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: 4/5/2019

 

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

Search Of the Office Records

The Office records have been searched and there are no similar registered or pending marks that would bar registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d). TMEP §704.02.

 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES:

 

• Likelihood of Confusion Refusal
• SECTION 2(e)(1) REFUSAL - MERELY DESCRIPTIVE
• Indefinite Identification of Goods

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. 5499779, 5403823, 4322642, 3686441 and 2667984.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registrations.

 

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.

Applicant’s mark and the Registered Marks are Similar

When evaluating a composite mark consisting of words and a design, the word portion is normally accorded greater weight because it is likely to make a greater impression upon purchasers, be remembered by them, and be used by them to refer to or request the goods and/or services.  In re Aquitaine Wine USA, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1181, 1184 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii).  Thus, although marks must be compared in their entireties, the word portion is often considered the dominant feature and is accorded greater weight in determining whether marks are confusingly similar, even where the word portion has been disclaimed.  In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d at 1366-67, 101 USPQ2d at 1911 (citing Giant Food, Inc. v. Nation’s Foodservice, Inc., 710 F.2d 1565, 1570-71, 218 USPQ2d 390, 395 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).

Applicant's mark is “CRYSTAL”. The registered marks are “CRISTAL LASER” and design of crystal and laser, U.S. Registration No. 5499779, “CRYSTAL ADVANCED”, U.S. Registration No. 5403823, “SUMI CRYSTAL”, U.S. Registration No. 4322642, “SYNERY CRYSTAL”, U.S. Registration No. 3686441 and “CRYSTAL PHOTONICS”, U.S. Registration No. 2667984, respectively.  Applicant’s mark is similar in appearance and sound to the registered marks in that they all share the common term CRYSTAL or phonetically identical term CRISTAL. 

Although applicant’s mark does not contain the entirety of the registered mark, applicant’s mark is likely to appear to prospective purchasers as a shortened form of registrant’s mark.  See In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 1348, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting United States Shoe Corp., 229 USPQ 707, 709 (TTAB 1985)).  Thus, merely omitting some of the wording from a registered mark may not overcome a likelihood of confusion.  See In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 94 USPQ2d 1257; In re Optica Int’l, 196 USPQ 775, 778 (TTAB 1977); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii).  In this case, applicant’s mark does not create a distinct commercial impression from the registered mark because it contains some of the wording in the registered mark and does not add any wording that would distinguish it from that mark.

 

Accordingly, the marks are confusingly similar.

 

The Goods Are Related

 

The compared goods and/or services 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 and/or services] 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).

 

Applicant’s goods are identified as “optical components, namely, holographic optical elements for shaping and transmitting light in a variety of applications; lenses, namely, holographic lenses and optical lenses, excluding contact lenses for vision correction; virtual reality goggles and glasses; augmented reality goggles and glasses; reference designs for virtual reality goggles and glasses; reference designs for augmented reality goggles and glasses.”

 

The goods for Registration No. 5499779 are identified as “Optical glasses; optical frequency converter; optical, electro-optical, acousto-optical apparatus, namely, laser optical components in the nature of laser diodes, laser crystals, and nonlinear laser crystals; optical, electro-optical, acousto-optical apparatus, namely, nonlinear optic crystals for frequency conversion.”

 

The goods for Registration No. 5403823 are identified as “Photovoltaic apparatus and installations for generating solar electricity; Photovoltaic plates, modules and cells; electric inverters; electric accumulators; electric batteries; electric collectors for conducting, switching, and transforming electricity; electric condensers, optical condensers, electrical connectors, electrical connection boxes, connection boards, electric connections, electric contacts, electric converters, current rectifiers; Computer monitors; Computer programs for the management and the functioning of photovoltaic apparatus; Glass coated with a conducting deposit, namely, glass covered with an electrical conductor; special glass for photovoltaic cells, namely, glass covered with an electrical conductor that ensures thermal protection, mechanical protection, and electrical insulation.”

