Offc Action Outgoing

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application

 

 

 

FINAL 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) and/or Electronic System for Trademark Trials and Appeals (ESTTA).  A link to the appropriate TEAS response form and/or to ESTTA for an appeal appears at the end of this Office action. 

 

Issue date:  May 04, 2020

 

INTRODUCTION

 

The Office has reassigned this application to the undersigned trademark examining attorney.

 

This Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on June 28, 2019.

 

In a previous Office action dated March 28, 2019, the previous trademark examining attorney refused registration of the applied-for mark under Trademark Act Section 2(d) for a likelihood of confusion with a registered mark. 

 

Based on applicant’s response, the trademark examining attorney maintains and now makes FINAL the refusal in the summary of issues below.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b); TMEP §714.04.

 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES MADE FINAL that applicant must address:

• Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion

 

SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

 

For the reasons set forth below, the refusal under Trademark Act Section 2(d) is now made FINAL with respect to U.S. Registration No. 4935840.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b).

 

In the present case, the applicant seeks registration of MYSTICAL MONKEY in standard character form for “Beer; Beers, namely, beers sold in variety packs and containers” in Class 32.

 

The cited registered mark is MYSTICAL STOUT in standard character form for “beer” in Class 32. 

 

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 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).  Any evidence of record related to those factors need be considered; however, “not all of the DuPont factors are relevant or of similar weight in every case.”  In re Guild Mortg. Co., 912 F.3d 1376, 1379, 129 USPQ2d 1160, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting In re Dixie Rests., Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 1406, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).

 

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.  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 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)), aff’d per curiam, 777 F. App’x 516, 2019 BL 343921 (Fed. Cir. 2019); 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., 901 F.3d 1367, 1373, 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 (C.C.P.A. 1971)), aff’d per curiam, 777 F. App’x 516, 2019 BL 343921 (Fed. Cir. 2019); TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

Here, applicant’s mark is MYSTICAL MONKEY in standard character form, and registrant’s mark is MYSTICAL STOUT in standard character form. In this case, the first word in the applied-for mark, MYSTICAL, and the first and dominant word in the registered mark, MYSTICAL, are identical in spelling and sound, and overall have a similar appearance and commercial impression.

 

In this case, both marks begin with the wording MYSTICAL. 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). The wording MYSTICAL in the respective marks creates a highly similar appearance and commercial impression, namely, “of, relating to, or stemming from mysticism or immediate understanding of spiritual matters.” See attached evidence from http://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=mystical. 

 

Further, the respective marks both begin with the wording MYSTICAL. Consumers are generally more inclined to focus on the first word, prefix, or syllable in any trademark.  See Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1372, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1692 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (finding similarity between VEUVE ROYALE and two VEUVE CLICQUOT marks in part because “VEUVE . . . remains a ‘prominent feature’ as the first word in the mark and the first word to appear on the label”); Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Century Life of Am., 970 F.2d 874, 876, 23 USPQ2d 1698, 1700 (Fed Cir. 1992) (finding similarity between CENTURY 21 and CENTURY LIFE OF AMERICA in part because “consumers must first notice th[e] identical lead word”); see also In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1303, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1049 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding “the identity of the marks’ two initial words is particularly significant because consumers typically notice those words first”).

 

Finally, 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). In this case, the registrant has disclaimed the descriptive wording STOUT apart from its mark as shown. Thus, the examining attorney must closely examine the dominant portion of the registered mark, MYSTICAL, against the registered mark, MYSTICAL MONKEY.

 

In this case, the only differences between the respective marks is the wording MONKEY in the applied-for mark and the descriptive wording STOUT in the registered mark. These differences do not change the identical nature in sound and highly similar nature in appearance and commercial impression between the wording MYSTICAL in the applied-for mark and the dominant portion of the registered mark, MYSTICAL.

 

Considering the above, the marks are sufficiently similar to cause a likelihood of confusion under Trademark Act Section 2(d).

 

Relatedness of the Goods

 

The compared goods 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); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).  They need only be “related in some manner and/or if the circumstances surrounding their marketing are 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).

 

In this case, applicant’s mark is MYSTICAL MONKEY in standard character form for “Beer; Beers, namely, beers sold in variety packs and containers” in Class 32.

