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: 5/23/2019

 

INTRODUCTION

 

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

 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES:

 

1. Section 2(d) – Likelihood Of Confusion Refusal-In-Part As To Specified Goods
2. Identification Of Goods Overly Broad - Clarification And Amendment Required
3. Requirement To Clarify The Number Of Classes For Which Registration Is Sought
4. Advisory:  Multiple-Class Application Requirements for a Section 1(a) Filing Basis

 

SECTION 2(d) – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION REFUSAL-IN-PART AS TO SPECIFIED GOODS

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused-in-part as to “computer software for facial and object recognition; character recognition software; image recognition software” in Class 9 only because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 4054030, 3964112, and 4057517.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registration.

 

In this case, applicant has applied to register the mark “LOOKOUT” for use in connection with, in pertinent part, “computer software for facial and object recognition; character recognition software; image recognition software,” among other goods.

 

The registered marks, which are owned by the same registrant, are as follows:

 

1.  The mark in Registration No. 4054030 is “LOOKOUT” and design used in connection with, in pertinent part, “Software for scanning mobile communication devices, and for assessing, reporting, and preventing security risks and privacy risks on mobile communication devices; software for assessing, reporting, and preventing the security risks and privacy risks of installing software designed for mobile communication devices that is available on websites and software repositories, and for assessing, reporting, and preventing the security risks and privacy risks of software after installation of the software on mobile communication devices; mobile communication device anti-virus software; internet security software, namely, mobile communication device firewall, and intrusion prevention, and anti-phishing software; software for implementing security policy, spyware policy and privacy policy on a mobile communication device; software for preventing installation of undesired software on a mobile communication device; software for monitoring, backing up, preserving, and restoring mobile communications devices and mobile communications device data; software for locating, recovering, securing, and disabling a user's missing, stolen, or lost mobile communication device; software for remotely managing mobile communications devices,” among other services.

 

2. The mark in Registration No. 3964112 is “LOOKOUT” used in connection with, in pertinent part, “Software for scanning mobile communication devices, and for assessing, reporting, and preventing security risks and privacy risks on mobile communication devices; software for assessing, reporting, and preventing the security risks and privacy risks of installing software designed for mobile communication devices that is available on websites and software repositories, and for assessing, reporting, and preventing the security risks and privacy risks of software after installation of the software on mobile communication devices; mobile communication device anti-virus software; internet security software, namely, mobile communication device firewall, and intrusion prevention, and anti-phishing software; software for implementing security policy, spyware policy and privacy policy on a mobile communication device; software for preventing installation of undesired software on a mobile communication device; software for monitoring, backing up, preserving, and restoring mobile communications devices and mobile communications device data; software for locating, recovering, securing, and disabling a user's missing, stolen, or lost mobile communication device; software for remotely managing mobile communications devices,” among other services.

 

3. The mark in Registration No. 4057517 is “LOOKOUT MOBILE SECURITY” used in connection with, in pertinent part, “Software for scanning mobile communication devices, and for assessing, reporting, and preventing security risks and privacy risks on mobile communication devices; software for assessing, reporting, and preventing the security risks and privacy risks of installing software designed for mobile communication devices that is available on websites and software repositories, and for assessing, reporting, and preventing the security risks and privacy risks of software after installation of the software on mobile communication devices; mobile communication device anti-virus software; internet security software, namely, mobile communication device firewall, and intrusion prevention, and anti-phishing software; software for implementing security policy, spyware policy and privacy policy on a mobile communication device; software for preventing installation of undesired software on a mobile communication device; software for monitoring, backing up, preserving, and restoring mobile communications devices and mobile communications device data; software for locating, recovering, securing, and disabling a user's missing, stolen, or lost mobile communication device; software for remotely managing mobile communications devices,” among other services.

 

Introduction to Section 2(d) Analysis

 

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.

 

Similarity of the Marks

 

In a likelihood of confusion determination, the marks in their entireties are compared for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression.  In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1323, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2017); 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)); In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973); TMEP §1207.01(b)-(b)(v). 

 

In the present case, applicant’s mark is “LOOKOUT” and registrant’s marks are “LOOKOUT” and design (Registration No. 4054030) and “LOOKOUT” (Registration Nos. 3964112).  Thus, the word portion of these marks are identical in appearance, sound, and meaning, “and have the potential to be used . . . in exactly the same manner.”  In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 116 USPQ2d 1406, 1411 (TTAB 2015), aff’d, 866 F.3d 1315, 123 USPQ2d 1744 (Fed. Cir. 2017).  Additionally, because they are identical, these marks are likely to engender the same connotation and overall commercial impression when considered in connection with applicant’s and registrant’s respective goods.  Id.

