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: 6/14/2019

 

 

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:

• Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion
• Foreign Registration Certificate Required
• Identification of Goods

 

SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 5169109 and 5745716, owned by the same entity.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registrations.

 

 

Applicant’s mark is SCENIUM (in standard characters) for “Television apparatus; radio apparatus; DVD players and recorders; high density optical disc and compact disc players and recorders; MP3 and MP4 players; tape players; high-fidelity sound systems; record players; phonographs; decoders; media players; multimedia tablet; mobile electronic apparatus for receiving and reading text, sound and images; personal digital assistants; projection screens and projectors; overhead projectors; cameras; video cameras; camcorders; compact disks, DVDs, high density optical disks; walkie talkies; phones, mobile phones, smart phones; antennas; computers; audio video cables, IT cables; microphones; loudspeakers; cabinets for loudspeakers; headsets; cells and batteries; rechargeable batteries; chargers; remote controls; batteries, chargers and holders for mobile telephones and computers; television wall mounts” in International Class 9. 

 

The mark in U.S. Registration No. 5169109 is RCA SCENIUM (in standard characters) for “Television sets; multimedia tablet computers; decoders in the nature of set top boxes aimed to receive multimedia content, namely, videos, photos, sound; software platform for the digital distribution of audio video content and video games; projection screens and multimedia projectors; video projectors; LCD screens; LCD monitors; pre-recorded compact discs, DVDs, high density optical discs featuring music, motion picture films, television programs, soundtracks, artistic performances, documentaries, dramas, comedies and animation; modems; telecommunication routers, namely, network routers and wireless routers; data processing equipment namely, laptop computers and computer servers; computers; external computer hard disc drives sold bundled together with computer hardware and multimedia computer tablets; multimedia computer servers in the nature of computer servers for storing, managing and delivering multimedia content; video surveillance cameras; alarm installations and alarms” in International Class 9.

 

The mark in U.S. Registration No. 5745716 is SCENIUM (in standard characters) for “Apparatus for receiving, recording, transmission, reproduction, storage, encoding or decoding of sound or images, namely, TV apparatus” in International Class 9.

 

Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that is so similar to a registered mark that it is likely consumers would be confused, mistaken, or deceived as to the commercial source of the goods of the parties.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).  Likelihood of confusion is determined on a case-by-case basis by applying the factors set forth in In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973) (called the “du Pont factors”).  In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1322, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1747 (Fed. Cir. 2017).  Only those factors that are “relevant and of record” need be considered.  M2 Software, Inc. v. M2 Commc’ns, Inc., 450 F.3d 1378, 1382, 78 USPQ2d 1944, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Shen Mfg. Co. v. Ritz Hotel Ltd., 393 F.3d 1238, 1241, 73 USPQ2d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2004)); see In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1744 (TTAB 2018). 

 

Although not all du Pont factors may be relevant, there are generally two key considerations in any likelihood of confusion analysis:  (1) the similarities between the compared marks and (2) the relatedness of the compared goods 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

 

Applicant’s mark is SCENIUM (in standard characters). 

 

The mark in U.S. Registration No. 5169109 is RCA SCENIUM (in standard characters).

 

The mark in U.S. Registration No. 5745716 is SCENIUM (in standard characters).

 

In a likelihood of confusion determination, the marks in their entireties are compared for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression.  In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1323, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Stone Lion Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 1321, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1371, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 2005)); In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973); TMEP §1207.01(b)-(b)(v). “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).

 

In the present case, applicant’s mark is SCENIUM (in standard characters) and the mark in U.S. Registration No. 5745716 is SCENIUM (in standard characters). These marks are identical in appearance, sound, and meaning, “and have the potential to be used . . . in exactly the same manner.”  In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 116 USPQ2d 1406, 1411 (TTAB 2015), aff’d, 866 F.3d 1315, 123 USPQ2d 1744 (Fed. Cir. 2017).  Additionally, because they are identical, these marks are likely to engender the same connotation and overall commercial impression when considered in connection with applicant’s and registrant’s respective goods.  Id. Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar. 

