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: 6/7/2019

 

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

 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES:

• Prior Pending Application Filed – Application Not Entitled to Register
• Trademark Act Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion
• Amendment to Mark Description Required
• Multi-Class Application Requirements

 

Prior Pending Application Filed – Application Not Entitled to Register

 

The filing date of pending U.S. Application Serial No. 79250188 precedes applicant’s filing date.  See attached referenced application.  If the mark in the referenced application registers, applicant’s mark may be refused registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d) because of a likelihood of confusion between the two marks.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §§1208 et seq.  Therefore, upon receipt of applicant’s response to this Office action, action on this application may be suspended pending final disposition of the earlier-filed referenced application.

 

In response to this Office action, applicant may present arguments in support of registration by addressing the issue of the potential conflict between applicant’s mark and the mark in the referenced application.  Applicant’s election not to submit arguments at this time in no way limits applicant’s right to address this issue later if a refusal under Section 2(d) issues.

 

Trademark Act 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. 5038910.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registration.

 

The applied for mark is MEDIGENE and design for the following goods and/or services:

 

Class 5:

 

Pharmaceutical and veterinary preparations; Serums; Test kits for determining the type/existence of a tumour in a patient; Diagnostic and therapeutic preparations (mixtures of therapeutically active cells in a suitable medium), in particular produced using molecular biological, biotechnological and genetic methods

 

Class 42:

 

Services in molecular biology, in particular research and development in the field of medical and veterinary diagnosis and treatment using molecular biological, biotechnological and genetic methods, and in the field of screening for compounds with pharmaceutical properties; Development of test methods and test kits; Development of adoptive T cell therapy; Development of DC vaccines; Development of cellular tumour therapy; Development of tumour markers; Development of diagnostic and therapeutic antibodies; Cell analyses; Individualised medicine, development of treatment plans and therapy adapted for individual patients

 

Class 44:

 

Medical and veterinary medical services, In particular extracting of blood and/or tissue samples and analysis and evaluation relating thereto

 

 

The registered mark is MEDIGENE IMMUNOTHERAPIES for the following goods and/or services:

 

Class 5:

 

Medicines for humans and animals for the treatment of tumor precursors, benign and malignant tumor diseases, particularly hematological tumor diseases, inflammatory diseases, neurodegenerative diseases, and autoimmune diseases, vaccines, medicated serums for treatment of tumor precursors, benign and malignant tumor diseases, particularly hematological tumor diseases, inflammatory diseases, neurodegenerative diseases, and autoimmune diseases, diagnostic and drug testing kits comprised of medical reagents and assays for testing of bodily fluids for use in disease detection, namely, tumor precursors, benign and malignant tumor diseases, particularly hematological tumor diseases, inflammatory diseases, neurodegenerative diseases, and autoimmune diseases, all prepared by means of molecular biology, genetic engineering or biotechnological methods; substances for medical diagnosis purposes, namely, proteins, nucleic acids, cell products, protein conjugates, peptides, enzymes and enzyme preparations, particularly antibodies and T cell proteins; T cells, dendritic cells, and other cells of the immune system, viruses, and virus-like particles, all for medical purposes; liposomes for medical purposes; plant extracts for medical purposes; low molecular active ingredients, namely, medicines for the treatment of tumor precursors, benign and malignant tumor diseases, particularly hematological tumor diseases, inflammatory diseases, neurodegenerative diseases, and autoimmune diseases, vaccines, adjuvants, serums for treatment of tumor precursors, benign and malignant tumor diseases, particularly hematological tumor diseases, inflammatory diseases, neurodegenerative diseases, and autoimmune diseases, diagnostic and drug testing kits comprised of medical reagents and assays that test for the presence of tumor precursors, benign and malignant tumor diseases, particularly hematological tumor diseases, inflammatory diseases, neurodegenerative diseases, autoimmune diseases and immune therapy

 

Class 42:

 

Services of a molecular biology or biotechnology laboratory, particularly research and development work in the field of human medical and veterinary medical diagnosis and therapy by means of molecular biology, genetic engineering or biotechnological methods as well as in the field of screening for pharmaceutically active compounds; design and development of test methods and test kits in the field of biotechnology and medicine

 

Class 44:

 

Medical analyses and medical consultancy in the context of the treatment of single persons, particularly in the field of tumor precursors, benign and malignant tumor diseases, autoimmune diseases and immunotherapy

 

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.

 

Similarity of 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).

 

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)). As such the wording in the applied for mark is dominant over the design.

 

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”). As such, the applied for mark and the dominant element are identical. The sharing of this identical term creates a similar sound, appearance, and meaning and thus creates a similar commercial impression.

