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: 5/8/2019

 

 

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:

• TRADEMARK ACT SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION WITH REGISTERED MARK
• REFUSAL OF REGISTRATION – SPECIMEN DOES NOT SHOW APPLIED-FOR MARK IN USE IN COMMERCE

 

 

TRADEMARK ACT SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION WITH REGISTERED MARK

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 5525592 (DESIGNNCUT).  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 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.

 

Comparison of the Marks

 

Applicant’s mark is DESIGN2CUT in standard character form.

 

Registrant’s mark is DESIGNNCUT and design.

 

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).

 

In this case, the marks are confusingly similar because they have a similar syntax; the marks start with the wording DESIGN and end with the wording CUT.  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).

 

Moreover, applicant merely substituted a "2" for "N" in registrant's mark. Marks may be confusingly similar in appearance despite the addition, deletion, or substitution of letters or words. See, e.g., Weiss Assocs. Inc. v. HRL Assocs. Inc., 902 F.2d 1546, 14 USPQ2d 1840 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (finding TMM confusingly similar to TMS); Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 811 F.2d 1490, 1 USPQ2d 1813 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (affirming Board’s holding that source confusion is likely where COMMCASH and COMMUNICASH are used in connection with identical banking services); Ava Enters. v. Audio Boss USA, Inc., 77 USPQ2d 1783 (TTAB 2006) (finding AUDIO BSS USA and design similar in appearance to BOSS AUDIO SYSTEMS (stylized)); In re Lamson Oil Co., 6 USPQ2d 1041 (TTAB 1987) (finding TRUCOOL and TURCOOL confusingly similar in appearance); In re Pix of Am., Inc., 225 USPQ 691 (TTAB 1985) (finding NEWPORTS and NEWPORT to be essentially identical in appearance); In re Pellerin Milnor Corp., 221 USPQ 558 (TTAB 1983) (finding MILTRON and MILLTRONICS (stylized) to be highly similar in appearance); In re BASF A.G., 189 USPQ 424 (TTAB 1975) (finding difference between marks LUTEX and LUTEXAL insufficient to avoid source confusion). In the present case, the marks are identical in part.

 

Furthermore, the design in registrant's mark does not remove the similarity of the marks because applicant's mark is in standard character form.  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 Goods

 

The goods are related.

 

Applicant's goods are as follows:

 

INTERNATIONAL CLASS 009: Downloadable CAD/CAM software for operating electronic plasma cutting machines for industrial applications; Downloadable computer-aided design (CAD) software for operating electronic plasma cutting machines for industrial applications; Downloadable computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) software for general use; Recorded CAD/CAM software for operating electronic plasma cutting machines for industrial applications; Recorded computer-aided design (CAD) software for operating electronic plasma cutting machines for industrial applications

 

Registrant's goods include the following:

 

INTERNATIONAL CLASS 007: Electronic cutting machines for cutting textile sheet, paper sheet, plastic sheet, metal sheet, and rubber sheet, and parts and accessories therefor, namely, blades and blade holders attachable to the electronic cutting machines

 

INTERNATIONAL CLASS 009: computer software for use in operating electronic cutting machines and electronic cutters in the field of crafts; pre-recorded electronic media devices featuring crafting for use with electronic cutting machines; downloadable image files and images in the field of crafting for use with electronic cutting machines; image files and images recorded on media in the field of crafting for use with electronic cutting machines

 

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] 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).

 

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 applicant uses broad wording to describe "Downloadable computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) software for general use", which presumably encompasses all goods of the type described, including registrant’s more narrow "computer software for use in operating electronic cutting machines and electronic cutters in the field of crafts". 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.

 

Applicant's and registrant's goods are related because cutting machines and software for cutting machines are used together. Applicant manufactures both cutting machines and downloadable CAD/CAM software for operating electronic plasma for industrial applications. See attached evidence from http://westcottplasma.com/accessories/index.html and http://westcottplasma.com/titan/index.html.  The attached Internet evidence, consisting of screen shots from manufacturers of cutting machines and CAD/CAM software for the cutting machines, establishes that the same entity commonly manufactures 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).

