Offc Action Outgoing

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

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

 

 

 

FINAL 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) and/or Electronic System for Trademark Trials and Appeals (ESTTA).  A link to the appropriate TEAS response form and/or to ESTTA for an appeal appears at the end of this Office action. 

 

 

Issue date:  April 19, 2021

 

INTRODUCTION

 

For the reasons set forth below, the refusal under Trademark Act Section 2(d) is now made FINAL with respect to U.S. Registration No. 4518014.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b).

 

In a previous Office action dated 12/12/2019, the following issues were listed, and are hereby maintained or withdrawn/satisfied, as follows:

 

• SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION – maintained.
• IDENTIFICATION REQUIRES AMENDMENT – satisfied.

 

The trademark examining attorney maintains and now makes FINAL the refusal under Section 2(d) as discussed below.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b); TMEP §714.04.

 

SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION – PARTIAL

 

THIS PARTIAL REFUSAL APPLIES TO THE GOODS/SERVICES MENTIONED HEREUNDER

 

Marks are compared in their entireties for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression.  Stone Lion Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 1321, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1371, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 2005)); TMEP §1207.01(b)-(b)(v).  “Similarity in any one of these elements may be sufficient to find the marks confusingly similar.”  In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1746 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Davia, 110 USPQ2d 1810, 1812 (TTAB 2014)), aff’d per curiam, 777 F. App’x 516, 2019 BL 343921 (Fed. Cir. 2019); TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark TWITCH under Reg. No. 4518014. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the previously-attached registration. 

 

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 and/or services of the parties.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).  Likelihood of confusion is determined on a case-by-case basis by applying the factors set forth in In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973) (called the “du Pont factors”).  In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1322, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1747 (Fed. Cir. 2017).  Any evidence of record related to those factors need be considered; however, “not all of the DuPont factors are relevant or of similar weight in every case.”  In re Guild Mortg. Co., 912 F.3d 1376, 1379, 129 USPQ2d 1160, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting In re Dixie Rests., Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 1406, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).

 

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

 

 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.

 

Comparison of the Marks

 

The marks are confusingly similar because they are identical.  

 

Applicant’s mark is “TWITCH” and registrant’s mark is “TWITCH”.

 

Marks are compared in their entireties for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression.  Stone Lion Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 1321, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1371, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 2005)); TMEP §1207.01(b)-(b)(v).  “Similarity in any one of these elements may be sufficient to find the marks confusingly similar.”  In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1746 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Davia, 110 USPQ2d 1810, 1812 (TTAB 2014)), aff’d per curiam, 777 F. App’x 516, 2019 BL 343921 (Fed. Cir. 2019); TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

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). 

 

In the present case, applicant’s mark and registrant’s mark are both the same word TWITCH and both are in standard character. Thus 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 and/or services.  Id.

 

Therefore, because the marks are entirely composed of the same word TWITCH, the marks are confusingly similar.

 

Comparison of the Goods/Services

 

Registrant’s goods are, in relevant part, “computer keyboards” and “Keyboards and printers.”

 

Applicant’s goods and services will be considered in turn, by class.

 

The goods and/or services are compared to determine whether they are similar, commercially related, or travel in the same trade channels.  See Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369-71, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722-23 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 1165, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2002); TMEP §§1207.01, 1207.01(a)(vi).

 

The compared goods and/or services 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).

 

Further, where the marks of the respective parties are identical or virtually identical, as in this case, the degree of similarity or relatedness between the goods and/or services needed to support a finding of likelihood of confusion declines.  See In re Country Oven, Inc., 2019 USPQ2d 443903, at *5 (TTAB 2019) (citing In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 116 USPQ2d 1406, 1411 (TTAB 2015), aff’d, 866 F.3d 1315, 123 USPQ2d 1744 (Fed. Cir. 2017)); TMEP §1207.01(a); see also In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1207, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1993).

 

Applicant’s Class 9 Goods

 

Applicant’s goods are, in relevant part, “Computer hardware; Computer hardware with specialized features for enhanced game playing.”

 

Determining likelihood of confusion is based on the description of the goods and/or services 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 “computer hardware,” which presumably encompasses all goods of the type described, including registrant’s more narrow “computer keyboards” and “keyboards and printers.” 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)).

 

This is because keyboards and printers are hardware, as demonstrated by the following attached evidence:

 

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_hardware (Includes “keyboard” as an example of a physical component that makes up the computer which is the common definition of “hardware.”) See attached.
• http://www.lifewire.com/what-is-a-keyboard-2618153 (Specific reference is made to a keyboard being a “piece of computer hardware.”) See attached.
• http://www.computerhope.com/jargon/p/printer.htm (defines a printer as an external hardware output device.) See attached.

 

Thus, because keyboards and printers are actual types of computer hardware, applicant’s “computer hardware” encompasses the registrant’s keyboards and printers. Therefore the goods are legally identical.

