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: 3/6/2019

 

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 with registered marks (only as to “Computer software; computer software supplied from the Internet;…computer software to enable the searching of data, and the processing of data” in Class 009 and “business management services” in Class 035);
• Potential for likelihood of confusion with marks in prior-filed applications;
• Amended identification of goods and services required;
• Amended mark description required; and
• Disclaimer required.

 

Section 2(d) Refusal: Likelihood of Confusion with Registered Marks

 

The stated refusal refers to the following goods and services only and does not bar registration for the other goods and services identified in the application: “Computer software; computer software supplied from the Internet;…computer software to enable the searching of data, and the processing of data” in Class 009 and “business management services” in Class 035).

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 4152889 and 4483279.  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 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)). 

 

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)); TMEP §1207.01.

 

Similarity of the Marks

 

The applied-for mark is RADIAN MORTGAGE SERVICES with a design.  The registered marks are RADIAN (U.S. Registration No. 4152889) and RADIAN6 (U.S. Registration No. 4483279).

 

When comparing marks, “[t]he proper test is not a side-by-side comparison of the marks.”  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).  Instead, 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).

 

When evaluating a composite mark consisting of words and a design, for example, 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.  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)).

 

Similarly, consumers are generally more inclined to focus on the first word in any trademark or service mark.  See 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”).

 

Matter that is descriptive of or generic for a party’s goods and/or services, on the other hand, is typically less significant or less dominant in relation to other wording in a mark.  See Anheuser-Busch, LLC v. Innvopak Sys. Pty Ltd., 115 USPQ2d 1816, 1824-25 (TTAB 2015) (citing In re Chatam Int’l Inc., 380 F.3d 1340, 1342-43, 71 USPQ2d 1944, 1946 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).  In the present case, as discussed in detail below, the attached evidence shows that the wording MORTGAGE SERVICES in the applied-for mark is merely descriptive of or generic for applicant’s goods and/or services. 

 

For the foregoing reasons, the wording RADIAN is the dominant source-indicating element in the applied-for mark and the mark in U.S. Registration No. 4483279.  The same wording comprises the entirety of the mark in U.S. Registration No. 4152889.  RADIAN in the applied-for mark and RADIAN in the registered marks sound the same, appear similarly, and convey the same commercial impression.

 

Neither addition of the design or wording MORTGAGE SERVICES in the applied-for mark, as compared to the registered marks, nor addition of the number 6 in the mark in U.S. Registration No. 4483279, as compared to the applied-for mark, is sufficient to alter the commercial impression or distinguish the marks.  Adding matter to a registered mark generally 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 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 and BENGAL LANCER and design confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iii). 

 

Relatedness of the Goods and Services

 

Applicant seeks to register its mark for “Computer software; computer software supplied from the Internet;…computer software to enable the searching of data, and the processing of data” and “business management services”.  The registered marks are for, inter alia:

 

• “Computer software specifically used in connection with Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) products, namely, for operating and programming general purpose Geographic Information Systems (GIS), for performing general purpose Computer Aided Design (CAD), for graphics art design, for operating a database management system, for mapping of geographic features in projected or unprojected coordinate systems, for mapping of non-geographic data in abstract coordinate systems and for software development” (U.S. Registration No. 4152889); and
• “Computer software for storing, managing, tracking, analyzing, and reporting data in the field of marketing, promotion, sales, customer information, customer relationship management, sales support, and employee efficiency; computer software to facilitate communicating among peer professionals in the advertising, marketing, and business services fields, and for customizing computer application user interfaces” and “Business management services, namely, providing information, data asset, and identity management services; compilation and management of computerized databases and consulting services related thereto; business management services, namely, providing customer relationship management services and sales support management services; business management consulting services relating to customer relationship management, sales support management, and marketing automation; providing a website featuring information in the fields of advertising, marketing, and business management, and consulting services related thereto; operating online marketplaces for buying and selling, sharing, and offering for free computer software and on-demand applications” (U.S. Registration No. 4483279).

