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: 4/17/2019

 

TEAS PLUS OR TEAS REDUCED FEE (TEAS RF) APPLICANTS – TO MAINTAIN LOWER FEE, ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS MUST BE MET, INCLUDING SUBMITTING DOCUMENTS ONLINE:  Applicants who filed their application online using the lower-fee TEAS Plus or TEAS RF application form must (1) file certain documents online using TEAS, including responses to Office actions (see TMEP §§819.02(b), 820.02(b) for a complete list of these documents); (2) maintain a valid e-mail correspondence address; and (3) agree to receive correspondence from the USPTO by e-mail throughout the prosecution of the application.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.22(b), 2.23(b); TMEP §§819, 820.  TEAS Plus or TEAS RF applicants who do not meet these requirements must submit an additional processing fee of $125 per class of goods and/or services.  37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(1)(v), 2.22(c), 2.23(c); TMEP §§819.04, 820.04.  However, in certain situations, TEAS Plus or TEAS RF applicants may respond to an Office action by authorizing an examiner’s amendment by telephone or e-mail without incurring this additional fee.  

 

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:

 

• Registration of the mark is partially refused under Trademark Act Section 2(d)
• Prior-filed applications present a potential additional bar to registration
• The identification of goods and services in Classes 9, 35, 38, 39, and 42 is unacceptable
• The mark description is unacceptable

 

NOTE: THE FOLLOWING REFUSAL IS LIMITED TO INTERNATIONAL CLASS 36

 

Section 2(d) Refusal: Likelihood of Confusion—Class 36

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused in International Class 36 because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 4939384.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registration.

 

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.

 

Similarity 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).

 

The applicant has applied to register the mark INTERSTELLAR with a design element.  The registered mark is INTERSTELLAR GROUP with a design element.

 

The applicant’s mark is similar to the registered mark because the dominant feature in both marks is the identical term INTERSTELLAR.  The literal element in the applicant’s mark is comprised entirely of the word INTERSTELLAR, which is wholly incorporated within the literal element in the registered mark.  Incorporating one mark within another does not obviate the similarity between the compared marks, 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.

 

Although the registered mark also includes the literal element GROUP, this additional wording is not sufficient to overcome the finding that the marks are confusingly similar.  The word “Group” merely describes a business entity or organization, and has thus been disclaimed in the registered mark. 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 and/or services 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).

 

The additional design features in the marks are also insufficient to obviate the finding of similarity.  In the applicant’s mark, the design is comprised of a stylized star forming the letter “A” in INTERSTELLAR and a row of stars appearing as underlining for the wording.  In the registered mark, the design is a stylized image of space, with a galaxy in the center.  Neither of these design elements significantly alters the overall impression of the marks, and in fact the star and galaxy designs both serve to reinforce the wording INTERSTELLAR in the marks, as “Interstellar” refers to something that is “located, taking place, or traveling among the stars especially of the Milky Way galaxy.” (See the attached definition). Moreover, 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)).

 

For the reasons discussed above, the applicant’s mark is confusingly similar to the registered mark.

 

Relatedness of the Goods and Services

The goods and/or services are compared to determine whether they are similar, commercially related, or travel in the same trade channels.  See Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369-71, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722-23 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 1165, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2002); TMEP §§1207.01, 1207.01(a)(vi).

 

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).

 

The applicant has applied to register the mark for use in connection with, in relevant part, “Financial asset management; Financial evaluation, tracking, analysis, forecasting, consultancy, advisory and research services relating to securities and other financial instruments.” The registrant’s services include “Financial investment in the field of real estate, software, and film.”  These services are related because they are similar in their underlying nature and purpose, and thus are services commonly provided by the same entity under a single mark.

 

“Financial asset management” is the management of financial investments on behalf of others, which entails researching and investing in various financial products, including real estate. The examining attorney references the attached Internet evidence, such as the pages from Investopedia.com Wikipedia.org, that provide information about financial asset management and indicate that such services include financial evaluation, advice, and research and often entail financial investment in real estate. As shown by these pages, the applicant’s financial services are closely related to, and generally offered in conjunction with, the services of financial investment in real estate.  

 

The examining attorney additionally references the attached web pages that provide information about third parties who offer a range of financial and investment services, including real estate investment, financial asset management, and financial evaluation, analysis, consultancy, or advisory services.  This evidence establishes that the same entity commonly provides the relevant services and markets the services under the same mark, that the relevant services are sold or provided through the same trade channels and used by the same classes of consumers in the same fields of use, and that the services are similar or complementary in terms of purpose or function.  Therefore, applicant’s and registrant’s 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).

