| To: | Bast, LLC (lspeedcpa@yahoo.com) |
| Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88349174 - BAST - N/A |
| Sent: | January 17, 2020 10:54:04 AM |
| Sent As: | ecom104@uspto.gov |
| Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
|
U.S. Application Serial No. 88349174
Mark: BAST
|
|
|
Correspondence Address: |
|
|
Applicant: Bast, LLC
|
|
|
Reference/Docket No. N/A
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
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: January 17, 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.
SEARCH OF OFFICE’S DATABASE OF MARKS
The trademark examining attorney has searched the Office’s database of registered and pending marks and has found no conflicting marks that would bar registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d). TMEP §704.02; see 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).
SECTIONS 1 AND 45 REFUSAL – MARK NOT IN LAWFUL USE IN COMMERCE AS OF FILING DATE – CSA REFUSAL
THIS PARTIAL REFUSAL APPLIES ONLY TO THE FOLLOWING GOODS AND SERVICES:
Class 5: Homeopathic pharmaceuticals for use in the treatment of chronic pain caused by disease or injury, insomnia, inflammation, anxiety and feelings of depression, nausea, muscle spasms, other conditions added by the use of medical cannabis including: Multiple Sclerosis ALS Epilepsy Lupus Fibromyalgia Rheumatoid Arthritis; Plant extracts for medical, veterinary and pharmaceutical purposes.
Class 41: Dispensing of pharmaceuticals.
Registration is refused because the applied-for mark encompasses goods and services that were not in lawful use in commerce as of the filing date of the application. Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; see TMEP §907.
To qualify for federal trademark or service mark 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 and services 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 items and activities to which the proposed mark are applied include those that are unlawful under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 U.S.C. §§801-971. The application identifies the following cannabis goods: Homeopathic pharmaceuticals for use in the treatment of chronic pain caused by disease or injury, insomnia, inflammation, anxiety and feelings of depression, nausea, muscle spasms, other conditions added by the use of medical cannabis including: Multiple Sclerosis ALS Epilepsy Lupus Fibromyalgia Rheumatoid Arthritis. Applicant’s additional goods in Class 5, “Plant extracts for medical, veterinary and pharmaceutical purposes” and services in Class 44, “Dispensing of pharmaceuticals; Providing information relating to diagnostic, prophylactic and therapeutic properties of pharmaceuticals,” are broad enough to include goods containing cannabis and the possession, distribution, or dispensation of goods containing cannabis. Such goods and services are broad enough to include products produced from “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). 21 U.S.C. §802(16)(definition of “marihuana” – commonly referred to as “marijuana”).
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 and services 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 and services consist of or include items or activities 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 and services 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.” Please see the complete requirement for an acceptable identification of goods and services below.
The applicant may also present arguments and evidence against this refusal.
Applicant should note the following additional ground for refusal.
SECTIONS 1 AND 45 REFUSAL – MARK NOT IN LAWFUL USE IN COMMERCE AS OF FILING DATE – FDCA REFUSAL
THIS PARTIAL REFUSAL APPLIES ONLY TO THE FOLLOWING GOODS AND SERVICES:
Class 5: Homeopathic pharmaceuticals for use in the treatment of chronic pain caused by disease or injury, insomnia, inflammation, anxiety and feelings of depression, nausea, muscle spasms, other conditions added by the use of medical cannabis including: Multiple Sclerosis ALS Epilepsy Lupus Fibromyalgia Rheumatoid Arthritis; Plant extracts for medical, veterinary and pharmaceutical purposes.
Class 41: Dispensing of pharmaceuticals.
Registration is refused 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. 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.
This refusal issues when “(1) a violation of federal law is indicated by the application record or other evidence, such as when a court or a federal agency responsible for overseeing activity in which the applicant is involved, and which activity is relevant to its application, has issued a finding of noncompliance under the relevant statute or regulation, or (2) when the applicant’s application-relevant activities involve a per se violation of a federal law.” In re Brown, 119 USPQ2d at 1351 (citing Kellogg Co. v. New Generation Foods Inc., 6 USPQ2d 2045, 2047 (TTAB 1988); Santinine Societa v. P.A.B. Produits, 209 USPQ 958, 964 (TTAB 1981)); TMEP §907.
The application identifies items or activities that involve a per se violation of federal law. See In re Brown, 119 USPQ2d at 1352. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act prohibits the introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of a food or beverage to which has been added a drug or a biological product for which substantial clinical investigations have been instituted and for which the existence of such investigations has been made public. 21 U.S.C. §331(ll); see also 21 U.S.C. §321(ff) (indicating that a dietary supplement is deemed to be a food within the meaning of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act).
