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: July 02, 2019

 

 

THIS IS A FINAL ACTION.

 

INTRODUCTION

 

This Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on 20 June 2019.

 

In a previous Office action dated 11 April 2019, the trademark examining attorney refused registration of the applied-for mark based on the following: Trademark Act Section 2(d) for a likelihood of confusion with a registered mark

 

Now, the trademark examining attorney maintains and now makes FINAL the refusal in the summary of issue below.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b); TMEP §714.04.

 

SUMMARY OF ISSUE MADE FINAL that applicant must address:

• Refusal – Section 2(d) – Likelihood of Confusion
• Advisory – Response Guidelines 

 

REFUSAL – SECTION 2(d) – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

 

In the first Office Action, registration was refused because applicant’s mark and the registered mark, U.S. Registration No. 5131127, AILSA BAY, are similar in sound, appearance, and commercial impression, and because the goods that the marks identify are related. Applicant responded by providing arguments in favor of registration. The examining attorney has reviewed and considered applicant’s response carefully, but is not persuaded to withdraw the refusal based upon the arguments contained therein. Therefore, the refusal to register is maintained and made final for the reasons detailed below.

 

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 and differences in the marks.”); TMEP §1207.01.

 

Comparison of the Marks

 

As previously stated, applicant’s mark AISLA is highly similar to registrant’s mark AILSA BAY because AISLA and AILSA both begin with AI, end in A, and differ only via SL vs. LS in their middle. It is well-established that when comparing marks confusion may be likely even if the letters are not identical or in the same order.  See, e.g., Weiss Assoc. v. HRL Assoc., 902 F.2d 1546, 14 USPQ2d 1840 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Dere v. Inst. for Scientific Info., Inc., 420 F.2d 1068, 164 USPQ 347 (C.C.P.A. 1970); cf. In re Infinity Broad. Corp. of Dallas, 60 USPQ2d 1214 (TTAB 2001).

 

Even marks having only two letters in common, used on identical or closely related goods, have been held likely to cause confusion.  See, e.g., Feed Serv. Corp. v. FS Servs., Inc., 432 F.2d 478, 167 USPQ 407 (C.C.P.A. 1970); Cluett, Peabody & Co. v. J.H. Bonck Co., 390 F.2d 754, 156 USPQ 401 (C.C.P.A. 1968); Edison Bros. Stores, Inc. v. Brutting E.B. Sport-Int’l GmbH, 230 USPQ 530 (TTAB 1986); see also TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii).

 

That registrant’s mark also contains the wording BAY does not obviate this finding, as it is well-established that consumers are generally more inclined to focus on the first word, prefix, or syllable in any trademark or service mark.  See Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1372, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1692 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (finding similarity between VEUVE ROYALE and two VEUVE CLICQUOT marks in part because “VEUVE . . . remains a ‘prominent feature’ as the first word in the mark and the first word to appear on the label”); Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Century Life of Am., 970 F.2d 874, 876, 23 USPQ2d 1698, 1700 (Fed Cir. 1992) (finding similarity between CENTURY 21 and CENTURY LIFE OF AMERICA in part because “consumers must first notice th[e] identical lead word”); see also In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1303, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1049 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding “the identity of the marks’ two initial words is particularly significant because consumers typically notice those words first”).

 

Applicant argues that there is no risk of confusion because “the distinct spellings of the respective marks matter, as the spelling has a direct effect on the pronunciation and sound of the mark.” Applicant provides Internet evidence in support of its contention that the respective marks have different pronunciations. The examining attorney is not persuaded for, and as noted above, the overall appearance of the marks is closely similar, as applicant’s AISLA has the same beginning and ending as registrant’s AILSA, with only the middle letters S and L being in a different order. Further, it is well-established that there is no correct pronunciation of a mark because it is impossible to predict how the public will pronounce a particular mark.  See Embarcadero Techs., Inc. v. RStudio, Inc., 105 USPQ2d 1825, 1835 (TTAB 2013) (quoting In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1367, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1912 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re The Belgrade Shoe Co., 411 F.2d 1352, 1353, 162 USPQ 227, 227 (C.C.P.A. 1969)); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iv).  The initial wording in the marks in question could clearly be pronounced the same; such similarity in sound alone may be sufficient to support a finding that the marks are confusingly similar.  In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB 1988); see In re 1st USA Realty Prof’ls, Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1581, 1586 (TTAB 2007); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iv).