Additionally, though one of the registered marks contains a design element, the design element does not obviate the similarities of the marks.  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.  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)).  Therefore, the word portion of the mark is dominant as the feature consumers will use when recalling the source of registrant’s goods.

Lastly, applicant’s mark, “LOOKOUT”, is confusingly similar in sound, appearance, and commercial impression with registrant’s mark, “LOOKOUT MOBILE SECURITY” (Registration No. 4057517), in that they begin with the identical term “LOOKOUT”. 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”).  Additionally, the term “LOOKOUT” in both marks conveys the same commercial impression of someone, or something, keeping watch. 

Though the registered mark contains the added phrase “MOBILE SECURITY”, this added phrase does not obviate the similarities of the marks as a generic phrase for the goods and services which has been disclaimed by registrant on such.  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 goods and or 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).  Therefore, the added phrase “MOBILE SECURITY” is less significant because consumers will immediately recognize that this phrase conveys information about registrant’s goods and services, rather than viewing this phrase as a source-identifying phrase.  Consequently, consumers will focus on “LOOKOUT” in registrant’s mark.

Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar.

 

Relatedness of the Goods

 

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

 

In this case, the registrations use broad wording to describe various software for preventing security risks, which presumably encompasses all goods of the type described, including applicant’s more narrow “computer software for facial and object recognition; character recognition software; image recognition software” because security software often contains facial and object recognition, character recognition, and image recognition capabilities. See e.g., http://www.facefirst.com/, http://www.aware.com/facial-recognition/, and http://findbiometrics.com/solutions/facial-recognition/ (showing facial recognition, fingerprint recognition, iris recognition are common functions in software for preventing security risks);  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 identification of goods identify overlapping goods which are legally identical.  See, e.g., In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 127 USPQ2d 1627, 1629 (TTAB 2018) (citing Tuxedo Monopoly, Inc. v.Gen. Mills Fun Grp., Inc., 648 F.2d 1335, 1336, 209 USPQ 986, 988 (C.C.P.A. 1981); Inter IKEA Sys. B.V. v. Akea, LLC, 110 USPQ2d 1734, 1745 (TTAB 2014); Baseball Am. Inc. v. Powerplay Sports Ltd., 71 USPQ2d 1844, 1847 n.9 (TTAB 2004)).

 

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

 

Ultimately, because the marks are confusingly similar and the goods are closely related, it is likely a potential consumer would be confused, mistaken, or deceived as to the source of the goods of the applicant and registrant.  Therefore, registration must be refused under Section 2(d).

 

Response to Section 2(d) – Likelihood of Confusion Refusal-In-Part

 

The stated refusal refers to the following goods and does not bar registration for the other goods:  “computer software for facial and object recognition; character recognition software; image recognition software” in Class 9.

 

Applicant may respond to the stated refusal by submitting evidence and arguments against the refusal.  In addition, applicant may respond by doing one of the following:

 

(1)  Deleting the goods to which the refusal pertains; OR

 

(2)  Filing a request to divide out the goods that have not been refused registration, so that the mark may proceed toward publication for opposition and registration for those to which the refusal does not pertain.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.87.  See generally TMEP §§1110 et seq. (regarding the requirements for filing a request to divide).  If applicant files a request to divide, then to avoid abandonment, applicant must also file a timely response to all outstanding issues in this Office action, including the refusal.  37 C.F.R. §2.87(e).

 

REQUIREMENTS

 

If applicant responds to the refusal, applicant must also respond to the requirements set forth below.

 

IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS OVERLY BROAD - CLARIFICATION AND AMENDMENT REQUIRED

 

All of the identifications for “software” are overly broad and could include services in other international classes.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03.  Under Nice 11-2019, computer software in Class 9 must be specified as “downloadable” and/or “recorded” to clarify the nature of the goods. Therefore, the applicant must specify if the software is downloadable and/or recorded in Class 9 or if the applicant is providing their temporary, online non-downloadable use which would be a computer service in Class 42, and classify the goods or services accordingly.

 

If applicant adds one or more international classes to the application, applicant must comply with the multiple-class requirements specified in this Office action.  Proper classification of goods and services is a purely administrative matter within the sole discretion of the USPTO.  See In re Faucher Indus. Inc., 107 USPQ2d 1355, 1357 (TTAB 2013) (quoting In re Tee-Pak, Inc., 164 USPQ 88, 89 (TTAB 1969)).

