| To: | Little Flower Colo Hemp Co LTD (ipinbox@block45legal.com) |
| Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88289520 - SHARE - N/A |
| Sent: | September 11, 2019 12:15:15 PM |
| Sent As: | ecom122@uspto.gov |
| Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 Attachment - 6 Attachment - 7 Attachment - 8 Attachment - 9 Attachment - 10 Attachment - 11 Attachment - 12 Attachment - 13 Attachment - 14 Attachment - 15 Attachment - 16 Attachment - 17 Attachment - 18 Attachment - 19 Attachment - 20 Attachment - 21 Attachment - 22 Attachment - 23 Attachment - 24 Attachment - 25 Attachment - 26 Attachment - 27 Attachment - 28 Attachment - 29 Attachment - 30 Attachment - 31 Attachment - 32 Attachment - 33 Attachment - 34 Attachment - 35 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
|
U.S. Application Serial No. 88289520
Mark: SHARE
|
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
|
Applicant: Little Flower Colo Hemp Co LTD
|
|
|
Reference/Docket No. N/A
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
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: September 11, 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.
CSA REFUSAL – GOODS NOT IN LEGAL COMMERCE
Registration is refused because the applied-for mark was not in lawful use in commerce as of the filing date of the application. Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; see TMEP §907.
To qualify for federal trademark/service mark registration, the use of a mark in commerce must be lawful. Gray v. Daffy Dan’s Bargaintown, 823 F.2d 522, 526, 3 USPQ2d 1306, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (stating that “[a] valid application cannot be filed at all for registration of a mark without ‘lawful use in commerce’”); TMEP §907; see In re Stellar Int’l, Inc., 159 USPQ 48, 50-51 (TTAB 1968); Coahoma Chemical Co., Inc. v. Smith, 113 USPQ 413 (Com’r Pat. & Trademarks 1957) (concluding that “use of a mark in connection with unlawful shipments in interstate commerce is not use of a mark in commerce which the [Office] may recognize.”). Thus, the goods to which the mark is applied must comply with all applicable federal laws. See In re Brown, 119 USPQ2d 1350, 1351 (TTAB 2016) (citing In re Midwest Tennis & Track Co., 29 USPQ2d 1386, 1386 n.2 (TTAB 1993) (noting that “[i]t is settled that the Trademark Act’s requirement of ‘use in commerce,’ means a ‘lawful use in commerce’”)); In re Pepcom Indus., Inc., 192 USPQ 400, 401 (TTAB 1976); TMEP §907.
Here, the items or activities to which the proposed mark are applied were unlawful under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 U.S.C. §§801-971. The evidence of record indicates that at least some of the items or activities to which the proposed mark may be applied are unlawful under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 U.S.C. §§801-971.
As evidenced by the indicate specimen, goods within the scope of the identification bearing the mark contain cannabidiol. Cannabidiol (CBD) is a nonpsychoactive constituent of the cannabis plant. Applicant’s identified goods are broad enough to include products produced from “all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L., whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of such plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such plant, its seeds or resin” (subject to certain exceptions). 21 U.S.C. §802(16)(definition of “marihuana” – commonly referred to as “marijuana”).
In order for an application to have a valid basis that could properly result in a registration, the use of the mark has to be lawful. See In re Pepcom Indus., Inc., 192 USPQ 400, 401 (TTAB 1976) The claimed use of the applied-for mark in connection with such goods was not in lawful commerce as of the filing date. See In re Brown, 119 USPQ2d, 1351-1352.
On December 20, 2018, the CSA was amended to remove “hemp” from the definition of marijuana and specifically exclude “tetrahydrocannabinols in hemp (as defined under section 297A of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946)” from Schedule I, 21 U.S.C. §812(c)(17). Because the identified goods that feature cannabidiol consist of or include items or activities that are still prohibited under the Controlled Substances Act, namely those containing cannabidiol derived from marijuana, the applicant did not have a valid filing basis for any such items or activities. To the extent the applicant’s goods are derived solely from cannabis plants that meet the current statutory definition of hemp, such goods may be lawful.
Therefore, in order to overcome this refusal, applicant must amend the identification of goods and services to specify that all cannabidiol-containing items are “solely derived from hemp with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol [THC] concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.” Please see the complete requirement for an acceptable identification of goods below.
The applicant may also present arguments and evidence against this refusal.
