| To: | Google LLC (tmdocketing@google.com) |
| Subject: | U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 88260911 - GOOGLE HOME HUB - GT-1324-US-1 |
| Sent: | 6/19/2019 11:54:36 AM |
| Sent As: | ECOM104@USPTO.GOV |
| Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 Attachment - 6 Attachment - 7 Attachment - 8 Attachment - 9 Attachment - 10 Attachment - 11 Attachment - 12 Attachment - 13 Attachment - 14 Attachment - 15 Attachment - 16 |
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
|
U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 88260911
MARK: GOOGLE HOME HUB
|
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
CLICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER: http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp
|
|
APPLICANT: Google LLC
|
|
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: CORRESPONDENT E-MAIL ADDRESS: |
|
OFFICE ACTION
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: 6/19/2019
SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
In the present case, the applicant seeks registration of GOOGLE HOME HUB in standard character form for, inter alia:
The cited registered mark is HOMEHUB in standard character form for “Data processing apparatus, namely, couplers; Computer hardware for upload, storage, retrieval, download, transmission and delivery of digital content; Computers; Computer programs for database management; Recorded computer programs for database management; Recorded computer operating programs; Computer hardware in the nature of computer I/O recorder; Downloadable computer software applications for database management; Transmitters of electronic signals; Radio transmitters; Modems” in Class 9.
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 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 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 the 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).
When comparing marks, “[t]he proper test is not a side-by-side comparison of the marks, but instead whether the marks are sufficiently similar in terms of their commercial impression such that [consumers] who encounter the marks would be likely to assume a connection between the parties.” Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., __ F.3d __, 127 USPQ2d 1797, 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1368, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(b). The proper focus is on the recollection of the average purchaser, who retains a general rather than specific impression of trademarks. In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1746 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re St. Helena Hosp., 774 F.3d 747, 750-51, 113 USPQ2d 1082, 1085 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Geigy Chem. Corp. v. Atlas Chem. Indus., Inc., 438 F.2d 1005, 1007, 169 USPQ 39, 40 (CCPA 1971)); TMEP §1207.01(b).
Here, applicant’s mark is GOOGLE HOME HUB in standard character form, and registrant’s mark is HOMEHUB in standard character form. In this case, the wording HOME HUB in the applied-for mark and the wording HOMEHUB in the registered mark are essentially identical in sound and highly similar in appearance and commercial impression. 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.
Further, the applied-for mark contains the wording HOME HUB and the registered mark is comprised of the wording HOMEHUB. Marks may be confusingly similar in appearance where similar terms or phrases or similar parts of terms or phrases appear in the compared marks and create a similar overall commercial impression. See Crocker Nat’l Bank v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 228 USPQ 689, 690-91 (TTAB 1986), aff’d sub nom. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 811 F.2d 1490, 1495, 1 USPQ2d 1813, 1817 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (finding COMMCASH and COMMUNICASH confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii). In this case the wording HOME HUB in the applied-for mark and the wording HOMEHUB in the registered mark are highly similar in appearance and commercial impression.
The only differences between the respective marks are the addition of the wording GOOGLE in the applied-for mark and the space between the words “HOME” and “HUB” in the applied-for mark. these differences do not change the identical nature in sound and highly similar nature in appearance and commercial impression between the wording HOME HUB in the applied-for mark and the wording “HOMEHUB” in the registered mark.
Considering the above, the marks are sufficiently similar to cause a likelihood of confusion under Trademark Act Section 2(d).
Relatedness of the Goods and Services
In this case, applicant’s mark is GOOGLE HOME HUB in standard character form for, inter alia:
The cited registered mark is HOMEHUB in standard character form for “Data processing apparatus, namely, couplers; Computer hardware for upload, storage, retrieval, download, transmission and delivery of digital content; Computers; Computer programs for database management; Recorded computer programs for database management; Recorded computer operating programs; Computer hardware in the nature of computer I/O recorder; Downloadable computer software applications for database management; Transmitters of electronic signals; Radio transmitters; Modems” in Class 9.
In this case, the application uses broad wording to describe “Data processing equipment, computers; Computer hardware” in Class 9, which presumably encompasses all goods of the type described, including registrant’s more narrow “Data processing apparatus, namely, couplers; Computer hardware for upload, storage, retrieval, download, transmission and delivery of digital content; Computers; Computer hardware in the nature of computer I/O recorder; Transmitters of electronic signals; Radio transmitters; Modems” in Class 9. 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 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.
Further, the respective goods and services are closely related because they travel through similar channels of trade to the same class of consumer. The examining attorney has attached Internet website evidence demonstrating that home automation goods and software goods and services for controlling appliances are commonly provided together and commonly originate from the same source. The attached Internet evidence from Apple.com, Amazon.com, and Sonos.com, establishes that the same entity commonly produces and provides the relevant goods and services and markets the goods and services under the same mark and that the relevant goods and services are sold or provided through the same trade channels and used by the same classes of consumers in the same fields of use. Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods and services 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). See attached evidence from:
· http://www.apple.com/shop/buy-homepod/homepod;
· http://apps.apple.com/us/app/amazon-alexa/id944011620;
· http://www.sonos.com/en-us/shop/one.html; and
· http://apps.apple.com/us/app/sonos-controller/id293523031.