 

Please see evidence from:

·       FLAMTEK (http://www.flamtek.com/ ), offering:

o   CUTTING MACHINES: http://www.flamtek.com/junior.html

o   CAD/CAM SOFTWARE FOR OPERATING PLASMA CUTTING MACHINES: http://www.flamtek.com/software.html

·       FLASHCUT® (http://www.flashcutcnc.com/), offering:

o   PARTS FOR CUTTING MACHINES: http://www.flashcutcnc.com/plasma/plasma-cnc-controls-retrofits

o   CAD/CAM SOFTWARE FOR OPERATING PLASMA CUTTING MACHINES: http://www.flashcutcnc.com/cadcam/flashcut-cadcam-software

·       HYPERTHERM® (http://www.hypertherm.com/en-US/), offering:

o   CUTTING MACHINES: http://www.hypertherm.com/en-US/hypertherm/xpr/xpr300/

o   CAD/CAM SOFTWARE FOR OPERATING PLASMA CUTTING MACHINES: http://www.hypertherm.com/en-US/products/software/

·       MESTEK MACHINERY (http://www.mestekmachinery.com/ ), offering:

o   CUTTING MACHINES: http://www.mestekmachinery.com/machines/vulcanplus-cutting-system

o   CAD/CAM SOFTWARE FOR OPERATING PLASMA CUTTING MACHINES: http://www.mestekmachinery.com/machines/vulcan-software-cad-cam-mep

 

Furthermore, it's clear that applicant's cutting machines and registrant's software for operating electronic plasma cutting machines for industrial purposes are used together. Where evidence shows that the goods at issue have complementary uses, and thus are often used together or otherwise purchased by the same purchasers for the same or related purposes, such goods have generally been found to be sufficiently related such that confusion would be likely if they are marketed under the same or similar marks.  See In re Martin’s Famous Pastry Shoppe, Inc., 748 F.2d 1565, 1567, 223 USPQ 1289, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (holding bread and cheese to be related because they are often used in combination and noting that “[s]uch complementary use has long been recognized as a relevant consideration in determining a likelihood of confusion”); In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d 1266, 1272 (TTAB 2009) (holding medical MRI diagnostic apparatus and medical ultrasound devices to be related, based in part on the fact that such goods have complementary purposes because they may be used by the same medical personnel on the same patients to treat the same disease). 

 

To the extent the evidence may not address all of the goods in applicant’s identification, relatedness does not have to be established for every good in an identification.  It is sufficient for a finding of likelihood of confusion if relatedness is established for any or some goods encompassed by the identification within a particular class in an application. Tuxedo Monopoly, Inc. v. General Mills Fun Group, 648 F.2d 1335, 209 USPQ 986, 988 (CCPA 1981).  In this case, relatedness has been established for many of the identified goods, which is enough to show a likelihood of confusion.

 

Conclusion

 

Generally, the greater degree of similarity between the applied-for mark and the registered mark, the lesser the degree of similarity between the goods of the parties is required to support a finding of likelihood of confusion.  In re C.H. Hanson Co., 116 USPQ2d 1351, 1353 (TTAB 2015) (citing In re Opus One Inc., 60 USPQ2d 1812, 1815 (TTAB 2001)); In re Thor Tech, Inc., 90 USPQ2d 1634, 1636 (TTAB 2009). 

 

Thus, upon encountering the marks DESIGN2CUT and DESIGNNCUT as used on the identified goods, consumers are likely to be confused and mistakenly believe that the respective goods emanate from a common source. Therefore, applicant’s mark is not entitled to registration because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 5525592 (DESIGNNCUT).  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. 

 

Applicant should note the following additional ground for refusal.

 

 

REFUSAL OF REGISTRATION – SPECIMEN DOES NOT SHOW APPLIED-FOR MARK IN USE IN COMMERCE

 

Registration is refused because the specimen in International Class 9 is not acceptable as a display associated with downloadable software and appears to be mere advertising material; thus, the specimen fails to show the applied-for mark in use in commerce for that international class.  Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a).  Specifically, the specimen fails to provide the means to enable the user to download or purchase the software from the website.  See In re Sones, 590 F.3d 1282, 1286-89, 93 USPQ2d 1118, 1122-24 (Fed. Cir. 2009); In re Azteca Sys., Inc., 102 USPQ2d 1955, 1957 (TTAB 2012); TMEP §§904.03(e), (i) et seq.  Without this feature, the specimen is mere advertising material, which is not acceptable as a specimen to show use in commerce for goods.  See In re Kohr Bros., 121 USPQ2d 1793, 1794 (TTAB 2017) (quoting In re Quantum Foods, Inc., 94 USPQ2d 1375, 1379 (TTAB 2010)); In re Genitope Corp., 78 USPQ2d 1819, 1822 (TTAB 2006); TMEP §904.04(b), (c).