FDCA REFUSAL – GOODS NOT IN LEGAL COMMERCE – Applies to Classes 1 and 5
Registration is refused because the applied-for mark is not in lawful use in commerce. Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; see TMEP §907. The goods to which the mark is applied must comply with all applicable federal laws. See In re Brown, 119 USPQ2d 1350, 1351 (TTAB 2016) (citing In re Midwest Tennis & Track Co., 29 USPQ2d 1386, 1386 n.2 (TTAB 1993) (noting that “[i]t is settled that the Trademark Act’s requirement of ‘use in commerce,’ means a ‘lawful use in commerce’”)); In re Pepcom Indus., Inc., 192 USPQ 400, 401 (TTAB 1976); TMEP §907.
This refusal issues when “(1) a violation of federal law is indicated by the application record or other evidence, such as when a court or a federal agency responsible for overseeing activity in which the applicant is involved, and which activity is relevant to its application, has issued a finding of noncompliance under the relevant statute or regulation, or (2) when the applicant’s application-relevant activities involve a per se violation of a federal law.” In re Brown, 119 USPQ2d at 1351 (citing Kellogg Co. v. New Generation Foods Inc., 6 USPQ2d 2045, 2047 (TTAB 1988); Santinine Societa v. P.A.B. Produits, 209 USPQ 958, 964 (TTAB 1981)); TMEP §907.
The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act prohibits the introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of a food to which has been added a drug or a biological product for which substantial clinical investigations have been instituted and for which the existence of such investigations has been made public. 21 U.S.C. §331(ll); see also 21 U.S.C. §321(ff) (indicating that a dietary supplement is deemed to be a food within the meaning of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act).
Cannabidiol (CBD) is an active ingredient in an FDA-approved drug, Epidiolex®, (see http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm611046.htm copy attached) and is the subject of substantial clinical investigations before it was marketed in foods or as dietary supplements. See FDA Regulation of Cannabis and Cannabis-derived Products: Questions and Answers http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/PublicHealthFocus/ucm421168.htm copy attached. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) placed Epidiolex® on schedule V of the CSA on September 27, 2018. Nevertheless, marijuana and CBD derived from marijuana remain unlawful. No other cannabis-derived drug products have been approved by the FDA. Under the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act (FDCA), any product intended to have a therapeutic or medical use, and any product (other than a food) that is intended to affect the structure or function of the body of humans or animals, is a drug. 21 U.S.C. § 321(g)(1) .
Applicant’s goods are broad enough to encompass products that consist of, or include, items or activities that are prohibited by the FDCA, namely, topicals and ingredients used in creating topicals containing CBD.
The specimen of record plainly indicates that applicant’s topicals and ingredients for use in topiclas that contain CBD and that such goods are currently being marketed, promoted or offered for sale to consumers.
It is unlawful to introduce food containing added CBD into interstate commerce or to market CBD as, or in, dietary supplements, regardless of whether the substances are hemp-derived. See Statement from FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, M.D., on signing of the Agriculture Improvement Act and the agency’s regulation of products containing cannabis and cannabis-derived compounds.
http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm628988.htm copy attached.
In addition, an unapproved new drug cannot be distributed or sold in interstate commerce unless it is the subject of an FDA-approved new drug application (NDA) or abbreviated new drug application (ANDA). 21 U.S.C. §§ 331(d) and 355(a), (b), & (j); see also FDA Regulation of Cannabis and Cannabis-Derived Products: Questions and Answers http://www.fda.gov/news-events/public-health-focus/fda-regulation-cannabis-and-cannabis-derived-products-questions-and-answers copy attached. The speimen plainly indicates that applicant’s topical analgesics, medicated balms, lotions, creams, tinctures are comprised of cannabidiol and are promoted to have therapeutic or medical benefits that affect the structure or function of the body.
In order for an application to have a valid basis that could properly result in a registration, the use of the mark has to be lawful. See In re Pepcom Indus., Inc., 192 USPQ 400, 401 (TTAB 1976) Accordingly, because applicant’s goods consist of or include items or activities that violate federal law, the applied-for mark as used in connection with such goods is not in lawful use in commerce.
(1) Deleting the classes to which the refusal pertains;
(2) Filing a request to divide out the goods that have not been refused registration, so that the mark may proceed toward publication for opposition in the class 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).; or
(3) Amending the basis for such classes, if appropriate. TMEP §806.03(h). (The basis cannot be changed for applications filed under Trademark Act Section 66(a). TMEP §1904.01(a).)
SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL - LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that is so similar to a registered mark that it is likely consumers would be confused, mistaken, or deceived as to the commercial source of the goods of the parties. See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d). Likelihood of confusion is determined on a case-by-case basis by applying the factors set forth in In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973) (called the “du Pont factors”). In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1322, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1747 (Fed. Cir. 2017). 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. 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 applied-for mark is: “SHARE” for the refused goods: “essential oils; essential oils containing hemp; plant and herb extracts for cosmetic purposes; plant and herb extracts, namely, hemp, for cosmetic purposes.”
The cited registered mark is Reg. No. 4343060: “SHARE” for “Fragrances.”
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)); TMEP §1207.01(b).
Applicant’s mark is “SHARE”.
Registrant’s mark is “SHARE”.
Based on the foregoing, the applicant’s applied-for and registrant’s marks are sufficiently similar to find a likelihood of confusion.
Comparison of the Goods
Applicant’s mark is for the refused goods “essential oils; essential oils containing hemp; plant and herb extracts for cosmetic purposes; plant and herb extracts, namely, hemp, for cosmetic purposes.”
Registrant’s mark is for “Fragrances.”
Determining likelihood of confusion is based on the description of the goods stated in the application and registration at issue, not on 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)).
Absent restrictions in an application and/or registration, the identified goods 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)). Additionally, unrestricted and broad identifications are presumed to encompass all goods of the type described. See, e.g., Sw. Mgmt., Inc. v. Ocinomled, Ltd., 115 USPQ2d 1007, 1025 (TTAB 2015); In re N.A.D., Inc., 57 USPQ2d 1872, 1874 (TTAB 2000).
In this case, the application uses broad wording to describe its goods, which presumably encompasses all goods of the type described, including registrant’s more narrowly identified 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 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 are related.
Accordingly, when consumers encounter cosmetic goods sold under identical marks, they are likely to be confused.
Based on the analysis above, applicant’s and registrant’s goods are related.
Conclusion
Because applicant’s and registrant’s marks are similar and the goods are related, there is a likelihood of confusion and applicant’s applied-for mark must be refused under Section 2(d) of the Lanham Act.
(1) Deleting the class to which the refusal pertains;
(2) Filing a request to divide out the goods that have not been refused registration, so that the mark may proceed toward publication for opposition in the classes 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).; or
(3) Amending the basis, if appropriate. TMEP §806.03(h). (The basis cannot be changed for applications filed under Trademark Act Section 66(a). TMEP §1904.01(a).)
SPECIMEN REFUSAL – APPLIES ONLY TO CLASS 1
An application based on Trademark Act Section 1(a) must include a specimen showing the applied-for mark in use in commerce for each international class of goods 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).
Examples of specimens for goods include tags, labels, instruction manuals, containers, photographs that show the mark on the actual goods or packaging, and displays associated with the actual goods at their point of sale. See TMEP §§904.03 et seq. Webpages may also be specimens for goods when they include a picture or textual description of the goods associated with the mark and the means to order the goods. TMEP §904.03(i).
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 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), for which no specimen is required. This option will later necessitate additional fee(s) and filing requirements such as providing a specimen.
For an overview of both response options referenced above and instructions on how to satisfy either option online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, please go to http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/law/specimen.jsp.
(1) Deleting the class to which the refusal pertains;
(2) Filing a request to divide out the goods that have not been refused registration, so that the mark may proceed toward publication for opposition in the classes 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).; or
(3) Amending the basis, if appropriate. TMEP §806.03(h). (The basis cannot be changed for applications filed under Trademark Act Section 66(a). TMEP §1904.01(a).)
Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusals by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration. However, if applicant responds to the refusals, applicant must also respond to the requirements set forth below.
IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENT
Applicant has identified the following goods:
Class 1: Plant extracts, namely, hemp, used in the manufacture of supplements, food products, cosmetics, bath products, and veterinary products
Class 3: essential oils; essential oils containing hemp; plant and herb extracts for cosmetic purposes; plant and herb extracts, namely, hemp, for cosmetic purposes
Class 5: medicated oils; medicated oils containing hemp; medicinal herb extracts; medicinal hemp extracts.
Applicant will also need to amend the identification of goods to clarify that its goods comply with the new legal definition of “hemp” under the Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018. The following is suggested, if accurate: “all of the forgoing goods derived only from industrial hemp with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.” Applicant should note that this properly amended identification will still not overcome the FDCA refusal. See 21 U.S.C. §§801-971.