 

Determining likelihood of confusion is based on the description of the goods and services stated in the application and registration at issue.  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 uses the broad wording “Computer software; computer software supplied from the Internet;…computer software to enable the searching of data, and the processing of data” and “business management services” to describe applicant’s goods and services, and this wording is presumed to encompass all goods and services of the type described, including the particular software and business management services identified in the registrants’ more narrow identifications.  See, e.g., In re Solid State Design Inc., 125 USPQ2d 1409, 1412-15 (TTAB 2018).  Thus, applicant’s and registrants’ goods and services 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).

 

Additionally, the goods and services of the parties have no restrictions as to 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 registrants’ goods and services are related.

 

Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.  Applicant should also note the following potential ground for refusal and must respond to the requirements set forth below.

 

Potential for Likelihood of Confusion with Marks in Prior-Filed Applications

 

The filing dates of pending U.S. Application Serial Nos. 87976393 and 87381105 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 because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark(s) in the referenced application(s).

 

Applicant must respond to the following requirements.

 

Amended Identification of Goods and Services Required

 

The classification and identification of goods and services in the application are:

 

Class 009:       Computer software; computer software supplied from the Internet; computer software relating to insurance and financial transactions; computer software relating to insurance and financial services and the provision of insurance and financial advice; computer software to enable the searching of data, and the processing of data; electronic publications provided on-line from databases or the Internet; Computer software that calculates mortgage financing options used to provide mortgage guaranty insurance services; Downloadable computer software used for real estate brokerage services

 

Class 035:       Monitoring real estate loans and portfolios for business purposes; business management services; staffing, recruiting, and outsourcing services in the field of real estate

 

Class 036:       Insurance services, namely financial guaranty insurance administration, processing and underwriting, financial guaranty reinsurance administration processing and underwriting, and mortgage guaranty insurance administration, processing and underwriting

 

The wording that is italicized in the identification of goods, above, is overbroad and must be clarified because software and electronic publications can be classified in multiple international classes depending on whether they are downloadable or non-downloadable. 

 

The wording that is underlined in the identification of goods and services, above, is indefinite and must be clarified.  For example,

 

• The purpose or function of the software must be specified.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.03(d).  If the software is content- or field-specific, applicant must also specify its content or field of use.  See TMEP §1402.03(d).  The USPTO requires such specificity in identifying computer software in order for a trademark examining attorney to examine the application properly and make appropriate decisions concerning possible conflicts between the applicant’s mark and other marks.  See In re N.A.D. Inc., 57 USPQ2d 1872, 1874 (TTAB 2000); TMEP §1402.03(d).

 

• The identification for “electronic publications” must be amended to specify the nature and subject matter of the publications.  Applicant must specify (1) the common name of the type of publications, such as brochures, newsletters, or magazines; and (2) the subject matter of the publications.  TMEP §1402.03(e). 

 

• Applicant must clarify the nature of its staffing and processing services. 

 

Applicant may adopt any or all of the following identification, if accurate.  Applicant must also adopt the appropriate international class number(s), and, if applicant adopts goods and/or services in more than one class, it must comply with the multiple-class application requirements set forth below.  In the following, proposed amendments are in bold.  Where the amendments include brackets, applicant must remove the brackets and incorporate the bracketed information into its amended identification.

 

Class 009:       Downloadable computer software for {specify the function or purpose of the software, and, if it is content- or field-specific, the content or field of use}; downloadable computer software relating to insurance and financial transactions for {specify the function or purpose of the software}; downloadable computer software relating to insurance and financial services for providing insurance and financial advice; downloadable computer software to enable the searching of data, and the processing of data; electronic downloadable publications, namely, {indicate specific nature of publication, e.g., books, worksheets, brochures, etc.} provided on-line from databases or the Internet in the field of {indicate subject matter}; Downloadable computer software that calculates mortgage financing options used to provide mortgage guaranty insurance services; Downloadable computer software used for real estate brokerage services

 

Class 035:       Monitoring real estate loans and portfolios for business purposes; business management services; employment staffing, recruiting, and outsourcing services in the field of real estate

 

Class 036:       Insurance services, namely financial guaranty insurance administration, claims processing and underwriting, financial guaranty reinsurance administration, claims processing and underwriting, and mortgage guaranty insurance administration, claims processing and underwriting

 

Class 041:       Non-downloadable electronic publications, namely, {indicate specific nature of publication, e.g., books, worksheets, brochures}, in the field of {indicate subject matter}

 

Class 042:       Providing temporary use of non-downloadable computer software supplied from the Internet for {specify the function or purpose of the software, and, if it is content- or field-specify, the content or field of use}

 

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.

