Offc Action Outgoing

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

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

 

 

 

NONFINAL OFFICE ACTION

 

The USPTO must receive applicant’s response to this letter within six months of the issue date below or the application will be abandoned.  Respond using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS).  A link to the appropriate TEAS response form appears at the end of this Office action. 

 

 

Issue date:  February 25, 2020

 

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.

 

SECTION 2(D) – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION REFUSAL – INTERNATIONAL CLASS 34 ONLY

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused for the goods in International Class 34 because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 4740482.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registration.  APPLICANT SHOULD NOTE THAT THIS REFUSAL DOES NOT APPLY TO THE GOODS IN INTERNATIONAL CLASS 31.

 

 

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

 

Although not all du Pont factors may be relevant, there are generally two key considerations in any likelihood of confusion analysis:  (1) the similarities between the compared marks and (2) the relatedness of the compared goods.  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 applicant’s mark is “GRAVITY” (plus design) and covers “Smokeless cigarette vaporizer pipes, electronic cigarettes, oral vaporizers for smoking purposes, electronic vaporizers, E-vaporizers, vapes, electronic-vaporizer juice, E-juice, electronic cigarette liquid, E-liquid, electronic-vaporizer cartridges, electronic cigarette cartridges, containing and not containing hemp and complying with all relevant state and U.S. Federal laws and regulations” in International Class 34.  The registrant’s mark is “GRAVITY” (plus design) and covers “E-cigarettes and component parts for e-cigarettes sold as a unit thereof, namely, cartomizers in the nature of refill cartridges sold empty and atomizers sold as a component of e-cigarettes; e-cigarette refill cartridges sold empty and replacement parts for e-cigarettes, namely, drip tips; smoking simulators and vaping simulators, namely, e-cigarette cartomizers in the nature of refill cartridges sold empty, and atomizers sold as a component of e-cigarettes, e-cigarette mod systems comprised of e-cigarettes, refillable cartridges, and batteries, and e-hookahs” in International Class 34.

 

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)), aff’d per curiam, 777 F. App’x 516, 2019 BL 343921 (Fed. Cir. 2019); TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

Here, the marks of both parties consist solely of the term “GRAVITY” plus a design element.  The word portions of the marks are nearly identical in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression; therefore, the addition of a design element does not obviate the similarity of the marks in this case.  See In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1206, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1993); TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii).

 

Where the goods of an applicant and registrant are “similar in kind and/or closely related,” as discussed below, 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.  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).

 

Similarity of the Goods

 

The compared goods 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).

 

Here, applicant’s goods, namely, “Smokeless cigarette vaporizer pipes, electronic cigarettes, oral vaporizers for smoking purposes, electronic vaporizers, E-vaporizers, vapes, electronic-vaporizer juice, E-juice, electronic cigarette liquid, E-liquid, electronic-vaporizer cartridges, electronic cigarette cartridges, containing and not containing hemp and complying with all relevant state and U.S. Federal laws and regulations” in International Class 34 are highly related to the registrant’s goods, namely, “E-cigarettes and component parts for e-cigarettes sold as a unit thereof, namely, cartomizers in the nature of refill cartridges sold empty and atomizers sold as a component of e-cigarettes; e-cigarette refill cartridges sold empty and replacement parts for e-cigarettes, namely, drip tips; smoking simulators and vaping simulators, namely, e-cigarette cartomizers in the nature of refill cartridges sold empty, and atomizers sold as a component of e-cigarettes, e-cigarette mod systems comprised of e-cigarettes, refillable cartridges, and batteries, and e-hookahs” in International Class 34 because the goods of both parties consist of electronic cigarettes and electronic oral vaporizers for smokers, and accessories for those goods, and thus travel in the same channels of trade to the same consumers, such that confusion as to source is likely.

 

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 in this case.  This evidence shows that the goods listed therein, namely, various electronic cigarettes, electronic oral vaporizers, and accessories for those goods, such as liquids and refill cartridges, 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).

 

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

 

 

 

For the aforementioned reasons, registration is refused pursuant to Trademark Act Section 2(d).

 

Applicant should note the following additional ground for refusal.

