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: 5/27/2019

 

The referenced application from Like Wu (“Applicant”) has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney.  Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issues below.  15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(a), 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.

 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES

 

• Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion
• Color Drawing & No Color Claim

 

SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

 

Registration of the applied-for mark, LK (“The Applied for Mark”) is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 5061451 (“The Registered Mark”).  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registration owned by Registrant.

 

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).

 

Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that so resembles a registered mark that it is likely a potential consumer would be confused, mistaken, or deceived as to the source of the goods and/or services of the applicant and registrant.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).  A determination of likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d) is made on a case-by case basis and 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) aid in this determination.  Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp., Inc., 637 F.3d 1344, 1349, 98 USPQ2d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing On-Line Careline, Inc. v. Am. Online, Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1085, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2000)).  Not all the du Pont factors, however, are necessarily relevant or of equal weight, and any one of the factors may control in a given case, depending upon the evidence of record.  Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp., Inc., 637 F.3d at 1355, 98 USPQ2d at 1260; In re Majestic Distilling Co., 315 F.3d 1311, 1315, 65 USPQ2d 1201, 1204 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d at 1361-62, 177 USPQ at 567.

 

In this case, the following factors are the most relevant:  similarity of the marks, similarity and nature of the goods, and similarity of the trade channels of the goods.  See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1361-62, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Dakin’s Miniatures Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593, 1595-96 (TTAB 1999); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.

 

Similarity of the Marks

 

The Applied for Mark is LK and The Registered Mark is LK1. The marks are similar in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression.

 

When comparing marks, “[t]he proper test is not a side-by-side comparison of the marks, but instead whether the marks are sufficiently similar in terms of their commercial impression such that [consumers] who encounter the marks would be likely to assume a connection between the parties.”  Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., __ F.3d __, 127 USPQ2d 1797, 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1368, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(b).  The proper focus is on the recollection of the average purchaser, who retains a general rather than specific impression of trademarks.  In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1746 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re St. Helena Hosp., 774 F.3d 747, 750-51, 113 USPQ2d 1082, 1085 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Geigy Chem. Corp. v. Atlas Chem. Indus., Inc., 438 F.2d 1005, 1007, 169 USPQ 39, 40 (CCPA 1971)); TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

When evaluating a composite mark consisting of words and a design, the word portion is normally accorded greater weight because it is likely to make a greater impression upon purchasers, be remembered by them, and be used by them to refer to or request the goods and/or services.  In re Aquitaine Wine USA, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1181, 1184 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii).  Thus, although marks must be compared in their entireties, the word portion is often considered the dominant feature and is accorded greater weight in determining whether marks are confusingly similar, even where the word portion has been disclaimed.  In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d at 1366-67, 101 USPQ2d at 1911 (citing Giant Food, Inc. v. Nation’s Foodservice, Inc., 710 F.2d 1565, 1570-71, 218 USPQ2d 390, 395 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).

 

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”). The Applied for Mark is “LK” and the first two syllables in The Registered Mark are “LK”. This weighs in favor of finding The Applied for Mark confusingly similar to The Registered Mark.

 

Although The Applied for Mark does not contain the entirety of The Registered Mark, The Applied for Mark is likely to appear to prospective purchasers as a shortened form of The Registered Mark.  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, The Applied for Mark does not create a distinct commercial impression from The Registered Mark because it merely deletes the “1” from the word potion of The Registered Mark and does not add any wording that would distinguish it from that mark. This also weighs in favor of finding The Applied for Mark confusingly similar to The Registered Mark.

 

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). The Applied for Mark is “LK” and The Registered Mark begins with “LK.” This, too, weighs in favor of finding The Applied for Mark confusingly similar to The Registered Mark.

 

For the foregoing reasons, The Applied for Mark is confusingly similar to The Registered Mark.

 

Similarity and Nature of the Goods and of the Trade Channels

 

Applicant’s goods “Scale model vehicles” in Class 28. 

 