 

The cited registered mark is MYSTICAL STOUT in standard character form for “beer” in Class 32. 

 

When analyzing an applicant’s and registrant’s goods for similarity and relatedness, that determination is based on the description of the goods 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 “beer” goods in the application and registration are identical.  Therefore, it is presumed that the channels of trade and class of purchasers are the same for these goods ces.  See Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., 901 F.3d 1367, 1372, 127 USPQ2d 1797, 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). 

 

Further, the registration uses broad wording to describe “beer” in Class 32, which presumably encompasses all goods of the type described, including applicant’s more narrow “Beers, namely, beers sold in variety packs and containers” in Class 32.  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)). 

 

Finally, the examining attorney has attached websites demonstrate that beer and beers sold in variety packs and containers are commonly provided together and commonly originate from the same source. The attached Internet evidence establishes that the same entity commonly produces and provides the relevant goods and markets the goods under the same mark and that the relevant goods 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 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:

·         Kona Brewing Co.: http://konabrewingco.com/our-beers;

·         21st Amendment Brewery: http://origlio.com/brewery/21st-amendment-brewery;

·         New Belgium:

o   http://www.newbelgium.com/beer/mountain-time/;

o   http://www.newbelgium.com/beer/bottle-folly-pack/;        

·         Anchor Brewing:

o   http://www.anchorbrewing.com/beer/beer_cooler;

o   http://www.anchorbrewing.com/connect/news/108;

·         Flying Dog:

o   http://www.flyingdog.com/beers/; and

o   http://www.flyingdog.com/beers/variety-pack/.

 

Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods are related.

 

Applicant’s Arguments

 

1. Applicant Argues Meaning and Commercial Impression Are Different

 

Applicant argues that “when compared in their entireties, Applicant’s mark conveys a significantly different meaning and commercial impression,” namely, that the wording MYSTICAL that is present in both marks “is used to describe completely different subjects and thus the marks present a substantially different commercial impression.” Further, applicant argues that the wording MONKEY in the applied-for mark is part of a family of marks and that the purchasing public’s familiarity with these marks obviates any likelihood of confusion.  However, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has found that a family of marks argument is “not available to an applicant seeking to overcome a [likelihood of confusion] refusal.”  In re Cynosure, Inc., 90 USPQ2d 1644, 1645-46 (TTAB 2009).  Specifically, an applicant’s ownership of other similar marks has little relevance in this context because the focus of a likelihood of confusion analysis in an ex parte case is on the mark applicant seeks to register, rather than other marks applicant has used or registered.  In re Cynosure, Inc., 90 USPQ2d at 1645-46; In re Ald, Inc., 148 USPQ 520, 521 (TTAB 1965); TMEP §1207.01(d)(xi). 

 

Further, as outlined in the Comparison of the Marks section above, 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. Here, the wording MYSTICAL in the respective marks retains its meaning, namely, of, relating to, or stemming from mysticism or immediate understanding of spiritual matters. As such, the respective marks could be interpreted as being part of a series.  

 

Moreover, as stated in the Comparison of the Marks section above, although marks are compared in their entireties, one feature of a mark may be more significant or dominant in creating a commercial impression.  Disclaimed matter that is descriptive of or generic for a party’s goods is typically less significant or less dominant when comparing marks.  In this case, the registrant has disclaimed the descriptive wording STOUT apart from its mark as shown. Thus, the examining attorney must closely examine the dominant portion of the registered mark, MYSTICAL, against the registered mark, MYSTICAL MONKEY.

 

Finally, where the goods of an applicant and registrant are identical or virtually identical, the degree of similarity between the marks required to support a finding that confusion is likely declines.  See Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., 901 F.3d 1367, 1373, 127 USPQ2d 1797, 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1363, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(b). As outlined in the Relatdness of Goods section above, the goods identified in the registered mark, beer, is identical to and encompasses applicant’s goods for “Beer; Beers, namely, beers sold in variety packs and containers.” As such, the degree of similarity between the marks required to support a finding of that confusion is reduced.

 

Therefore, applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.