 

With regard to U.S. Registration No. 5169109, applicant’s mark and registrant’s mark create similar commercial impressions because each of the marks feature the identical term “SCENIUM”. Marks may be confusingly similar in appearance where similar terms or phrases or similar parts of terms or phrases appear in the compared marks and create a similar overall commercial impression.  See Crocker Nat’l Bank v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 228 USPQ 689, 690-91 (TTAB 1986), aff’d sub nom. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 811 F.2d 1490, 1495, 1 USPQ2d 1813, 1817 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (finding COMMCASH and COMMUNICASH confusingly similar); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65, 66 (TTAB 1985) (finding CONFIRM and CONFIRMCELLS confusingly similar); In re Pellerin Milnor Corp., 221 USPQ 558, 560 (TTAB 1983) (finding MILTRON and MILLTRONICS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii).

 

Moreover, although applicant’s mark does not contain the entirety of the mark in U.S. Registration No. 5169109, applicant’s mark is likely to appear to prospective purchasers as a shortened form of registrant’s mark.  See In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 1348, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting United States Shoe Corp., 229 USPQ 707, 709 (TTAB 1985)).  Thus, merely omitting some of the wording from a registered mark may not overcome a likelihood of confusion.  See In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 94 USPQ2d 1257; In re Optica Int’l, 196 USPQ 775, 778 (TTAB 1977); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii).  In this case, applicant’s mark does not create a distinct commercial impression from the registered mark because it contains some of the wording in the registered mark and does not add any wording that would distinguish it from that mark. As such, consumers encountering the marks may believe that applicant’s mark merely identifies a line of goods from the same source as registrant’s mark.

 

Accordingly, the applied-for mark is considered confusingly similar to the registered marks for the likelihood of confusion analysis.

 

Relatedness of the Goods

 

Applicant’s goods are for “Television apparatus; radio apparatus; DVD players and recorders; high density optical disc and compact disc players and recorders; MP3 and MP4 players; tape players; high-fidelity sound systems; record players; phonographs; decoders; media players; multimedia tablet; mobile electronic apparatus for receiving and reading text, sound and images; personal digital assistants; projection screens and projectors; overhead projectors; cameras; video cameras; camcorders; compact disks, DVDs, high density optical disks; walkie talkies; phones, mobile phones, smart phones; antennas; computers; audio video cables, IT cables; microphones; loudspeakers; cabinets for loudspeakers; headsets; cells and batteries; rechargeable batteries; chargers; remote controls; batteries, chargers and holders for mobile telephones and computers; television wall mounts” in International Class 9. 

 

The goods in U.S. Registration No. 5169109 are for “Television sets; multimedia tablet computers; decoders in the nature of set top boxes aimed to receive multimedia content, namely, videos, photos, sound; software platform for the digital distribution of audio video content and video games; projection screens and multimedia projectors; video projectors; LCD screens; LCD monitors; pre-recorded compact discs, DVDs, high density optical discs featuring music, motion picture films, television programs, soundtracks, artistic performances, documentaries, dramas, comedies and animation; modems; telecommunication routers, namely, network routers and wireless routers; data processing equipment namely, laptop computers and computer servers; computers; external computer hard disc drives sold bundled together with computer hardware and multimedia computer tablets; multimedia computer servers in the nature of computer servers for storing, managing and delivering multimedia content; video surveillance cameras; alarm installations and alarms” in International Class 9.

 

The goods in U.S. Registration No. 5745716 are for “Apparatus for receiving, recording, transmission, reproduction, storage, encoding or decoding of sound or images, namely, TV apparatus” in International Class 9.

 

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).

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

 

In this case, the application uses broad wording to describe “television apparatus”, “decoders”, “multimedia tablet”, “projection screens and projectors; overhead projectors”, “compact disks, DVDs, high density optical disks”, and “computers”,  which presumably encompasses all goods of the type described, including registrant’s more narrow “television sets”, “multimedia tablet computers”, “decoders in the nature of set top boxes aimed to receive multimedia content, namely, videos, photos, sound”, “projection screens and multimedia projectors; video projectors”, “pre-recorded compact discs, DVDs, high density optical discs featuring music, motion picture films, television programs, soundtracks, artistic performances, documentaries, dramas, comedies and animation”, “data processing equipment namely, laptop computers and computer servers; computers”, “external computer hard disc drives sold bundled together with computer hardware and multimedia computer tablets” and “apparatus for receiving, recording, transmission, reproduction, storage, encoding or decoding of sound or images, namely, TV apparatus”.  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 are legally identical.  See, e.g., In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 127 USPQ2d 1627, 1629 (TTAB 2018) (citing Tuxedo Monopoly, Inc. v.Gen. Mills Fun Grp., Inc., 648 F.2d 1335, 1336, 209 USPQ 986, 988 (C.C.P.A. 1981); Inter IKEA Sys. B.V. v. Akea, LLC, 110 USPQ2d 1734, 1745 (TTAB 2014); Baseball Am. Inc. v. Powerplay Sports Ltd., 71 USPQ2d 1844, 1847 n.9 (TTAB 2004)).

