Offc Action Outgoing

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

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

 

 

 

NONFINAL 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).  A link to the appropriate TEAS response form appears at the end of this Office action. 

 

 

Issue date:  April 15, 2020

 

 

On September 16, 2019, action on this application was suspended pending the disposition of U.S. Application Serial Nos. 87670435 and 87670439.  The referenced prior-pending applications have

since registered.  Therefore, registration is refused as follows.

 

In addition, the SPECIMEN REFUSAL – INTERNATIONAL CLASS 41 is maintained and continued.

 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES:

• SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
• SPECIMENS REFUSAL – INTERNATIONAL CLASS 41

 

SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 5700516 and 5877085.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registrations.

 

Applicant has applied to register the mark “GO₂POC” stylized and feather design for educational and medical services.

 

The standard character mark in U.S. Registration No. 5700516 is “PURAIR THE GO2 COMPANY” for oxygen supply services for medical purposes.  The mark in U.S. Registration No. 5877085 is “PURAIR THE GO₂ COMPANY” stylized and design for oxygen supply services for medical purposes.  Both registrations are owned by MEDICAL EQUIPMENT SOLUTIONS, INC. 

 

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).  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 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. 

 

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).

 

Applicant has applied to register the mark “GO₂POC” stylized and feather design.

The standard character mark in U.S. Registration No. 5700516 is “PURAIR THE GO2 COMPANY”. 

 

The mark in U.S. Registration No. 5877085 is “PURAIR THE GO₂ COMPANY” stylized and design.

Applicant’s mark and the marks in the cited registrations are similar in appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression because all there marks use the novel “GO2” or “GO₂” combination.

 

In particular, O₂ is the common allotrope of the chemical element oxygen.  See attached information from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O2 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen.  

 

In the present case the unique combination of the word “GO” with the letter “2” or “₂” in each of the marks creates a common commercial impression and source identification for the marks related to oxygen on the go. 

 

Although the applicant’s mark and the marks in the cited registrations have other elements, 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). 

 

Thus, while it is clear that the marks can be differentiated in a side-by-side comparison, the marks are sufficiently similar in terms of the commercial impression related to the unique “GO2” or “GO₂” elements that consumers who encounter the marks would be likely to assume a connection between the parties.  This is particularly true considering the marks in the cited registrations identify the registrant as “THE GO2 COMPANY” or “THE GO₂ COMPANY” and applicant is also a company using “GO₂” in applicant’s mark.

 

Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar.

 

COMPARISON OF THE 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).

 

Applicant’s services are:

 

INTERNATIONAL CLASS 41:  Educational and training services, namely, conducting courses and classes in the fields of respiratory therapy, nebulizer therapy, and ventilator therapy; educational and training services, namely, conducting courses and classes in the fields of properly using medical equipment and supplies.

 

INTERNATIONAL CLASS 44:  Home health care services; health care services, namely, respiratory health care services, ventilation health care services, and medical clinical services associated with the foregoing; rental and leasing of medical equipment and supplies; providing a website featuring information in the field of health care; oxygen supply services for medical purposes.

 

The services in U.S. Registration Nos. 5700516 and 5877085 are oxygen supply services for medical purposes.

 

IDENTICAL SERVICES

When analyzing an applicant’s and registrant’s goods and/or services for similarity and relatedness, that determination is based on the description of the goods and/or services 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 goods and/or services in the application and registrations are identical, namely, oxygen supply services for medical purposes.  Therefore, it is presumed that the channels of trade and class(es) of purchasers are the same for these goods and/or services.  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)).  Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods and/or services are related.  

 

LEGALLY IDENTICAL SERVICES

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 broad wording to describe the services, namely, home health care services, health care services, namely, respiratory health care services, ventilation health care services, and medical clinical services associated with the foregoing, which presumably encompasses all services of the type described, including the more narrow services in the registrations, namely, oxygen supply services for medical purposes which can be provided in connection with applicant’s health services.  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 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); 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.

