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:  March 11, 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 RESULTS

The trademark examining attorney searched the USPTO database of registered and pending marks and found no conflicting marks that would bar registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d).  15 U.S.C. §1052(d); TMEP §704.02.

 

CBD-Specified Goods – Based on Identification - No Bona Fide Intent to Lawfully Use in Commerce as of Filing Date – INTERNATIONAL CLASS 5 “medicinal and herbal preparations; medicinal and herbal supplements; medicinal and herbal preparations and/or supplements in topical form, drop form, capsule form, tablet form, liquid form, and/or powder form; medicinal and herbal preparations and/or supplements containing cannabidiol; medicinal and herbal preparations and/or supplements containing cannabidiol in naturally occurring amounts”

 

Registration is refused for the goods in International Class 5, namely, “medicinal and herbal preparations; medicinal and herbal supplements; medicinal and herbal preparations and/or supplements in topical form, drop form, capsule form, tablet form, liquid form, and/or powder form; medicinal and herbal preparations and/or supplements containing cannabidiol; medicinal and herbal preparations and/or supplements containing cannabidiol in naturally occurring amounts” because applicant does not have a bona fide intent to lawfully use the applied-for mark in commerce.  Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; see TMEP §907.  Applicant should note that this particular refusal does not apply to the goods “Medicinal and herbal preparations and/or supplements containing hemp oil; medicinal and herbal preparations and/or supplements containing industrial hemp seed oil and cannabidiol derived solely from the mature stalks and sterilized seeds of the industrial hemp plant” in International Class 5 or the goods in International Class 34.

 

To qualify for federal trademark 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 items or activities with which the proposed mark will be used include those that are unlawful under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 U.S.C. §§801-971. The application identifies the following cannabidiol goods:

 

International Class 5: Medicinal and herbal preparations; medicinal and herbal supplements; medicinal and herbal preparations and/or supplements in topical form, drop form, capsule form, tablet form, liquid form, and/or powder form; medicinal and herbal preparations and/or supplements containing cannabidiol; medicinal and herbal preparations and/or supplements containing cannabidiol in naturally occurring amounts

 

More specifically, some of the goods clearly reference a cannabidiol (CBD) content, and the others are worded broadly enough to include cannabidiol and/or other cannabis ingredients.

 

Cannabidiol (CBD) is a nonpsychoactive constituent of the cannabis plant.  Applicant’s identified goods 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)  Because use of the applied-for mark in connection with such goods was not lawful as of the filing date, applicant did not have a bona fide intent to lawfully use the applied-for mark in commerce in connection with such goods.  See In re JJ206, LLC, 120 USPQ2d 1568, 1569 (TTAB 2016) (“where the identified goods are illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), the applicant cannot use its mark in lawful commerce, and ‘it is a legal impossibility’ for the applicant to have the requisite bona fide intent to use the mark.”); see also In re Brown, 119 USPQ2d, 1351-1352; TMEP §907.   

 

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).  The goods that feature cannabidiol did not potentially comply with applicable federal laws until that date.  Because the identified goods that feature cannabidiol consist of or include items or activities that are still prohibited under the Controlled Substances Act, namely those containing cannabidiol derived from marijuana, the applicant did not have a valid basis for filing the application for such goods.  Nevertheless, to the extent the applicant’s goods will be derived solely from cannabis plants that meet the current statutory definition of hemp, the goods may presently be lawful.

 

Therefore, in order to overcome this refusal, applicant must amend the identification of to specify that all cannabidiol-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 below.

 

APPLICANT SHOULD NOTE THAT AN AMENDMENT TO THE IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS WILL NOT OVERCOME THE FDCA REFUSAL BELOW.

 

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

 

Applicant should note the following additional ground for refusal.

 

Drug Paraphernalia Refusal – Based on ID  - Per se unlawful –– No Bona Fide Intent to Lawfully Use in Commerce – International Class 34

 

Registration is refused for the goods in International Class 34 because applicant does not have a bona fide intent to lawfully use the applied-for mark in commerce.  Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; see TMEP §907.  APPLICANT SHOULD NOTE THAT THIS PARTICULAR REFUSAL DOES NOT APPLY TO THE GOODS IN INTERNATIONAL CLASS 5.

To qualify for federal trademark 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 items or activities to which the proposed mark will be applied are broad enough to encompass products that are unlawful under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 U.S.C. §§801-971.    The CSA makes it unlawful to sell, offer for sale, or use any facility of interstate commerce to transport “drug paraphernalia,” which is defined as “any equipment, product, or material of any kind which is primarily intended or designed for use in manufacturing, compounding, converting, concealing, producing, processing, preparing, injecting, ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise introducing in the human body a controlled substance.”  21 U.S.C. § 863.  Under the CSA, marijuana is a controlled substance.  21 U.S.C. §§ 812(a), (c), 841, 844.