 

When compared in their entirety, the additional descriptive wording in the registered mark does not significantly alter the commercial impression of the mark. Rather it creates the mistaken impression that registrant is a variant in a line of applicant’s products and services.

 

As such, the marks are confusingly similar.

 

Relatedness of the Goods and Services

 

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).

 

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).

 

 

Determining likelihood of confusion is based on the description of the goods and/or 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)).  

 

In this case, the application and registration(s) use(s) broad wording to describe Services of a molecular biology or biotechnology laboratory, particularly research and development work in the field of human medical and veterinary medical diagnosis and therapy by means of molecular biology, genetic engineering or biotechnological methods as well as in the field of screening for pharmaceutically active compounds; design and development of test methods and test kits in the field of biotechnology and medicine, Medical analyses and medical consultancy in the context of the treatment of single persons, particularly in the field of tumor precursors, benign and malignant tumor diseases, autoimmune diseases and immunotherapy, and Medicines for humans and animals for the treatment of tumor precursors, benign and malignant tumor diseases, particularly hematological tumor diseases, inflammatory diseases, neurodegenerative diseases, and autoimmune diseases, vaccines, medicated serums for treatment of tumor precursors, benign and malignant tumor diseases, particularly hematological tumor diseases, inflammatory diseases, neurodegenerative diseases, and autoimmune diseases, diagnostic and drug testing kits comprised of medical reagents and assays for testing of bodily fluids for use in disease detection, namely, tumor precursors, benign and malignant tumor diseases, particularly hematological tumor diseases, inflammatory diseases, neurodegenerative diseases, and autoimmune diseases, all prepared by means of molecular biology, genetic engineering or biotechnological methods; substances for medical diagnosis purposes, namely, proteins, nucleic acids, cell products, protein conjugates, peptides, enzymes and enzyme preparations, particularly antibodies and T cell proteins; T cells, dendritic cells, and other cells of the immune system, viruses, and virus-like particles, all for medical purposes; liposomes for medical purposes; plant extracts for medical purposes; low molecular active ingredients, namely, medicines for the treatment of tumor precursors, benign and malignant tumor diseases, particularly hematological tumor diseases, inflammatory diseases, neurodegenerative diseases, and autoimmune diseases, vaccines, adjuvants, serums for treatment of tumor precursors, benign and malignant tumor diseases, particularly hematological tumor diseases, inflammatory diseases, neurodegenerative diseases, and autoimmune diseases, diagnostic and drug testing kits comprised of medical reagents and assays that test for the presence of tumor precursors, benign and malignant tumor diseases, particularly hematological tumor diseases, inflammatory diseases, neurodegenerative diseases, autoimmune diseases and immune therapy which presumably encompasses all goods and/or services of the type described, including applicant’s and registrant(s)’s more narrow “Medicines for humans and animals for the treatment of tumor precursors, benign and malignant tumor diseases, particularly hematological tumor diseases, inflammatory diseases, neurodegenerative diseases, and autoimmune diseases, vaccines, medicated serums for treatment of tumor precursors, benign and malignant tumor diseases, particularly hematological tumor diseases, inflammatory diseases, neurodegenerative diseases, and autoimmune diseases, diagnostic and drug testing kits comprised of medical reagents and assays for testing of bodily fluids for use in disease detection, namely, tumor precursors, benign and malignant tumor diseases, particularly hematological tumor diseases, inflammatory diseases, neurodegenerative diseases, and autoimmune diseases, all prepared by means of molecular biology, genetic engineering or biotechnological methods; substances for medical diagnosis purposes, namely, proteins, nucleic acids, cell products, protein conjugates, peptides, enzymes and enzyme preparations, particularly antibodies and T cell proteins; T cells, dendritic cells, and other cells of the immune system, viruses, and virus-like particles, all for medical purposes; liposomes for medical purposes; plant extracts for medical purposes; low molecular active ingredients, namely, medicines for the treatment of tumor precursors, benign and malignant tumor diseases, particularly hematological tumor diseases, inflammatory diseases, neurodegenerative diseases, and autoimmune diseases, vaccines, adjuvants, serums for treatment of tumor precursors, benign and malignant tumor diseases, particularly hematological tumor diseases, inflammatory diseases, neurodegenerative diseases, and autoimmune diseases, diagnostic and drug testing kits comprised of medical reagents and assays that test for the presence of tumor precursors, benign and malignant tumor diseases, particularly hematological tumor diseases, inflammatory diseases, neurodegenerative diseases, autoimmune diseases and immune therapy and Medical analyses and medical consultancy in the context of the treatment of single persons, particularly in the field of tumor precursors, benign and malignant tumor diseases, autoimmune diseases and immunotherapy”. 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 and services 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 and/or 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/or services are related and registration is refused.

