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:  July 22, 2019

 

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.

 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES TO WHICH APPLICANT MUST RESPOND:

 

• Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion
• Advisory – Prior-Filed Pending Application
• Specimen Refusal
• Amended Identification of Goods Required
• Mark Description Required

 

SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 1426427, 3720149, 5109834, and 5109835.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registrations.

 

Note: Registration Nos. 3720149, 5109834, and 5109835 are owned by the same Registrant.

 

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 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 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 and services and differences in the marks.”); TMEP §1207.01.

 

Comparison of the Marks

 

Applicant's mark is AEON.

 

Registrant's marks are all AION.

 

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).

 

When comparing marks, “[t]he proper test is not a side-by-side comparison of the marks, but instead whether the marks are sufficiently similar in terms of their commercial impression such that [consumers] who encounter the marks would be likely to assume a connection between the parties.”  Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., __ F.3d __, 127 USPQ2d 1797, 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1368, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(b).  The proper focus is on the recollection of the average purchaser, who retains a general rather than specific impression of trademarks.  In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1746 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re St. Helena Hosp., 774 F.3d 747, 750-51, 113 USPQ2d 1082, 1085 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Geigy Chem. Corp. v. Atlas Chem. Indus., Inc., 438 F.2d 1005, 1007, 169 USPQ 39, 40 (CCPA 1971)); TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

Here, Applicant's mark "AEON" is highly similar to Registrants' marks "AION" because they are phonetic equivalents. Thus, the marks are similar in appearance and identical in sound so as to evoke the same overall commercial impression.

 

There is no correct pronunciation of a mark because it is impossible to predict how the public will pronounce a particular mark.  See Embarcadero Techs., Inc. v. RStudio, Inc., 105 USPQ2d 1825, 1835 (TTAB 2013) (quoting In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1367, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1912 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re The Belgrade Shoe Co., 411 F.2d 1352, 1353, 162 USPQ 227, 227 (C.C.P.A. 1969)); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iv).  The marks in question could clearly be pronounced the same, as demonstrated by the attached Internet evidence; such similarity in sound alone may be sufficient to support a finding that the marks are confusingly similar.  In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB 1988); see In re 1st USA Realty Prof’ls, Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1581, 1586 (TTAB 2007); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iv).

 

The stylization and design in Applicant's mark fail to obviate this refusal. A mark in typed or standard characters may be displayed in any lettering style; the rights reside in the wording or other literal element and not in any particular display or rendition.  See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1363, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1909 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 1348, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010); 37 C.F.R. §2.52(a); TMEP §1207.01(c)(iii).  Thus, a mark presented in stylized characters and/or with a design element generally will not avoid likelihood of confusion with a mark in typed or standard characters because the word portion could be presented in the same manner of display.  See, e.g., In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d at 1363, 101 USPQ2d at 1909; Squirtco v. Tomy Corp., 697 F.2d 1038, 1041, 216 USPQ 937, 939 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (stating that “the argument concerning a difference in type style is not viable where one party asserts rights in no particular display”).

 

For the reasons set forth more fully above, the compared marks are confusingly similar.

 

Comparison of the Goods and Services

 

Applicant's goods and services are Downloadable software in the nature of a mobile application for integration with entertainment experiences; Custom design and development of computer software and hardware for entertainment experiences.

 

The goods in Registration No. 1426427 are computer programs excluding computer game or video game programs.

 

The goods in Registration No. 3720149 are Computer game software; Interactive multimedia computer game programs; Interactive video game programs; Computer software for facilitating access to electronic and optical communications networks for video games; Computer game equipment containing memory devices, namely, discs; Computer game control apparatuses; Video game software; and motion picture films featuring animated cartoons.

 

The goods in Registration No. 5109834 are Computer and video game software; computer software enabling users of communication devices to simultaneously access databases and global computer networks; computer game software downloadable from a global computer network; virtual reality game software; electronic game software for handheld and wireless electronic devices; computer communications software for connecting computer network users; computer and video game software for use on connectable systems for individual, peer-to peer, online and multiplayer play; computer programs for use in tracking the status of various users online interactive gaming services, and for matching online game players with players of all skill levels; downloadable computer software for mobile phones, tablets and other electronic mobile devices in the field of social media for the creation and exchange of user-generated content; downloadable mobile applications for gaming to allow users to play games on social media platforms; computer game software enabling users to play games with mobile phones, tablets and virtual reality devices; downloadable electronic music files; CD-ROMs and read-only memory cards featuring computer games; downloadable electronic publications in the nature of magazines in the field of computer and video games; downloadable game character images; Computer software for browsing and accessing digital content, computer software, computer games and music; Computer software for transmission and display of digital content, computer games, audio works, visual works, electronic publications, and music.

