entertainment and sports events ticketing, child and pet locating, language translation, providing information on medical services and treatment, information on art, financial investment advice, information on style and fashion, matching and viewing clothing styles together, accessing workout routines, currency conversion, planning vacations, retrieving information on weather conditions, event calendaring, and personal and home security monitoring; computer application software for mobile phones, smart watches, and smart bands, namely, software for use in instant messaging between mobile devices, smart watches, and smart bands; smart glasses; gesture recognition software; virtual reality game software; E-learning machines; camcorders” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified because the exact nature of these goods is not specified.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.  Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate:  “Tablet computers; recorded computer operating programs; recorded computer game programs; computer programs, recorded, for authentication, identification, online payment, and receiving and processing voices and photographs; recorded computer game software; downloadable computer game software via a global computer network and wireless devices; computer peripheral devices; downloadable computer programs for network management; downloadable computer programs for word processing;  downloadable computer programs for video and computer games; downloadable computer programs for using the internet and the worldwide web; downloadable computer programs for use in teaching children to read; downloadable computer programs featuring positionable game piece figures for use in the field of computer games; downloadable computer programs for processing digital music files; downloadable computer application software for mobile phones, namely, software for information sharing services and photograph sharing services, social interaction in the nature of social networking, dating, developing games and playing games, making dining reservations and viewing restaurant ratings, calorie counting, tracking product delivery, math instruction, reading instruction, spelling instruction, history instruction, language instruction, traffic and location guidance, products reviews and sourcing, information on entertainment and sports events, entertainment and sports events ticketing, child and pet locating, language translation, providing information on medical services and treatment, information on art, financial investment advice, information on style and fashion, matching and viewing clothing styles together, accessing workout routines, currency conversion, planning vacations, retrieving information on weather conditions, event calendaring, and personal and home security monitoring; downloadable computer application software for mobile phones, smart watches, and smart bands, namely, software for use in instant messaging between mobile devices, smart watches, and smart bands; smart watches; smart glasses in the nature of eye glasses; virtual reality glasses; interactive touch screen terminals; humanoid robots with artificial intelligence; wearable computers in the nature of smartwatches; wearable computers in the nature of smartglasses; wearable computers in the nature of activity trackers sold as integral components of running shoes; wearable computer peripherals in the nature of wireless mice; downloadable gesture recognition software; recorded virtual reality game software; optical character recognition (OCR) apparatus; facsimile machines; electric navigational instruments; wearable activity trackers; smart phones; cases for smart phones; protective films adapted for smartphones; covers for smartphones; cell phone straps; keyboards for mobile phones; wireless speaker; portable media players; earphones; E-learning machines in the nature of ______{tablet computers, computer central processing units, micro-computers}; camcorders; virtual reality headsets; security surveillance robots; cameras; monopods for cameras; monopods used to take photographs by positioning a smartphone or camera beyond the normal range of the arm; USB cables; USB cables for cellphones; blank electronic chip cards; blank smart cards; touch screens; batteries, electric; chargers for electric batteries; mobile electric power generators; rechargeable battery; video disks and video tapes with recorded animated cartoons; air analysis apparatus; surveying machines and instruments; bio-chips for research or scientific purposes.”

 

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.

 

RESPONSE GUIDELINES

 

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.  

 

 

 

/Katherine Ferrell/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 126

(571)270-3576

Katherine.Ferrell@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 4/1/2019 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 88258975

 

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 4/1/2019 (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.