 

Applicant may adopt the following identification of goods and services, if accurate:

 

Class 9 –

“___________[applicant to specify if the goods are Downloadable, Pre-recorded, or Downloadable and Prerecorded] assistive technology software for the visually impaired for viewing, sensing and audibly identifying their physical surroundings and environment using image capture; ___________[applicant to specify if the goods are Downloadable, Pre-recorded, or Downloadable and Prerecorded] computer software for facial and object recognition; ___________[applicant to specify if the goods are Downloadable, Pre-recorded, or Downloadable and Prerecorded] character recognition software; ___________[applicant to specify if the goods are Downloadable, Pre-recorded, or Downloadable and Prerecorded] image recognition software; ___________[applicant to specify if the goods are Downloadable, Pre-recorded, or Downloadable and Prerecorded] software for reading text aloud.”

Class 42 –

“Providing online non-downloadable assistive technology software for the visually impaired for viewing, sensing and audibly identifying their physical surroundings and environment using image capture; Providing online non-downloadable computer software for facial and object recognition; Providing online non-downloadable character recognition software; Providing online non-downloadable image recognition software; Providing online non-downloadable software for reading text aloud.”

 

 

Additions to the Identification Not Permitted

 

Applicant’s goods and 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 goods and services or add goods and 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 goods and 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 goods and services will further limit scope, and once goods and 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.

 

Applicant must also respond to the following requirement.

 

REQUIREMENT TO CLARIFY THE NUMBER OF CLASSES FOR WHICH REGISTRATION IS SOUGHT

 

The application identifies goods and services that may be classified in at least 2 classes; however, applicant submitted a fee sufficient for only 1 class.  In a multiple-class application, a fee for each class is required.  37 C.F.R. §2.86(a)(2); TMEP §§810.01, 1403.01.

 

Therefore, applicant must either (1) restrict the application to the number of classes covered by the fees already paid, or (2) submit the fees for each additional class.

 

ADVISORY:  Multiple-Class Application Requirements for a Section 1(a) Filing Basis

 

The application references goods and services based on use in commerce in more than one international class; therefore, applicant must satisfy all the requirements below for each international class:

 

(1)        List the goods and services by their international class number in consecutive numerical order, starting with the lowest numbered class (for example, International Class 3: perfume; International Class 18: cosmetic bags sold empty).

 

(2)        Submit a filing fee for each international class not covered by the fees already paid (view the USPTO’s current fee schedule).  Specifically, the application identifies goods and services based on use in commerce that are classified in at least 2 classes; however, applicant submitted a fee sufficient for only 1 class.  Applicant must either (a) submit the filing fees for the classes not covered by the submitted fees or (b) restrict the application to the number of classes covered by the fees already paid.

 

(3)        Submit verified dates of first use of the mark anywhere and in commerce for each international class.  See more information about verified dates of use.

 

(4)        Submit a specimen for each international class.  The current specimen is acceptable for class 9 only; and applicant needs a specimen for class 42, if added to the application.  See more information about specimens.

 

            Examples of specimens for services include advertising and marketing materials, brochures, photographs of business signage and billboards, and website printouts that show the mark used in the actual sale, rendering, or advertising of the services. 

 

(5)        Submit a verified statement that “The specimen was in use in commerce on or in connection with the goods and/or services listed in the application at least as early as the filing date of the application.”  See more information about verification.

 

See 15 U.S.C. §§1051(a), 1112; 37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(6)-(7), 2.34(a)(1), 2.86(a); TMEP §§904, 1403.01, 1403.02(c).

 

See an overview of the requirements for a Section 1(a) multiple-class application and how to satisfy the requirements online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form.

 

FILING FEES FOR ADDED CLASSES

 

The fee for adding classes to a TEAS Reduced Fee (RF) application is $275 per class.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(1)(iii), 2.23(a).  See more information regarding the requirements for maintaining the lower TEAS RF fee and, if these requirements are not satisfied, for adding classes at a higher fee using regular TEAS.

 

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.

Applicant should file a response online using the Response to Examining Attorney Office Action Form available at http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks-application-process/filing-online/response-forms. 

If applicant requires technical assistance in using the online response form, applicant may email TEAS@uspto.gov or call the Trademark Assistance Center at 1-800-786-9199.

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.

 

/Tiffany Y. Chiang/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 113

(571) 272-7681

tiffany.chiang@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 5/23/2019 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 88346809

 

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 5/23/2019, 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. 

 

/Tiffany Y. Chiang/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 113

(571) 272-7681

tiffany.chiang@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.