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: 6/27/2019

 

The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney.  Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issue(s) 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
• Prior-Filed Applications – Applicant Not Entitled To Register – Applicant May Present Arguments
• Amendment Of The Identification Of Goods And Services Required
• Advisory – Entire Mark May Not Be Disclaimed

 

SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark sin U.S. Registration Nos. 5001081 and 2366035.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registrations.

 

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).  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.

 

Applicant’s mark is STUD for “Spirits, Alcoholic mixed beverages except beers, Alcoholic carbonated beverages, except beer, Alcoholic beverages, namely, digestifs, Alcoholic beverages, namely, flavor-infused whiskey, Alcoholic punches, Alcoholic beverages containing fruit, Alcoholic energy drinks, Alcoholic beverages except beers, Alcoholic extracts, Alcoholic bitters, Alcoholic aperitif bitters, Alcoholic cocktails containing milk, Alcoholic ice, Alcoholic essences, Alcoholic cocktail mixes, Alcoholic fruit extracts, Alcoholic fruit cocktail drinks, Alcoholic egg nog, Alcoholic cocktails in the form of frozen pops, Alcoholic cocktails in the form of non-chilled gelatins, Alcoholic cocktails in the form of chilled gelatins, Alcoholic cocktail mixes, Prepared alcoholic cocktail, Alcoholic fruit cocktail drinks, Alcoholic malt coolers, Alcoholic beverage produced from a brewed malt base with natural flavors, Flavored malt-based alcoholic beverages, excluding beers, Alcoholic punch, Alcoholic punches, Baijiu, Hard lemonade, Hard cider, Nira, Pre-mixed alcoholic beverages, other than beer-based, Rum, Rum punch, Rum-based beverages, Rum infused with vitamins, Rum, Vodka, Gin, Tequila, Tequila infused with vitamins, Whiskey, Whiskey, Whiskey spirits, Corn whiskey, Irish whiskey, Sake, Absinthe, Cognac, Alcoholic bitters, Alcoholic aperitif bitters.” 

 

U.S. Registration No. 5001081 is STUD PREMIUM VODKA for “vodka”.

 

U.S. Registration No. 2366035 is STUD SERVICE STOUT for “Malt beverages, namely, beer and ale”

 

Similarity of the Marks

 

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)); TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

In this case, the applicant’s mark is similar in sound, appearance and commercial impression to the registered marks.  All three marks being with the wording STUD, which is spelled and pronounced the same way in each mark.  Moreover, the wording creates similar commercial impressions when used in connection to alcoholic beverages, namely, that the alcohol is as tough and strong as young men or animals meant for breeding.  See evidence at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stud and http://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=stud.

 

Consumers are generally more inclined to focus on the first word, prefix, or syllable in any trademark or service mark.  See Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1372, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1692 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (finding similarity between VEUVE ROYALE and two VEUVE CLICQUOT marks in part because “VEUVE . . . remains a ‘prominent feature’ as the first word in the mark and the first word to appear on the label”); Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Century Life of Am., 970 F.2d 874, 876, 23 USPQ2d 1698, 1700 (Fed Cir. 1992) (finding similarity between CENTURY 21 and CENTURY LIFE OF AMERICA in part because “consumers must first notice th[e] identical lead word”); see also In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1303, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1049 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding “the identity of the marks’ two initial words is particularly significant because consumers typically notice those words first”).  When a consumer focuses on the first wording in the applied-for and registered marks, the consumer will be focusing on the same wording that creates highly similar commercial impressions. 

 

Although marks are compared in their entireties, one feature of a mark may be more significant or dominant in creating a commercial impression.  See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 1058, 224 USPQ 749, 751 (Fed. Cir. 1985); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii).  Disclaimed matter that is descriptive of or generic for a party’s goods is typically less significant or less dominant when comparing marks.  In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1305, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re Dixie Rests., Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 1407, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533-34 (Fed. Cir. 1997)); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii).  In this case, the wording “PREMIUM VODKA” in U.S. Registration Nos. 5001081 and the wording “STOUT” in U.S. Registration No. 2366035 has been disclaimed by the registrants.  Therefore, the wording is not nearly as significant as the wording “STUD” in the registered marks.