Registrant’s goods include “Floating inflatable toys other than mattresses or seats; inflatable mats for recreational use; inflatable play equipment, namely, inflatable balls; inflatable play pools made of plastics materials; inflatable toys; portable inflatable play swimming pools; knee guards for athletic use; knee guards adapted for use whilst playing sports; knee pads adapted for use whilst playing sports; knee protectors in the nature of knee guards and pads adapted for use whilst playing sports; protectors for the knees for use when participating in sport in the nature of athletic knee guards and pads; protectors for the knees for use when participating in the sport of cricket in the nature of athletic knee guards and pads; protectors for the knees for use when riding bicycles in the nature of athletic knee guards and pads; protectors for the knees for use when skateboarding in the nature of athletic knee guards and pads; elbow guards for athletic use; elbow guards for use in skateboarding; protectors for elbows for use when participating in sport in the nature of elbow guards and pads for athletic use; protectors for elbows for use when riding bicycles in the nature of elbow guards and pad for athletic use; protectors for elbows for use when skateboarding in the nature of elbow guards and pad for athletic use; leg guards adapted for playing sport; surfboard leg ropes in the nature of leashes; wrist bands for use in playing sports in the nature of athletic wrist supports; protective padded articles for use in playing football, soccer; sport bags specially adapted to contain sporting equipment; body boards; skim boards; children's toy bicycles other than for transport; toy bicycles other than for transport; children's toy scooters; toy scooters; skateboard wax; skateboards; bags especially designed for skis and surfboards; leashes for surfboard; surfboard covers; surfboard leashes; surfboards; ice skates; in-line skates; roller skate boots with skates attached; roller skates; hockey skates; apparatus for skiing, namely, skis; bags specially adapted for holding articles for skiing; cases specially adapted for carrying skis; containers specially adapted for ski sticks; containers specially adapted for skis; jump ropes; paddles for surf skis; roller skis; scrapers for skis; seal skins as coverings for skis; shaped covers specially adapted for ski sticks; shaped covers specially adapted for skis; ski bags; ski batons; ski bindings; ski boards; ski edges; ski poles; ski skins, namely, climbing skins for use with touring skis, seal skins; ski sticks; ski wax; skimboards; skipping ropes; skis; snow skis; sole coverings for skis; surf skis; wax for skis; toys, namely, play balls; toys made of plastics, namely, plastic character toys and flying discs; toys made of rubber, namely, rubber balls, rubber character toys; electronic playthings, namely, electronic action toys, electronic toy vehicles; games, namely, card games, board games; bags specially adapted for carrying sporting articles; sporting articles, namely, wakeboards, surfboards; toy sporting apparatus, namely, sport balls; fins for swimming; swimming fins; flippers for swimming; swimming flippers; swimming webs in the nature of swimming flippers; baseball batting gloves; baseball gloves; boxing gloves; fencing gloves; gloves specifically adapted for sporting purposes, namely, football gloves and skateboarding gloves; golf gloves; softball gloves; waterski ropes; structural fittings for fishing rod handles, namely, rings and guides; grips for the handles of sporting articles; handles for fishing rods; handles for golf clubs; handles for sporting goods in the nature of handle grips for sporting equipment” in Class 28.

 

The goods and/or services of the parties 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) (“[E]ven if the goods in question are different from, and thus not related to, one another in kind, the same goods can be related in the mind of the consuming public as to the origin of the goods.”); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i). 

 

The respective goods and/or services need only be “related in some manner and/or if the circumstances surrounding their marketing [be] 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).

 

The attached Internet evidence establishes that the same entity commonly manufactures/produces/provides the relevant goods and markets the goods under the same mark.  This weighs heavily in favor of finding Applicant’s goods related to Registrant’s goods 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).

 

The trademark examining attorney has attached evidence from the USPTO’s X-Search database consisting of a number of third-party marks registered for use in connection with the same or similar goods as those of both Applicant and Registrant.  This evidence shows that the goods listed therein, namely, Applicant’s scale model vehicles and Registrant’s board games, card games, balls for various sports and games, inflatables, baseball gloves, elbow guards, knee guards, golf gloves, fencing gloves, rubber balls, electronic toy vehicles, action toys, fishing rods, and roller skates, are of a kind that may emanate from a single source under a single mark.  See In re I-Coat Co., 126 USPQ2d 1730, 1737 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Infinity Broad. Corp., 60 USPQ2d 1214, 1217-18 (TTAB 2001); In re Albert Trostel & Sons Co.,29 USPQ2d 1783, 1785-86 (TTAB 1993); In re Mucky Duck Mustard Co., 6 USPQ2d 1467, 1470 n.6 (TTAB 1988)); TMEP §1207.01(d)(iii). This also weighs heavily in favor of finding Applicant’s goods related to Registrant’s goods for likelihood of confusion purposes.

 

For the foregoing reasons, Applicant’s goods and Registrant’s goods are related for likelihood of confusion purposes.

 

With respect to trade channels, absent restrictions in an application and/or registration, the identified goods and/or services 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)). 

 

The identifications set forth in the application and registration have no restrictions as to nature, type, channels of trade, or classes of purchasers.  Therefore, for purpose of a likelihood of confusion analysis, it is presumed that Applicant’s goods and Registrant’s goods travel in all normal channels of trade, and are available to the same class of purchasers.

 

Section 2(d) Analysis Conclusion

 

In total, The Applied for Mark, LK, is confusingly similar to The Registered Mark, LK1; Applicant’s goods are related to Registrant’s goods; and Applicant’s goods travel in the same trade channels as Registrant’s goods. Consequently, consumers are likely to be confused by the marks and mistakenly believe that the goods that these marks identify originate from a common source. Therefore, registration of The Applied for Mark must be refused under Trademark Act Section 2(d) because of a likelihood of confusion with The Registered Mark.

