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 23, 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:

• Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion
• Prior-Filed Applications
• Clear Drawing Required
• Clarification of Identification of Goods and Services – Partial Requirement
• Disclaimer Required
• Amended 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. 5191548, 5296650, and 5317372.  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 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 [or services] and differences in the marks.”); TMEP §1207.01.

 

Similarity of the Marks

 

Applicant’s mark is LYFE A SYNCHRONY SOLUTION.  Registrant’s marks are SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL, SYNCHRONY, and S SYNCHRONY BANK.  These marks are similar.

 

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).

 

With respect to Registration No. 5296650, the applied-for mark contains the registered mark in its entirety with identical spelling and pronunciation.  Incorporating the entirety of one mark within another does not obviate the similarity between the compared marks, as in the present case, nor does it overcome a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d).  See Wella Corp. v. Cal. Concept Corp., 558 F.2d 1019, 1022, 194 USPQ 419, 422 (C.C.P.A. 1977) (finding CALIFORNIA CONCEPT and surfer design and CONCEPT confusingly similar); Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Jos. E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 526 F.2d 556, 557, 188 USPQ 105, 106 (C.C.P.A. 1975) (finding BENGAL LANCER and design and BENGAL confusingly similar); In re Integrated Embedded, 120 USPQ2d 1504, 1513 (TTAB 2016) (finding BARR GROUP and BARR confusingly similar); In re Mr. Recipe, LLC, 118 USPQ2d 1084, 1090 (TTAB 2016) (finding JAWS DEVOUR YOUR HUNGER and JAWS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iii).  \

 

Adding a term to a registered mark generally does not obviate the similarity between the compared marks, as in the present case, nor does it overcome a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d).  See Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Jos. E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 526 F.2d 556, 557, 188 USPQ 105, 106 (C.C.P.A. 1975) (finding BENGAL and BENGAL LANCER and design confusingly similar); In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d 1266, 1269 (TTAB 2009) (finding TITAN and VANTAGE TITAN confusingly similar); In re El Torito Rests., Inc., 9 USPQ2d 2002, 2004 (TTAB 1988) (finding MACHO and MACHO COMBOS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iii).  In the present case, the marks are identical in part.

 

With respect to all three registrations, the marks are similar in sound, appearance, and meaning because they contain similar terms.  Marks may be confusingly similar in appearance where similar terms or phrases or similar parts of terms or phrases appear in the compared marks and create a similar overall commercial impression.  See Crocker Nat’l Bank v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 228 USPQ 689, 690-91 (TTAB 1986), aff’d sub nom. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 811 F.2d 1490, 1495, 1 USPQ2d 1813, 1817 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (finding COMMCASH and COMMUNICASH confusingly similar); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65, 66 (TTAB 1985) (finding CONFIRM and CONFIRMCELLS confusingly similar); In re Pellerin Milnor Corp., 221 USPQ 558, 560 (TTAB 1983) (finding MILTRON and MILLTRONICS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii).

 

Further, where the goods and services of an applicant and registrant are “similar in kind and/or closely related,” the degree of similarity between the marks required to support a finding of likelihood of confusion is not as great as in the case of diverse goods and services.  In re J.M. Originals Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1393, 1394 (TTAB 1987); see Shen Mfg. Co. v. Ritz Hotel Ltd., 393 F.3d 1238, 1242, 73 USPQ2d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2004); TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

Since the marks are similar in sound, appearance, and meaning, they convey similar overall commercial impressions.  Thus, the marks are similar for likelihood of confusion purposes.

 

Similarity or Relatedness of the Goods and Services 

 

Applicant’s goods and services are “Downloadable computer application software for enabling processing of electronic funds transfers and payments made via credit card, debit card, electronic check and electronic, mobile, and online payments; downloadable computer application software for processing payment transactions; downloadable computer application software that provides customized financing options based on user information, preferences, and purchases; downloadable computer application software that disseminates advertising and promotional matter for goods and services of others based on user information, preferences, and purchases; downloadable computer application software that allows users to participate in discussions related to promotional offers and customized financing options; magnetically encoded private label credit cards and general purpose credit cards; downloadable computer software, namely, a plug-in for mobile applications that provides access to credit services; Electronic credit card transaction processing services; point of sale and point of transaction services, namely, payment transaction and account authorization services; facilitating credit services through electronic means and mobile devices, namely, processing payments and authorizations, and account management services; promotional financing for purchases including through installment loans; financial services, namely, credit and loan services; financial loan consultation; providing financial information in the fields of finance and loans; mobile banking services; financial services, namely, processing of credit card payments and issuing credit cards, including private label credit cards and credit cards that serve as both private label credit cards and general purpose credit cards; electronic credit card transaction processing services; Point of Sale and Point of Transaction services, namely, credit application processing in the nature of evaluating credit worthiness of companies and private individuals and issuing credit cards, payment transaction processing services and credit card authorization services; facilitating credit services through electronic means and mobile devices, namely, processing of credit card applications in the nature of evaluating credit worthiness of companies and private individuals, credit card authorization services, credit card payment services and financial account management services; promotional financing services for purchases including through the use of private label, multipurpose and general purpose credit cards; providing services for processing credit card transactions for merchants, namely, processing of credit card applications in the nature of evaluating credit worthiness of companies and private individuals, credit card authorization services, credit card payment services and financial account management services; Providing temporary use of online, non-downloadable software for enabling processing of electronic funds transfers and payments made via credit card, debit card, electronic check, and electronic, mobile, and online payments; providing temporary use of online, non-downloadable software for processing payment transactions; providing temporary use of online, non-downloadable software that provides customized recommendations and financing options based on user information, preferences, and purchases; providing temporary use of online, non-downloadable software that disseminates advertising and promotional matter for goods and services of others based on user information, preferences, and purchases; computer services, namely, hosting mobile platforms and an interactive website for users to participate in discussions related to promotional offers and customized financing options.”

