Offc Action Outgoing

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

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

 

 

 

FINAL 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) and/or Electronic System for Trademark Trials and Appeals (ESTTA).  A link to the appropriate TEAS response form and/or to ESTTA for an appeal appears at the end of this Office action. 

 

 

Issue date:  February 24, 2020

 

INTRODUCTION

 

This Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on January 27, 2020.

 

In a previous Office action dated July 26, 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.  In addition, applicant was required to satisfy the following requirements:  amend the identification of goods and/or services, clarify the entity type.

 

Based on applicant’s response, the trademark examining attorney notes that the following requirement has been satisfied: clarify the entity type.  See TMEP §§713.02, 714.04. 

 

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

 

 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES MADE FINAL that applicant must address:

 

·         SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

• IDENTIFICATION OF THE SERVICES

 

 

For the reasons set forth below, the refusal under Trademark Act Section 2(d) is now made FINAL with respect to U.S. Registration Nos. 5073594, 5119725, 5171817, 4547848, and 5068992.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b).  In addition, the following requirement is now made FINAL:  identification of the services.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b).

 

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 previously attached registrations.

 

Applicant’s mark is AXON in stylized text for “Non-downloadable 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).  Any evidence of record related to those factors need be considered; however, “not all of the DuPont factors are relevant or of similar weight in every case.”  In re Guild Mortg. Co., 912 F.3d 1376, 1379, 129 USPQ2d 1160, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting In re Dixie Rests., Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 1406, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).

 

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. 

 

The overriding concern is not only to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods and services, but to protect the registrant from adverse commercial impact due to use of a similar mark by a newcomer.  See In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1208, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1690 (Fed. Cir. 1993).  Therefore, any doubt regarding a likelihood of confusion determination is resolved in favor of the registrant.  TMEP §1207.01(d)(i); see Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1265, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2002); In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 464-65, 6 USPQ2d 1025, 1026 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

 

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)), aff’d per curiam, 777 F. App’x 516, 2019 BL 343921 (Fed. Cir. 2019); 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).  Thus, this wording is less significant in terms of affecting the mark’s commercial impression, and renders the wording AXON the more dominant element of the mark.  Therefore, the dominant portion of the registered marks is identical to the wording in the applied-for mark.

 

Moreover, 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 goods and 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 services are “Non-downloadable 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 goods 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 goods 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 goods and 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 software 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 for children.  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 software in the field of cognitive skills is broad enough to include cognitive skill software focusing on 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, presently and previously attached screenshots from 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/; http://braincheck.com/; http://www.upmc.com/services/sports-medicine/services/concussion/baseline-testing; http://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00174/full.

 

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.

 

When the cited registrant’s software is identified broadly without restriction or limitation as to the purpose or function, the software is presumed to encompass all goods of that type, including the same type of software as applicant.  See In re Solid State Design Inc., 125 USPQ2d 1409, 1412-15 (TTAB 2018); In re N.A.D., Inc., 57 USPQ2d 1872, 1874 (TTAB 2000); TMEP §1207.01(a)(iii).  Applicant argues that its non-downloadable software is not related to registrant’s downloadable software because applicant’s software is provided through a website.  However, the purpose of the software is highly similar and overlapping, and therefore likely to cause consumer confusion.

 

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).

 

This refusal is now made FINAL.

 

 

 

IDENTIFICATION OF THE SERVICES

 

The identification of services is indefinite and must be clarified because applicant must specify how the software is provided, e.g., on-line, or temporary use.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01. 

 

Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate: 

 

 

IC 042:            Providing on-line non-downloadable computer software for diagnostics, evaluation, assessment, monitoring, documentation, testing, training, developing and improving children's cognitive behavioral and learning skills

 

Applicant’s services 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 services or add services not found or encompassed by those in the original application or as acceptably amended.  See TMEP §1402.06(a)-(b).  The scope of the services 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 services will further limit scope, and once services 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.

 

This requirement is now made FINAL.

 

 

 

How to respond.  Click to file a request for reconsideration of this final Office action that fully resolves all outstanding requirements and refusals and/or click to file a timely appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) with the required filing fee(s).

 

 

Black, Mildred

/Mildred Black/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 130

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 February 24, 2020 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. 

 

 

Black, Mildred

/Mildred Black/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 130

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 February 24, 2020, 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.”