 

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

 

Amendment to Identification of Goods and/or Services Required

 

Applicant must clarify the following indicated language for reasons stated below. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03. 

 

The wording “Pharmaceutical and veterinary preparations” is indefinite and must be clarified because the purpose of the preparations is unclear.  

 

The wording, “serums” is indefinite and overly broad and must be clarified because the nature of the goods is unclear and could identify goods in multiple classes.

 

The wording, “Test kits for determining the type/existence of a tumour in a patient” is indefinite and must be clarified because it is unclear as to what the kit consists of.

 

The wording, “Diagnostic and therapeutic preparations (mixtures of therapeutically active cells in a suitable medium), in particular produced using molecular biological, biotechnological and genetic methods” is indefinite because the nature of the purpose of the preparations is unclear and could identify goods in multiple classes.

 

The wording, “Development of test methods and test kits” is indefinite and must be clarified because the field is unclear.

 

The wording, “cell analyses” is indefinite and overly broad and must be clarified because it is unclear as to what the service is and/or what the purpose of the service is.

 

The wording, “Individualised medicine, development of treatment plans and therapy adapted for individual patients” is indefinite and must be clarified because it is unclear as to what the service is.

 

Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate:

 

Class 3:

 

Beauty serums

 

Class 5:

 

Pharmaceutical and veterinary preparations for {specify the purpose e.g. treating skin disorders}; medicated hair serums; Test kits {specify what the testing kit is comprised of e.g. consisting primarily of monoclonal antibodies for determining the type/existence of a tumour in a patient; Diagnostic and therapeutic preparations {specify purpose e.g. medical use} in particular produced using molecular biological, biotechnological and genetic methods

 

Class 42:

 

Services in molecular biology, in particular research and development in the field of medical and veterinary diagnosis and treatment using molecular biological, biotechnological and genetic methods, and in the field of screening for compounds with pharmaceutical properties; Development of test methods and test kits; Development of adoptive T cell therapy; Development of DC vaccines; Development of cellular tumour therapy; Development of tumour markers; Development of diagnostic and therapeutic antibodies

 

Class 44:

 

Cell analyses in the nature of medical analysis services for diagnostic and treatment purposes provided by medical laboratories; Medical and veterinary medical services, In particular extracting of blood and/or tissue samples and analysis and evaluation relating thereto

 

Applicant may amend the identification to clarify or limit the goods and/or services, but not to broaden or expand the goods and/or services beyond those in the original application or as acceptably amended.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06.  Generally, any deleted goods and/or services may not later be reinserted.  See 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.

 

Multi-Class Application Requirements

 

The application identifies goods and/or services in more than one international class; therefore, applicant must satisfy all the requirements below for each international class based on Trademark Act Section 1(b):

 

(1)        List the goods and/or services by their international class number in consecutive numerical order, starting with the lowest numbered class.

 

(2)        Submit a filing fee for each international class not covered by the fee(s) already paid (view the USPTO’s current fee schedule).  The application identifies goods and/or services that are classified in at least 4 classes; however, applicant submitted a fee(s) sufficient for only 3 class(es).  Applicant must either submit the filing fees for the classes not covered by the submitted fees or restrict the application to the number of classes covered by the fees already paid.

 

See 15 U.S.C. §§1051(b), 1112, 1126(e); 37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(6)-(7), 2.34(a)(2)-(3), 2.86(a); TMEP §§1403.01, 1403.02(c).

 

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

 

Response Guidelines

 

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. 

 

 

 

/Grace Duffin/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 120

571-270-7069

Grace.Duffin@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 6/7/2019 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 88347854

 

Please follow the instructions below:

 

(1)  TO READ THE LETTER:  Click on this link or go to http://tsdr.uspto.gov,enter the U.S. application serial number, and click 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)  TIMELY RESPONSE IS REQUIRED:  Please carefully review the Office action to determine (1) how to respond, and (2) the applicable response time period.  Your response deadline will be calculated from 6/7/2019 (or sooner if specified in the Office action).  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.  For information regarding response time periods, see http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/process/status/responsetime.jsp.

 

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.  Instead, the USPTO recommends that you respond online using the TEAS response form located at http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp.

 

(3)  QUESTIONS:  For questions about the contents of the Office action itself, please contact the assigned trademark examining attorney.  For technical assistance in accessing or viewing the Office action in the Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) system, please e-mail TSDR@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.