 

The services in Registration No. 5109835 are Designing and developing computer game software, virtual reality software and video game software for use with computers, video game program systems and computer networks; development of data processing software; providing web site development for others; hosting and maintaining an online website for others to provide information and manage data, hosting and maintaining an online website for others to provide information and manage data, to upload, exchange and share content, videos and video logs, to create an online community to engage in social networking and form virtual communities; web page design; design, development and implementation of computer software; computer services, namely, creating an on-line community for registered users to participate in competitions, showcase skills, get feedback from their peers, form virtual communities, engage in social networking and improve talents; non-downloadable computer programs for providing internet security; Programming of multimedia applications and equipment; Management service of computer software, namely, maintenance and updating of computer software; Rental of web servers; Data conversion of computer programs and data, not physical conversion; Updating of computer software; Providing a secured-access, members only website featuring technology that gives members the ability to access a database featuring information regarding computer games; video game development services; video game programming development services.

 

The goods and 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 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 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).

 

Determining likelihood of confusion is based on the description of the goods and 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, both the application and the registrations use broad wording to describe the goods and services, which presumably encompasses all goods and services of the type described. Specifically:

 

• The goods in Registration No. 1426427 are broadly stated as "computer programs excluding computer game or video game programs", which encompasses Applicant's more narrow "downloadable software in the nature of a mobile application for integration with entertainment experiences". When the cited Registrant’s software is identified broadly without restriction or limitation as to the purpose or function, the software is presumed to encompass all goods of that type, including the same type of software as Applicant.  See In re Solid State Design Inc., 125 USPQ2d 1409, 1412-15 (TTAB 2018); In re N.A.D., Inc., 57 USPQ2d 1872, 1874 (TTAB 2000); TMEP §1207.01(a)(iii).

 

• Applicant's "downloadable software in the nature of a mobile application for integration with entertainment experiences" may refer to either of Registrants' "computer programs excluding computer game or video game programs" and/or "computer game software". The broadly stated "entertainment experiences" could refer to games, which are a type of "entertainment". See http://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=game (defines a "game" as "an activity providing entertainment or amusement").

 

• The services in Registration No. 5109835 are broadly stated as "design, development and implementation of computer software", which encompasses "design, development and implementation" of all kinds of computer software, including Applicant's "computer software for entertainment experiences".

 

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 goods and services are legally identical in part to each of the Registrants'.  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)).

 

Additionally, the goods and services 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)). 

 

Moreover, to the extent the evidence may not address all of the items in Applicant’s identification, relatedness does not have to be established for every product and service.  It is sufficient for a finding of likelihood of confusion if relatedness is established for any or some items encompassed by the identification within a particular class in an application. Tuxedo Monopoly, Inc. v. General Mills Fun Group, 648 F.2d 1335, 209 USPQ 986, 988 (CCPA 1981).  In this case, relatedness has been established for many of the identified goods and services, which is enough to show a likelihood of confusion.

 

Therefore, Applicant’s and Registrants' goods and services are considered related for likelihood of confusion purposes. 

 

Conclusion

 

For the foregoing reasons, registration of the applied-for mark is refused pursuant to Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.

 

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

 

ADVISORY – PRIOR-FILED PENDING APPLICATION

 

The filing date of pending U.S. Application Serial No. 88070095 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.

 

Applicant should note the following additional ground for refusal.

 

SPECIMEN REFUSAL

 

The stated refusal applies to the entire application, but on different grounds in Class 9 and Class 42.