 

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

 

COLOR DRAWING & NO COLOR CLAIM

 

Applicant must clarify whether color is a feature of the mark because, although the drawing shows the mark in color, the application does not state whether color is a feature of the mark.  37 C.F.R. §§2.37, 2.52(b)(1), 2.61(b); see TMEP §807.07(a)-(a)(ii).

 

Applicant may respond to this requirement by satisfying one of the following:

 

(1)       If color is not a feature of the mark, applicant must submit a black-and-white drawing of the mark to replace the color drawing.  See TMEP §807.07(a)(i).  However, any other amendments to the drawing will not be accepted if they materially alter the mark.  37 C.F.R. §2.72; see TMEP §§807.14 et seq.  Applicant must also submit a revised description of all literal and design elements in the mark, deleting any reference to color, if appropriate.  37 C.F.R. §2.37; see TMEP §§808.01, 808.02.  The following description is suggested, if accurate:  “The mark consists of outlined stylized capital letters “LK”, inside the letter “L” there are 3 five-pointed stars, inside the letter “K” there are 4 five-pointed stars and 3 stripes on the upper right part of the letter.

 

(2)       If color is a feature of the mark, applicant must submit a statement (a) listing all the colors that are claimed as a feature of the mark and (b) describing all the literal and design elements in the mark that specifies where each color appears in those elements.  37 C.F.R. §§2.37, 2.52(b)(1); TMEP §807.07(a)-(a)(ii).  Generic color names must be used to describe the colors in the mark, e.g., red, yellow, blue.  TMEP §807.07(a)(i)-(ii).  If black, white, and/or gray represent background, outlining, shading, and/or transparent areas and are not part of the mark, applicant must so specify in the description.  See TMEP §807.07(d).  The following color claim and description are suggested, if accurate: 

 

Color claim:  “The colors black and white are claimed as a feature of the mark.”

 

Description:  “The mark consists of stylized black capital letters “LK” outlined in white, inside the letter “L” there are 3 white five-pointed stars, inside the letter “K” there are 4 white five-pointed stars and 3 white stripes on the upper right part of the letter.”

 

See TMEP §807.07(b).

 

RESPONSE GUIDELINES

 

For this application to proceed further, Applicant must explicitly address each refusal and/or requirement raised in this Office action.  If the action includes a refusal, Applicant may provide arguments and/or evidence as to why the refusal should be withdrawn and the mark should register.  Applicant may also have other options for responding to a refusal and should consider such options carefully.  To respond to requirements and certain refusal response options, Applicant should set forth in writing the required changes or statements.  For more information and general tips on responding to USPTO Office actions, response options, and how to file a response online, see “Responding to Office Actions” on the USPTO’s website.

 

If Applicant does not respond to this Office action within six months of the issue/mailing date, or responds by expressly abandoning the application, the application process will end and the trademark will fail to register.  See 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.65(a), 2.68(a); TMEP §§718.01, 718.02.  Additionally, the USPTO will not refund the application filing fee, which is a required processing fee.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(1)(i)-(iv), 2.209(a); TMEP §405.04.

 

Where the application has been abandoned for failure to respond to an Office action, Applicant’s only option would be to file a timely petition to revive the application, which, if granted, would allow the application to return to active status.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.66; TMEP §1714.  There is a $100 fee for such petitions.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.6, 2.66(b)(1).

 

Because of the legal technicalities and strict deadlines involved in the USPTO application process, Applicant may wish to hire a private attorney specializing in trademark matters to represent Applicant in this process and provide legal advice.  Although the undersigned trademark examining attorney is permitted to help an applicant understand the contents of an Office action as well as the application process in general, no USPTO attorney or staff is permitted to give an applicant legal advice or statements about an applicant’s legal rights.  TMEP §§705.02, 709.06. 

 

For attorney referral information, Applicant may consult the American Bar Association’s Consumers’ Guide to Legal Help, an attorney referral service of a state or local bar association, or a local telephone directory.  The USPTO may not assist an applicant in the selection of a private attorney.  37 C.F.R. §2.11.

 

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.  

 

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. 

 

 

 

/Louis Kolodner/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 122

(571)272-7562

Louis.Kolodner@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 5/27/2019 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 88340994

 

Your trademark application has been reviewed.  The trademark examining attorney assigned by the USPTO to your application has written an official letter to which you must respond.  Please follow these steps:

 

(1)  Read the LETTER by clicking on this link or going to http://tsdr.gov.uspto.report/, entering your U.S. application serial number, and clicking on “Documents.”

 

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

 

(2)  Respond within 6 months (or sooner if specified in the Office action), calculated from 5/27/2019, using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) response form located at http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp.  A response transmitted through TEAS must be received before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period.

 

Do NOT hit “Reply” to this e-mail notification, or otherwise e-mail your response because the USPTO does NOT accept e-mails as responses to Office actions. 

 

(3)  Questions about the contents of the Office action itself should be directed to the trademark examining attorney who reviewed your application, identified below. 

 

/Louis Kolodner/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 122

(571)272-7562

Louis.Kolodner@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.