Cannabidiol (CBD) is an active ingredient in an FDA-approved drug, Epidiolex®, (see http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm611046.htm copy attached) and is the subject of substantial clinical investigations before it was marketed in foods or as dietary supplements. See FDA Regulation of Cannabis and Cannabis-derived Products: Questions and Answers http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/PublicHealthFocus/ucm421168.htm copy attached. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) placed Epidiolex® on schedule V of the CSA on September 27, 2018. Nevertheless, marijuana and CBD derived from marijuana remain unlawful. No other cannabis-derived drug products have been approved by the FDA. Under the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act (FDCA), any product intended to have a therapeutic or medical use, and any product (other than a food) that is intended to affect the structure or function of the body of humans or animals, is a drug. 21 U.S.C. § 321(g)(1)
In the present case, the application identifies the following goods and services for which applicant has alleged use in commerce, all of which are broad enough to include goods or the dispensation of goods containing marijuana or CBD:
Class 5: Homeopathic pharmaceuticals for use in the treatment of chronic pain caused by disease or injury, insomnia, inflammation, anxiety and feelings of depression, nausea, muscle spasms, other conditions added by the use of medical cannabis including: Multiple Sclerosis ALS Epilepsy Lupus Fibromyalgia Rheumatoid Arthritis; Plant extracts for medical, veterinary and pharmaceutical purposes.
Class 41: Dispensing of pharmaceuticals.
It is unlawful to introduce food or beverages containing added CBD into interstate commerce or to market CBD as, or in, dietary supplements, regardless of whether the substances are hemp-derived. See Statement from FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, M.D., on signing of the Agriculture Improvement Act and the agency’s regulation of products containing cannabis and cannabis-derived compounds.
http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm628988.htm copy attached. In addition, an unapproved new drug cannot be distributed or sold in interstate commerce unless it is the subject of an FDA-approved new drug application (NDA) or abbreviated new drug application (ANDA). 21 U.S.C. §§ 331(d) and 355(a), (b), & (j); see also FDA Regulation of Cannabis and Cannabis-Derived Products: Questions and Answers http://www.fda.gov/news-events/public-health-focus/fda-regulation-cannabis-and-cannabis-derived-products-questions-and-answers copy attached.
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) Accordingly, because applicant’s goods and services consist of or include items or activities that are a per se violation of federal law, the applied-for mark as used in connection with such goods and services is not in lawful use in commerce.
Applicant should note the following additional ground for refusal.
SECTIONS 1 AND 45 REFUSAL – SPECIMENS ARE MARK DRAWING
Registration is refused because the specimens in International Class 5 and 44 are merely renderings of the applied-for mark, and thus fails to show the applied-for mark in use in commerce with the goods and services for each international class. Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); In re Chica, 84 USPQ2d 1845, 1848 (TTAB 2007); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a), 1301.04(g)(i). An application based on Trademark Act Section 1(a) must include a specimen showing the applied-for mark in use in commerce for each international class of goods and/or services identified in the application or amendment to allege use. 15 U.S.C. §1051(a)(1); 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a).
Examples of specimens for goods include tags, labels, instruction manuals, containers, photographs that show the mark on the actual goods or packaging, and displays associated with the actual goods at their point of sale. See TMEP §§904.03 et seq. Webpages may also be specimens for goods when they include a picture or textual description of the goods associated with the mark and the means to order the goods. TMEP §904.03(i). Examples of specimens for services include advertising and marketing materials, brochures, photographs of business signage and billboards, and webpages that show the mark used in the actual sale, rendering, or advertising of the services. See TMEP §1301.04(a), (h)(iv)(C). Specimens comprising advertising and promotional materials must show a direct association between the mark and the services. TMEP §1301.04(f)(ii).
Applicant may respond to this refusal by satisfying one of the following for each applicable international class:
(1) Submit a different specimen (a verified “substitute” specimen) that (a) was in actual use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application or prior to the filing of an amendment to allege use and (b) shows the mark in actual use in commerce for the goods and/or services identified in the application or amendment to allege use. A “verified substitute specimen” is a specimen that is accompanied by the following statement made in a signed affidavit or supported by a declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20: “The substitute (or new, or originally submitted, if appropriate) specimen(s) was/were in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application or prior to the filing of the amendment to allege use.” The substitute specimen cannot be accepted without this statement.
(2) Amend the filing basis to intent to use under Section 1(b), for which no specimen is required. This option will later necessitate additional fee(s) and filing requirements such as providing a specimen.
For an overview of both response options referenced above and instructions on how to satisfy either option online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, please go to http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/law/specimen.jsp.