 

The goods for Registration No. 4322642 are identified as “Laboratory instruments, namely, microtome knives; laboratory instruments, namely, compression cells for Fourier transform infrared (FT-IR) spectrophotometers; laboratory equipment in the nature of diamond anvils using ultrahigh pressure for scientific research in laboratories; measurement apparatus, namely, pin gauges, plug gauges; metal hardness testing machines; electronic measuring instruments, namely, indenters for hardness testing machines for the purpose of measuring mechanical properties of metallic structures and samples, namely, structural integrity, flow properties and fracture toughness; radiation measuring apparatus and instruments; laser equipment for non-medical purposes; heat sinks for conducting heat away from electrical components; optical inspection apparatus for industrial use; lasers for industrial use; optical lenses; optical filters; scientific and technical apparatus, namely, optical mirrors; beam splitters, namely, signal splitters for electronic apparatus; optical windows; optical apparatus and instruments, namely, beam homogenizers; optical apparatus and instruments, namely, laser beam expanders; laser beam scanners.”

 

The goods for Registration No. 3686441 are identified as “Optical lenses.”

 

The goods for Registration No. 2667984 are identified as “Electrical and scientific apparatus and materials, namely, optical crystals, optical devices, solid state lasers, semiconductor lasers, optical filters, surface acoustic wave devices, and nonlinear optical devices, all for use with lasers..”

 

The applicant's optical goods are closely related to the registrant's various optical goods because the goods overlap in uses or the applicant’s goods are so indefinitely identified the goods could encompass the narrower identifications in the registered marks.  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)).  

 

In this case, the application use(s) broad wording to describe “optical components, namely, holographic optical elements for shaping and transmitting light in a variety of applications; lenses, namely, holographic lenses and optical lenses, excluding contact lenses for vision correction; reference designs for virtual reality goggles and glasses; reference designs for augmented reality goggles and glasses”, which presumably encompasses all goods and/or services of the type described, including registrant’s more narrow goods.  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 and/or services 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 and/or services are related.

Thus, upon encountering the CRYSTAL mark used on “optical components, namely, holographic optical elements for shaping and transmitting light in a variety of applications; lenses, namely, holographic lenses and optical lenses, excluding contact lenses for vision correction; virtual reality goggles and glasses; augmented reality goggles and glasses; reference designs for virtual reality goggles and glasses; reference designs for augmented reality goggles and glasses” and the various registered marks used on the respective goods, consumers are likely to be confused and mistakenly believe that the respective goods emanate from a common source.

Accordingly, registration is refused under Trademark Act Section 2 (d) based on a likelihood of confusion.

Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal(s) by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.

 

Prior Pending Applications

 

The effective filing dates of pending U.S. Application Serial Nos. 79255061, 79234305, 79220693, 79220770 and 79246101 precede applicant’s filing date.  See attached referenced applications.  If one or more of the marks in the referenced applications register, applicant’s mark may be refused registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d) because of a likelihood of confusion with the registered mark(s).  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §§1208 et seq.  Therefore, upon receipt of applicant’s response to this Office action, action on this application may be suspended pending final disposition of the earlier-filed referenced applications.

 

In response to this Office action, applicant may present arguments in support of registration by addressing the issue of the potential conflict between applicant’s mark and the marks in the referenced applications.  Applicant’s election not to submit arguments at this time in no way limits applicant’s right to address this issue later if a refusal under Section 2(d) issues.

 

Applicant must address the following additional grounds for refusal.

 

SECTION 2(e)(1) REFUSAL - MERELY DESCRIPTIVE

Registration is refused because the applied-for mark merely describes a feature, characteristic, purpose, function of applicant’s goods and/or services.  Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); see TMEP §§1209.01(b), 1209.03 et seq.

 

A mark is merely descriptive if it describes an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose, or use of an applicant’s goods and/or services.  TMEP §1209.01(b); see, e.g., In re TriVita, Inc., 783 F.3d 872, 874, 114 USPQ2d 1574, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 1173, 71 USPQ2d 1370, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004)); In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293, 1297, 75 USPQ2d 1420, 1421 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Estate of P.D. Beckwith, Inc. v. Comm’r of Patents, 252 U.S. 538, 543 (1920)). 