 

2. Applicant Argues the Wording MYSTICAL is Diluted

 

Applicant has submitted printed or electronic copies of two third-party registrations for marks containing foreign equivalents of the wording MYSTICAL to support the argument that this wording is weak, diluted, or so widely used that it should not be afforded a broad scope of protection.  These registrations appear to be for goods similar to those identified in applicant’s application. 

 

The weakness or dilution of a particular mark is generally determined in the context of the number and nature of similar marks in use in the marketplace in connection with similar goods.  See Nat’l Cable Tel. Ass’n, Inc. v. Am. Cinema Editors, Inc., 937 F.2d 1572, 1579-80, 19 USPQ2d 1424, 1430 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973).  Evidence of widespread third-party use of similar marks with similar goods “is relevant to show that a mark is relatively weak and entitled to only a narrow scope of protection” in that particular industry or field.  Omaha Steaks Int’l, Inc. v. Greater Omaha Packing Co., 908 F.3d 1315, 1324, 128 USPQ2d 1686, 1693 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee en 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1373, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1693 (Fed. Cir. 2005)).

 

However, evidence comprising only a small number of third-party registrations for similar marks with similar goods, as in the present case, is generally entitled to little weight in determining the strength of a mark.  See In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1328-29, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1751-52 (Fed. Cir. 2017); AMF Inc. v. Am. Leisure Products, Inc., 474 F.2d 1403, 1406, 177 USPQ 268, 269 (C.C.P.A. 1973).  These few registrations are “not evidence of what happens in the market place or that customers are familiar with them.”  AMF Inc. v. Am. Leisure Prods., Inc., 474 F.2d at 1406, 177 USPQ at 269; In re I-Coat Co., 126 USPQ2d 1730, 1735 (TTAB 2018).  Thus, the few similar third-party registrations submitted by applicant are insufficient to establish that the wording MYSTICAL is weak or diluted. 

 

Further, the attached evidence from the USPTO’s public TESS search database demonstrates that the only two relevant marks with the wording “MYSTICAL” for “beer” goods are applicant’s and registrant’s respective marks. See attached evidence from http://tmsearch.gov.uspto.report/bin/gate.exe.

 

Finally, as evidence against the refusal, applicant has provided screen shots or printouts of webpages that do not specify the date it was downloaded or accessed and the complete URL. The examining attorney objects to this evidence. To properly introduce Internet evidence into the record, an applicant must provide (1) an image file or printout of the downloaded webpage, (2) the date the evidence was downloaded or accessed, and (3) the complete URL address of the webpage.  See In re I-Coat Co., LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1730, 1733 (TTAB 2018); TBMP §1208.03; see TMEP §710.01(b).  Accordingly, these webpages will not be considered.

 

Thus, these third-party registrations submitted by applicant are insufficient to establish that the wording MYSTICAL is weak or diluted. 

 

As such, applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.

 

Conclusion

 

Thus, upon encountering MYSTICAL MONKEY for beer and beers sold in variety packs and containers, and MYSTICAL STOUT for beer, consumers are likely to be confused and mistakenly believe that the respective goods emanate from a common source because the marks are highly similar in appearance and commercial impression and the goods of the parties are essentially identical and thus travel in the same channels of trade to the same class of consumers.

 

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).

 

Based on the foregoing, the refusal to register under Trademark Act Section 2(d) is maintained and made FINAL.

 

QUESTIONS

 

Please call or email the assigned trademark examining attorney with questions about this Office action.  Although an examining attorney cannot provide legal advice, the examining attorney can provide additional explanation about the refusal in this Office action.  See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06. 

 

The USPTO does not accept emails as responses to Office actions; however, emails can be used for informal communications and are included in the application record.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(c), 2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05. 

 

PROPER RESPONSE TO A FINAL ACTION

 

How to respond.  Click to file a request for reconsideration of this final Office action that fully resolves all outstanding requirements and refusals and/or click to file a timely appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) with the required filing fee(s).

 

 

/Andrew Crowder-Schaefer/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 104

(571) 272-0087

andrew.crowderschaefer@uspto.gov

 

 

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 May 04, 2020 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88264452

 

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. 

 

 

/Andrew Crowder-Schaefer/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 104

(571) 272-0087

andrew.crowderschaefer@uspto.gov

 

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 May 04, 2020, 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.”