United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
|
U.S. Application Serial No. 88400290
Mark: SOCIAL
|
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
|
Applicant: Sentia Wellness Inc.
|
|
|
Reference/Docket No. N/A
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
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.
SECTION 2(D) – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION REFUSAL – INTERNATIONAL CLASSES 5 AND 32
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. 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.
The applicant’s mark is “SOCIAL CBD” (plus design and letter “S”) and covers “Hemp oil containing CBD derived from hemp; herbal tinctures for medical purposes; hemp extracts; dietary and nutritional supplements containing hemp oil; medicated lotions for skin, face, hands, and body; herbal topical creams, salves, and ointments for the relief of aches and pain, all of the foregoing containing hemp oil; natural supplements for treating anxiety; supplements for treating anxiety in the form of oral sprays, mints, and dissolvable strips; oral sprays, mints, and dissolvable strips containing CBD derived from hemp; natural remedy preparations for the treatment of anxiety” in International Class 5 and “Dissolving or effervescent tablets used to make drinks; concentrates, syrups, or powders used in the preparation of drinks; water-soluble pills, tablets, and powders; all of the foregoing containing CBD derived from hemp; preparations for making sports drinks and energy drinks” in International Class 32. The registrants’ marks are “SOCIAL” (5032876) and covers “Dietary and nutritional supplements; dietary supplemental drinks in the nature of vitamin and mineral beverages; nutritionally fortified beverages; vitamin fortified beverages” in Class 5, “SOCIAL” (5032875) and covers “Dietary supplemental drinks in the nature of vitamin and mineral beverages; nutritionally fortified beverages; vitamin fortified beverages” in Class 5, and “SOCIAL” (5613705) and covers “bottled water; flavored bottle water; beer; beer based cocktails” in Class 32.
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)), aff’d per curiam, 777 F. App’x 516, 2019 BL 343921 (Fed. Cir. 2019); TMEP §1207.01(b).
Here, the marks of all three parties share the identical term “SOCIAL,” with the applicant adding the generic term “CBD” to its mark and a design of the letter “S,” which does not significantly alter the commercial impression of the mark nor does it obviate the similarity between it and the registered marks. 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 Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1305, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re Dixie Rests., 105 F.3d 1405, 1407, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533-34 (Fed. Cir. 1997)); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii). Matter that is descriptive of or generic for a party’s goods and/or services is typically less significant or less dominant in relation to other wording in a mark. See Anheuser-Busch, LLC v. Innvopak Sys. Pty Ltd., 115 USPQ2d 1816, 1824-25 (TTAB 2015) (citing In re Chatam Int’l Inc., 380 F.3d 1340, 1342-43, 71 USPQ2d 1944, 1946 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).
In the present case, the attached evidence shows that the wording “CBD” in the applied-for mark is merely descriptive of or generic for applicant’s goods. Thus, this wording is less significant in terms of affecting the mark’s commercial impression, and renders the wording “SOCIAL” the more dominant element of the mark.
Similarity of the Goods
Here, applicant’s goods, namely, “Hemp oil containing CBD derived from hemp; herbal tinctures for medical purposes; hemp extracts; dietary and nutritional supplements containing hemp oil; medicated lotions for skin, face, hands, and body; herbal topical creams, salves, and ointments for the relief of aches and pain, all of the foregoing containing hemp oil; natural supplements for treating anxiety; supplements for treating anxiety in the form of oral sprays, mints, and dissolvable strips; oral sprays, mints, and dissolvable strips containing CBD derived from hemp; natural remedy preparations for the treatment of anxiety” in International Class 5 and “Dissolving or effervescent tablets used to make drinks; concentrates, syrups, or powders used in the preparation of drinks; water-soluble pills, tablets, and powders; all of the foregoing containing CBD derived from hemp; preparations for making sports drinks and energy drinks” in International Class 32 are highly related to the registrants’ goods, namely, (5032876) “Dietary and nutritional supplements; dietary supplemental drinks in the nature of vitamin and mineral beverages; nutritionally fortified beverages; vitamin fortified beverages” in Class 5, (5032875) “Dietary supplemental drinks in the nature of vitamin and mineral beverages; nutritionally fortified beverages; vitamin fortified beverages” in Class 5, and (5613705) “bottled water; flavored bottle water; beer; beer based cocktails” in Class 32. More specifically, the Applicant’s Class 5 goods include dietary and nutritional supplements, like those in the registrations for 5032876 and 5032875, and the Applicant’s other Class 5 goods are generally related to dietary and nutritional supplements, such that they travel in the same channels of trade to the same consumers, making confusion as to source likely. The Applicant’s Class 32 goods are related to the goods in 5613705 because the Applicant’s Class 32 goods are for making the types of drinks that the Registrant is making in 5613705 and are thus related, travelling in the same channels of trade to the same consumers, making confusion as to source likely.