 

SIMILAR IN KIND AND/OR CLOSELY RELATED

If the goods and/or services of the respective parties are “similar in kind and/or closely related,” the degree of similarity between the marks required to support a finding of likelihood of confusion is not as great as would be required with diverse goods and/or services.  In re J.M. Originals Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1393, 1394 (TTAB 1987); see Shen Mfg. Co. v. Ritz Hotel Ltd., 393 F.3d 1238, 1242, 73 USPQ2d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2004); TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

Moreover, applicant's rental and leasing of medical equipment and supplies and providing a website featuring information in the field of health care are services which are similar in kind and/or closely related to registrant's oxygen supply services for medical purposes because these services of the applicant are broad enough to include oxygen supply equipment for medical purposes and information related thereto.  With respect to applicant's educational and training services in the field of respiratory therapy, ventilator therapy and particularly with respect to the proper use of medical equipment and supplies, these services are similar in kind and/or closely related to registrant's oxygen supply services for medical purposes because these educational services are broad enough to cover education and training related to medical equipment for supplying oxygen relevant to respiratory therapy, ventilator therapy and the use of medical equipment and supplies related to the oxygen.  The fact that applicant itself provides both oxygen supply services for medical purposes and these health and educational services supports that consumers are likely to believe that the services at issue emanate from a common commercial source.  This is particularly true as the source of registrant's services is "THE GO2 COMPANY" or "THE GO2 COMPANY".

 

Accordingly, the services are considered related for purpose of the likelihood of confusion analysis.

 

APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS

 

As noted in the suspension letter of September 16, 2019, applicant’s arguments in support of registration are unpersuasive.

 

Applicant contends that the marks in the now registrations and applicant’s mark are dissimilar in their entireties as to appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression.  However, despite the differences in wording between the marks and/or use of designs, the marks all use GO with the number 2 in a memorable play on the word  “GO” with a reference to oxygen, namely, O2 or O with a subscript number 2.  Given the nature of the services involved as expressly related to oxygen, the examining attorney is unpersuaded that the marks in the cited registrations will be perceived as “go to” alone as applicant contends.  In the context of applicant’s and registrant’s services, consumers will logically reach the same conclusion that the marks relate to oxygen given the presentation of the marks.  Therefore, even when the marks are compared in their entireties, the marks convey a common commercial impression related to this cleverly combined element which creates a similarity in the marks based upon this portion despite the fact that the marks are distinguishable in a side-by-side comparison.

 

Thus, while it is clear the marks can be differentiated in a side-by-side comparison, when considered in their entireties the marks contain this common commercial impression of go combined with the symbolic term for oxygen.  Contrary to applicant’s argument, the differences between the marks should not be given extra weight.  This is true despite how many individual words and letters each mark comprises and the sounds each of the words make in the respective marks.  This is also true despite the use of the term “PURAIR” in the cited registrations, because in general the additional components of each the respective marks do not sufficiently detract from the similarity in the marks based upon the common “GO2” or “GO₂” portions.  The same can be said with respect to the “POC” portion of applicant’s mark which applicant contends is the dominant portion of applicant’s mark.  This is the case because this portion of applicant’s mark does not readily distinguish applicant’s mark given the common “GO2” or “GO₂” portions of the marks in the cited registrations and the commercial impression related to this element in particular.  Moreover, contrary to applicant’s suggestions, any stylization of the marks at issue does not obviate the similarity of the marks based on the usage of this similar very original and distinct “GO2” or “GO₂” portion.

 

Furthermore, there is nothing in the record to support that the “GO2” or “GO₂” portions of the marks are self-laudatory and immediately descriptive of the alleged character or quality of the services.  This is particularly true as this portion of the mark is not disclaimed in either mark.  Thus, contrary to applicant’s arguments, the use of this portion in the respective marks does not make the relevant marks a category of “weak” marks.  This is particularly true in light of the current record which shows that applicant and the owner of the cited registrations are the only users of such designations per se.  Thus, applicant’s arguments on the alleged weakness of this portion of the mark are unpersuasive on the issue of likelihood of confusion in this case.

 

Applicant contends that the differences between the marks are even more significant in light of the relevant sales conditions.  In particular, applicant asserts that the costs of the services at issue demand that the purchaser exercise a high degree of care when purchasing the services because these services are not based on an impulse purchase decision.  Applicant contends that the services sold by the respective parties are elaborate, complex and/or specialized and are likely purchased after significant study with a process of contemplation and decision making, and applicant notes perhaps with consultation of a doctor even.  Thus, applicant concludes that the relevant sales conditions further obviate a likelihood of confusion in this case.