 

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

 

As to the remaining goods, the attached Internet evidence establishes that the same entity commonly provides the relevant goods and markets the goods under the same mark.  See attached Internet evidence from Sony, Google, and Dell showing the same parties offering radios, DVD players, compact disc players, MP3 players, tape players, sound systems, record players, phonographs, media players, mobile electronic apparatus for receiving and reading text, sound and images, cameras, video cameras, camcorders, walkie talkies, phones, mobile phones, smart phones, audio cables, microphones, loudspeakers, headsets, batteries, chargers, remote controls, software platform for the digital distribution of audio video content, LCD screens, routers, computer servers, video surveillance cameras, and alarms. Therefore, 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).

 

Conclusion

 

The marks are similar in overall commercial impression, and the goods are highly related.  It is likely that a consumer would mistakenly believe applicant’s goods are offered by registrant or vice versa.  For these reasons, registration is refused pursuant to Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.

 

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

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

 

FOREIGN REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE REQUIRED

 

The application specifies both an intent to use basis under Trademark Act Section 1(b) and a claim of priority under Section 44(d) based on a foreign application.  See 15 U.S.C. §§1051(b), 1126(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(2), (a)(4).  However, no copy of a foreign registration has been provided even though the application indicates applicant’s intent to rely on Section 44(e) as an additional basis for registration.  See 15 U.S.C. §1126(e).

 

An application with a Section 44(e) basis must include a true copy, photocopy, certification, or certified copy of a foreign registration from an applicant’s country of origin.  15 U.S.C. §1126(e); 37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(3)(ii); TMEP §§1004, 1004.01, 1016.  In addition, an applicant’s country of origin must be a party to a convention or treaty relating to trademarks to which the United States is also a party, or must extend reciprocal registration rights to nationals of the United States by law.  15 U.S.C. §1126(b); TMEP §§1002.01, 1004.

 

Therefore, applicant must provide a copy of the foreign registration from applicant’s country of origin when it becomes available.  TMEP §1003.04(a).  A copy of a foreign registration must consist of a document issued to an applicant by, or certified by, the intellectual property office in applicant’s country of origin.  TMEP §1004.01.  If applicant’s country of origin does not issue registrations or Madrid Protocol certificates of extension of protection, applicant may submit a copy of the Madrid Protocol international registration that shows that protection of the international registration has been extended to applicant’s country of origin.  TMEP §1016.  In addition, applicant must also provide an English translation if the foreign registration is not written in English.  37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(3)(ii); TMEP §1004.01(a)-(b).  The translation should be signed by the translator.  TMEP §1004.01(b).

 

If the foreign registration has not yet issued, or applicant requires additional time to procure a copy of the foreign registration (and English translation, as appropriate), applicant should so inform the trademark examining attorney and request that the U.S. application be suspended until a copy of the foreign registration is available.  TMEP §§716.02(b), 1003.04(b).

 

If applicant cannot satisfy the requirements of a Section 44(e) basis, applicant may request that the mark be approved for publication based solely on the Section 1(b) basis.  See 15 U.S.C. §§1051(b), 1126(e); 37 C.F.R. §2.35(b)(1); TMEP §§806.02(f), 806.04(b), 1003.04(b).  Although the mark may be approved for publication on the Section 1(b) basis, it will not register until an acceptable allegation of use has been filed.  See 15 U.S.C. §1051(c)-(d); 37 C.F.R. §§2.76, 2.88; TMEP §1103.  Please note that, if the U.S. application satisfied the requirements of Section 44(d) as of the U.S. application filing date, applicant may retain the priority filing date under Section 44(d) without perfecting the Section 44(e) basis, provided there is a continuing valid basis for registration.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.35(b)(3)-(4); TMEP §§806.02(f), 806.04(b). 

