Offc Action Outgoing

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

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

 

 

 

NONFINAL OFFICE ACTION

 

The USPTO must receive applicant’s response to this letter within six months of the issue date below or the application will be abandoned.  Respond using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS).  A link to the appropriate TEAS response form appears at the end of this Office action. 

 

 

Issue date:  July 26, 2019

 

This Office action is supplemental to and supersedes the previous Office action issued on May 8, 2019 in connection with this application.  The assigned trademark examining attorney inadvertently omitted a refusal of registration and a requirement relevant to the mark in the subject application.  See TMEP §§706, 711.02.  Specifically, there are additional registered marks that are confusingly similar to the applied-for mark, and applicant must clarify the entity type.

 

The trademark examining attorney apologizes for any inconvenience caused by the delay in raising the issues. 

 

Applicant must address all issues raised in this Office action, in addition to the issues raised in the Office action dated May 8, 2019.  The issues raised in the previous May 8, 2019 Office action are as follow and are maintained:  Section 2(d) Refusal; Identification of the Goods. 

 

 

The following is a SUMMARY OF ISSUES that applicant must address:

 

• SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
• IDENTIFICATION OF THE GOODS
• CLARIFICATION REQUIRED – ENTITY INDEFINITE

 

 

Applicant must respond to all issues raised in this Office action and the previous May 8, 2019 Office action, within six (6) months of the date of issuance of this Office action.  37 C.F.R. §2.62(a); see TMEP §711.02.  If applicant does not respond within this time limit, the application will be abandoned.  37 C.F.R. §2.65(a).

 

 

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. 5073594, 5119725, 5171817, 4547848, and 5068992.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registrations.

 

Applicant’s mark is AXON in stylized text for “Computer software for diagnostics, evaluation, assessment, monitoring, documentation, testing, training, developing and improving children's cognitive behavioral and learning skills.”

 

The cited registration (Reg. No. 5068992) is AXON SPORTS in standard characters for “design and development of computer software, downloadable software applications, and computer software for mobile devices, namely, software for cognitive skill acquisition.”

 

The cited registration (Reg. No. 5073594) is AXON SPORTS with a design element for “Providing advice, information and consulting in the field of cognitive skill acquisition and sports brain training; and development of computer software, downloadable software applications, and computer software for mobile devices, namely, software for collecting and analyzing data related to the brain and for assessing and monitoring the brain in relation to sports; design and development of computer software, downloadable software applications, and computer software for mobile devices, namely, software for cognitive skill acquisition; design and development of computer software, downloadable software applications, and computer software for mobile devices, namely, software for the improvement of sport-specific neurocognitive faculties; providing an interactive website featuring technology that allows users to assess, train, and monitor brain activity for the improvement of sport-specific neurocognitive faculties; providing online non-downloadable software for administering web-based tests to provide sports related brain assessment and monitoring and cognitive skill acquisition.”

 

The cited registration (Reg. No. 5119725) is AXON SPORTS with a design element for “Computer software and downloadable software applications for collecting and analyzing data related to the brain and for assessing and monitoring the brain in relation to sports; computer software applications for mobile devices, namely, software for collecting and analyzing data related to the brain and for assessing and monitoring the brain in relation to sports; computer software and downloadable software applications for administering training programs for cognitive skill acquisition in relation to sports; computer software applications for mobile devices, namely, software for administering training programs for cognitive skill acquisition in relation to sports; computer software and downloadable software applications for the collection, analysis and storage of cognitive training results for the improvement of sport-specific neurocognitive faculties in relation to sports; computer software applications for mobile devices, namely, software for the collection, analysis and storage of cognitive training results for the improvement of sport-specific neurocognitive faculties in relation to sports; downloadable software for administering tests to provide sports related brain assessment and monitoring and cognitive skill acquisition in relation to sports.”

 

The cited registration (Reg. No. 5171817) is AXON SPORTS in standard characters for “Computer software and downloadable software applications for collecting and analyzing data related to the brain and for assessing and monitoring the brain in relation to sports; computer software applications for mobile devices, namely, software for collecting and analyzing data related to the brain and for assessing and monitoring the brain in relation to sports; computer software and downloadable software applications for administering training programs for cognitive skill acquisition in relation to sports; computer software applications for mobile devices, namely, software for administering training programs for cognitive skill acquisition in relation to sports; computer software and downloadable software applications for the collection, analysis and storage of cognitive training results for the improvement of sport-specific neurocognitive faculties in relation to sports; computer software applications for mobile devices, namely, software for the collection, analysis and storage of cognitive training results for the improvement of sport-specific neurocognitive faculties in relation to sports; downloadable software for administering tests to provide sports related brain assessment and monitoring and cognitive skill acquisition in relation to sports.”

 

The cited registration (Reg. No. 4547848) is AXON SPORTS EVERY ATHLETE EVERY YEAR with a design element for “Providing a website featuring temporary use of a web-based software application for the recording and analysis of pre and post-injury cognitive testing of athletes, and to produce cognitive testing notifications and reports.”