 

Generally, if the individual components of a mark retain their descriptive meaning in relation to the goods and/or services, the combination results in a composite mark that is itself descriptive and not registrable.  In re Fat Boys Water Sports LLC, 118 USPQ2d 1511, 1516 (TTAB 2016) (citing In re Tower Tech, Inc., 64 USPQ2d 1314, 1317-18 (TTAB (2002)); TMEP §1209.03(d); see, e.g., Apollo Med. Extrusion Techs., Inc. v. Med. Extrusion Techs., Inc., 123 USPQ2d 1844, 1851 (TTAB 2017) (holding MEDICAL EXTRUSION TECHNOLOGIES merely descriptive of medical extrusion goods produced by employing medical extrusion technologies); In re Cannon Safe, Inc., 116 USPQ2d 1348, 1351 (TTAB 2015) (holding SMART SERIES merely descriptive of metal gun safes); In re King Koil Licensing Co., 79 USPQ2d 1048, 1052 (TTAB 2006) (holding THE BREATHABLE MATTRESS merely descriptive of beds, mattresses, box springs, and pillows). 

 

Only where the combination of descriptive terms creates a unitary mark with a unique, incongruous, or otherwise nondescriptive meaning in relation to the goods and/or services is the combined mark registrable.  See In re Colonial Stores, Inc., 394 F.2d 549, 551, 157 USPQ 382, 384 (C.C.P.A. 1968); In re Positec Grp. Ltd., 108 USPQ2d 1161, 1162-63 (TTAB 2013).

 

In this case, both the individual components and the composite result are descriptive of applicant’s goods and/or services and do not create a unique, incongruous, or nondescriptive meaning in relation to the goods and/or services. 

 

Specifically, applicant seeks registration of “CRYSTAL” for “optical components, namely, holographic optical elements for shaping and transmitting light in a variety of applications; lenses, namely, holographic lenses and optical lenses, excluding contact lenses for vision correction; virtual reality goggles and glasses; augmented reality goggles and glasses; reference designs for virtual reality goggles and glasses; reference designs for augmented reality goggles and glasses.”  The term “CRYSTAL” is defined as a “A piece of a homogeneous solid substance having a natural geometrically regular form with symmetrically arranged plane faces.”    See the attached definition.

 

Third-party registrations featuring goods and/or services the same as or similar to applicant’s goods and/or services are probative evidence on the issue of descriptiveness where the relevant word or term is disclaimed, registered under Trademark Act Section 2(f) based on acquired distinctiveness, or registered on the Supplemental Register.  E.g., In re Morinaga Nyugyo Kabushiki Kaisha, 120 USPQ2d 1738, 1745 (TTAB 2016) (quoting Inst. Nat’l des Appellations D’Origine v. Vintners Int’l Co., 958 F.2d 1574, 1581-82, 22 USPQ2d 1190, 1196 (Fed. Cir. 1992)); In re Box Solutions Corp., 79 USPQ2d 1953, 1955 (TTAB 2006). See the attached third-party registrations with “CRYSTAL” disclaimed, registered under Trademark Act Section 2(f) based on acquired distinctiveness, or registered on the Supplemental Register

 

The attached website evidence (emphasis added) from a Google.com search indicates that in the optics industry, CRYSTAL refers to and describes an ingredient in optical goods:

1. “What do pilots, train operators, and mountain climbers have in common? All three were some of the groups that Persol was problem solving for when they created their first specialty lenses in the 1920s. Persol invented lenses to meet the specific needs of these disparate groups who all face different optical challenges while on the job. Their trademark yellow-brown lenses, made from crystal, were used in the famous Protector glasses - adopted by the Swiss military and protected by international patents. These special lenses, crafted from pure silica, offered previously unseen sun protection. By the 60's American astronauts were wearing Persol, and the innovative, durable shades were accompanying famous explorers and adventurers on their treks, keeping their eyes safe even in the most extreme climates and conditions.”

2. “Hyperion Optics provides optical components, including laser crystals for a wide range of laser, semiconductor, military, space and fiber optics applications. We work on high power visible and UV light generation by delivering high quality nonlinear products reaching our customer specifications.”

3. “Sapphire crystal (Al2O3) is an excellent substrate for a range of rugged applications.

