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: 4/30/2019

 

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
• English Translation and Transliteration Requirement
• Mark Description Requirement
• Identification Requirement
• Multiple-Class Application Requirement

 

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. 4749195 and 5682190.  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 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 mark is “TAZZA” for “Clothing, namely, arm warmers; Clothing, namely, athletic sleeves; Clothing, namely, base layers; Clothing, namely, crops; Clothing, namely, folk costumes; Clothing, namely, hand-warmers; Clothing, namely, khakis; Clothing, namely, knee warmers; Clothing, namely, maternity bands; Clothing, namely, neck tubes; Clothing, namely, neck warmers; Clothing, namely, thobes; Clothing, namely, wrap-arounds; Footwear; Footwear for men; Footwear for women; Footwear made of vinyl; Footwear, namely, pumps; Footwear, namely, rubbers; Hats; T-shirts; Athletic footwear; Baby layettes for clothing; Baseball caps and hats; Belts for clothing; Climbing footwear; Combinations; Foulards; Fur hats; Gloves as clothing; Graphic T-shirts; Head wraps; Headbands for clothing; Leather hats; Leather belts; Pockets for clothing; Rain hats; Short sets; Shoulder wraps; Shoulder wraps for clothing; Small hats; Underarm clothing shields; Woolly hats” in International Class 25.

 

Reg. No. 4749195: Registrant’s mark is “TAZA33” for “            Athletic apparel, namely, shirts, hats and caps” in International Class 25.

 

Reg. No. 5682190: Registrant’s mark is “TAZZA” for “jewelry, namely, necklace, bracelets, earrings, rings, brooches, pendants” in International Class 14.

 

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).

 

Reg. No. 4749195

Applicant’s mark is “TAZZA”.

 

Registrant’s mark is “TAZA33”.

 

Marks may be confusingly similar in appearance where similar terms or phrases or similar parts of terms or phrases appear in the compared marks and create a similar overall commercial impression.  See Crocker Nat’l Bank v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 228 USPQ 689, 690-91 (TTAB 1986), aff’d sub nom. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 811 F.2d 1490, 1495, 1 USPQ2d 1813, 1817 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (finding COMMCASH and COMMUNICASH confusingly similar); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65, 66 (TTAB 1985) (finding CONFIRM and CONFIRMCELLS confusingly similar); In re Pellerin Milnor Corp., 221 USPQ 558, 560 (TTAB 1983) (finding MILTRON and MILLTRONICS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii).

 

Here, applicant’s mark is “TAZZA”, and registrant’s mark is “TAZA33”.  Both marks contain the wording “TAZ”.  Thus, the marks are confusingly similar in appearance and create a similar overall commercial impression.

 

Reg. No. 5682190

Applicant’s mark is “TAZZA”.

 

Registrant’s mark is “TAZZA”.

 

In a likelihood of confusion determination, the marks in their entireties are compared for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression.  In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1323, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2017); 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)); In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973); TMEP §1207.01(b)-(b)(v). 

 

In the present case, applicant’s mark is “TAZZA”, and registrant’s mark is “TAZZA”.  The literal elements of these marks are identical in sound and meaning, “and have the potential to be used . . . in exactly the same manner.”  In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 116 USPQ2d 1406, 1411 (TTAB 2015), aff’d, 866 F.3d 1315, 123 USPQ2d 1744 (Fed. Cir. 2017).  Additionally, because the literal elements are identical, these marks are likely to engender the same connotation and overall commercial impression when considered in connection with applicant’s and registrant’s respective goods.  Id.

 

Furthermore, a mark in typed or standard characters may be displayed in any lettering style; the rights reside in the wording or other literal element and not in any particular display or rendition.  See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1363, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1909 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 1348, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010); 37 C.F.R. §2.52(a); TMEP §1207.01(c)(iii).  Thus, a mark presented in stylized characters and/or with a design element generally will not avoid likelihood of confusion with a mark in typed or standard characters because the word portion could be presented in the same manner of display.  See, e.g., In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d at 1363, 101 USPQ2d at 1909; Squirtco v. Tomy Corp., 697 F.2d 1038, 1041, 216 USPQ 937, 939 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (stating that “the argument concerning a difference in type style is not viable where one party asserts rights in no particular display”).