 

REFUSAL – APPLIED-FOR MARK IS A VARIETAL NAME – INTERNATIONAL CLASS 31 ONLY

 

Registration is refused for the goods in International Class 31 because the applied-for mark is a varietal name for the identified goods and, thus, does not function as a trademark to indicate the source of applicant’s goods and to identify and distinguish them from others.  Trademark Act Sections 1, 2, and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051-1052, 1127; see TMEP §1202.12.  See attached evidence from the USDA that shows that “GRAVITY” is the varietal name for broccoli, Kentucky bluegrass, and lettuce.  APPLICANT SHOULD NOTE THAT THIS REFUSAL DOES NOT APPLY TO THE GOODS IN INTERNATIONAL CLASS 34.

 

Varietal or cultivar names are designations used to identify cultivated varieties or subspecies of live plants or agricultural seeds.  TMEP §1202.12.  They are generic and cannot be registered as trademarks because they are the common descriptive names of plants or seeds by which such varieties are known to the U.S. consumer.  Id.  Moreover, a consumer “has to have some common descriptive name he can use to indicate that he wants one [particular] variety of apple tree, rose, or whatever, as opposed to another, and it is the varietal name of the strain which naturally and commonly serves this purpose.”  In re Pennington Seed, Inc., 466 F.3d 1053, 1057, 80 USPQ2d 1758, 1761 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (quoting In re Hilltop Orchards & Nurseries, Inc., 206 USPQ 1034, 1036 (TTAB 1979)); see In re Delta & Pine Land Co., 26 USPQ2d 1157, 1159 n.4 (TTAB 1993).

 

INFORMATION REQUIRED REGARDING APPLIED-FOR MARK

 

To permit proper examination of the applied-for mark, applicant must indicate the following:

 

(1)        Whether “GRAVITY” has ever been used or will be used as a varietal or cultivar name; and

 

(2)        Whether “GRAVITY” has ever been used or will be used in connection with a plant patent, utility patent, or certificate for plant-variety protection. 

 

TMEP §1202.12; see 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b).

 

Failure to comply with a request for information is grounds for refusing registration.  In re Harley, 119 USPQ2d 1755, 1757-58 (TTAB 2016); TMEP §814. 

 

Applicant should note the following additional ground for refusal.

 

Cannabis-Related Goods Refusal –– Based on Evidence – Not in Lawful Use in Commerce – International Class 34 ONLY

 

Registration is refused for the goods in International Class 34 because the applied-for mark is not in lawful use in commerce.  Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; see TMEP §907.  APPLICANT SHOULD NOTE THAT THIS REFUSAL DOES NOT APPLY TO THE GOODS IN INTERNATIONAL CLASS 31.

 

To qualify for federal trademar registration, the use of a mark in commerce must be lawful.  Gray v. Daffy Dan’s Bargaintown, 823 F.2d 522, 526, 3 USPQ2d 1306, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (stating that “[a] valid application cannot be filed at all for registration of a mark without ‘lawful use in commerce’”); TMEP §907; see In re Stellar Int’l, Inc., 159 USPQ 48, 50-51 (TTAB 1968); Coahoma Chemical Co., Inc. v. Smith, 113 USPQ 413 (Com’r Pat. & Trademarks 1957) (concluding that “use of a mark in connection with unlawful shipments in interstate commerce is not use of a mark in commerce which the [Office] may recognize.”).  Thus, the goods to which the mark is applied must comply with all applicable federal laws.  See In re Brown, 119 USPQ2d 1350, 1351 (TTAB 2016) (citing In re Midwest Tennis & Track Co., 29 USPQ2d 1386, 1386 n.2 (TTAB 1993) (noting that “[i]t is settled that the Trademark Act’s requirement of ‘use in commerce,’ means a ‘lawful use in commerce’”)); In re Pepcom Indus., Inc., 192 USPQ 400, 401 (TTAB 1976); TMEP §907. 

 

Here, the evidence of record indicates that at least some of the items to which the proposed mark will be applied are unlawful under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 U.S.C. §§801-971.

 

The CSA prohibits, among other things, manufacturing, distributing, dispensing, or possessing certain controlled substances, including marijuana and any material or preparation containing marijuana.  21 U.S.C. §§812, 841(a)(1), 844(a); see also 21 U.S.C. §802(16) (defining “[marijuana]” as “all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L., whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of such plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such plant, its seeds or resin” (subject to certain exceptions)). 