The identification of goods includes a products for inhaling or otherwise introducing to the body marijuana, namely, vaporizers and vape pens.  More specifically, the applicant’s Identification of Goods in Class 5 references “cannabidiol” and “hemp” products, such that the goods in Class 34 are worded broadly enough to be intended for use with CBD or other cannabis products.

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 use of the applied-for mark in connection with such goods was not lawful as of the filing date, applicant did not have a bona fide intent to lawfully use the applied-for mark in commerce.  See In re JJ206, LLC, 120 USPQ2d 1568, 1569 (TTAB 2016) (“where the identified goods are illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), the applicant cannot use its mark in lawful commerce, and ‘it is a legal impossibility’ for the applicant to have the requisite bona fide intent to use the mark.”); see also In re Brown, 119 USPQ2d, 1351-1352; TMEP §907.   

 

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 that are still prohibited under the Controlled Substances Act, namely specify goods for use with cannabis or CBD without limitation to .3% THC, the applicant did not have a valid filing basis for any such items or activities.  To the extent the applicant’s goods are exclusively for use with products 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 items are “exclusively for use with cannabis/CBD products 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 below.

 

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

 

APPLICANT SHOULD NOTE THAT AN AMENDMENT TO THE IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS WILL NOT OVERCOME THE FDCA REFUSAL BELOW.

 

Applicant should note the following additional ground for refusal.

 

NO BONA FIDE INTENT TO USE IN COMMERCE – FDCA – SECTION 1(B) – INTERNATIONAL CLASS 5 ONLY

 

Registration is also refused for the goods in International Class 5 under Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; see TMEP §907 because applicant does not have a bona fide intent to lawfully use the applied-for mark in commerce in connection with the identified goods because the goods are or will not be in compliance with the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA).   APPLICANT SHOULD NOTE THAT THIS REFUSAL DOES NOT APPLY TO THE GOODS IN INTERNATIONAL CLASS 34.

 

To qualify for federal trademark 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 to be 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. 

The items or activities listed in the application in connection with which the mark is intended to be used involve a per se violation of federal law.  See In re Brown, 119 USPQ2d at 1352.  The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) prohibits the introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of a food to which has been added a drug approved under Section 355 of the Act or a biological product licensed under 42 U.S.C. §262.  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 FDCA and does not include an article that is approved as a new drug under 21 U.S.C.  §355, certified as an antibiotic under 21 U.S.C. §357, or licensed as a biologic under 42 U.S.C.  §262).

Cannabidiol (CBD), a chemical constituent of the cannabis plant, was the subject of substantial clinical investigations before it was marketed in foods or as dietary supplements.  On June 25, 2018, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first prescription pharmaceutical formulation of plant-derived CBD, Epidiolex®, for the treatment of two rare forms of epilepsy, Lennox-Gastaut syndrome and Dravet syndrome.  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 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); 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 the present case, the application identifies applicant’s goods as follows:

 

International Class 5: Medicinal and herbal preparations; medicinal and herbal supplements; medicinal and herbal preparations and/or supplements in topical form, drop form, capsule form, tablet form, liquid form, and/or powder form; medicinal and herbal preparations and/or supplements containing hemp oil; medicinal and herbal preparations and/or supplements containing cannabidiol; medicinal and herbal preparations and/or supplements containing cannabidiol in naturally occurring amounts; medicinal and herbal preparations and/or supplements containing industrial hemp seed oil and cannabidiol derived solely from the mature stalks and sterilized seeds of the industrial hemp plant

 

More specifically, some of the goods clearly reference a cannabidiol (CBD) content, and the others are worded broadly enough to include cannabidiol and/or other cannabis ingredients.

 

It is unlawful to introduce food to which CBD, an “article that is approved as a new drug,” has been added into interstate commerce or to market CBD as, or in, dietary supplements, regardless of whether the substances are hemp-derived. 21 U.S.C. §§321(ff)(3)(B)(ii), 331(d), 355(a); see also 21 U.S.C.  §352(f)(1) regarding mislabeled drugs.  See also 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.  Therefore, a limitation statement indicating that the CBD included in the applicant’s goods is 2018 Farm Bill Compliant, or derived from hemp containing less than .3% tetrahyrocannabinol (THC) does not obviate this refusal.

 

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)  Because introduction of such goods into commerce was not lawful as of the filing date, applicant did not have a bona fide intent to use the applied-for mark in lawful commerce in connection with such goods.  See e.g. In re JJ206, LLC, 120 USPQ2d 1568, 1569 (TTAB 2016) (“where the identified goods are illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), the applicant cannot use its mark in lawful commerce, and ‘it is a legal impossibility’ for the applicant to have the requisite bona fide intent to use the mark.”); see also In re Brown, 119 USPQ2d, 1351-1352; TMEP §907.   