 

Alternatively, applicant has the option to amend the application to rely solely on the Section 44(e) basis and request deletion of the Section 1(b) basis.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.35(b)(1); TMEP §806.04.  The foreign registration alone may serve as the basis for obtaining a U.S. registration.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(3); TMEP §806.01(d).

 

IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS

 

The wording “Television apparatus” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified to specify the intended nature or purpose of the goods, e.g., televisions.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01. 

 

Further, the wording “televisions” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified to specify the intended nature or purpose of the goods, e.g., radios.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.

 

Moreover, the wording “high-fidelity sound systems” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified to specify the intended nature or purpose of the goods, e.g., audio electronic components, namely, high-fidelity surround sound systems.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.

 

In addition, the wording “decoders” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified to specify the intended nature or purpose of the goods, e.g., television decoders.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.

 

Further, the wording “multimedia tablet” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified to specify the intended nature or purpose of the goods, e.g., multimedia tablet computers.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.

 

Moreover, the wording “mobile electronic apparatus for receiving and reading text, sound and images” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified to specify the intended nature or purpose of the goods, e.g., mobile electronic apparatus for receiving and reading text, sound and images in the nature of tablet computers.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.

 

In addition, the wording “projectors” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified to specify the intended nature or purpose of the goods, e.g., multimedia projectors.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.

 

Further, the wording “overhead projectors” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified to specify the intended nature or purpose of the goods, e.g., overhead movie projectors.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.

 

Moreover, the wording “compact disks, DVDs, high density optical disks” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified to specify the intended nature or purpose of the goods, e.g., blank compact disks, blank recordable DVDs, blank high density optical disks.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.

 

In addition, the wording “cables” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified to specify the intended nature or purpose of the goods, e.g., electronic cables.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.

 

Further, the wording “headsets” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified to specify the intended nature or purpose of the goods, e.g., telephone headsets.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.

 

Moreover, the wording “cells” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified to specify the intended nature or purpose of the goods, e.g., dry cells.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.

 

In addition, the wording “chargers” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified to specify the intended nature or purpose of the goods, e.g., battery chargers.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.

 

Further, the wording “remote controls” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified to specify the intended nature or purpose of the goods, e.g., remote controls for televisions.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.

 

Moreover, the wording “holders” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified to specify the intended nature or purpose of the goods, e.g., holders specially adapted for use with mobile telephones and computers.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.

 

Last, the wording “mounts” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified to specify the intended nature or purpose of the goods, e.g., television wall mounts, namely, mounts adapted for televisions.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.

 

Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate (changes shown in bold): 

 

International Class 9:

 

Television apparatus, namely, televisions; radio apparatus, namely, radios; DVD players and recorders; high density optical disc and compact disc players and recorders; MP3 and MP4 players; tape players; audio electronic components, namely, high-fidelity surround sound systems; record players; phonographs; television decoders; media players; multimedia tablet computers; mobile electronic apparatus for receiving and reading text, sound and images in the nature of tablet computers; personal digital assistants; projection screens and multimedia projectors; overhead movie projectors; cameras; video cameras; camcorders; blank compact disks, blank recordable DVDs, blank high density optical disks; walkie talkies; cellular phones, mobile phones, smart phones; antennas; computers; audio video cables, electronic cables; microphones; loudspeakers; cabinets for loudspeakers; telephone headsets; dry cells and batteries; rechargeable batteries; battery chargers; remote controls for televisions; batteries, battery chargers and holders specially adapted for use with mobile telephones and computers; television wall mounts, namely, mounts adapted for televisions

 

Applicant may amend the identification to clarify or limit the good, but not to broaden or expand the goods 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 may not later be reinserted.  See TMEP §1402.07(e).  Additionally, for U.S. applications filed under Trademark Act Section 44(e), the scope of the identification for purposes of permissible amendments may not exceed the scope of the goods identified in the foreign registration.  37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); Marmark, Ltd. v. Nutrexpa, S.A., 12 USPQ2d 1843, 1845 (TTAB 1989) (citing In re Löwenbräu München, 175 USPQ 178, 181 (TTAB 1972)); TMEP §§1012, 1402.01(b).

 

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.

 

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. 

 

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.  

 

 

 

/Melissa Sturman/

Melissa Sturman

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 125

(571) 272-2781

melissa.sturman@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 6/14/2019 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 88364502

 

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 6/14/2019 (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.