For the aforementioned reasons, registration is refused pursuant to Trademark Act Section 2(d).
Applicant should note the following additional grounds for refusal.
CBD-related Goods – Based on Evidence - No Bona Fide Intent to Lawfully Use in Commerce as of Filing Date – INTERNATIONAL CLASSES 3, 5 (“herbal tinctures for medical purposes; natural supplements for treating anxiety; supplements for treating anxiety in the form of oral sprays, mints, and dissolvable strips; natural remedy preparations for the treatment of anxiety”), 30, AND 32 (“preparations for making sports drinks and energy drinks”)
Registration is refused for the goods in International Classes 4, 5 (“herbal tinctures for medical purposes; natural supplements for treating anxiety; supplements for treating anxiety in the form of oral sprays, mints, and dissolvable strips; natural remedy preparations for the treatment of anxiety”), 30, and 32 (“preparations for making sports drinks and energy drinks”) 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 CLASSES 5 (“HEMP OIL CONTAINING CBD DERIVED FROM HEMP; HEMP EXTRACTS; DIETARY AND NUTRITIONAL SUPPLEMENTS CONTAINING HEMP OIL; MEDICATED LOTIONS FOR SKIN, FACE, HANDS, AND BODY; HERBAL TOPICAL CREAMS, SALVES, AND OINTMENTS FOR THE RELIEF OF ACHES AND PAIN, ALL OF THE FOREGOING CONTAINING HEMP OIL; ORAL SPRAYS, MINTS, AND DISSOLVABLE STRIPS CONTAINING CBD DERIVED FROM HEMP), 9, 18, 21, 25, 32 (“Dissolving or effervescent tablets used to make drinks; concentrates, syrups, or powders used in the preparation of drinks; water-soluble pills, tablets, and powders; all of the foregoing containing CBD derived from hemp”), OR 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 and/or services 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 are applied were unlawful under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 U.S.C. §§801-971. The evidence of record indicates that at least some of the items to which the proposed mark may be applied are unlawful under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 U.S.C. §§801-971.
As evidenced by the term “CBD” in the applied-for mark, and the term “CBD” in some of the applied-for goods, goods within the scope of the identification bearing the mark contain cannabidiol. 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). 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 filing basis for any such items or activities. To the extent the applicant’s goods are 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 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 – CBD DIETARY/NUTRITIONAL SUPPLEMENT/MEDICINAL/BEVERAGE/FOOD GOODS – FDCA – SECTION 1(B) – INTERNATIONAL CLASSES 5, 30, AND 32
Registration is also refused for the goods in International Classes 5, 30, and 32 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 IN INTERNATIONAL CLASSES 3, 9, 18, 21, 25, OR 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 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.
Applicant’s goods are broad enough to encompass products that consist of, or include, items that are or were prohibited by the FDCA, namely, dietary and nutritional supplements, medicinal products, food, and beverages that contain CBD.
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 and/or the identified services. 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.
IDENTIFICATION AND CLASSIFICATION OF GOODS
International Class 5
- Hemp oil containing CBD derived from hempàapplicant must clarify that this is “medicated” to be in Class 5
- hemp extractsàapplicant must clarify the purpose of the goods in Class 5, e.g., “for use as a dietary supplement”
- herbal topical creams, salves, and ointments for the relief of aches and pain, all of the foregoing containing hemp oilàapplicant must clarify that this is “medicated” to be in Class 5
- supplements for treating anxiety in the form of oral sprays, mints, and dissolvable stripsàapplicant must clarify the type of “supplements” in Class 5, e.g., “natural supplements”
- oral sprays, mints, and dissolvable strips containing CBD derived from hempàapplicant must clarify that this is “medicated” to be in Class 5
International Class 9
o Identifications of goods should generally be comprised of generic everyday wording for the goods, and exclude proprietary or potentially-proprietary wording. See TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.09. A registered mark indicates origin in one particular party and so may not be used to identify goods or services that originate in a party other than that registrant. TMEP §1402.09 (citing Camloc Fastener Corp. v. Grant, 119 USPQ at 264 n.1). Applicant may replace such wording with the following, if appropriate: “cell phone grip holder.”