 

Applicant may amend the identification to clarify or limit the goods and/or services, but not to broaden or expand the goods and/or services beyond those in the original application or as acceptably amended.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06.  Generally, any deleted goods and/or services may not later be reinserted.  See TMEP §1402.07(e).

 

Multiple-Class Application Requirements

 

The application identifies goods and services in more than one international class; therefore, applicant must satisfy all the requirements below for each international class based on Trademark Act Section 1(b):

 

(1)       List the goods and/or services by their international class number in consecutive numerical order, starting with the lowest numbered class.

 

(2)       Submit a filing fee for each international class not covered by the fees already paid (view the USPTO’s current fee schedule).  The application identifies goods and services that are classified in at least 5 classes; however, applicant submitted fees sufficient for only 3 classes.  Applicant must either submit the filing fees for the classes not covered by the submitted fees or restrict the application to the number of classes covered by the fees already paid.

 

See 15 U.S.C. §§1051(b), 1112, 1126(e); 37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(6)-(7), 2.34(a)(2)-(3), 2.86(a); TMEP §§1403.01, 1403.02(c).

 

See an overview of the requirements for a Section 1(b) multiple-class application and how to satisfy the requirements online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form.

 

Applicant must also respond to the following requirements.

 

Amended Mark Description Required

 

The description of the mark in the application is:

 

The mark consists of the word RADIAN in navy blue lowercase font. The "I" in RADIAN is dotted with a diamond shape in teal. Below the word RADIAN is the words MORTGAGE SERVICES shown in lower case letters in teal.

 

Applicant must submit an amended description of the mark that agrees with the mark on the drawing.  37 C.F.R. §2.37; see TMEP §§808.01, 808.02.  The current description is inconsistent with the mark on the drawing and thus is inaccurate.  37 C.F.R. §2.37; see TMEP §§808.01, 808.02.  In particular, a quadrilateral appears over the letter “I”.  Descriptions must be accurate and identify only those literal and design elements appearing in the mark.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.37; TMEP §§808.02, 808.03(d). 

 

The following description is suggested, if accurate: 

 

The mark consists of the wording “RADIAN” in navy blue lowercase font.  The “I” in the wording “RADIAN” is dotted with a teal quadrilateral.  The wording “MORTGAGE SERVICES” appears in a stylized lowercase font in the color teal beneath the wording “RADIAN”.

 

Disclaimer Required

 

Applicant must provide a disclaimer of the unregistrable part of the applied-for mark.  See 15 U.S.C. §1056(a); TMEP §§1213, 1213.03(a).  A disclaimer of an unregistrable part of a mark will not affect the mark’s appearance.  See Schwarzkopf v. John H. Breck, Inc., 340 F.2d 978, 979-80, 144 USPQ 433, 433 (C.C.P.A. 1965).

 

In this case, applicant must disclaim the wording “MORTGAGE SERVICES” in the mark because it is not inherently distinctive.  These unregistrable terms at best are merely descriptive of features 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). 

 

A mortgage is a financial transaction, such as a loan, in which property is conveyed or a lien is placed against property that becomes void when payment or performance is completed.  See, e.g., attached Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition of mortgage.  The applicant expressly describes its goods as including software “that calculates mortgage financing options” and its services as in the field of mortgages.  See, e.g., Identification of Goods and Services in Application; attached evidence from http://en.wikipedia.org.     The wording “MORTGAGE SERVICES” in the applied-for mark merely describes these features of applicant’s goods and services. 

 

Applicant may respond to this issue by submitting a disclaimer in the following format: 

 

No claim is made to the exclusive right to use “MORTGAGE SERVICES” 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. 

 

Response to Office Action Required to Avoid Abandonment

 

Applicant may call or email the assigned trademark examining attorney with questions about this Office action.  The trademark examining attorney cannot provide legal advice or statements about applicant’s rights, but the trademark examining attorney can provide applicant with additional explanation about the refusal, potential refusal, and requirements 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.  

 

 

 

/Jeanine Gagliardi/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 120

571-272-3177

jeanine.gagliardi@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 3/6/2019 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 88267036

 

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 3/6/2019 (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.