 

Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar. 

 

Comparison of the Goods

The goods 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).

 

Reg. No. 4749195

Applicant’s mark is for “Clothing, namely, arm warmers; Clothing, namely, athletic sleeves; Clothing, namely, base layers; Clothing, namely, crops; Clothing, namely, folk costumes; Clothing, namely, hand-warmers; Clothing, namely, khakis; Clothing, namely, knee warmers; Clothing, namely, maternity bands; Clothing, namely, neck tubes; Clothing, namely, neck warmers; Clothing, namely, thobes; Clothing, namely, wrap-arounds; Footwear; Footwear for men; Footwear for women; Footwear made of vinyl; Footwear, namely, pumps; Footwear, namely, rubbers; Hats; T-shirts; Athletic footwear; Baby layettes for clothing; Baseball caps and hats; Belts for clothing; Climbing footwear; Combinations; Foulards; Fur hats; Gloves as clothing; Graphic T-shirts; Head wraps; Headbands for clothing; Leather hats; Leather belts; Pockets for clothing; Rain hats; Short sets; Shoulder wraps; Shoulder wraps for clothing; Small hats; Underarm clothing shields; Woolly hats” in International Class 25.

 

Registrant’s mark is for “Athletic apparel, namely, shirts, hats and caps” in International Class 25.

 

Determining likelihood of confusion is based on the description of the goods 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 uses broad wording to describe various clothing items, including t-shirts, hats, and baseball caps, which presumably encompasses all goods of the type described, including registrant’s more narrow “athletic apparel, namely, shirts, hats and caps.”  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.

Reg. No. 5682190

Applicant’s mark is for “Clothing, namely, arm warmers; Clothing, namely, athletic sleeves; Clothing, namely, base layers; Clothing, namely, crops; Clothing, namely, folk costumes; Clothing, namely, hand-warmers; Clothing, namely, khakis; Clothing, namely, knee warmers; Clothing, namely, maternity bands; Clothing, namely, neck tubes; Clothing, namely, neck warmers; Clothing, namely, thobes; Clothing, namely, wrap-arounds; Footwear; Footwear for men; Footwear for women; Footwear made of vinyl; Footwear, namely, pumps; Footwear, namely, rubbers; Hats; T-shirts; Athletic footwear; Baby layettes for clothing; Baseball caps and hats; Belts for clothing; Climbing footwear; Combinations; Foulards; Fur hats; Gloves as clothing; Graphic T-shirts; Head wraps; Headbands for clothing; Leather hats; Leather belts; Pockets for clothing; Rain hats; Short sets; Shoulder wraps; Shoulder wraps for clothing; Small hats; Underarm clothing shields; Woolly hats” in International Class 25.

 

Registrant’s mark is for “jewelry, namely, necklace, bracelets, earrings, rings, brooches, pendants” in International Class 14.

 

The compared goods 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 attached Internet evidence from Gucci, J. Crew, and Old Navy demonstrates that the same entity commonly provides the relevant goods and markets the goods under the same mark.  Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods 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).

 

Conclusion

Because applicant’s and registrants’s marks are similar and the goods are related, there is a likelihood of confusion and applicant’s mark must be refused under Section 2(d) of the Lanham Act.

 

Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.  However, if applicant responds to the refusal, applicant must also respond to the requirements set forth below.

 

English Translation and Transliteration RequireMENT

To permit proper examination of the application, applicant must submit both (1) an English translation of the foreign wording in the mark, see attached translation evidence; and (2) a transliteration (a phonetic spelling of the pronunciation, in Latin characters) of any non-Latin characters in the mark, with either an English translation of the corresponding non-English transliterated wording or a statement that the transliterated term has no meaning in a foreign language.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(9)-(a)(10), 2.61(b); TMEP §809. 

 

If the transliterated wording has an English translation, applicant should use the following format, if accurate: 

 

The English translation of “TAZZA” is “CUP”.  The non-Latin characters in the mark transliterate to “{provide transliteration}” and this means “{provide definition}” in English. 