 

Moreover, the wording “SERVICE” in U.S. Registration No. 2366035 does not obviate the similarities between the applied-for and registered marks.  Although applicant’s mark does not contain the entirety of the registered mark, 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.

 

Therefore, because the marks share the same dominant wording and because the marks are similar in sound, appearance, and commercial impression, the marks are confusingly similar. 

 

Relatedness of the Goods

 

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).

 

In this case, the applicant’s goods are commonly provided by the same parties, under the same marks, and through the same trade channels.  See evidence at http://www.smirnoff.com/en-us/ (providing vodka, mixed alcoholic beverages, carbonated alcoholic beverages, alcoholic punches, alcoholic coolers, and malt based beverages under the SMIRNOFF mark), http://www.liquor.com/brands/seagrams/#gs.lmwa9o (providing vodka, rum, gin, whiskey, digestifs, liquors mixed alcoholic beverages, carbonated alcoholic beverages, alcoholic punches, alcoholic coolers, and malt based beverages under the SEAGRAMS mark), http://www.stgeorgespirits.com/spirits/# (offering vodkas, gins, whiskeys, absinthe, brandy, cognac, and liqueurs under the ST. GEORGE SPIRITS mark), http://bols.com/products/spirits (providing vodka, liquor, and spirts under the BOLS mark), http://www.totalwine.com/beer/brand/bud-light?tab=fullcatalog&viewall=true&text=bud%20light (offering beer, malt beverages, mixed alcoholic beverages, mixed cocktails and other alcoholic beverages under the BUD LIGHT mark), and http://www.coronausa.com/our-cerveza offering beer, malt beverages, mixed alcoholic beverages, mixed cocktails and other alcoholic beverages under the CORONA mark).

 

Moreover, the vodka goods identified in U.S. Registration No. 5001081 are primary and common ingredients in the “Alcoholic mixed beverages except beers,…Alcoholic punches, Alcoholic beverages containing fruit,…Alcoholic beverages except beers,…Alcoholic cocktails containing milk,…Alcoholic cocktail mixes,…Alcoholic fruit cocktail drinks,…Alcoholic cocktails in the form of frozen pops, Alcoholic cocktails in the form of non-chilled gelatins, Alcoholic cocktails in the form of chilled gelatins, Alcoholic cocktail mixes, Prepared alcoholic cocktail, Alcoholic fruit cocktail drinks,…Alcoholic punch, Alcoholic punches,…Pre-mixed alcoholic beverages, other than beer-based.”  See evidence at http://www.google.com/search?q=vodka+popsicles&rlz=1C1GGRV_enUS766US766&oq=vodka+pops&aqs=chrome.0.0j69i57j0l4.3928j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 (showing a recipe for vodka pops), http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GGRV_enUS766US766&ei=crgTXansFauQggemx4bwCQ&q=vodka+jello&oq=vodka+jello&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0l10.28279.28842..29129...0.0..0.127.474.3j2......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i71.B6LMIlZEa2E (offering recipes for vodka jello shots), http://www.marieclaire.com/food-cocktails/g3282/vodka-cocktails/ (offering recipes for alcoholic drinks featuring vodka), and http://www.thespruceeats.com/best-vodka-cocktails-761221.  Therefore, if the applied-for mark on the various alcoholic beverages contain the goods identified by the registrant, consumers may understand that the registrant’s STUD PREMIUM VODKA is the key ingredient in the applicant’s alcoholic beverages.

 

Lastly, the goods identified by the applicant and registrants are likely to be sold through the same trade channels, namely, through liquor stores and webstores.  See evidence at http://www.totalwine.com/ (selling a wide variety of spirits including tequila, essences, and liqueurs in the same store) and http://drizly.com/liquor/c4 (selling beer and a wide variety of alcoholic beverages through the same online webstore). 

 

Therefore, because the goods identified by the applicant are commonly provided by the same parties, under the same marks, are provided through the same trade channels, or are used in the creation or mixing of the goods of the other, the goods are considered related. 

 

Because the applicant’s mark is confusingly similar to the registrant’s mark, and because the applicant’s goods are related to the goods of the registrants, a likelihood of confusion exists and registration is refused pursuant to Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act. 

 

Response to 2(d) Refusal

 

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

 

Applicant should note the following additional ground for possible refusal.