It has high transmission from 150nm up to around 5µm therefore ideal for UV, Visible and IR applications.  Sapphire lenses have excellent mechanical strength and hardness.  With sapphire having superb thermal and chemical resistance and being scratch resistant, sapphire is a perfect choice for lens applications.  Sapphire is inert and resistant to attack from most processing environments, such as hydrofluoric acid.

We supply a range of sapphire lens solutions and offer plano convex, biconvex and concave sapphire lens solutions. Our sapphire lenses can also be antireflective coated to increase efficiency in UV and IR applications.  Sapphire grades we offer are Random, C-Cut, Z-Cut and fluorescence free sapphire.”

Therefore, the proposed mark merely describes ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose or use of the specified goods and registration on the Principal Register must be refused under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1).

 

Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal(s) by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.

 

Possibly Generic

 

In addition to being merely descriptive, the applied-for mark appears to be generic in connection with the identified goods and, therefore, incapable of functioning as a source-identifier for applicant’s goods.  In re Gould Paper Corp., 834 F.2d 1017, 5 USPQ2d 1110 (Fed. Cir. 1987); In re Empire Tech. Dev. LLC, 123 USPQ2d 1544 (TTAB 2017); see TMEP §§1209.01(c) et seq., 1209.02(a).  Under these circumstances, neither an amendment to proceed under Trademark Act Section 2(f) nor an amendment to the Supplemental Register can be recommended.  See TMEP §1209.01(c).

 

 

Applicant must address the following requirements.

 

 

Identification of Goods –Indefinite Wording

 

The following wording in bold in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified because the types of goods are vague and/or open-ended.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01. 

 

International Class 009: “optical components, namely, holographic optical elements for shaping and transmitting light in a variety of applications; lenses, namely, holographic lenses and optical lenses, excluding contact lenses for vision correction; virtual reality goggles and glasses; augmented reality goggles and glasses; reference designs for virtual reality goggles and glasses; reference designs for augmented reality goggles and glasses” 

 

In the identification of goods, applicant must use the common commercial or generic names for the goods, be as complete and specific as possible, and avoid the use of indefinite words and phrases.  If applicant uses indefinite words such as “accessories,” “components,” “devices,” “equipment,” “materials,” “parts,” “systems” or “products,” such words must be followed by “namely,” followed by a list of the specific goods identified by their common commercial or generic names.  See TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03(a).

 

Applicant may change this wording to following if accurate;

 

International Class 009: “Optical components, namely, holographic optical elements, namely, {specify} for shaping and transmitting light for {specify fields of use}; lenses, namely, holographic lenses and optical lenses for {specify fields of use}, excluding contact lenses for vision correction; virtual reality goggles and glasses; augmented reality goggles and glasses; reference designs comprising virtual reality goggles and glasses for assisting product developers to design new virtual reality goggles and glasses products; reference designs comprising augmented reality goggles and glasses for assisting product developers to design new augmented reality goggles and glasses products” 

 

See TMEP §1402.01.

 

Applicant’s goods and/or services 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 and/or services or add goods and/or services 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 and/or services 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 and/or services will further limit scope, and once goods and/or services 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 Requirements

 

For this application to proceed toward registration, applicant must explicitly address each refusal and/or requirement raised in this Office action.  If the action includes a refusal, applicant may provide arguments and/or evidence as to why the refusal should be withdrawn and the mark should register.  Applicant may also have other options for responding to a refusal and should consider such options carefully.  To respond to requirements and certain refusal response options, applicant should set forth in writing the required changes or statements.

 

If applicant does not respond to this Office action within six months of the issue/mailing date, or responds by expressly abandoning the application, the application process will end, the trademark will fail to register, and the application fee will not be refunded.  See 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.65(a), 2.68(a), 2.209(a); TMEP §§405.04, 718.01, 718.02.  Where the application has been abandoned for failure to respond to an Office action, applicant’s only option would be to file a timely petition to revive the application, which, if granted, would allow the application to return to active status.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.66; TMEP §1714.  There is a $100 fee for such petitions.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.6, 2.66(b)(1).

 

 

 

 

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.  

 

 

 

/Anthony Rinker/

Examinng Attorney

Law Office 102

U.S. Trademark Office

Ph. 571-272-5491

anthony.rinker@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 4/5/2019 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 88266351

 

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 4/5/2019 (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.