 

Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that is so similar to a registered mark that it is likely consumers would be confused, mistaken, or deceived as to the commercial source of the goods and services of the parties.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).  Likelihood of confusion is determined on a case-by-case basis by applying the factors set forth in In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973) (called the “du Pont factors”).  In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1322, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1747 (Fed. Cir. 2017).  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 and services.  See In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d at 1322, 123 USPQ2d at 1747 (quoting Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 1164-65, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2002)); Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co.,544 F.2d 1098, 1103, 192 USPQ 24, 29 (C.C.P.A. 1976) (“The fundamental inquiry mandated by [Section] 2(d) goes to the cumulative effect of differences in the essential characteristics of the goods [or services] and differences in the marks.”); TMEP §1207.01.

 

Comparison of the Marks

 

Turning to the first prong of the test, a comparison must be made between applicant’s applied-for mark AXON in stylized text and Reg. No. 5068992 for the mark AXON SPORTS in standard characters, Reg. No. 5073594 for the mark AXON SPORTS with a design element, Reg. No. 5119725 for the mark AXON SPORTS with a design element, Reg. No. 5171817 for the mark AXON SPORTS in standard characters, and Reg. No. 4547848 for the mark AXON SPORTS EVERY ATHLETE EVERY YEAR with a design element.

 

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).

 

The applied-for mark is AXON and the registered marks begins with the term AXON followed by a disclaimed term.  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).  Furthermore, 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”).

 

Registrant has disclaimed the term SPORTS from the registered marks.  Although marks are compared in their entireties, one feature of a mark may be more significant or dominant in creating a commercial impression.  See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 1058, 224 USPQ 749, 751 (Fed. Cir. 1985); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii).  Disclaimed matter that is descriptive of or generic for a party’s services is typically less significant or less dominant when comparing marks.  In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1305, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re Dixie Rests., Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 1407, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533-34 (Fed. Cir. 1997)); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii).

 

Furthermore, the applied-for mark is entirely encompassed within the registered marks.  Although applicant’s mark does not contain the entirety of the registered marks, applicant’s mark is likely to appear to prospective purchasers as a shortened form of registrant’s marks.  See In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 1348, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting United States Shoe Corp., 229 USPQ 707, 709 (TTAB 1985)).  Thus, merely omitting some of the wording from a registered mark may not overcome a likelihood of confusion.  See In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 94 USPQ2d 1257; In re Optica Int’l, 196 USPQ 775, 778 (TTAB 1977); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii).  In this case, applicant’s mark does not create a distinct commercial impression from the registered mark because it contains some of the wording in the registered mark and does not add any wording that would distinguish it from that mark.

 

Accordingly, giving each feature of the marks appropriate weight, the marks when compared in their entireties are sufficiently similar to create consumer confusion or mistake as to the source of the services despite minor differences in the marks.

 

Comparison of the Goods and Services

 

The compared goods and services 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).

 

Applicant’s identified goods are “Computer software for diagnostics, evaluation, assessment, monitoring, documentation, testing, training, developing and improving children's cognitive behavioral and learning skills.”

 

Reg. No. 5068992’s identified services are “design and development of computer software, downloadable software applications, and computer software for mobile devices, namely, software for cognitive skill acquisition.”

 

Reg. No. 5073594’s identified services are “Providing advice, information and consulting in the field of cognitive skill acquisition and sports brain training; and development of computer software, downloadable software applications, and computer software for mobile devices, namely, software for collecting and analyzing data related to the brain and for assessing and monitoring the brain in relation to sports; design and development of computer software, downloadable software applications, and computer software for mobile devices, namely, software for cognitive skill acquisition; design and development of computer software, downloadable software applications, and computer software for mobile devices, namely, software for the improvement of sport-specific neurocognitive faculties; providing an interactive website featuring technology that allows users to assess, train, and monitor brain activity for the improvement of sport-specific neurocognitive faculties; providing online non-downloadable software for administering web-based tests to provide sports related brain assessment and monitoring and cognitive skill acquisition.”

 

Reg. No. 5119725’s identified services are “Computer software and downloadable software applications for collecting and analyzing data related to the brain and for assessing and monitoring the brain in relation to sports; computer software applications for mobile devices, namely, software for collecting and analyzing data related to the brain and for assessing and monitoring the brain in relation to sports; computer software and downloadable software applications for administering training programs for cognitive skill acquisition in relation to sports; computer software applications for mobile devices, namely, software for administering training programs for cognitive skill acquisition in relation to sports; computer software and downloadable software applications for the collection, analysis and storage of cognitive training results for the improvement of sport-specific neurocognitive faculties in relation to sports; computer software applications for mobile devices, namely, software for the collection, analysis and storage of cognitive training results for the improvement of sport-specific neurocognitive faculties in relation to sports; downloadable software for administering tests to provide sports related brain assessment and monitoring and cognitive skill acquisition in relation to sports.”