 

The applicant’s mark is similar to the registered mark, and the services of the parties are related. Accordingly, there would be a likelihood of confusion as to the source of the services.  Registration of the applicant’s mark is therefore refused in Class 36 under Trademark Act Section 2(d) based on a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 4939384.

 

Although the trademark examining attorney has refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal to register by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration. 

 

Partial Refusal—Response Options

The stated refusal refers to International Class 36 only and does not bar registration in the other classes.

 

Applicant may respond to the stated refusal by submitting evidence and arguments against the refusal.  In addition, applicant may respond by doing one of the following:

 

(1)       Deleting the class to which the refusal pertains; or

 

(2)       Filing a request to divide out the goods and/or 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).

 

The applicant is additionally advised of the following:

 

Prior Pending Applications—Potential Section 2(d) Refusal

The filing dates of pending U.S. Application Serial Nos. 87288980 and 88214054 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.

 

Informalities to be Addressed

If applicant chooses to respond to the Section 2(d) refusal to register, then applicant must also respond to the following requirements:

 

Identification of Goods and Services

The identification of services in Class 36 is acceptable.  However, the identification in the other classes is unacceptable because it includes broad or indefinite wording, and includes services that are or may be misclassified.  TMEP §1402.01.  The particular issues with the identification are noted below.

 

Class 9

The wording “Downloadable software for connecting, operating, and managing networked M2M in the internet of things (IoT)” is unacceptable because it is not clear what is meant by “networked M2M in the internet of things (IoT)” and thus the function of the software is not sufficiently clear.  The applicant must amend to further specify the function/purpose of the software.

 

Class 35

“Maintaining a registry of national and international databases in the field of asset control (fixed and mobile)” is unacceptable because the subject matter/content of the databases is not clear.  The applicant must amend this wording to further specify the subject matter or content of the databases.

 

In addition, applicants should not use parentheses and brackets in identifications in their applications so as to avoid confusion with the USPTO’s practice of using parentheses and brackets in registrations to indicate goods and/or services that have been deleted from registrations or in an affidavit of incontestability to indicate goods and/or services not claimed.  See TMEP §1402.12.  The only exception is that parenthetical information is permitted in identifications in an application if it serves to explain or translate the matter immediately preceding the parenthetical phrase in such a way that it does not affect the clarity or scope of the identification, e.g., “fried tofu pieces (abura-age).”  Id. Therefore, applicant must remove the parentheses from the identification and incorporate any parenthetical information into the description of the services.

 

Class 38

“Transmission and delivery of data via broadband/satellite M2M and Wireless Communication Networks” is unacceptable because it is not clear what is meant by “M2M.”  The applicant must amend this wording to further specify the means by which the data is transmitted and delivered.

 

Class 39

“Distribution services, namely, delivery of electronic library and (e) books” is unacceptable in Class 39 because this wording appears to identify a service properly classified in Class 38.  Delivery and distribution services in Class 39 refer to the delivery of physical objects, such as food or parcels.  However, the applicant has specified that its distribution services entail the delivery of “electronic library and (e)books.”  Such items are not goods that are physically delivered, but rather are transmitted electronically.  Electronic delivery or transmission of data or documents is a service properly classified in Class 38.  Thus, the applicant must amend this wording to further specify the nature of the services, and to classify them accordingly.

 

Class 42

“Electronic monitoring and reporting of individual assets using computers or sensors” is unacceptable because the subject matter of the electronic monitoring and reporting services is not sufficiently definite.  In general, electronic monitoring and reporting services using computers or sensors refers to the activity of monitoring a particular property or condition, such as the operation of a machine or the temperature in a building.  In the present case, the subject of the monitoring is noted as “individual assets,” which is indefinite because it does not sufficiently specify what is monitored.  The applicant must therefore amend this wording to further specify the services.

 

The applicant must amend the application to adopt an acceptable identification and classification of goods and services.  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.

 

The applicant may amend to adopt one or more of the following identifications, if accurate:

 

INTERNATIONAL CLASS 9: Downloadable software for connecting, operating, and managing networked machines or devices in the internet of things (IoT); Microcontrollers for internet of things (IoT) enabled devices; Transponder location systems.