 

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 5

 

-          medicinal and herbal preparationsàapplicant must specify what the medicinal preparations are intended to treat and that the “herbal preparations” are “medicinal herbal preparations” to be in Class 5

-          medicinal and herbal supplementsàapplicant must specify the type of “medicinal supplements,” e.g., “medicinal dietary supplements”

-          medicinal and herbal preparations and/or supplements in topical form, drop form, capsule form, tablet form, liquid form, and/or powder formàapplicant must specify what the medicinal preparations are intended to treat and that the “herbal preparations” are “medicinal herbal preparations” to be in Class 5, and specify the type of “medicinal supplements,” e.g., “medicinal dietary supplements”

-          medicinal and herbal preparations and/or supplements containing hemp oilàapplicant must specify what the medicinal preparations are intended to treat and that the “herbal preparations” are “medicinal herbal preparations” to be in Class 5, and specify the type of “medicinal supplements,” e.g., “medicinal dietary supplements”

-          medicinal and herbal preparations and/or supplements containing cannabidiolàapplicant must specify what the medicinal preparations are intended to treat and that the “herbal preparations” are “medicinal herbal preparations” to be in Class 5, and specify the type of “medicinal supplements,” e.g., “medicinal dietary supplements”

-          medicinal and herbal preparations and/or supplements containing cannabidiol in naturally occurring amountsàapplicant must specify what the medicinal preparations are intended to treat and that the “herbal preparations” are “medicinal herbal preparations” to be in Class 5, and specify the type of “medicinal supplements,” e.g., “medicinal dietary supplements”

-          medicinal and herbal preparations and/or supplements containing industrial hemp seed oil and cannabidiol derived solely from the mature stalks and sterilized seeds of the industrial hemp plantàapplicant must specify what the medicinal preparations are intended to treat and that the “herbal preparations” are “medicinal herbal preparations” to be in Class 5, and specify the type of “medicinal supplements,” e.g., “medicinal dietary supplements”

 

International Class 34

 

-          smokers’ articles, namely, vaporizers and vape pensàapplicant must provide a better explanation of these goods, e.g., “oral vaporizers for smoking purposes”

 

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

 

Finally, Applicant has included the term “and/or” in the identification of goods.  However, this term is generally not accepted in identifications when (1) it is unclear whether applicant is using the mark, or intends to use the mark, on all the identified goods; (2) the nature of the goods is unclear; or (3) classification cannot be determined from such wording.  See TMEP §1402.03(a). 

 

An application must specify, in an explicit manner, the particular goods on or in connection with which the applicant uses, or has a bona fide intention to use, the mark in commerce.  See 15 U.S.C. §1051(a)(2), (b)(2); 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.  Therefore, applicant should replace “and/or” with “and” in the identification of goods, if appropriate, or rewrite the identification with the “and/or” deleted and the goods specified using definite and unambiguous language. 

 

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 5: Medicinal preparations for treating {specify ailment to be treated} and medicinal herbal preparations, all with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol [THC] concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis; medicinal dietary supplements and herbal supplements, all with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol [THC] concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis; medicinal preparations for treating {specify ailment to be treated}, medicinal herbal preparations, medicinal dietary supplements, and herbal supplements in topical form, drop form, capsule form, tablet form, liquid form, and/or powder form, all with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol [THC] concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis; medicinal preparations for treating {specify ailment to be treated}, medicinal herbal preparations, medicinal dietary supplements, and herbal supplements all containing hemp oil; medicinal preparations for treating {specify ailment to be treated}, medicinal herbal preparations, medicinal dietary supplements, and herbal supplements, all containing cannabidiol solely derived from hemp with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol [THC] concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis; medicinal preparations for treating {specify ailment to be treated}, medicinal herbal preparations, medicinal dietary supplements, and herbal supplements, all containing cannabidiol in naturally occurring amounts solely derived from hemp with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol [THC] concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis; medicinal preparations for treating {specify ailment to be treated}, medicinal herbal preparations, medicinal dietary supplements, and herbal supplements, all containing industrial hemp seed oil and cannabidiol derived solely from the mature stalks and sterilized seeds of the industrial hemp plant

 

International Class 34: Smokers’ articles, namely, vaporizers and vape pens in the nature of oral vaporizers for smoking purposes exclusively for use with cannabis/CBD products solely derived from hemp with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol [THC] concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis

 

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.

 

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. 

 

USPTO changed federal trademark rules to rename TEAS Reduced Fee (RF) application to “TEAS Standard” and to eliminate TEAS Regular application form.  Current TEAS RF applicants will generally need to continue to meet similar application requirements.  See Changes to the Trademark Rules of Practice to Mandate Electronic Filing Final Rule and Correction, 84 Fed. Reg. 37,081, 68,045, 69,330 (published July 31, 2019, effective Feb. 15, 2020) (codified at 37 C.F.R. pts. 2 & 7).  And current TEAS Regular applicants must now provide an email address when submitting documents through TEAS, will generally be sent correspondence electronically from the USPTO, and will pay a filing fee of $275 per class (instead of $400) when adding a class.  For more information about these changes, see the Mandatory Electronic Filing webpage. 

 

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.

 

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

 

USPTO OFFICIAL NOTICE

 

Office Action (Official Letter) has issued

on March 11, 2020 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88368451

 

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 March 11, 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.”