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 16, 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 – “Smoker's articles, namely, cigarette papers; Boxes for electronic cigarettes and electronic cigarette accessories; Cartridges sold filled with chemical flavorings in liquid form for electronic cigarettes; Cartridges sold filled with propylene glycol for electronic cigarettes; Cartridges sold filled with vegetable glycerin for electronic cigarettes; Cases for electronic cigarettes and electronic cigarette accessories; Chemical flavorings in liquid form used to refill electronic cigarette cartridges; Electronic cigarette liquid (e-liquid) comprised of flavorings in liquid form, other than essential oils, used to refill electronic cigarette cartridges; Electronic cigarette liquid (e-liquid) comprised of propylene glycol; Electronic cigarette liquid (e-liquid) comprised of vegetable glycerin; Electronic cigarette refill cartridges sold empty; Flavorings for tobacco substitutes, other than essential oils; Flavorings for tobacco, other than essential oils; Oral vaporizers for smoking purposes; Dietary and nutritional supplements containing hemp oil and/or CBD oil; Medicated massage oils; Medicinal oils; Edible oils; CBD oil; Cannabidiol oil”

 

Registration is refused for the goods “SMOKER'S ARTICLES, NAMELY, CIGARETTE PAPERS; BOXES FOR ELECTRONIC CIGARETTES AND ELECTRONIC CIGARETTE ACCESSORIES; CARTRIDGES SOLD FILLED WITH CHEMICAL FLAVORINGS IN LIQUID FORM FOR ELECTRONIC CIGARETTES; CARTRIDGES SOLD FILLED WITH PROPYLENE GLYCOL FOR ELECTRONIC CIGARETTES; CARTRIDGES SOLD FILLED WITH VEGETABLE GLYCERIN FOR ELECTRONIC CIGARETTES; CASES FOR ELECTRONIC CIGARETTES AND ELECTRONIC CIGARETTE ACCESSORIES; CHEMICAL FLAVORINGS IN LIQUID FORM USED TO REFILL ELECTRONIC CIGARETTE CARTRIDGES; ELECTRONIC CIGARETTE LIQUID (E-LIQUID) COMPRISED OF FLAVORINGS IN LIQUID FORM, OTHER THAN ESSENTIAL OILS, USED TO REFILL ELECTRONIC CIGARETTE CARTRIDGES; ELECTRONIC CIGARETTE LIQUID (E-LIQUID) COMPRISED OF PROPYLENE GLYCOL; ELECTRONIC CIGARETTE LIQUID (E-LIQUID) COMPRISED OF VEGETABLE GLYCERIN; ELECTRONIC CIGARETTE REFILL CARTRIDGES SOLD EMPTY; FLAVORINGS FOR TOBACCO SUBSTITUTES, OTHER THAN ESSENTIAL OILS; FLAVORINGS FOR TOBACCO, OTHER THAN ESSENTIAL OILS; ORAL VAPORIZERS FOR SMOKING PURPOSES; DIETARY AND NUTRITIONAL SUPPLEMENTS CONTAINING HEMP OIL AND/OR CBD OIL; MEDICATED MASSAGE OILS; MEDICINAL OILS; EDIBLE OILS; CBD OIL; CANNABIDIOL OIL” 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 REFUSAL DOES NOT APPLY TO THE GOODS “matches, and lighters; Hemp seed oil, namely, essential oil; Oils containing hemp extracts; Edible oil, namely, hemp extract oil and edible oils containing hemp derivatives.”

 

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 relevant cannabidiol goods:

 

Smoker's articles, namely, cigarette papers; boxes for electronic cigarettes and electronic cigarette accessories; cartridges sold filled with chemical flavorings in liquid form for electronic cigarettes; cartridges sold filled with propylene glycol for electronic cigarettes; cartridges sold filled with vegetable glycerin for electronic cigarettes; cases for electronic cigarettes and electronic cigarette accessories; chemical flavorings in liquid form used to refill electronic cigarette cartridges; electronic cigarette liquid (e-liquid) comprised of flavorings in liquid form, other than essential oils, used to refill electronic cigarette cartridges; electronic cigarette liquid (e-liquid) comprised of propylene glycol; electronic cigarette liquid (e-liquid) comprised of vegetable glycerin; electronic cigarette refill cartridges sold empty; flavorings for tobacco substitutes, other than essential oils; flavorings for tobacco, other than essential oils; oral vaporizers for smoking purposes; dietary and nutritional supplements containing hemp oil and/or cbd oil; medicated massage oils; medicinal oils; edible oils; cbd oil; cannabidiol oil

 

These goods either specifically reference CBD, or are otherwise worded broadly enough to encompass goods that contain, or are intended for use with, cannabis and/or CBD.

 

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 goods 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” or are “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.

 

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. 