 

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 downloadable software include instruction manuals and screen printouts from (1) web pages showing the mark in connection with ordering or purchasing information or information sufficient to download the software, (2) the actual program that shows the mark in the title bar, or (3) launch screens that show the mark in an introductory message box that appears after opening the program.  See TMEP §904.03(e), (i), (j).  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.  See In re Sones, 590 F.3d at 1286-89, 93 USPQ2d at 1122-24; In re Azteca Sys., Inc., 102 USPQ2d at 1957; TMEP §§904.03(i) et seq.

 

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 software 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 fees 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 the Specimen webpage.  

 

HOW TO SUBMIT A VERIFIED SUBSTITUTE SPECIMEN

 

To submit a substitute specimen online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) response form, (1) answer “Yes” to form wizard question #2; and then, continuing on to the next portion of the form, under the heading “Classification and Listing of Goods/Services/Collective Membership Organization,” do the following for each relevant class for which a specimen is being submitted:  (2) check the box next to the following statement:  “Check here to modify the current classification number; listing of goods/services/the nature of the collective membership organization; dates of use; and/or filing basis; or to submit a substitute specimen, a foreign registration certificate, or proof of renewal of a foreign registration.  If not checked, the changes will be ignored.”; (3) under “Specimen File,” attach a specimen (attachment may not exceed 5 megabytes); (4) describe in the box below where you attached the file what the specimen consists of; and (5) check the box next to the following statement below the specimen description (to ensure that the declaration language is inserted into the form): “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” [for an application based on Section 1(a), Use in Commerce] OR “The substitute (or new, or originally submitted, if appropriate) specimen(s) was/were in use in commerce prior either to the filing of the Amendment to Allege Use or expiration of the filing deadline for filing a Statement of Use” [for an application based on Section 1(b) Intent-to-Use].  Additionally, when submitting a verified specimen, the TEAS online form requires two signatures: one in the “Declaration Signature” section and one in the “Response Signature” section.

 

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

 

 

RESPONSE GUIDELINES

 

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.  

 

 

ASSISTANCE

 

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 refusals 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. 

 

 

 

/Aubrey Biache/

Examining Attorney

Trademark Law Office 123

(571) 270-0120

aubrey.biache@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 5/8/2019 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 88305417

 

Please follow the instructions below:

 

(1)  TO READ THE LETTER:  Click on this link or go to http://tsdr.uspto.gov,enter the U.S. application serial number, and click on “Documents.”

 

The Office action may not be immediately viewable, to allow for necessary system updates of the application, but will be available within 24 hours of this e-mail notification.

 

(2)  TIMELY RESPONSE IS REQUIRED:  Please carefully review the Office action to determine (1) how to respond, and (2) the applicable response time period.  Your response deadline will be calculated from 5/8/2019 (or sooner if specified in the Office action).  A response transmitted through the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) must be received before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period.  For information regarding response time periods, see http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/process/status/responsetime.jsp.

 

Do NOT hit “Reply” to this e-mail notification, or otherwise e-mail your response because the USPTO does NOT accept e-mails as responses to Office actions.  Instead, the USPTO recommends that you respond online using the TEAS response form located at http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp.

 

(3)  QUESTIONS:  For questions about the contents of the Office action itself, please contact the assigned trademark examining attorney.  For technical assistance in accessing or viewing the Office action in the Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) system, please e-mail TSDR@uspto.gov.

 

WARNING

 

Failure to file the required response by the applicable response deadline will result in the ABANDONMENT of your application.  For more information regarding abandonment, see http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/basics/abandon.jsp.

 

PRIVATE COMPANY SOLICITATIONS REGARDING YOUR APPLICATION:  Private companies not associated with the USPTO are using information provided in trademark applications to mail or e-mail trademark-related solicitations.  These companies often use names that closely resemble the USPTO and their solicitations may look like an official government document.  Many solicitations require that you pay “fees.” 

 

Please carefully review all correspondence you receive regarding this application to make sure that you are responding to an official document from the USPTO rather than a private company solicitation.  All official USPTO correspondence will be mailed only from the “United States Patent and Trademark Office” in Alexandria, VA; or sent by e-mail from the domain “@uspto.gov.”  For more information on how to handle private company solicitations, see http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/solicitation_warnings.jsp.