 

Further, even applicant’s “computer hardware with specialized features for enhanced game playing” (also) encompasses registrant’s more narrow “keyboards” since they presumably include every type of keyboard, including keyboards (which is a type of hardware) that has “specialized features for enhanced game playing,” These “gaming keyboards” are a common type of hardware, as demonstrated by the attached evidence from Csgopedia and BestBuy, which list types of “gaming keyboard” models available for sale. See attached.

 

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)).  Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods are related.

 

Applicant’s Class 35 Services

 

Applicant’s services are, in relevant part, “Retail store services featuring gaming videos, gaming hardware and game software; Retail store services featuring consumer electronics, computer and communications hardware and software, and electronic publications.”

 

Applicant’s retails services are closely related to registrant’s goods because that is what they sell: computer hardware. The use of similar marks on or in connection with both products and retail-store services has been held likely to cause confusion where the evidence showed that the retail-store services featured the same type of products.  See In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1307, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1051 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding the use of similar marks for various clothing items, including athletic uniforms, and for retail shops featuring sports team related clothing and apparel likely to cause confusion); In re Country Oven, Inc., 2019 USPQ2d 443903, at *12 (TTAB 2019) (holding the use of identical marks for bread buns and retail bakery stores and shops likely to cause confusion); In re House Beer, LLC, 114 USPQ2d 1073, 1078 (TTAB 2015) (holding the use of identical marks for beer and for retail store services featuring beer likely to cause confusion);TMEP §1207.01(a)(ii).

 

Further, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board have held that various electronic goods are sufficiently related to computer or technology-related services such that a likelihood of confusion exists when the marks at issue are otherwise identical or highly similar.  See Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1268, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (holding PACKARD TECHNOLOGIES, with “technologies” disclaimed, for “electronic transmission of data and documents via computer terminals” to be sufficiently related to HEWLETT PACKARD marks for facsimile machines, computers, and computer software such that confusion would be likely where the marks at issue convey a similar commercial impression); MSI Data Corp. v. Microprocessor Sys., Inc., 220 USPQ 655, 659-60 (TTAB 1983) (holding MSI for “computer hardware manufacturing services to the order of or specification of others” likely to be confused with MSI for “electronic ordering systems for gathering and transmitting source data comprising a recorder-transmitter and data receiver”).

 

Conclusion

 

The marks are identical in sound, appearance, and meaning, and the goods are legally identical because keyboards and printers are actual types of computer hardware. For these reasons, consumers are likely to encounter the parties’ goods in the same market channels.  Given the strong similarities between marks, since they are identical, consumers encountering the marks in the same commercial contexts are likely to confuse the marks and mistake the underlying sources of related goods provided under the marks.  Registration is therefore refused to prevent such confusion.

 

Considering all of the above, the refusal under Trademark Act Section 2(d) is hereby made FINAL.

 

PARTIAL ABANDONMENT ADVISORY

 

If applicant does not respond to this Office action within the six-month period for response, the following goods and/or services in International Classes 9 and 35 will be deleted from the application:

 

• Class 9: Computer hardware; Computer hardware with specialized features for enhanced game playing;
• Class 35: Retail store services featuring gaming videos, gaming hardware and game software; Retail store services featuring consumer electronics, computer and communications hardware and software, and electronic publications;

 

 

The application will then proceed with the following goods and/or services only: 

 

• Class 9: Downloadable or recorded computer software for broadcasting, transmitting, receiving, accessing, viewing, uploading, downloading, sharing, integrating, encoding, decoding, displaying, formatting, organizing, storing, caching, transferring and streaming of movies; Downloadable or recorded computer software for encoding, decoding, and caching data, text, games, game content, digital media, images, music, audio, video, and animations; Downloadable or recorded application programming interface (API) software for broadcasting, transmitting, receiving, accessing, viewing, uploading, downloading, sharing, integrating, encoding, decoding, displaying, formatting, organizing, storing, caching, transferring and streaming of movies; Downloadable or recorded application programming interface (API) software for encoding, decoding, and caching data, text, games, game content, digital media, images, music, audio, video, and animations; Downloadable or recorded computer software for creating, viewing, sending, and receiving electronic mail; Downloadable or recorded computer software for creating emoticons; Downloadable or recorded software development kits (SDK's) for developing software for broadcasting, transmitting, receiving, accessing, viewing, uploading, downloading, sharing, integrating, encoding, decoding, displaying, formatting, organizing, storing, caching, transferring and streaming of data, text, games, game content, digital media, images, music, audio, video, movies and animations; Downloadable or recorded software for streaming television (TV) programming; Digital media streaming devices for streaming electronic games, music, and movies; Downloadable or recorded character and voice recognition software; Downloadable or recorded computer software for creating, placing, transmitting and measuring the effectiveness of advertisements; Downloadable or recorded software for filtering internet searches; Downloadable or recorded software, namely, parental control software for use in restricting access to online videos and games; Video recordings featuring sports, e-sports, games, video games, video game playing, video game players, video game competitions, action, adventure, animation, art, biography, children's programming, comedy, crime, drama, family, fantasy, film-noir, history, horror, martial arts, music, mystery, religion, romance, science fiction, suspense, technology, thrillers, war, westerns and young adult programming; Downloadable music files; Downloadable movies and documentaries featuring sports, e-sports, games, video games, video game playing, video game players and video game competitions; Downloadable movies in the fields of action, adventure, animation, art, biography, children's programming, comedy, crime, drama, family, fantasy, film-noir, history, horror, martial arts, music, mystery, religion, romance, science fiction, suspense, technology, thrillers, war, westerns and young adult programming; Downloadable or recorded electronic publications, namely, books, magazines, newspapers, periodicals, newsletters, journals and manuals featuring e-sports, video gaming, video games and video game players recorded on computer media