 

Applicant’s line of reasoning on this point is unpersuasive.  The fact that purchasers are sophisticated or knowledgeable in a particular field does not necessarily mean that they are sophisticated or knowledgeable in the field of trademarks or immune from source confusion.  TMEP §1207.01(d)(vii); see, e.g., Stone Lion Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d. 1317, 1325, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1163-64 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Top Tobacco LP v. N. Atl. Operating Co., 101 USPQ2d 1163, 1170 (TTAB 2011).  Further, where the purchasers consist of both professionals and the public, the standard of care for purchasing the goods is that of the least sophisticated potential purchaser.  In re FCA US LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1214, 1222 (TTAB 2018) (citing Stone Lion Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d. at 1325, 110 USPQ2d at 1163), aff’d per curiam, 777 F. App’x 516, 2019 BL 375518 (Fed. Cir. 2019).  This is true even if the relevant consumers in this case consult with a professional such as a doctor.  Thus, contrary to applicant’s arguments the sales conditions of the services does not necessarily obviate the likelihood of confusion in this case particularly in light of the similarity of the mark.

 

Given the “GO2” or “GO₂” portions the marks, the overriding concern is not only to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the services, but to protect the registrant from adverse commercial impact due to use of a similar mark by a newcomer.  See In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1208, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1690 (Fed. Cir. 1993).  Therefore, any doubt regarding a likelihood of confusion determination is resolved in favor of the registrant.  TMEP §1207.01(d)(i); see Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1265, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2002); In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 464-65, 6 USPQ2d 1025, 1026 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

 

CONCLUSION

 

Therefore, in the present case, a likelihood of confusion exists given the similarity of the marks and the identical, legally identical, and related nature of the services.

 

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

 

SPECIMENS REFUSAL – INTERNATIONAL CLASS 41

 

Specimens do not show use in specific class.  Registration is refused because the specimens do not show the applied-for mark as actually used in commerce in connection with any of the services specified in International Class 41.  Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); In re Keep A Breast Found., 123 USPQ2d 1869, 1876-79 (TTAB 2017); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a), 1301.04(d), (g)(i).  An application based on Trademark Act Section 1(a) must include a specimen showing the applied-for mark as actually used in commerce for each international class of goods and/or services identified in the application or amendment to allege use.  15 U.S.C. §1051(a)(1); 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a); see In re Gulf Coast Nutritionals, Inc., 106 USPQ2d 1243, 1247 (TTAB 2013).

 

Specifically, applicant’s services in International Class 41 are:  educational and training services, namely, conducting courses and classes in the fields of respiratory therapy, nebulizer therapy, and ventilator therapy; educational and training services, namely, conducting courses and classes in the fields of properly using medical equipment and supplies.

 

Applicant's specimens are described as webpages from applicant's website.

 

Applicant’s specimens do not show the applied-for mark in use in connection with any of the specific services related to conducting courses or classes identified in the application.  While educational services are referenced on the specimens, the educational services referenced are not courses and classes in the specific subject matters set forth in the identification.  Thus, registration is refused because the specimens do not show the applied-for mark in use in commerce in connection with any of the services specified in International Class 41 in the application.

 

Examples of specimens.  Specimens for services must show a direct association between the mark and the services and include:  (1) copies of advertising and marketing material, (2) a photograph of business signage or billboards, or (3) materials showing the mark in the sale, rendering, or advertising of the services.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.56(b)(2), (c); TMEP §1301.04(a), (h)(iv)(C). 

 

Any webpage printout or screenshot submitted as a specimen for services must include the webpage’s URL and the date it was accessed or printed.  37 C.F.R. §2.56(c).

 

Response options.  Applicant may respond to this refusal by satisfying one of the following for each applicable international class:

 

(1)       Submit a different specimen (a verified “substitute” specimen) that (a) was in actual use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application or prior to the filing of an amendment to allege use and (b) shows the mark in actual use in commerce for the goods and/or services identified in the application or amendment to allege use.  A “verified substitute specimen” is a specimen that is accompanied by the following statement made in a signed affidavit or supported by a declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20:  “The substitute (or new, or originally submitted, if appropriate) specimen(s) was/were in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application or prior to the filing of the amendment to allege use.”  The substitute specimen cannot be accepted without this statement.

 

(2)       Amend the filing basis to intent to use under Section 1(b) (which includes withdrawing an amendment to allege use, if one was filed), as no specimen is required before publication.  This option will later necessitate additional fee(s) and filing requirements, including a specimen.

 

For an overview of the response options referenced above and instructions on how to satisfy these options using the online Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, see the Specimen webpage.

 

RESPONDING TO THIS OFFICE ACTION

 

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(s) and/or requirement(s) 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. 

 

How to respond.  Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action.    

 

 

/Brendan McCauley/

Brendan McCauley

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 114

571-272-9459

Brendan.McCauley@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 April 15, 2020 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88280407

 

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. 

 

 

/Brendan McCauley/

Brendan McCauley

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 114

571-272-9459

Brendan.McCauley@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 April 15, 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.”