International Class 18
- Bagsàapplicant must clarify the type of “bags,” e.g,. “all-purpose carrying bags”
International Class 32
- Dissolving or effervescent tablets used to make drinksàapplicant must specify type of beverages being made, e.g., “sports beverages,” “fruit-based beverages”
- concentrates, syrups, or powders used in the preparation of drinksàapplicant must specify type of beverages being made, e.g., “sports beverages,” “fruit-based beverages”
- water-soluble pills, tablets, and powdersàapplicant must specify type of beverages being made, e.g., “sports beverages,” “fruit-based beverages”
- preparations for making sports drinks and energy drinksàapplicant must specify type of preparations, e.g., concentrates, syrups, and powders
International Class 34
- Disposable vaporizer pen with hemp oil containing CBD derived from hempàapplicant must clarify that this is an electronic oral vaporizer for smoking in Class 34
In addition, the suggested language 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: Massage oils and creams; non-medicated bath preparations, namely bath salts; skin moisturizer masks; nutritional oils for cosmetic purpose; face, body, and hair oils; lip balms; lip cream; eye lotions; body masks; night cream; hair care oils and lotions; nail cream; sun creams; after sun creams; SPF sun block sprays; moisturizers with SPF; sun block; sun-block lotions; dissolvable breath freshening strips; non-medicated breath freshening strips; breath freshening sprays; all of the aforementioned goods containing CBD solely derived from hemp with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol [THC] concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis
International Class 5: Medicinal hemp oil containing CBD derived from hemp; herbal tinctures for medical purposes; hemp extracts for use as a dietary supplement; dietary and nutritional supplements containing hemp oil; medicated lotions for skin, face, hands, and body; medicated herbal topical creams, salves, and ointments for the relief of aches and pain, all of the foregoing containing hemp oil; natural supplements for treating anxiety; natural supplements for treating anxiety in the form of oral sprays, mints, and dissolvable strips; medicated oral sprays, mints, and dissolvable strips containing CBD derived from hemp; natural remedy preparations for the treatment of anxiety; all of the aforementioned goods containing CBD solely derived from hemp with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol [THC] concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis
International Class 9: Eyewear, namely, eyeglasses and sunglasses; eyewear cases; batteries; cell phone cases; carrying cases for cell phones; cell phone battery chargers; phone accessories, namely, cell phone grip holder
International Class 18: All-purpose carrying bags; backpacks; tote bags; duffel bags
International Class 21: Cups; mugs; bottles sold empty; sports bottles sold empty; water bottles sold empty
International Class 25: Headwear, namely, hats, caps, beanies, stocking caps, baseball hats, and visors; clothing, namely, shirts, t-shirts, polo shirts, shorts, hooded sweatshirts, long-sleeve shirts, sweatshirts, tank tops, jackets, pants, tights, leggings, and socks; footwear namely, shoes and sandals; swimwear, namely, men's and women's bathing suits, bikinis, trunks, and shorts
International Class 30: White, milk, and dark chocolates; chocolate truffles; gummy candies; hard candies; jelly candies; candy mints; energy mints; all of the aforementioned goods containing CBD solely derived from hemp with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol [THC] concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis
International Class 32: Dissolving or effervescent tablets used to make drinks, namely, {specify type of drinks in Class 32, e.g., “sports beverages,” “fruit-based beverages”}; concentrates, syrups, or powders used in the preparation of drinks, namely, {specify type of drinks in Class 32, e.g., “sports beverages,” “fruit-based beverages”}; water-soluble pills, tablets, and powders for {applicant must specify what these are for, eg., for use in making beverages, namely, {specify type of drinks in Class 32, e.g., “sports beverages,” “fruit-based beverages”}; all of the foregoing containing CBD derived from hemp; preparations for making sports drinks and energy drinks, namely, {specify type of preparations, e.g., concentrates, syrups, and powders} containing CBD derived from hemp
International Class 34: Disposable electronic oral vaporizer pen for smoking with hemp oil containing CBD derived from hemp
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.
If applicant does not timely respond to this Office action, the following goods/classes will be deleted from the application: International Class 3, Class 5, “phone accessories, namely, pop sockets” in Class 9, “bags” in Class 18, Class 30, Class 32, and Class 34. See 37 C.F.R. §2.65(a); TMEP §718.02(a).
In such case, the application will then proceed with the following goods/class only: “Eyewear, namely, eyeglasses and sunglasses; eyewear cases; batteries; cell phone cases; carrying cases for cell phones; cell phone battery chargers” in International Class 9, “backpacks; tote bags; duffel bags” in International Class 18, International Class 21, and International Class 25. See TMEP §718.02(a).
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.
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.
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