 

• Class 35: Retail store services featuring books and magazines; online retail store services featuring books and magazines; Retail store services featuring downloadable audio, video, multimedia, emoticons, badges, images and chat colors; retail store services featuring virtual goods and merchandise for use by members of an online community in connection with a designated website featuring streaming video games and related content; Retail store services featuring game software enhancements and components; Arranging sponsorships for the goods and services of others; Administration and coordination of team leagues in the field of video gaming; Administration and coordination of recreational opportunities for individuals who wish to participate in team leagues

 

• Class 41: Entertainment services, namely, providing a web site featuring non-downloadable gaming-related movies; Music production and publishing; Entertainment services, namely, providing a web site for organizing video gaming leagues; Publishing of game software; Publishing of books, electronic books, magazines, periodicals, literary works, visual works, audio works, and audiovisual works; Publishing of online works of others featuring user-generated text, audio, video, and graphics; Providing online non-downloadable publications in the nature of books, magazines, periodicals in the field of e-sports, video gaming, video games and video game players; entertainment services, namely, providing online non-downloadable music tailored to viewer's programming preferences; Entertainment services, namely, providing non-downloadable movies and documentaries via a website; Entertainment services, namely, providing online, non-downloadable virtual clothing, colors, badges, tools and weapons for use in virtual environments created for entertainment purposes; Providing educational training, namely, online video tutorials in the field of video gaming and video games

 

• Class 42: Providing temporary use of online non-downloadable software and software as a service featuring software for encoding, decoding, and caching data, text, games, game content, digital media, images, music, audio, video and animations; Providing temporary use of online non-downloadable software and software as a service featuring software for creating, viewing, sending, and receiving electronic mail; Providing temporary use of online non-downloadable software and software as a service featuring software for creating emoticons; Providing temporary use of online non-downloadable software and software as a service featuring software for television (TV) programming; Providing temporary use of online non-downloadable software and software as a service featuring software for character and voice recognition; Providing temporary use of online non-downloadable software and software as a service featuring software for creating, placing, transmitting and measuring the effectiveness of advertisements; Providing temporary use of online non-downloadable software and software as a service featuring software for filtering internet searches; Providing temporary use of online non-downloadable software and software as a service featuring software for parental control enabling access to games, including electronic, computer and video games; computer software consulting services in the field of gaming technology and graphics software; computer programming services; Providing temporary use of non-downloadable computer software for enhancing computer performance, for operation of integrated circuits, semiconductors, computer chipsets and micro-processors; Providing temporary use of non-downloadable computer software for accelerating computer graphics; Platform as a service (PaaS) featuring computer software platforms for graphic design; Providing virtual computer systems and virtual computer environments through cloud computing; Providing cloud computing services featuring software for use in processing computer graphics and software for use in database management; Computer services, namely, cloud hosting provider services; Providing virtual computer systems, graphics processing units (GPUs), and virtual computer environments through cloud computing; Design and development of computer hardware, software and peripherals for others; Hosting of third party digital content in the nature of photos, games, and web sites; Consulting services in the fields of design, selection, implementation, and use of computer hardware, software, applications, and networks; Digital and electronic file data transfer from one computer format to another; Provision of Internet and computer network search engines; Graphic design services; Software maintenance, installation and update services; Software as a service that allows gamers to live broadcast their games from a gaming console

 

 

See 37 C.F.R. §2.65(a)-(a)(1); TMEP §718.02(a).

 

 

How to respond.  Click to file a request for reconsideration of this final Office action that fully resolves all outstanding requirements and refusals and/or click to file a timely appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) with the required filing fee(s).

 

 

Becker, Joseph (Trademark)

/Joseph Becker/

Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 117

United States PTO

(571) 270-5493

Joseph.Becker1@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 April 19, 2021 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88386845

 

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. 

 

 

Becker, Joseph (Trademark)

/Joseph Becker/

Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 117

United States PTO

(571) 270-5493

Joseph.Becker1@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 April 19, 2021, 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.”