Thus, upon encountering GOOGLE HOME HUB for data processing equipment, computer hardware, home automation goods, and software goods and services for controlling appliances, and HOMEHUB for data processing equipment and computer hardware, consumers are likely to be confused and mistakenly believe that the respective goods and services emanate from a common source.
Therefore, with the contemporaneous use of highly similar marks, consumers are likely to conclude that the goods and services are related and originate from the same source. As such, registration must be refused under Trademark Act Section 2(d).
The overriding concern is not only to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods and services, 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).
(1) Deleting the goods and services to which the refusal pertains;
(2) Filing a request to divide out the services that have not been refused registration, so that the mark may proceed toward publication for opposition for those goods or services 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).
Applicant should note the following additional ground for refusal.
This refusal applies to Classes 38 and 42 only.
Specimens consisting of advertising or promotional materials must show a direct association between the mark and the services for which registration is sought. In re WAY Media, Inc., 118 USPQ2d 1697, 1698 (TTAB 2016) (quoting In re Universal Oil Prods. Co., 476 F.2d 653, 655, 177 USPQ 456, 457 (C.C.P.A. 1973)); TMEP §1301.04(f)(ii). To show this direct association, the specimen must contain an explicit reference to the services, in addition to the mark being used on the specimen to identify the service and its source. In re WAY Media, Inc., 118 USPQ2d at 1698 (quoting In re Osmotica Holdings, Corp., 95 USPQ2d 1666, 1668 (TTAB 2010)); TMEP §1301.04(f)(ii). While the exact nature of the services does not need to be specified in the specimen, there must be something which creates in the mind of the purchaser an association between the mark and the service. In re Adair, 45 USPQ2d 1211, 1215 (TTAB 1997) (quoting In re Johnson Controls Inc., 33 USPQ2d 1318, 1320 (TTAB 1994)).
In the present case, the specimen shows what appears to be applicant’s website showing an electronic display and audio speaker goods. Nowhere in the specimen is there an explicit reference to the telecommunication services in Class 38 or the software and technical support services in Class 42. Therefore, registration is refused because the specimen in International Classes 38 and 42 does not show a direct association between the applied-for mark and the identified services.
An application based on Trademark Act Section 1(a) must include a specimen showing the applied-for mark in use in commerce for each international class of services identified in the application or amendment to allege use. 15 U.S.C. §1051(a)(1); 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a).
Examples of specimens for services include advertising and marketing materials, brochures, photographs of business signage and billboards, and webpages that show the mark used in the actual sale, rendering, or advertising of the services. See TMEP §1301.04(a), (h)(iv)(C). And, as stated above, specimens comprising advertising or promotional materials must show a direct association between the mark and the services. In re WAY Media, Inc., 118 USPQ2d at 1698 (quoting In re Universal Oil Prods. Co., 476 F.2d at 655, 177 USPQ at 457); TMEP §1301.04(f)(ii).
Applicant may respond to this refusal by satisfying one of the following for each applicable international class:
(1) Submit a different specimen (a verified “substitute” specimen) that (a) was in actual use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application or prior to the filing of an amendment to allege use and (b) shows the mark in actual use in commerce for the services identified in the application or amendment to allege use. A “verified substitute specimen” is a specimen that is accompanied by the following statement made in a signed affidavit or supported by a declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20: “The substitute (or new, or originally submitted, if appropriate) specimen(s) was/were in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application or prior to the filing of the amendment to allege use.” The substitute specimen cannot be accepted without this statement.
(2) Amend the filing basis to intent to use under Section 1(b), for which no specimen is required. This option will later necessitate additional fee(s) and filing requirements such as providing a specimen.
For an overview of both response options referenced above and instructions on how to satisfy either option online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, please go to http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/law/specimen.jsp.
IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS AND SERVICES
Effective January 1, 2019, a new version of the Nice Agreement Eleventh Edition changed the classification of certain goods and services. See Nice Classification, 11th ed., version 2019 (Nice 11-2019). Applications filed on or after January 1, 2019 must comply with this new version. See 37 C.F.R. §2.85(e)(1); TMEP §1401.09. Applications filed prior to January 1, 2019 must comply with the edition/version of the Nice Agreement in effect as of the application filing date; however, applicants of such applications can choose to comply with the new version. See 37 C.F.R. §2.85(e)(1)-(2); TMEP §1401.09. If applicant chooses to comply with the new version, the entire identification must comply with this version. See 37 C.F.R. §2.85(e)(2); TMEP §1401.09. The USPTO’s online U.S. Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual provides classification information for the new version as well as information for previous editions/versions in notes to specific entries. See TMEP §1402.04.
Computer software is a product classified in International Class 9 if it is (1) recorded on media (such as CDs) or (2) downloadable and thus can be transferred or copied from a remote computer system for use on a long-term basis. TMEP §1402.03(d). However, on-line non-downloadable software is considered a computer service in International Class 42. See TMEP §§1402.03(d), 1402.11(a)(xii).