 

Applicant further argues that there is no risk of confusion because “the words themselves have distinct meanings and connotations,” stating that “Applicant’s mark is a fanciful word created to invoke imagery of a tropical vacation destination” while although “there is no actual geographic location called ‘Ailsa Bay,’ . . . [registrant’s mark] evokes imagery suggesting a cold and vast body of water in Scotland.” The examining attorney is not persuaded for, and as already noted, applicant’s mark AISLA is highly similar to registrant’s mark AILSA BAY because AISLA and AILSA both begin with AI, end in A, and differ only via SL vs. LS in their middle. Further, and as acknowledged by applicant, neither mark has a specific translation/meaning nor designates an actual geographic location. Rather, both marks contain fanciful wording, AISLA vs. AILSA, which is visually similar and could be pronounced in the same manner. It is well-established that when comparing marks confusion may be likely even if the letters are not identical or in the same order.  See, e.g., Weiss Assoc. v. HRL Assoc., 902 F.2d 1546, 14 USPQ2d 1840 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Further, it is well-established that there is no correct pronunciation of a mark because it is impossible to predict how the public will pronounce a particular mark.  See Embarcadero Techs., Inc. v. RStudio, Inc., 105 USPQ2d 1825, 1835 (TTAB 2013) (quoting In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1367, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1912 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re The Belgrade Shoe Co., 411 F.2d 1352, 1353, 162 USPQ 227, 227 (C.C.P.A. 1969)); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iv).  The initial wording in the marks in question could clearly be pronounced the same; such similarity in sound alone may be sufficient to support a finding that the marks are confusingly similar.  In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB 1988); see In re 1st USA Realty Prof’ls, Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1581, 1586 (TTAB 2007); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iv).

 

Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar.

 

Relatedness of the Goods

 

Where the goods of an applicant and registrant are identical or virtually identical, the degree of similarity between the marks required to support a finding that confusion is likely declines.  See Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., __ F.3d __, 127 USPQ2d 1797, 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1363, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

As noted in the 11 April 2019 Office Action, the goods of the parties are closely related. The goods of applicant, “Alcoholic beverages, except beer,” are identical to registrant’s “Alcoholic beverages except beers.” When analyzing an applicant’s and registrant’s goods for similarity and relatedness, that determination is based on the description of the goods 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 in the application and registration are identical.  Therefore, it is presumed that the channels of trade and classes of purchasers are the same for these goods.  See Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., __ F.3d __, 27 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 are related.  

 

Applicant acknowledges that its mark “and the Cited Mark share the same class of goods and channels of trade,” but argues that there is no risk of confusion because of “the existence of numerous other marks that incorporates[sic] a portion of Applicant’s mark AISLA, or that has similar meanings or phonetics, for use in connection with alcoholic beverages in Class 33,” and provides several third-party registrations in support of its contention that this wording is weak, diluted, or so widely used that it should not be afforded a broad scope of protection. Specifically, applicant has provided four third-party registrations for marks which begin with ISLA, one for a mark beginning with ISLAY, one for a mark beginning with ELSA’S, and one for a mark beginning with ELSA. These registrations appear to be for goods similar to those identified in applicant’s application. 

 

The weakness or dilution of a particular mark is generally determined in the context of the number and nature of similar marks in use in the marketplace in connection with similar goods.  See Nat’l Cable Tel. Ass’n, Inc. v. Am. Cinema Editors, Inc., 937 F.2d 1572, 1579-80, 19 USPQ2d 1424, 1430 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973).  Evidence of widespread third-party use of similar marks with similar goods “is relevant to show that a mark is relatively weak and entitled to only a narrow scope of protection” in that particular industry or field.  Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee en 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1373-74, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1693 (Fed. Cir. 2005); see In re Coors Brewing Co., 343 F.3d 1340, 1345, 68 USPQ2d 1059, 1062-63 (Fed. Cir. 2003). 

 

Here, applicant’s third-party registrations are not relevant to the instant matter, as these registrations’ marks feature non-fanciful wording with clear meanings. In contrast, and as noted by applicant in its response, AISLA is a fanciful term while AILSA BAY is a fanciful location.

 

Further, evidence comprising only a small number of third-party registrations for dissimilar marks with similar goods, as in the present case, is generally entitled to little weight in determining the strength of a mark.  See In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1328-29, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1751-52 (Fed. Cir. 2017); AMF Inc. v. Am. Leisure Products, Inc., 474 F.2d 1403, 1406, 177 USPQ 268, 269 (C.C.P.A. 1973).  These few registrations are “not evidence of what happens in the market place or that customers are familiar with them.”  AMF Inc. v. Am. Leisure Prods., Inc., 474 F.2d at 1406, 177 USPQ at 269; In re I-Coat Co., 126 USPQ2d 1730, 1735 (TTAB 2018).  Thus, the few similar third-party registrations submitted by applicant are insufficient to establish that the wording ISLA is weak or diluted. 