 

PRIOR-FILED APPLICATIONS – APPLICANT NOT ENTITLED TO REGISTER – APPLICANT MAY PRESENT ARGUMENTS

 

The filing dates of pending U.S. Application Serial Nos. 88349377 precedes applicant’s filing date.  See attached referenced application.  If the mark in the referenced application registers, applicant’s mark may be refused registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d) because of a likelihood of confusion between the two marks.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §§1208 et seq.  Therefore, upon receipt of applicant’s response to this Office action, action on this application may be suspended pending final disposition of the earlier-filed referenced application.

 

In response to this Office action, applicant may present arguments in support of registration by addressing the issue of the potential conflict between applicant’s mark and the mark in the referenced application.  Applicant’s election not to submit arguments at this time in no way limits applicant’s right to address this issue later if a refusal under Section 2(d) issues.

 

While applicant is not required to respond to the issue of the pending application, applicant must respond to the Section 2(d) Refusal and requirements below within six months of the mailing date of this Office action to avoid abandonment.

 

AMENDMENT OF THE IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS AND SERVICES REQUIRED

 

The applicant provided the following identification of goods and services:

 

Class 33 -

Spirits, Alcoholic mixed beverages except beers, Alcoholic carbonated beverages, except beer, Alcoholic beverages, namely, digestifs, Alcoholic beverages, namely, flavor-infused whiskey, Alcoholic punches, Alcoholic beverages containing fruit, Alcoholic energy drinks, Alcoholic beverages except beers, Alcoholic extracts, Alcoholic bitters, Alcoholic aperitif bitters, Alcoholic cocktails containing milk, Alcoholic ice, Alcoholic essences, Alcoholic cocktail mixes, Alcoholic fruit extracts, Alcoholic fruit cocktail drinks, Alcoholic egg nog, Alcoholic cocktails in the form of frozen pops, Alcoholic cocktails in the form of non-chilled gelatins, Alcoholic cocktails in the form of chilled gelatins, Alcoholic cocktail mixes, Prepared alcoholic cocktail, Alcoholic fruit cocktail drinks, Alcoholic malt coolers, Alcoholic beverage produced from a brewed malt base with natural flavors, Flavored malt-based alcoholic beverages, excluding beers, Alcoholic punch, Alcoholic punches, Baijiu, Hard lemonade, Hard cider, Nira, Pre-mixed alcoholic beverages, other than beer-based, Rum, Rum punch, Rum-based beverages, Rum infused with vitamins, Rum, Vodka, Gin, Tequila, Tequila infused with vitamins, Whiskey, Whiskey, Whiskey spirits, Corn whiskey, Irish whiskey, Sake, Absinthe, Cognac, Alcoholic bitters, Alcoholic aperitif bitters

 

Applicant must correct the punctuation in the identification to clarify the individual items in the list of goods.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01(a).  Proper punctuation in identifications is necessary to delineate explicitly each product or service within a list and to avoid ambiguity.  Commas, semicolons, and apostrophes are the only punctuation that should be used in an identification of goods and/or services.  TMEP §1402.01(a).  An applicant should not use colons, periods, exclamation points, and question marks in an identification.  Id.  In addition, applicants should not use symbols in the identification such as asterisks (*), at symbols (@), or carets.  Id.

 

In general, commas should be used in an identification (1) to separate a series of related items identified within a particular category of goods or services, (2) before and after “namely,” and (3) between each item in a list of goods or services following “namely” (e.g., personal care products, namely, body lotion, bar soap, shampoo).  Id.  Semicolons generally should be used to separate a series of distinct categories of goods or services within an international class (e.g., personal care products, namely, body lotion; deodorizers for pets; glass cleaners).  Id. 

 

Applicant is advised to delete or modify the duplicate entries in the identification of goods in International Class 33 for “alcoholic cocktail mixes,” “alcoholic fruit cocktail drinks,” “alcoholic punches,” “rum,” “whiskey,” “alcoholic bitters,” and “alcoholic aperitif bitters.”  See generally TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.01(a).  If applicant does not respond to this issue, be advised that the USPTO will remove duplicate entries from the identification prior to registration.

