To: | Chen Fuqiang (yi.wan@tbchadwick.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88259266 - WINBOND - BSF9092501 |
Sent: | October 24, 2019 10:21:10 AM |
Sent As: | ecom106@uspto.gov |
Attachments: |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88259266
Mark: WINBOND
|
|
Correspondence Address: |
|
Applicant: Chen Fuqiang
|
|
Reference/Docket No. BSF9092501
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
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: October 24, 2019
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
This Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on September 25, 2019.
In the aforementioned communication, the applicant made arguments in favor of registration against the potential Section 2(d) refusal for the prior pending application cited and now registered.
Upon careful review and consideration the examining attorney withdraws the potential Section 2(d) refusal. The applicant did not address the withdrawal of the improper consent statement. Therefore this issue is maintained and continued. Upon further review a new issue has been determined with respect to the identification of goods as set forth below.
SUMMARY OF ISSUES
IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS
The identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified because it is too broad and could include goods in other international classes. Specifically, the wording “Baby layettes for clothing” must be clarified and amended to “Clothing layettes” to reflect recent changes in the identification manual as set forth below. See TMEP §1402.01 §1402.03.
Applicant should note that the wording in bold and/or bold ALL CAPS below shows the changes being proposed for the identification of goods. Items with a strike through are to be deleted (e.g., toilet). When making its amendments, applicant should enter them in standard font, not bold
ALL CAPS or with a strike through.
Applicant may adopt the following identification and classification of goods, if accurate:
International Class 025: Aprons; Earmuffs; Footwear; Gloves; Hats; Hosiery; Knit bottoms; Knit tops; Masquerade costumes; Pants; Raincoats;
Scarfs; Socks; Stockings; Swimsuits; Tights; Underwear; Vests; Baby layettes for clothing; CLOTHING LAYETTES; Bottoms as clothing; Girdles; Tops as
clothing
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.
IMPROPER CONSENT STATEMENT- MAINTAINED AND CONTINUED
Applicant’s statement regarding the name, portrait or signature of a living individual identified in the mark will not be printed on any registration that may issue from this application. The statement is unnecessary because the mark on its face would not reasonably be perceived as the name or likeness of a specific living individual. TMEP §§813.01(b), 1206.05.
In its response, applicant should request that the consent statement be withdrawn.
/Shavell McPherson-Rayburn/
Shavell McPherson-Rayburn
Examining Attorney
Law Office 106
571-272-6121
Shavell.mcpherson-rayburn@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE