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: 5/11/2019

 

 

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.  

 

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 THAT APPLICANT MUST ADDRESS

 

-        Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion

-        Section 2(e)(4) Refusal – Primarily Merely a Surname

 

 

SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 4686317.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registration.

 

 

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/or 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/or 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 Marks

 

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 applicant has applied to register the mark LOUX for “Bicycle lights; Diving lights; Electric torches for lighting; Fairy lights for festive decoration; Head torches; Lamps; Lanterns for lighting; LED (light emitting diode) lighting fixtures; Light bulbs; Lighting apparatus for vehicles; Lighting apparatus, namely, lighting installations; Outdoor portable lighting products, namely, headlamps; Street lamps; Ultraviolet ray lamps, not for medical purposes; Lights, electric, for Christmas trees.”

 

 

The registered mark is LOOX for “Lighting installations and lighting appliances for lighting and illuminating public and private buildings, namely, LED lighting systems comprised of namely LED module, power supplies and wiring, lamps, lamps for furniture, electric lighting, namely, LED luminaires, under cabinet lights, recessed lights, strip lights, spot lights, surface mounted lights, drawer lights, gooseneck lights, down lights, display lights, lamps being furnishings, light radiating units, namely, under cabinet lights, recessed lights, strip lights, spot lights, surface mounted lights, drawer lights, gooseneck lights, down lights, display lights, interior lighting, namely, under cabinet lights, recessed lights, strip lights, spot lights, surface mounted lights, drawer lights, gooseneck lights, down lights, display lights, electric lighting fixtures in the nature of recessed lights for furniture, exterior lights, namely, spot lights, electric lighting fixtures in the nature of recessed lights, ceiling-mounted lights, wall lamps, workplace lighting, namely, LED lamps, lights for living spaces, namely, under cabinet lights, recessed lights, strip lights, spot lights, surface mounted lights, drawer lights, gooseneck lights, down lights, display lights; computer-controlled lighting, namely, under cabinet lights, ceiling lights, accent lights, display lights.”

 

 

The marks are essentially phonetic equivalents and thus sound similar.  Similarity in sound alone may be sufficient to support a finding that the marks are confusingly similar.  In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB 1988); see In re 1st USA Realty Prof’ls, Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1581, 1586 (TTAB 2007); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iv).

 

 

Please note, there is no correct pronunciation of a mark because it is impossible to predict how the public will pronounce a particular mark.  See Embarcadero Techs., Inc. v. RStudio, Inc., 105 USPQ2d 1825, 1835 (TTAB 2013) (quoting In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1367, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1912 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re The Belgrade Shoe Co., 411 F.2d 1352, 1353, 162 USPQ 227, 227 (C.C.P.A. 1969)); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iv).  The marks in question could clearly be pronounced the same; such similarity in sound alone may be sufficient to support a finding that the marks are confusingly similar.  In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB 1988); see In re 1st USA Realty Prof’ls, Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1581, 1586 (TTAB 2007); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iv).

 

 

 

In the instant case, the marks create the same mental reaction, sound, and overall 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).

 

 

Lastly, where the goods and/or services of an applicant and registrant are “similar in kind and/or closely related,” the degree of similarity between the marks required to support a finding of likelihood of confusion is not as great as in the case of diverse goods and/or services.  In re J.M. Originals Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1393, 1394 (TTAB 1987); see Shen Mfg. Co. v. Ritz Hotel Ltd., 393 F.3d 1238, 1242, 73 USPQ2d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2004); TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

 

The Goods

 

The goods and/or services are compared to determine whether they are similar, commercially related, or travel in the same trade channels.  See Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369-71, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722-23 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 1165, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2002); TMEP §§1207.01, 1207.01(a)(vi).

 

 

In the instant case, the parties have highly related, identical in part, lighting installations, lamps, and a variety of lights, lanterns, and LED lights such that the goods would be marketed in the same channels of trade.

 

 

 

Please note, the compared goods and/or 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).

 

 

The attached Internet evidence, consisting of pages from the examining attorney’s search in a computerized database, establishes that the same entity commonly provides the relevant goods and markets the goods under the same mark, and that the relevant goods are sold or provided through the same trade channels and used by the same classes of consumers in the same fields of use.

 

 

LAMPS PLUS – indoor and outdoor lighting fixtures, lights, lamps, lanterns, bulbs, LED lights http://www.lampsplus.com/

 

 

LAMPS USA - indoor and outdoor lighting fixtures, lights, lamps, lanterns, bulbs, LED lights http://www.lampsusa.com/

 

 

WILSON LIGHTING - indoor and outdoor lighting fixtures, lights, lamps, lanterns, bulbs, LED lights   http://wilsonlighting.com/categories

 

 

Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods are considered related 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 marks are highly similar. The lights, lamps, lanterns, fixtures, bulbs and LED lights for various uses are very highly related. The similarities among the marks and the goods are so great as to be marketed in the same channels of trade and create a likelihood of confusion among consumers.

 

                                                                                                                                             

The overriding concern is not only to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods and/or 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).

 

 

Accordingly, registration is refused under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.