 

Class 9

 

Registration is refused because the specimen in International Class 9 is not acceptable as a display associated with downloadable software and appears to be mere advertising material; thus, the specimen fails to show the applied-for mark in use in commerce for that international class.  Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a).  Specifically, the specimen fails to create an association between the mark and the software and fails to provide the means to enable the user to download or purchase the software from the website.  See In re Sones, 590 F.3d 1282, 1286-89, 93 USPQ2d 1118, 1122-24 (Fed. Cir. 2009); In re Azteca Sys., Inc., 102 USPQ2d 1955, 1957 (TTAB 2012); TMEP §§904.03(e), (i) et seq.  Without these features, the specimen is mere advertising material, which is not acceptable as a specimen to show use in commerce for goods.  See In re Kohr Bros., 121 USPQ2d 1793, 1794 (TTAB 2017) (quoting In re Quantum Foods, Inc., 94 USPQ2d 1375, 1379 (TTAB 2010)); In re Genitope Corp., 78 USPQ2d 1819, 1822 (TTAB 2006); TMEP §904.04(b), (c).

 

An application based on Trademark Act Section 1(a) must include a specimen showing the applied-for mark in use in commerce for each international class of goods identified in the application.  15 U.S.C. §1051(a)(1); 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a). 

 

Examples of specimens for downloadable software include instruction manuals and screen printouts from (1) web pages showing the mark in connection with ordering or purchasing information or information sufficient to download the software, (2) the actual program that shows the mark in the title bar, or (3) launch screens that show the mark in an introductory message box that appears after opening the program.  See TMEP §904.03(e), (i), (j).  Webpages may also be specimens for goods when they include a picture or textual description of the goods associated with the mark and the means to order the goods.  See In re Sones, 590 F.3d at 1286-89, 93 USPQ2d at 1122-24; In re Azteca Sys., Inc., 102 USPQ2d at 1957; TMEP §§904.03(i) et seq.

 

Applicant may respond to this refusal by satisfying one of the following for each applicable international class:

 

(1)       Submit a different specimen (a verified “substitute” specimen) that (a) was in actual use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application and (b) shows the mark in actual use in commerce for the software identified in the application.  A “verified substitute specimen” is a specimen that is accompanied by the following statement made in a signed affidavit or supported by a declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20:  “The substitute (or new, or originally submitted, if appropriate) specimen(s) was/were in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application or prior to the filing of the amendment to allege use.”  The substitute specimen cannot be accepted without this statement.

 

(2)       Amend the filing basis to intent to use under Section 1(b), for which no specimen is required.  This option will later necessitate additional fees and filing requirements such as providing a specimen.

 

For an overview of both response options referenced above and instructions on how to satisfy either option online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, please go to the Specimen webpage.  

 

Class 42

 

Registration is further refused because the specimen in International Class 42 does not show a direct association between the applied-for mark and the identified services; thus the specimen fails to show the applied-for mark in use in commerce.  Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a), 1301.04(f)(ii), (g)(i). 

 

Specimens consisting of advertising or promotional materials must show a direct association between the mark and the services for which registration is sought.  In re WAY Media, Inc., 118 USPQ2d 1697, 1698 (TTAB 2016) (quoting In re Universal Oil Prods. Co., 476 F.2d 653, 655, 177 USPQ 456, 457 (C.C.P.A. 1973)); TMEP §1301.04(f)(ii).  To show this direct association, the specimen must contain an explicit reference to the services, in addition to the mark being used on the specimen to identify the service and its source.  In re WAY Media, Inc., 118 USPQ2d at 1698 (quoting In re Osmotica Holdings, Corp., 95 USPQ2d 1666, 1668 (TTAB 2010)); TMEP §1301.04(f)(ii).  While the exact nature of the services does not need to be specified in the specimen, there must be something which creates in the mind of the purchaser an association between the mark and the service.  In re Adair, 45 USPQ2d 1211, 1215 (TTAB 1997) (quoting In re Johnson Controls Inc., 33 USPQ2d 1318, 1320 (TTAB 1994)). 

 

In the present case, the specimen shows screen shots from Applicant's website advertising "AEON" as "interactive entertainment, forging the next dimension of guest engagement and emersion" and refers to a "networked interactive overlay for immersive venues". Although the website advertising indicates that "AEON" is "an adaptable product solution", this is insufficient to demonstrate that Applicant provides "custom design and development of computer software and hardware for entertainment experiences" for others as stated in the application. Based on the specimen of record, there is nothing to create in the mind of the purchaser an association between the mark and the applied-for services. Accordingly, as the specimen merely refers to computer software and hardware for entertainment experiences, but not custom design and development of same for third parties, registration must be refused at this time.