 

Additionally, third-party registrations are entitled to little weight on the issue of confusing similarity because the registrations are “not evidence that the registered marks are actually in use or that the public is familiar with them.”  In re Midwest Gaming & Entm’t LLC, 106 USPQ2d 1163, 1167 n.5 (TTAB 2013) (citing In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 1346, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2010)); see TMEP §1207.01(d)(iii).  Moreover, the existence on the register of other seemingly similar marks does not provide a basis for registrability for the applied-for mark.  AMF Inc. v. Am. Leisure Prods., Inc., 474 F.2d 1403, 1406, 177 USPQ 268, 269 (C.C.P.A. 1973); In re Total Quality Grp., Inc., 51 USPQ2d 1474, 1477 (TTAB 1999).

 

Applicant argues that there is no risk of confusion because, despite both parties having identical identifications, “whiskey connoisseurs, particularly drinkers of Scotch, are bound to give a great deal of attention to the brand of[sic] they are buying.” Applicant provides Internet evidence of registrant’s distillery in support of its contention. The examining attorney respectfully disagrees, as registrant’s identification of goods is not narrowed to whiskey, but rather is for “Alcoholic beverages except beers,” an identification which is broad enough to encompass a wide array of alcoholic products other than beer. As such, applicant’s “real world” limitation on registrant’s goods is improper, as the presumption under Trademark Act Section 7(b) is that the registrant is the owner of the mark and that their use of the mark extends to all goods identified in the registration.  15 U.S.C. §1057(b).  In the absence of limitations as to channels of trade or classes of purchasers in the goods in the registration, the presumption is that the goods move in all trade channels normal for such goods and are available to all potential classes of ordinary consumers of such goods.  See In re I-Coat Co., 126 USPQ2d 1730, 1737 (TTAB 2018); In re Melville Corp., 18 USPQ2d 1386, 1388 (TTAB 1991); TMEP §1207.01(a)(iii).

 

Further, 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).  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).

Applicant also argues that there is no risk of confusion because “the Cited Mark is geographically suggestive and is therefore entitled to a narrower scope of protection.” The examining attorney is not persuaded for, and as previously discussed and as acknowledged by applicant, registrant’s mark AILSA BAY is not geographically descriptive, but rather is fanciful because it does not identify a specific, known geographic location. Further, even if the registered mark was primarily geographically descriptive, it is well-established that the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board have recognized that marks deemed “weak” or merely descriptive are still entitled to protection under Section 2(d) against the registration by a subsequent user of a similar mark for closely related goods.  TMEP §1207.01(b)(ix); see King Candy Co. v. Eunice King’s Kitchen, Inc., 496 F.2d 1400, 1401, 182 USPQ 108, 109 (C.C.P.A. 1974); In re Max Capital Grp. Ltd., 93 USPQ2d 1243, 1246 (TTAB 2010).  Thus, this protection under Section 2(d) extends even to marks registered on the Supplemental Register.  TMEP §1207.01(b)(ix); see, e.g., In re Morinaga Nyugyo Kabushiki Kaisha, 120 USPQ2d 1738, 1743 (TTAB 2016) (citing Towers v. Advent Software, Inc., 913 F.2d 942, 946, 16 USPQ2d 1039, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Research & Trademark Corp., 793 F.2d 1276, 1278, 230 USPQ 49, 49 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Clorox Co., 578 F.2d 305, 307-08, 198 USPQ 337, 340 (C.C.P.A. 1978)).

 

Given the similarities of the marks, the relationship between the goods that the marks identify, the evidence of record, and the relevant case law, it is clear that a likelihood of confusion exists in this case. Therefore, the refusal to register based upon Trademark Act Section 2(d); 15 U.S.C. §1052(d) is maintained and made final.

 

Advisory – Response Guidelines

 

Applicant must respond within six months of the date of issuance of this final Office action or the application will be abandoned.  15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §2.65(a).  Applicant may respond by providing one or both of the following:

 

(1)       a response filed using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) that fully resolves the outstanding refusal; and/or

 

(2)       an appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board filed using the Electronic System for Trademark Trials and Appeals (ESTTA) with the required filing fee of $200 per class.

 

37 C.F.R. §2.63(b)(1)-(2); TMEP §714.04; see 37 C.F.R. §2.6(a)(18); TBMP ch. 1200.

 

In certain rare circumstances, an applicant may respond by filing a petition to the Director pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b)(2) to review procedural issues.  TMEP §714.04; see 37 C.F.R. §2.146(b); TBMP §1201.05; TMEP §1704 (explaining petitionable matters).  There is a fee required for filing a petition.  37 C.F.R. §2.6(a)(15).

 

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

 

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 refusal 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. 

 

 

 

/Joan Blazich/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 122

571-272-7810

joan.blazich@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)

 

USPTO OFFICIAL NOTICE

 

Office Action (Official Letter) has issued

on July 02, 2019 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88309876

 

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. 

 

 

/Joan Blazich/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 122

571-272-7810

joan.blazich@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 July 02, 2019, 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.”