 

 

Applicant should note the following additional ground for refusal.

 

 

SECTION 2(e)(4) REFUSAL – PRIMARILY MERELY A SURNAME

Registration is refused because the applied-for mark is primarily merely a surname.  Trademark Act Section 2(e)(4), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(4); see TMEP §1211. 

 

An applicant’s mark is primarily merely a surname if the surname, when viewed in connection with the applicant’s recited goods and/or services, “‘is the primary significance of the mark as a whole to the purchasing public.’”  Earnhardt v. Kerry Earnhardt, Inc., 864 F.3d 1374, 1377, 123 USPQ2d 1411, 1413 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting In re Hutchinson Tech. Inc., 852 F.2d 552, 554, 7 USPQ2d 1490, 1492 (Fed. Cir. 1988)); TMEP §1211.01.

 

The following five inquiries are often used to determine the public’s perception of a term’s primary significance:

(1)       Whether the surname is rare;

(2)       Whether anyone connected with applicant uses the term as a surname;

(3)       Whether the term has any recognized meaning other than as a surname;

(4)       Whether the term has the structure and pronunciation of a surname; and

 (5)      Whether the term is sufficiently stylized to remove its primary significance from that of a surname.

In re Eximius Coffee, LLC, 120 USPQ2d 1276, 1278 & n.2, 1282-83 (TTAB 2016) (citing In re Benthin Mgmt. GmbH, 37 USPQ2d 1332, 1333-34 (TTAB 1995) for the Benthin inquiries/factors); TMEP §1211.01; see also In re Etablissements Darty et Fils, 759 F.2d 15, 16-18, 225 USPQ 652, 653 (Fed. Cir. 1985). 

 

These inquiries are not exclusive, and any of these circumstances – singly or in combination – and any other relevant circumstances may be considered when making this determination.  In re Eximius Coffee, LLC, 120 USPQ2d at 1277-78; TMEP §1211.01.  For example, when the applied-for mark is not stylized, it is unnecessary to consider the fifth inquiry.  In re Yeley, 85 USPQ2d 1150, 1151 (TTAB 2007); TMEP §1211.01.

 

Please see the attached evidence from WHITEPAGES.COM and LEXISNEXIS®, establishing the surname significance of LOUX.  This evidence shows the applied-for mark appearing 2,360,221 times as a surname in a nationwide phone directory of names and over 1,350 times in the LEXISNEXIS® surname database, which is a weekly updated directory of cell phone and other phone numbers (such as voice over IP) from various data providers. 

 

The surname does not appear to be a rare surname. The issue of determining whether a surname is common or rare is not determined solely by comparing the number of listings of the surname to the total number of listings in a computerized database, because even the most common surname would represent only a small fraction of the database.  In re Gregory, 70 USPQ2d 1792, 1795 (TTAB 2004).  Rather, if a surname appears routinely in news reports or articles and receives media publicity so as to be broadly exposed to the general public, then such surname is not rare and its primary significance to purchasers would be that of a surname, such as in this case.  See In re Beds & Bars Ltd., 122 USPQ2d 1546, 1551 (TTAB 2017); In re Gregory, 70 USPQ2d at 1795; TMEP §1211.01(a)(v). The attached articles from the examining attorney’s search in a computerized database demonstrate the surname appearing routinely in online media.

           

RENEE LOUX CLEAN FOOD + SMART LIVING - http://www.reneeloux.com/143/about-ren%C3%A9e-loux

WIKIPEDIA - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loux

HOUSE OF NAMES - http://www.houseofnames.com/loux-family-crest 

 

There is nothing on record to indicate that anyone connected with applicant uses the term as a surname, however, the surname significance of the term is demonstrated by the attached evidence and by the lack of any recognized meaning of the term other than as a surname.

 

Evidence that a term has no recognized meaning or significance other than as a surname is relevant to determining whether the term would be perceived as primarily merely a surname.  See In re Weiss Watch Co., 123 USPQ2d 1200, 1203 (TTAB 2017); In re Eximius Coffee, LLC, 120 USPQ2d 1276, 1280 (TTAB 2016); TMEP §1211.02(b)(vi).  The attached evidence from Wikipedia, Wordnik, Rhymezone and LookWAYup Translating dictionary/Thesaurus shows that LOUX does not appear in the dictionary.  Thus, this term appears to have no recognized meaning or significance other than as a surname. 

 

In addition, the applied-for mark has the structure and pronunciation of a surname. Please note that the attached evidence from LEXISNEXIS® and Whitepages.Com demonstrating surnames similar in structure and pronunciation to the applied-for mark. See LAUX, LAUCK, LOUCK. Evidence that a term has the structure and pronunciation of a surname may contribute to a finding that the primary significance of the term is that of a surname.  In re Eximius Coffee, LLC, 120 USPQ2d 1276, 1280 (TTAB 2016); see In re Giger, 78 USPQ2d 1405, 1409 (TTAB 2006); In re Gregory, 70 USPQ2d 1792, 1796 (TTAB 2004); TMEP §1211.01(a)(vi).

 

Lastly, the applied-for mark is not sufficiently stylized to remove its primary significance from that of a surname.

 

Accordingly, registration is refused under Section 2(e)(4) of the Trademark Act.

 

RESPONSE OPTION TO SECTION 2(e)(4) REFUSAL

Although an amendment to the Supplemental Register would normally be an appropriate response to this refusal, such a response is not appropriate in the present case.  The instant application was filed under Trademark Act Section 1(b) and is not eligible for registration on the Supplemental Register until an acceptable amendment to allege use meeting the requirements of 37 C.F.R. §2.76 has been timely filed.  37 C.F.R. §2.47(d); TMEP §§816.02, 1102.03.

 

 

If applicant files an acceptable allegation of use and also amends to the Supplemental Register, the application effective filing date will be the date applicant met the minimum filing requirements under 37 C.F.R. §2.76(c) for an amendment to allege use.  TMEP §§816.02, 1102.03; see 37 C.F.R. §2.75(b).  In addition, the undersigned trademark examining attorney will conduct a new search of the USPTO records for conflicting marks based on the later application filing date.  TMEP §§206.01, 1102.03.

 

 

 

Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusals by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.

 

 

ADVISORY

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.

 

 

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 online directory of legal professionals, such as FindLaw®; or a local telephone directory.  The USPTO, however, may not assist an applicant in the selection of a private attorney.  37 C.F.R. §2.11.

 

 

ASSISTANCE

Please call or email the assigned trademark examining attorney with questions about this Office action.  Although the trademark examining attorney cannot provide legal advice or statements about applicant’s rights, the trademark examining attorney can provide applicant with additional explanation about the refusal(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. 

 

 

/AKhan/

Asmat Khan

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 114

(571)-272-9453

asmat.khan@uspto.gov

 

 

Total number found: 1370
No.	Name	Address	Phone
1.	LOUX, A	1103 N 15TH APT 109 PENSACOLA, FL 32501-3461	602-373-6984
2.	LOUX, A	872 BUENA VISTA APT 5 CINCINNATI, OH 45206-1051	513-264-1977
3.	LOUX, A	PO BOX 143 BOISE, ID 83701-0143	310-977-4425
4.	LOUX, A	1491 SPENCER AVE HUDSONVILLE, MI 49426-8719	616-667-2667
5.	LOUX, A	124 VALENTINE HACKETTSTOWN, NJ 07840-2177	908-850-3322
6.	LOUX, A	3364 E WHITESIDE SPRINGFIELD, MO 65804-2823	916-267-4838
7.	LOUX, A	KALAMAZOO, MI 49006	269-599-2656
8.	LOUX, AARON S	145 HALSEY APT 2 BROOKLYN, NY 11216-2103	206-619-8300
9.	LOUX, AARON M	PO BOX 602 SUTTER CREEK, CA 95685-0602	831-207-1588
10.	LOUX, AARON	12 THAYER CORNER CUMMINGTON, MA 01026-9760	413-230-8607

 

Total number found: 6793
No.	Name	Address	Phone
1.	LAUX, A	3535 APOLLO METAIRIE, LA 70003-3372	504-875-4541
2.	LAUX, A	5012 COLFAX AVE S MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55419-1146	612-823-2838
3.	LAUX, A		216-331-8501
4.	LAUX, A	ALISO VIEJO, CA 92656	949-600-5318
5.	LAUX, A	AUDUBON, PA 19403	267-441-9036
6.	LAUX, A	PALMDALE, CA 93552	661-992-0004
7.	LAUX, A	ST PETERSBURG, FL 33703	727-528-7121
8.	LAUX, AARON M	2055 BIGGS NE LOWELL, MI 49331-9320	616-897-4990
9.	LAUX, AARON	3182 CAMINO ARROYO CARLSBAD, CA 92009-7611	760-470-3510
10.	LAUX, AARON M	309 CHATHAM LOWELL, MI 49331-1316	616-897-4990

 

Total number found: 1779
No.	Name	Address	Phone
1.	LAUCK, A LESLIE	30 HEATH HILTON HEAD ISLAND, SC 29928-5128	317-846-1510
2.	LAUCK, A	YORK, PA 17404	717-779-9498
3.	LAUCK, AARON M	205 GOODRICH RICHMOND, MO 64085-2812	816-776-2464
4.	LAUCK, AARON M	205 GOODRICH RICHMOND, MO 64085-2812	816-776-2464
5.	LAUCK, AARON	8877 SHAFFER DELPHOS, OH 45833-9725	419-647-6359
6.	LAUCK, AARON	8877 SHAFFER DELPHOS, OH 45833-9725	419-647-6359
7.	LAUCK, AARON	URBANA, OH 43078	937-652-1747
8.	LAUCK, ABBY	1324 WATER WILLOW GROVELAND, FL 34736-8887	303-619-7308
9.	LAUCK, ABBY	DENVER, CO 80202	303-809-1140
10.	LAUCK, ABBY	DIAMONDHEAD, MS 39525

 

 

 

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 5/11/2019 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 88347853

 

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 5/11/2019, 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. 

 

/AKhan/

Asmat Khan

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 114

(571)-272-9453

asmat.khan@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.