 

An application based on Trademark Act Section 1(a) must include a specimen showing the applied-for mark in use in commerce for each international class of services identified in the application.  15 U.S.C. §1051(a)(1); 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a).

 

Examples of specimens for services include advertising and marketing materials, brochures, photographs of business signage and billboards, and webpages that show the mark used in the actual sale, rendering, or advertising of the services.  See TMEP §1301.04(a), (h)(iv)(C).  And, as stated above, specimens comprising advertising or promotional materials must show a direct association between the mark and the services.  In re WAY Media, Inc., 118 USPQ2d at 1698 (quoting In re Universal Oil Prods. Co., 476 F.2d at 655, 177 USPQ at 457); TMEP §1301.04(f)(ii).

 

Applicant may respond to this refusal by satisfying one of the following for each applicable international class:

 

(1)       Submit a different specimen (a verified “substitute” specimen) that (a) was in actual use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application and (b) shows the mark in actual use in commerce for the services identified in the application.  A “verified substitute specimen” is a specimen that is accompanied by the following statement made in a signed affidavit or supported by a declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20:  “The substitute (or new, or originally submitted, if appropriate) specimen(s) was/were in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application or prior to the filing of the amendment to allege use.”  The substitute specimen cannot be accepted without this statement.

 

(2)       Amend the filing basis to intent to use under Section 1(b), for which no specimen is required.  This option will later necessitate additional fees and filing requirements such as providing a specimen.

 

For an overview of both response options referenced above and instructions on how to satisfy either option online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, please go to http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/law/specimen.jsp.

 

REQUIREMENTS

 

If Applicant responds to the refusals, Applicant must also respond to the requirements set forth below.

 

Amended Identification of Goods Required

 

The stated requirement pertains only to Class 9 and does not apply to Class 42.

 

The identification of goods in Class 9 is indefinite and must be clarified because the function of the software programs is not clear.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.  The USPTO requires specificity in identifying computer software in order for a Trademark Examining Attorney to examine the application properly and make appropriate decisions concerning possible conflicts between the Applicant’s mark and other marks.  See In re N.A.D. Inc., 57 USPQ2d 1872, 1874 (TTAB 2000); TMEP §1402.03(d).

 

Applicant may adopt the following identification, if accurate: 

 

Class 9 – Downloadable software in the nature of a mobile application for integration with entertainment experiences, namely, for allowing visitors of entertainment venues and themed entertainment attractions to create personalized profiles and play games, participate in activities at the venue or attraction, and earn rewards

 

Scope Advisory

 

Applicant may amend the identification to clarify or limit the goods and services, but not to broaden or expand the goods and services beyond those in the original application or as acceptably amended.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06.  Generally, any deleted goods and services may not later be reinserted.  See TMEP §1402.07(e).

 

ID Manual Online

 

For assistance with identifying and classifying goods and services in trademark applications, please see the USPTO’s online searchable U.S. Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual.  See TMEP §1402.04.

 

Mark Description Required

 

Applicant must submit a description of the mark, because one was not included in the application.  37 C.F.R. §2.37; see TMEP §§808.01, 808.02.  Applications for marks not in standard characters must include an accurate and concise description of the entire mark that identifies all the literal and design elements.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.37; TMEP §§808.01, 808.02, 808.03(b).  In this case, the drawing of the mark is not in standard characters.

 

The following description is suggested, if accurate:  The mark consists of the stylized wording "AEON" to the right of a stylized design of an infinity symbol.

 

RESPONSE GUIDELINES

 

For this application to proceed, Applicant must explicitly address each refusal and 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.

 

ASSISTANCE

 

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 refusals and requirements 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.  

 

How to respond.  Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action  

 

/Samantha Sherman/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 123

(571) 270-0903

Samantha.Sherman@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 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 July 22, 2019 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88411362

 

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. 

 

 

Sherman, Samantha

/Samantha Sherman/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 123

(571) 270-0903

Samantha.Sherman@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 July 22, 2019, 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.”