 

In this case, the Identification of Goods in Class 34 references goods that contain or are intended for use with “hemp,” and those that are not.  This leaves open the possibility that the remaining goods not for use with “hemp,” which has a legal definition, are intended for use with cannabis with no limit to the amount of THC, which is prohibited by the CSA. 

 

In order for an application to have a valid basis that could properly result in a registration, the use of the mark has to be lawful.  See In re Pepcom Indus., Inc., 192 USPQ 400, 401 (TTAB 1976)  The claimed use of the applied-for mark in connection with goods featuring products that meet the definition of marijuana was not lawful commerce as of the filing date. See In re Brown, 119 USPQ2d, 1351-1352.    

 

On December 20, 2018, the CSA was amended to remove “hemp” from the definition of marijuana and specifically exclude “tetrahydrocannabinols in hemp (as defined under section 297A of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946)” from Schedule I, 21 U.S.C. §812(c)(17).  Because the identified goods consist of or include items that are still prohibited under the Controlled Substances Act, the applicant did not have a valid filing basis for any such items or activities.  To the extent the applicant’s goods are derived solely from cannabis plants that meet the current statutory definition of hemp, such goods may be lawful.

 

Therefore, in order to overcome this refusal, applicant must amend the identification of goods to specify that all cannabis-containing items are “solely derived from hemp with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol [THC] concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis” or “exclusively for use with hemp with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol [THC] concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.”  Please see the complete requirement for an acceptable identification of goods below.

 

The applicant may also present arguments and evidence against this refusal. 

 

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

 

IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS

 

The identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified for the following reasons.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01:

 

International Class 31

 

-          Natural plants and flowers as well as agricultural and horticultural products not included in other classes, to wit, hemp complying with all relevant state and U.S. Federal laws and regulationsàapplicant must more clearly specify the “agricultural and horticultural products” in Class 31 and remove the reference to “all relevant state and U.S. Federal laws and regulations,” as these cannot be definite in nature as laws and regulations are constantly changing

 

International Class 34

 

-          electronic vaporizers, E-vaporizers, vapes, electronic-vaporizer juice, E-juiceàapplicant must clarify that the “electronic vaporizers, E-vaporizers, vapes” are “electronic oral vaporizers for smokers” and the “electronic-vaporizer juice, E-juice” are “for use with electronic oral vaporizers for smokers” and specify the content

-          electronic cigarette liquid, E-liquidàapplicant must clarify the content of the liquid

-          electronic-vaporizer cartridges, electronic cigarette cartridgesàapplicant must clarify if these are sold containing a liquid or empty

-          and complying with all relevant state and U.S. Federal laws and regulationsàapplicant must remove the reference to “all relevant state and U.S. Federal laws and regulations,” as these cannot be definite in nature as laws and regulations are constantly changing

 

Additionally, the suggested wording from the Controlled Substances Act Refusal above is incorporated below.

 

Applicant may adopt the following identification, if accurate.  The wording that appears in bold and/or italics below represents the suggested changes.  Any wording that is crossed out represents matter that must be deleted from the identification.

 

International Class 31: Natural plants and flowers as well as agricultural and horticultural products not included in other classes, namely, hemp

 

International Class 34: Smokeless cigarette vaporizer pipes, electronic cigarettes, oral vaporizers for smoking purposes, electronic oral vaporizers for smokers, E-vaporizers being electronic oral vaporizers for smokers, vapes being electronic oral vaporizers for smokers, all of the aforementioned goods exclusively for use with hemp with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol [THC] concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis; electronic-vaporizer juice for use with electronic oral vaporizers for smokers, E-juice for use with electronic oral vaporizers for smokers, electronic cigarette liquid, E-liquid for electronic cigarettes, all of the aforementioned goods containing hemp with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol [THC] concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis; electronic-vaporizer cartridges for smokers and electronic cigarette cartridges, both sold empty and exclusively for use with hemp with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol [THC] concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis; electronic-vaporizer cartridges for smokers and electronic cigarette cartridges, both filled with hemp with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol [THC] concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis; Smokeless cigarette vaporizer pipes, electronic cigarettes, oral vaporizers for smoking purposes, electronic oral vaporizers for smokers, E-vaporizers being electronic oral vaporizers for smokers, vapes being electronic oral vaporizers for smokers, all of the aforementioned goods not for use with hemp or cannabis; electronic-vaporizer juice for use with electronic oral vaporizers for smokers, E-juice for use with electronic oral vaporizers for smokers, electronic cigarette liquid, E-liquid for electronic cigarettes, all of the aforementioned goods containing {specify the liquid content of the goods} and not containing hemp or cannabis; electronic-vaporizer cartridges for smokers and electronic cigarette cartridges, both sold empty and not for use with hemp or cannabis; electronic-vaporizer cartridges for smokers and electronic cigarette cartridges, both containing {specify the liquid content of the goods} and not containing hemp or cannabis