 

INTERNATIONAL CLASS 35: Database management; Maintaining a registry of national and international databases featuring listings of third parties’ fixed and mobile assets, for the purpose of asset control; Providing electronic tracking of intellectual and industrial property assets to others for business purposes; Providing tracking services and information concerning tracking of assets in transit, namely, vehicles, trailers, drivers, cargo and delivery containers for business inventory purposes.

 

INTERNATIONAL CLASS 36: [unchanged] Financial asset management; Financial evaluation, tracking, analysis, forecasting, consultancy, advisory and research services relating to securities and other financial instruments

 

INTERNATIONAL CLASS 38: Broadband radio communication services; Communication via computer terminals, by digital transmission or by satellite; Telematic sending of information; Transmission and delivery of data via broadband, satellite,  machine-to-machine communication channels, and wireless communication networks; electronic delivery of electronic library books and electronic books.

 

INTERNATIONAL CLASS 39: Providing information concerning collection and delivery of assets in transit, namely, vehicles, trailers, drivers, cargo and delivery containers.

 

INTERNATIONAL CLASS 42: Electronic data storage; Electronic monitoring and reporting of [specify assets; e.g., fleet vehicles, delivery containers] using computers or sensors.

 

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).

 

Amended Mark Description Required

Applicant must delete from the description any text that does not reference things appearing in the mark, such as interpretation, assessment, or analysis of the mark elements, or indications of how the mark is or is not used or intended to be used.  A description must be concise, and identify only the literal and design elements shown in the drawing.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.37; TMEP §808.02. 

 

In addition, applicant must delete the wording “Andale Mono Regular” from the description because ANDALE is a registered mark that does not appear to be owned by applicant.  TMEP §808.02.  See attached copy of U.S. Registration No. 2328074.  Descriptions must use common non-proprietary language to describe the mark elements.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.37; TMEP §808.02; cf. Camloc Fastener Corp. v. Grant, 119 USPQ 264, 265 n.1 (TTAB 1958) (the use of registered marks in identifications is inappropriate because it indicates origin in another party); TMEP §1402.09.

 

The following amended description is suggested: 

 

The mark consists of the stylized wording “INTERSTELLAR” with the letter “A” stylized in the shape of a star, above a line comprised of eighteen stars.

 

Response Guidelines

For this application to proceed, applicant must explicitly address each refusal and/or requirement in this Office action.  For a refusal, applicant may provide written arguments and evidence against the refusal, and may have other response options if specified above.  For a requirement, applicant should set forth the changes or statements.  Please see “Responding to Office Actions” and the informational video “Response to Office Action” for more information and tips on responding.

 

Because of the legal technicalities and strict deadlines involved in the USPTO application process, applicant may wish to hire a private attorney specializing in trademark matters to represent applicant in this process and provide legal advice.  Although the undersigned trademark examining attorney is permitted to help an applicant understand the contents of an Office action as well as the application process in general, no USPTO attorney or staff is permitted to give an applicant legal advice or statements about an applicant’s legal rights.  TMEP §§705.02, 709.06. 

 

For attorney referral information, applicant may consult the American Bar Association’s Consumers’ Guide to Legal Help; an online directory of legal professionals, such as FindLaw®; or a local telephone directory.  The USPTO, however, may not assist an applicant in the selection of a private attorney.  37 C.F.R. §2.11.

 

Please call or email the assigned trademark examining attorney with questions about this Office action.  Although the trademark examining attorney cannot provide legal advice or statements about applicant’s rights, the trademark examining attorney can provide applicant with additional explanation about the issues 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. 

 

 

/Kimberly Frye/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 113

(p)571-272-9430

(f) 571-273-9430

(e) kimberly.frye@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 4/17/2019 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 88278053

 

Your trademark application has been reviewed.  The trademark examining attorney assigned by the USPTO to your application has written an official letter to which you must respond.  Please follow these steps:

 

(1)  Read the LETTER by clicking on this link or going to http://tsdr.gov.uspto.report/, entering your U.S. application serial number, and clicking 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)  Respond within 6 months (or sooner if specified in the Office action), calculated from 4/17/2019, using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) response form located at http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp.  A response transmitted through TEAS must be received before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period.

 

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. 

 

(3)  Questions about the contents of the Office action itself should be directed to the trademark examining attorney who reviewed your application, identified below. 

 

/Kimberly Frye/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 113

(p)571-272-9430

(f) 571-273-9430

(e) kimberly.frye@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.