 

Reg. No. 5171817’s identified services are “Computer software and downloadable software applications for collecting and analyzing data related to the brain and for assessing and monitoring the brain in relation to sports; computer software applications for mobile devices, namely, software for collecting and analyzing data related to the brain and for assessing and monitoring the brain in relation to sports; computer software and downloadable software applications for administering training programs for cognitive skill acquisition in relation to sports; computer software applications for mobile devices, namely, software for administering training programs for cognitive skill acquisition in relation to sports; computer software and downloadable software applications for the collection, analysis and storage of cognitive training results for the improvement of sport-specific neurocognitive faculties in relation to sports; computer software applications for mobile devices, namely, software for the collection, analysis and storage of cognitive training results for the improvement of sport-specific neurocognitive faculties in relation to sports; downloadable software for administering tests to provide sports related brain assessment and monitoring and cognitive skill acquisition in relation to sports.”

 

Reg. No. 4547848’s identified services are “Providing a website featuring temporary use of a web-based software application for the recording and analysis of pre and post-injury cognitive testing of athletes, and to produce cognitive testing notifications and reports.”

 

Determining likelihood of confusion is based on the description of the services stated in the application and registration at issue, not on extrinsic evidence of actual use.  See In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1307, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1052 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1325, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1749 (Fed. Cir. 2017)).  

 

Applicant and registrant both provide services in the field of cognitive skills.  In this case, the registration uses broad wording to describe cognitive software, which presumably encompasses all goods and services of the type described, including applicant’s more specialized cognitive software.  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)).  Furthermore, applicant’s goods are broad enough to include sports for children. Cognitive testing is common in middle and high school for concussion purposes and this type of software is used for those testing services. See http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2775366/;

http://www.toptiersportsmed.com/blog/what-is-impact-testing-and-why-is-it-important-to-you/.

 

Additionally, the goods and services of the parties have no restrictions as to nature, type, channels of trade, or classes of purchasers and are “presumed to travel in the same channels of trade to the same class of purchasers.”  In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1268, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).  Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods and services are related.

 

Furthermore, the greater degree of similarity between the applied-for mark and the registered mark, the lesser the degree of similarity between the goods and services 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).

 

Accordingly, with the contemporaneous use of sufficiently similar marks, consumers are likely to conclude that the goods and services are related and originate from a single source. As such, registration must be refused under Trademark Act Section 2(d).

 

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

 

 

 

IDENTIFICATION OF THE GOODS

 

The identification of goods in International Class 9 is indefinite and must be clarified because the nature of the software is unclear.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.  As of January 1, 2019, and under Nice 11-2019, software in Class 9 must be specified as “downloadable” and/or “recorded” to clarify the nature of the goods.

 

Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate: 

 

 

IC 009:           Downloadable computer software for diagnostics, evaluation, assessment, monitoring, documentation, testing, training, developing and improving children's cognitive behavioral and learning skills

 

Applicant’s goods may be clarified or limited, but may not be expanded beyond those originally itemized in the application or as acceptably amended.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06.  Applicant may clarify or limit the identification by inserting qualifying language or deleting items to result in a more specific identification; however, applicant may not substitute different goods or add goods not found or encompassed by those in the original application or as acceptably amended.  See TMEP §1402.06(a)-(b).  The scope of the goods sets the outer limit for any changes to the identification and is generally determined by the ordinary meaning of the wording in the identification.  TMEP §§1402.06(b), 1402.07(a)-(b).  Any acceptable changes to the goods will further limit scope, and once goods are deleted, they are not permitted to be reinserted.  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.

 

 

 

CLARIFICATION REQUIRED – ENTITY INDEFINITE

 

The applicant’s name includes the abbreviation (for its entity designation) “Ltd.” which is an abbreviation for “limited.”  The applicant entity is identified as “Company.”  Neither the abbreviation in applicant’s corporate name nor the identified entity type appear in Appendix D to the TMEP for Israel.  Moreover, Israel is not one of the countries listed in the TMEP for which we accept “company” without further clarification.  See TMEP §803.03(i).

 

If, in response to the above request, applicant provides information indicating that it is not the owner of the mark, registration will be refused because the application was void as filed.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(d); TMEP §§803.06, 1201.02(b).  An application must be filed by the party who owns or is entitled to use the mark as of the application filing date.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(d); TMEP §1201.02(b).

 

 

 

RESPONSE GUIDELINES 

 

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 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.  

 

 

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

 

 

/Mildred Black/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 121

571.270.1217

mildred.black@uspto.gov

 

 

RESPONSE GUIDANCE

• Missing the response deadline to this letter will cause the application to abandon.  A response or notice of appeal must be received by the USPTO before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period.  TEAS and ESTTA maintenance or unforeseen circumstances could affect an applicant’s ability to timely respond.  

 

• Responses signed by an unauthorized party are not accepted and can cause the application to abandon.  If applicant does not have an attorney, the response must be signed by the individual applicant, all joint applicants, or someone with legal authority to bind a juristic applicant.  If applicant has an attorney, the response must be signed by the attorney.

 

• If needed, find contact information for the supervisor of the office or unit listed in the signature block.

 

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

 

USPTO OFFICIAL NOTICE

 

Office Action (Official Letter) has issued

on July 26, 2019 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88313415

 

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. 

 

 

/Mildred Black/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 121

571.270.1217

mildred.black@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 26, 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.”