 

Applicant’s goods 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 or add goods 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 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 will further limit scope, and once goods are deleted, they are not permitted to be reinserted.  TMEP §1402.07(e).

 

For assistance with identifying and classifying goods in trademark applications, please see the USPTO’s online searchable U.S. Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual.  See TMEP §1402.04.

 

MARK DESCRIPTION INCOMPLETE

 

Applicant must provide an amended description of the mark that includes all the colors shown in the mark.  Specifically, the reference to the particular colors in the stars/galaxies depicted in the mark was not included.

 

A complete description must identify all the literal and design elements in the mark and specify where the colors appear in those elements.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.37, 2.52(b)(1); TMEP §§807.07(a) et seq. 

 

The following description is suggested, if accurate:

 

The mark consists of a design of stylized white lettering spelling out "GRAVITY" with a black space background containing a multitude of colored stars/galaxies appearing in the colors white, blue, red, yellow, green, gold, brown, and purple.

 

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.

Please call or email the assigned trademark examining attorney with questions about this Office action.  Although an examining attorney cannot provide legal advice, the examining attorney can provide additional explanation about the refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) in this Office action.  See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06. 

 

The USPTO does not accept emails as responses to Office actions; however, emails can be used for informal communications and are included in the application record.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(c), 2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05. 

 

How to respond.  Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action.    

 

 

/Lindsey H. Ben/

Lindsey H. Ben

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 108

Phone: (571) 272-4239

Lindsey.Ben@uspto.gov

 

 

RESPONSE GUIDANCE

• Missing the response deadline to this letter will cause the application to abandon.  A response or notice of appeal must be received by the USPTO before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period.  TEAS and ESTTA maintenance or unforeseen circumstances could affect an applicant’s ability to timely respond.  

 

• Responses signed by an unauthorized party are not accepted and can cause the application to abandon.  If applicant does not have an attorney, the response must be signed by the individual applicant, all joint applicants, or someone with legal authority to bind a juristic applicant.  If applicant has an attorney, the response must be signed by the attorney.

 

• If needed, find contact information for the supervisor of the office or unit listed in the signature block.

 

1United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

 

USPTO OFFICIAL NOTICE

 

Office Action (Official Letter) has issued

on February 25, 2020 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88349133

 

Your trademark application has been reviewed by a trademark examining attorney.  As part of that review, the assigned attorney has issued an official letter that you must respond to by the specified deadline or your application will be abandoned.  Please follow the steps below.

 

(1)  Read the official letter.

 

(2)  Direct questions about the contents of the Office action to the assigned attorney below. 

 

 

/Lindsey H. Ben/

Lindsey H. Ben

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 108

Phone: (571) 272-4239

Lindsey.Ben@uspto.gov

 

Direct questions about navigating USPTO electronic forms, the USPTO website, the application process, the status of your application, and/or whether there are outstanding deadlines or documents related to your file to the Trademark Assistance Center (TAC).

 

(3)  Respond within 6 months (or earlier, if required in the Office action) from February 25, 2020, using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS).  The response must be received by the USPTO before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period.  See the Office action for more information about how to respond

 

 

 

GENERAL GUIDANCE

·         Check the status of your application periodically in the Trademark Status & Document Retrieval (TSDR) database to avoid missing critical deadlines.

 

·         Update your correspondence email address, if needed, to ensure you receive important USPTO notices about your application.

 

·         Beware of misleading notices sent by private companies about your application.  Private companies not associated with the USPTO use public information available in trademark registrations to mail and email trademark-related offers and notices – most of which require fees.  All official USPTO correspondence will only be emailed from the domain “@uspto.gov.”