 

TMEP §809.03. 

 

If the transliterated wording does not have an English translation, applicant should use the following format, if accurate: 

 

The English translation of “TAZZA” is “CUP”.  The non-Latin characters in the mark transliterate to “{provide transliteration}” and this has no meaning in a foreign language. 

 

Id. 

 

Mark Description Requirement

Applicant must submit an amended description of the mark because the current one is incomplete and does not describe all the significant aspects of the mark.  37 C.F.R. §2.37; see TMEP §§808.01, 808.02.  Descriptions must be accurate and identify all the literal and design elements in the mark.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.37; TMEP §§808 et seq. 

 

The following description is suggested, if accurate:  The mark consists of the wording “TAZZA”.  The “ZZ” in the wording “TAZZA” appears as Korean characters.

 

Identification Requirement

Applicant has identified the following goods:

 

International Class 25: “Clothing, namely, arm warmers; Clothing, namely, athletic sleeves; Clothing, namely, base layers; Clothing, namely, crops; Clothing, namely, folk costumes; Clothing, namely, hand-warmers; Clothing, namely, khakis; Clothing, namely, knee warmers; Clothing, namely, maternity bands; Clothing, namely, neck tubes; Clothing, namely, neck warmers; Clothing, namely, thobes; Clothing, namely, wrap-arounds; Footwear; Footwear for men; Footwear for women; Footwear made of vinyl; Footwear, namely, pumps; Footwear, namely, rubbers; Hats; T-shirts; Athletic footwear; Baby layettes for clothing; Baseball caps and hats; Belts for clothing; Climbing footwear; Combinations; Foulards; Fur hats; Gloves as clothing; Graphic T-shirts; Head wraps; Headbands for clothing; Leather hats; Leather belts; Pockets for clothing; Rain hats; Short sets; Shoulder wraps; Shoulder wraps for clothing; Small hats; Underarm clothing shields; Woolly hats”

 

Clothing, namely, athletic sleeves

The wording in the identification of goods is misclassified and indefinite because the nature of the goods is unclear.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.  Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate:  “Compression sleeves for athletic use” in International Class 10.

 

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:

 

International Class 10: “Compression sleeves for athletic use”

 

International Class 25: “Clothing, namely, arm warmers; Clothing, namely, base layers; Clothing, namely, crops; Clothing, namely, folk costumes; Clothing, namely, hand-warmers; Clothing, namely, khakis; Clothing, namely, knee warmers; Clothing, namely, maternity bands; Clothing, namely, neck tubes; Clothing, namely, neck warmers; Clothing, namely, thobes; Clothing, namely, wrap-arounds; Footwear; Footwear for men; Footwear for women; Footwear made of vinyl; Footwear, namely, pumps; Footwear, namely, rubbers; Hats; T-shirts; Athletic footwear; Baby layettes for clothing; Baseball caps and hats; Belts for clothing; Climbing footwear; Combinations; Foulards; Fur hats; Gloves as clothing; Graphic T-shirts; Head wraps; Headbands for clothing; Leather hats; Leather belts; Pockets for clothing; Rain hats; Short sets; Shoulder wraps; Shoulder wraps for clothing; Small hats; Underarm clothing shields; Woolly hats”

 

Applicant may amend the identification to clarify or limit the goods, but not to broaden or expand the goods 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 may not later be reinserted.  See TMEP §1402.07(e).

 

For assistance with identifying and classifying goods and services in trademark applications, please see the USPTO’s online searchable U.S. Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual.  See TMEP §1402.04.

 

Multiple-Class Application Requirement

The application identifies goods 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 fee already paid (view the USPTO’s current fee schedule).  The application identifies goods that are classified in at least 2 classes; however, applicant submitted a fee sufficient for only 1 class.  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.

 

Response guidelines.  For this application to proceed, applicant must explicitly address each refusal and 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 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 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. 

 

Brittany Colton

/Brittany Colton/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 127

(571) 272-2572

brittany.colton@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 4/30/2019 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 88302510

 

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 4/30/2019, 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. 

 

Brittany Colton

/Brittany Colton/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 127

(571) 272-2572

brittany.colton@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.