If accurate, applicant may adopt the suggestion below, which reflects all of the necessary changes discussed above and shows added or amended language underlined for clarity:
Class 1: Plant extracts, namely, hemp, used in the manufacture of supplements, food products, cosmetics, bath products, and veterinary products; all of the forgoing goods derived only from industrial hemp with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis
Class 3: essential oils; essential oils containing hemp; plant and herb extracts for cosmetic purposes; plant and herb extracts, namely, hemp, for cosmetic purposes; all of the forgoing goods derived only from industrial hemp with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis
Class 5: medicated oils; medicated oils containing hemp; medicinal herb extracts; medicinal hemp extracts; all of the forgoing goods derived only from industrial hemp with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis
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.
REQUEST-FOR-INFORMATION REQUIREMENT: CANNABIS OR HEMP RELATED GOODS
To permit proper examination of the application, applicant must submit additional information about the goods. 37 C.F.R. §§2.61(b), 2.69; Cf. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United States, 393 F.3d 1277, 1284, 73 USPQ2d 1409, 1414 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (discussing Patent Rule 1.105(a)(1), which is the equivalent of Trademark Rule 2.61(b)); TMEP §§814, 907. The requested information should include fact sheets, brochures, advertisements, and/or similar materials relating to the goods. If such materials are not available, applicant must provide a detailed factual description of the goods. Any information submitted in response to this requirement must clearly and accurately indicate the nature of the goods identified in the application.
In addition, applicant must submit a written statement indicating whether the goods/services identified in the application comply with the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA). 21 U.S.C. §331(ll); see also 21 U.S.C. §321(ff) (indicating that a dietary supplement is deemed to be a food within the meaning of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act). See 37 C.F.R. §2.69; TMEP §907.
Furthermore, under the FDCA, any product intended to have a therapeutic or medical use, and any product (other than a food) that is intended to affect the structure or function of the body of humans or animals, is a drug. 21 U.S.C. § 321(g)(1) An unapproved new drug cannot be distributed or sold in interstate commerce unless it is the subject of an FDA-approved new drug application (NDA) or abbreviated new drug application (ANDA). 21 U.S.C. §§ 331(d) and 355(a), (b), & (j).
Finally, applicant must provide written responses to the following questions:
Failure to satisfactorily respond to a requirement for information is a ground for refusing registration. See In re Harley, 119 USPQ2d 1755, 1758 (TTAB 2016) (affirming refusal of registration because applicant’s appeal brief failed to address the relevant refusals, including a refusal based on noncompliance with a requirement for information); In re AOP LLC, 107 USPQ2d 1644, 1651 (TTAB 2013) (“Failure to comply with a request for information is grounds for refusal,” where applicant provided equivocal responses to examining attorney’s questions and did not address this issue in its brief). Applicant’s failure to respond to an information requirement may result in an adverse evidentiary inference being drawn regarding applicant’s goods. Id. at 1651; In re Cheezwhse.com, Inc., 85 USPQ2d 1917, 1919 (TTAB 2008); TMEP §814.
Please note that merely stating that information about the goods and services is available on applicant’s website is an inappropriate response to the above requirement and is insufficient to make the relevant information properly of record. See In re Planalytics, Inc., 70 USPQ2d 1453, 1457-58 (TTAB 2004).
Applicant is advised that, upon consideration of the information provided by applicant in response to the above requirement, registration of the applied-for mark may be refused on the ground that the mark, as used/intended to be used in connection with the identified goods, is not lawful use in commerce. Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127. Use of a mark in commerce must be lawful use to be the basis for federal registration of the mark. Gray v. Daffy Dan’s Bargaintown, 823 F.2d 522, 526, 3 USPQ2d 1306, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 1987); see 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; 37 C.F.R. §2.69; In re Midwest Tennis & Track Co., 29 USPQ2d 1386, 1386 n.2 (TTAB 1993); In re Stellar Int’l, Inc., 159 USPQ 48, 50-51 (TTAB 1968); TMEP §907.
NEW ATTORNEY REQUIREMENTS
To provide bar information. Applicant’s attorney should respond to this Office action by using the appropriate TEAS response form and provide his or her bar information in the “Attorney Information” page of the form, within the bar information section. See 37 C.F.R. §2.17(b)(1)(ii). Bar information provided in any other area of the form will be viewable by the public in USPTO records.
RESPONSE & ASSISTANCE: 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.
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 refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) 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. 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.
How to respond. Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action
/Kimberly M. Ray/
Examining Attorney
Law Office 122
(571) 272-7834
Kimberly.Ray@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE