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
To permit proper examination of the application, applicant must submit additional information about the goods and services. 37 C.F.R. §§2.61(b), 2.69; Cf. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United States, 393 F.3d 1277, 1284, 73 USPQ2d 1409, 1414 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (discussing Patent Rule 1.105(a)(1), which is the equivalent of Trademark Rule 2.61(b)); TMEP §§814, 907. The requested information should include fact sheets, brochures, advertisements, and/or similar materials relating to the goods and services. If such materials are not available, applicant must provide a detailed factual description of the goods and services. Any information submitted in response to this requirement must clearly and accurately indicate the nature of the goods and services identified in the application.
In addition, applicant must submit a written statement indicating whether the goods and services identified in the application comply with the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA). 21 U.S.C. §331(ll); see also 21 U.S.C. §321(ff) (indicating that a dietary supplement is deemed to be a food within the meaning of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act). See 37 C.F.R. §2.69; TMEP §907. Furthermore, under the FDCA, any product intended to have a therapeutic or medical use, and any product (other than a food) that is intended to affect the structure or function of the body of humans or animals, is a drug. 21 U.S.C. § 321(g)(1) An unapproved new drug cannot be distributed or sold in interstate commerce unless it is the subject of an FDA-approved new drug application (NDA) or abbreviated new drug application (ANDA). 21 U.S.C. §§ 331(d) and 355(a), (b), & (j).
Finally, applicant must provide written responses to the following questions:
Failure to satisfactorily respond to a requirement for information is a ground for refusing registration. See In re Harley, 119 USPQ2d 1755, 1758 (TTAB 2016) (affirming refusal of registration because applicant’s appeal brief failed to address the relevant refusals, including a refusal based on noncompliance with a requirement for information); In re AOP LLC, 107 USPQ2d 1644, 1651 (TTAB 2013) (“Failure to comply with a request for information is grounds for refusal,” where applicant provided equivocal responses to examining attorney’s questions and did not address this issue in its brief). Applicant’s failure to respond to an information requirement may result in an adverse evidentiary inference being drawn regarding applicant’s goods. Id. at 1651; In re Cheezwhse.com, Inc., 85 USPQ2d 1917, 1919 (TTAB 2008); TMEP §814.
Please note that merely stating that information about the goods and services is available on applicant’s website is an inappropriate response to the above requirement and is insufficient to make the relevant information properly of record. See In re Planalytics, Inc., 70 USPQ2d 1453, 1457-58 (TTAB 2004).
Applicant is advised that, upon consideration of the information provided by applicant in response to the above requirement, registration of the applied-for mark may be refused on the ground that the mark, as used/intended to be used in connection with the identified goods, is not lawful use in commerce. Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127. Use of a mark in commerce must be lawful use to be the basis for federal registration of the mark. Gray v. Daffy Dan’s Bargaintown, 823 F.2d 522, 526, 3 USPQ2d 1306, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 1987); see 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; 37 C.F.R. §2.69; In re Midwest Tennis & Track Co., 29 USPQ2d 1386, 1386 n.2 (TTAB 1993); In re Stellar Int’l, Inc., 159 USPQ 48, 50-51 (TTAB 1968); TMEP §907.
MARK SIGNIFICANCE INQUIRY
To permit proper examination of the application, applicant must submit additional information about the term “BAST” appearing in the mark. See 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b); TMEP §814.
Applicant must respond to the following questions and/or requests for documentation to satisfy this request for information:
1. Does the term BAST have any significance in the pharmaceutical or medical trade or industry?
2. Do applicant’s goods contain ingredients derived from the bast fibers of marijuana or hemp plants?
See 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b); TMEP §814.
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. Merely stating that information about the goods or services is available on applicant’s website is an insufficient response and will not make the relevant information of record. See In re Planalytics, Inc., 70 USPQ2d 1453, 1457-58 (TTAB 2004).
IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS AND SERVICES REQUIRE AMENDMENT
Classes 5 and 41
The wording “Homeopathic pharmaceuticals for use in the treatment of chronic pain caused by disease or injury, insomnia, inflammation, anxiety and feelings of depression, nausea, muscle spasms, other conditions added by the use of medical cannabis including: Multiple Sclerosis ALS Epilepsy Lupus Fibromyalgia Rheumatoid Arthritis” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified because the wording “other conditions added by the use of medical cannabis including: Multiple Sclerosis ALS Epilepsy Lupus Fibromyalgia Rheumatoid Arthritis” is vague and ambiguous. It is unclear whether this wording is part of the goods consisting of “homeopathic pharmaceuticals for use in the treatment of …” or whether the goods recite medical cannabis used for the treatment of “Multiple Sclerosis ALS Epilepsy Lupus Fibromyalgia Rheumatoid Arthritis.” Additionally, the wording “including” is inappropriate for use in identifications because it is an open-ended term and must be deleted and replaced with a definite term, such as “namely,” “consisting of,” “particularly,” or “in particular.” Colons are also inappropriate punctuation to appear in an identification of goods. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.
Additionally, applicant is advised to specify whether the applied-for goods and services will contain “cannabis in the nature of hemp with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.” This clarification is required in order to obviate a refusal under the CSA, as indicate above, which provided a lawful definition of hemp on December 20, 2018. This clarification, however, will not obviate the refusal under the FDCA. Applicant must also indicate whether the goods will contain CBD, in order to determine whether the goods are lawful under the FDCA.
Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate:
Class 5: Homeopathic pharmaceuticals for use in the treatment of chronic pain caused by disease or injury, insomnia, inflammation,
anxiety and feelings of depression, nausea, muscle spasms; Homeopathic pharmaceuticals other conditions added by the use of containing medical cannabis including: for the treatment of Multiple Sclerosis, ALS, Epilepsy, Lupus, Fibromyalgia, and Rheumatoid Arthritis; Plant extracts for medical, veterinary and pharmaceutical purposes; all the foregoing containing cannabis in the nature of hemp with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.
Class 44: Dispensing of pharmaceuticals containing cannabis in the nature of hemp with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis; Providing information relating to diagnostic, prophylactic and therapeutic properties of pharmaceuticals.
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.
DOMICILE INFORMATION REQUIRES AMENDMENT – P.O. BOXES NOT ACCEPTED
Applicant must provide applicant’s domicile address. All applications must include the applicant’s domicile address, and domicile dictates whether an applicant is required to have an attorney who is an active member in good standing of the bar of the highest court of a U.S. state or territory represent the applicant at the USPTO. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.2(o)-(p), 2.11(a), 2.189; Requirement of U.S.-Licensed Attorney for Foreign-Domiciled Trademark Applicants & Registrants, Examination Guide 4-19, at I.A. (Rev. Sept. 2019).
An individual applicant’s domicile is the place a person resides and intends to be the person’s principal home. 37 C.F.R. §2.2(o); Examination Guide 4-19, at I.A. A juristic entity’s domicile is the principal place of business, i.e. headquarters, where a juristic entity applicant’s senior executives or officers ordinarily direct and control the entity’s activities. 37 C.F.R. §2.2(o); Examination Guide 4-19, at I.A. An applicant whose domicile is located outside of the United States or its territories is foreign-domiciled and must be represented at the USPTO by a U.S.-licensed attorney qualified to practice before the USPTO under 37 C.F.R. §11.14. 37 C.F.R. §2.11(a).
The application record lists applicant as a juristic entity and specifies applicant’s domicile as a post office box instead of a street address. In most cases, a post office box is not acceptable as a domicile address because it does not identify the location of applicant’s headquarters where the entity’s senior executives or officers ordinarily direct and control the entity’s activities. See37 C.F.R. §§2.2(o)-(p), 2.189; Examination Guide 4-19, at I.A.3. Thus, applicant must provide its domicile street address. See 37 C.F.R. §2.189. Alternatively, an applicant may demonstrate that the listed address is, in fact, the applicant’s domicile. Examination Guide 4-19, at I.A.3.
To provide applicant’s domicile address. After opening the correct TEAS response form and entering the serial number, answer “yes” to wizard question #5, and provide applicant’s street address on the “Owner Information” page.
If applicant amends the application to list a domicile street address located outside of the United States or its territories, applicant is foreign-domiciled and must appoint a U.S. licensed attorney qualified to practice before the USPTO under 37 C.F.R. §11.14 as its representative before the application may proceed to registration. See Hiring a U.S.-licensed trademark attorney for more information. If applicant’s domicile street address is located within the United States or its territories, applicant is not required to appoint a U.S.-licensed attorney.
To appoint or designate a U.S.-licensed attorney. To appoint an attorney, applicant should submit a completed Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) Revocation, Appointment, and/or Change of Address of Attorney/Domestic Representative form. The newly-appointed attorney must submit a TEAS Response to Examining Attorney Office Action form indicating that an appointment of attorney has been made and address all other refusals or requirements in this action, if any. Alternatively, if applicant retains an attorney before filing the response, the attorney can respond to this Office action by using the appropriate TEAS response form and provide his or her attorney information in the form and sign it as applicant’s attorney. See 37 C.F.R. §2.17(b)(1)(ii).
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 refusals and requirements 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.
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.
How to respond. Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action.
Donegan, Daniel
/Daniel Donegan/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 104
daniel.donegan@uspto.gov
(571) 270-0455
RESPONSE GUIDANCE