 

NO BONA FIDE INTENT TO USE IN COMMERCE – FDCA – SECTION 1(B) – “Dietary and nutritional supplements containing hemp oil and/or CBD oil; Medicated massage oils; Oils containing hemp extracts; Medicinal oils; Edible oil, namely, hemp extract oil and edible oils containing hemp derivatives; Edible oils; CBD oil; Cannabidiol oil”

 

Registration is also refused FOR THE GOODS “DIETARY AND NUTRITIONAL SUPPLEMENTS CONTAINING HEMP OIL AND/OR CBD OIL; MEDICATED MASSAGE OILS; OILS CONTAINING HEMP EXTRACTS; MEDICINAL OILS; EDIBLE OIL, NAMELY, HEMP EXTRACT OIL AND EDIBLE OILS CONTAINING HEMP DERIVATIVES; EDIBLE OILS; CBD OIL; CANNABIDIOL OIL” 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 PARTICULAR REFUSAL DOES NOT APPLY TO THE GOODS “Smoker's articles, namely, cigarette papers, matches, and lighters; Boxes for electronic cigarettes and electronic cigarette accessories; Cartridges sold filled with chemical flavorings in liquid form for electronic cigarettes; Cartridges sold filled with propylene glycol for electronic cigarettes; Cartridges sold filled with vegetable glycerin for electronic cigarettes; Cases for electronic cigarettes and electronic cigarette accessories; Chemical flavorings in liquid form used to refill electronic cigarette cartridges; Electronic cigarette liquid (e-liquid) comprised of flavorings in liquid form, other than essential oils, used to refill electronic cigarette cartridges; Electronic cigarette liquid (e-liquid) comprised of propylene glycol; Electronic cigarette liquid (e-liquid) comprised of vegetable glycerin; Electronic cigarette refill cartridges sold empty; Flavorings for tobacco substitutes, other than essential oils; Flavorings for tobacco, other than essential oils; Oral vaporizers for smoking purposes; Hemp seed oil, namely, essential oil.”

 

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 relevant goods as follows:

 

Dietary and nutritional supplements containing hemp oil and/or cbd oil; medicated massage oils; oils containing hemp extracts; medicinal oils; edible oil, namely, hemp extract oil and edible oils containing hemp derivatives; edible oils; cbd oil; cannabidiol oil

 

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.

 

Furthermore, products containing CBD identified for use by animals are unapproved new animal drugs that are deemed unsafe under 21 U.S.C. §360b(a).  Under 21 U.S.C. 348, an animal food additive is deemed unsafe unless it is approved by FDA for its intended use prior to marketing. CBD is not approved for use in any animal food. Animal food containing an unsafe food additive within the meaning of §348 is adulterated within the meaning of Section 342(a)(2)(C)(i) of the FDCA.  Introduction of an adulterated animal food into interstate commerce is prohibited under Section 331(a) of the FDCA, 21 U.S.C. 331(a).

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 AND CLASSIFICATION OF GOODS

 

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:

 

-          Hemp seed oil, namely, essential oilàthese goods belong in International Class 3

-          Dietary and nutritional supplements containing hemp oil and/or CBD oil; Medicated massage oilsàthese goods belong in International Class 5

-          Oils containing hemp extractsàapplicant must specify the type of “oils,” e.g., “medicinal oils” in Class 5

-          Medicinal oilsàthese goods belong in International Class 5

-          Edible oil, namely, hemp extract oil and edible oils containing hemp derivatives; Edible oilsàthese goods belong in International Class 29

-          CBD oil; Cannabidiol oilàapplicant must specify the type of “oils,” e.g., “medicinal oils” in Class 5

 

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. 

 

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 3: Hemp seed oil, namely, essential oil

 

International Class 5: Dietary and nutritional supplements containing hemp oil and CBD oil derived solely from hemp with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol [THC] concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis; Medicated massage oils having a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol [THC] concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis; Medicinal oils containing hemp extracts; medicinal oils with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol [THC] concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis; medicinal oils, namely, CBD oil and cannabidiol oil derived solely from hemp with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol [THC] concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis

 

International Class 29: Edible oil, namely, hemp extract oil and edible oils containing hemp derivatives; Edible oils with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol [THC] concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis

 

International Class 34: Smoker's articles, namely, cigarette papers, matches, and lighters; Boxes for electronic cigarettes and electronic cigarette accessories; Cartridges sold filled with chemical flavorings in liquid form for electronic cigarettes; Cartridges sold filled with propylene glycol for electronic cigarettes; Cartridges sold filled with vegetable glycerin for electronic cigarettes; Cases for electronic cigarettes and electronic cigarette accessories; Chemical flavorings in liquid form used to refill electronic cigarette cartridges; Electronic cigarette liquid (e-liquid) comprised of flavorings in liquid form, other than essential oils, used to refill electronic cigarette cartridges; Electronic cigarette liquid (e-liquid) comprised of propylene glycol; Electronic cigarette liquid (e-liquid) comprised of vegetable glycerin; Electronic cigarette refill cartridges sold empty; Flavorings for tobacco substitutes, other than essential oils; Flavorings for tobacco, other than essential oils; Oral vaporizers for smoking purposes; all of the aforementioned goods containing 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

 

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.

 

Classification of Goods

 

If applicant adopts the suggested amendment of the goods, then applicant must amend the classification to International Classes 3, 5, 29, and/or 34.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(7), 2.85; TMEP §§805, 1401.

 

Additional Filing Fee(s) Required if Adopting Additional International Class(es)

 

The USPTO changed the federal trademark rules to eliminate the TEAS RF application, which is now considered a “TEAS Standard” application.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.6(a)(iii).  The fee for adding classes to a TEAS Standard application is $275 per class.  See id.  For more information about these changes, see the Mandatory Electronic Filing webpage.

 

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 16, 2020 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88381040

 

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 16, 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.”