 

If modifying one of the duplicate entries, applicant may amend it to clarify or limit the goods, 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.  Also, generally, any deleted goods and/or services may not later be reinserted.  TMEP §1402.07(e).

 

Applicant included the word “TEQUILA” in its identification of goods.  However, this word is a registered mark that is not owned by applicant and must be deleted from the identification and replaced with the common commercial or generic name of these goods, such as “distilled blue agave liquor,” if not already included in the identification.  TMEP §1402.09; see 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6).  See attached information about U.S. Registration No. 5225126. 

 

Proprietary wording, such as a registered term, should not be used in identifications, which should consist of generic everyday wording for the goods.  See TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.09.  A registered mark indicates origin in one particular party and so may not be used to identify goods that originate in a party other than that registrant.  TMEP §1402.09 (citing Camloc Fastener Corp. v. Grant, 119 USPQ 264, 264 n.1 (TTAB 1958)). 

 

The applicant may amend the identification of goods and services to the following, if accurate:

 

Class 33 -

Spirits, Alcoholic mixed beverages except beers, Alcoholic carbonated beverages, except beer, Alcoholic beverages, namely, digestifs, Alcoholic beverages, namely, flavor-infused whiskey, Alcoholic punches, Alcoholic beverages containing fruit, Alcoholic energy drinks, Alcoholic beverages except beers, Alcoholic extracts, Alcoholic bitters, Alcoholic aperitif bitters, Alcoholic cocktails containing milk, Alcoholic ice, Alcoholic essences, Alcoholic cocktail mixes, Alcoholic fruit extracts, Alcoholic fruit cocktail drinks, Alcoholic egg nog, Alcoholic cocktails in the form of frozen pops, Alcoholic cocktails in the form of non-chilled gelatins, Alcoholic cocktails in the form of chilled gelatins, Prepared alcoholic cocktail, Alcoholic malt coolers, Alcoholic beverage produced from a brewed malt base with natural flavors, Flavored malt-based alcoholic beverages, excluding beers, Alcoholic punch, Baijiu, Hard lemonade, Hard cider, Nira, Pre-mixed alcoholic beverages, other than beer-based, Rum, Rum punch, Rum-based beverages, Rum infused with vitamins, Vodka, Gin, Tequila, Tequila infused with vitamins, Whiskey, Whiskey spirits, Corn whiskey, Irish whiskey, Sake, Absinthe, Cognac,

 

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 and/or services or add goods and/or services 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 and/or services 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 and/or services will further limit scope, and once goods and/or services are deleted, they are not permitted to be reinserted.  TMEP §1402.07(e).

 

ADVISORY – ENTIRE MARK MAY NOT BE DISCLAIMED

 

Applicant has disclaimed the entire applied-for mark; however, an entire mark may not be disclaimed.  TMEP §1213.06; see 15 U.S.C. §1056(a); In re Dena Corp. v. Belvedere Int’l Inc., 950 F.2d 1555, 1560, 21 USPQ2d 1047, 1051 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re JT Tobacconists, 59 USPQ2d 1080, 1081 n.1 (TTAB 2001).  If the applied-for mark is not registrable as a whole, a disclaimer will not make it registrable.  TMEP §1213.06.  Accordingly, the disclaimer is not accepted and will not be entered into the USPTO’s database.  See TMEP §714.05(a). 

 

RESPONSE GUIDELINES

 

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 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.  

 

 

 

/Mark S. Tratos/

Mark S. Tratos

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 113

(571) 270-3575

Mark.Tratos@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 6/27/2019 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 88390500

 

Your trademark application has been reviewed.  The trademark examining attorney assigned by the USPTO to your application has written an official letter to which you must respond.  Please follow these steps:

 

(1)  Read the LETTER by clicking on this link or going to http://tsdr.gov.uspto.report/, entering your U.S. application serial number, and clicking 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)  Respond within 6 months (or sooner if specified in the Office action), calculated from 6/27/2019, using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) response form located at http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp.  A response transmitted through TEAS must be received before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period.

 

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. 

 

(3)  Questions about the contents of the Office action itself should be directed to the trademark examining attorney who reviewed your application, identified below. 

 

/Mark S. Tratos/

Mark S. Tratos

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 113

(571) 270-3575

Mark.Tratos@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.