For example, the following are acceptable identifications for software in International Class 9: “desktop publishing software,” “downloadable software for word processing,” and “downloadable mobile applications for managing bank accounts.” Additionally, the following are acceptable identifications for software in International Class 42: “providing temporary use of on-line non-downloadable software development tools” and “providing temporary use of non-downloadable cloud-based software for calculating energy costs.” For assistance with software classification and identifications, please see the USPTO’s online searchable U.S. Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual.
Finally, the following suggested identification contains further guidance in bold and/or brackets. Applicant may adopt any or all of the suggestions in bold and/or brackets so long as they are accurate. Applicant should note that the brackets indicate where applicant must insert specific types of goods or services. The braces should NOT appear in the amended identification; only the specific goods or services inserted by applicant. Applicant need not amend identifications other than where specified.
Class 9: Data processing equipment, namely, computers; Computer hardware; Audio speakers; Wireless indoor speakers; Voice controlled audio speakers; Audio Speakers controlled by mobile applications; Home automation control device, namely, [further specify nature of the goods and function, e.g., home automation hubs comprised of voice-activated speakers, computer hardware, and downloadable software for controlling networked devices in the internet of things (IoT)]; Stand alone information device, namely, voice and manual controlled audio speakers with personal digital assistant capabilities for streaming and playing audio, video, and multimedia content, for controlling televisions, monitors, and digital media streaming devices; Computer hardware for controlling home automation systems, namely, lighting, appliances, heating and air conditioning units, alarms and other safety equipment, locks, cameras, and home monitoring equipment; Stand alone information device, namely, voice and manual controlled audio speakers with personal digital assistant capabilities for accessing and searching online databases and websites for files and other stored information on command; Stand alone information device, namely, voice and manual controlled audio speakers with personal digital assistant capabilities for providing personal concierge services for others initiated by voice-controlled commands namely, adding and accessing calendar appointments, alarms, timers, and reminders; [applicant must specify whether software is downloadable or recorded] computer software used for the control of voice controlled information and communication devices; [applicant must specify whether software is downloadable or recorded]computer software for providing a personal voice-enabled digital assistant; [further specify the nature and function of the software, e.g., downloadable intelligent personal assistant software] for Voice recognition; downloadable computer software for accessing and searching online databases and websites; [applicant must specify whether software is downloadable or recorded] computer software for searching a user's files and other stored information on command; [applicant must specify whether software is downloadable or recorded] computer software for providing personal concierge services for others initiated by voice-controlled commands namely, adding and accessing calendar appointments, alarms, timers, and reminders; [applicant must specify whether software is downloadable or recorded] computer software for controlling home automation systems, namely, lighting, appliances, heating and air conditioning units, alarms and other safety equipment, locks, cameras, and home monitoring equipment; [applicant must specify whether software is downloadable or recorded] computer software for streaming and playing audio, video, and multimedia content, and for controlling televisions, monitors, and digital media streaming devices.
Class 38: Telecommunication services, namely, transmission of data, graphics, images, audio and video clips by means of telecommunications networks, wireless communication networks, and the Internet.
Class 42: Providing temporary use of online non-downloadable software for providing a personal voice-enabled digital assistant; Providing temporary use of online non-downloadable voice recognition software; Computer services, namely, providing a voice-controlled search engine for obtaining data, images, audio and video via a global computer network; Providing temporary use of online non-downloadable software used to provide voice-controlled information and communications; Providing temporary use of online non-downloadable software for streaming and playing audio, video, and multimedia content, and for controlling televisions, monitors, and digital media streaming devices; Providing temporary use of online non-downloadable software for use in providing personal concierge services for others namely, adding and accessing calendar appointments, alarms, timers, and reminders; Providing temporary use of online non-downloadable software for controlling home automation systems, namely, lighting, appliances, heating and air conditioning units, alarms and other safety equipment, locks, cameras, and home monitoring equipment; Technical support services, namely, troubleshooting in the nature of diagnosing computer hardware and software problems.
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.
In this case, applicant must disclaim the wording “HOME HUB” because it is not inherently distinctive. These unregistrable terms at best are merely descriptive of an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose, or use of applicant’s goods and services. See 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1251, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2012); TMEP §§1213, 1213.03(a).
The attached dictionary evidence states that the relevant definition of the wording “HOME” is “one's place of residence: domicile.” See attached evidence from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/home. The attached dictionary evidence states that the relevant definition of the wording “HUB” is “a central device that connects multiple computers on a single network.” See attached evidence from http://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=HUB.
Thus, the wording merely describes applicant’s goods and services, namely, software goods and services and transmission services provided through a central device at a user’s domicile that connects multiple computers to a single network.
Applicant may respond to this issue by submitting a disclaimer in the following format:
No claim is made to the exclusive right to use “HOME HUB” 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.
QUESTIONS
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 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.
/Andrew Crowder-Schaefer/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 104
(571) 272-0087
andrew.crowderschaefer@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.