 

Registrant’s services are “Magnetically encoded private label credit cards and general purpose credit cards; Financial services, namely, credit card services, including private label credit cards and dual credit cards that serve as both private label credit cards and general purpose credit cards; Electronic credit card transaction services; Point of sale and point of transaction services, namely, credit application processing, payment transaction and account authorization services; Facilitating credit services through electronic means and mobile devices, namely, processing of credit card applications, authorizations, payments and account management services; Credit card and multi-tender loyalty programs, namely, programs that allow businesses to offer payments and/or rewards to customers; Promotional financing for purchases including through the use of private label, dual and general purpose credit cards and installment loans; Line of credit loans; Banking services, including retail and consumer deposit account services, certificates of deposit, money market accounts, direct and mobile banking services, savings accounts and brokered deposits, IRAs, small business deposit accounts, checking, overdraft protection, debit, credit and ATM cards and offers of preferred pricing to certain defined groups; Providing financial information and financial data analysis services regarding credit card and merchant customer performance; Financing for elective healthcare procedures or services, such as dental, veterinary, cosmetic, vision and audiology procedures or services; Providing services for processing credit card transactions for merchants.”

 

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)).  

 

The application and registrations contain the identical wording “magnetically encoded private label credit cards and general purpose credit cards” so these goods are related.  Additionally, the application uses broad wording to describe banking and payment services, which presumably encompasses all services of the type described, including registrant’s narrower banking and payment services.  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 and services 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)).

 

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)). 

 

Further, the attached Internet evidence from capitalone.com, bankofamerica.com, citi.com, and apple.com establishes that the same entity commonly produces and provides the relevant goods and services and markets the goods and services under the same mark.  Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods and services are considered related for likelihood of confusion purposes.  See, e.g., In re Davey Prods. Pty Ltd., 92 USPQ2d 1198, 1202-04 (TTAB 2009); In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d 1266, 1268-69, 1271-72 (TTAB 2009).

 

Conclusion

 

Given that the applied-for mark is confusingly similar to the registrant’s marks in sound and appearance and that applicant’s goods and services are related to registrant’s goods and services, applicant is rightly refused registration under Section 2(d) for a likelihood of confusion.

 

It is important to note that any doubt regarding a likelihood of confusion determination is resolved in favor of the registrant.  TMEP §1207.01(d)(i); see Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1265, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2002); In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 464-65, 6 USPQ2d 1025, 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1988).  This is because the overriding concern is not only to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods and services, but to protect the registrant from adverse commercial impact due to use of a similar mark by a newcomer.  See In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1208, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1690 (Fed. Cir. 1993).

 

PRIOR-FILED APPLICATIONS

 

The filing dates of pending U.S. Application Serial Nos. 88333818, 87304505, 87304493, 87304464, 87139557, 87304541, 87304540, 87304525, 87304483, 87304474, 87693194, 87693134, 87608715, and 87139560 precede applicant’s filing date.  See attached referenced applications.  If one or more of the marks in the referenced applications register, applicant’s mark may be refused registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d) because of a likelihood of confusion with the registered mark(s).  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 applications.

 

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 marks in the referenced applications.  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.

 

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

 

CLEAR DRAWING REQUIRED

 

The drawing is not acceptable because it will not create a high quality image when reproduced.  See TMEP §807.04(a).  Specifically, the drawing is pixelated and blurry.  A clear drawing of the mark is an application requirement.  37 C.F.R. §2.52. 

 

Therefore, applicant must submit a new drawing showing a clear depiction of the mark.  All lines must be clean, sharp and solid, and not fine or crowded.  37 C.F.R. §§2.53(c), 2.54(e); TMEP §§807.05(c), 807.06(a).  Additionally, the USPTO will not accept a new drawing in which there are amendments or changes that would materially alter the applied-for mark.  37 C.F.R. §2.72; see TMEP §§807.13 et seq., 807.14 et seq.

 

For more information about drawings and instructions on how to submit a drawing, see the Drawing webpage.

 

CLARIFICATION OF IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS AND SERVICES – PARTIAL REQUIREMENT

 

THIS PARTIAL REQUIREMENT APPLIES ONLY TO THE SERVICES SPECIFIED THEREIN

 

Applicant is advised to delete or modify the duplicate entry in the identification of services in International Class 36 for “Electronic credit card transaction processing services.”  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 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.  Also, generally, any deleted goods and services may not later be reinserted.  TMEP §1402.07(e).

 

The wording “point of sale and point of transaction services, namely, payment transaction and account authorization services” in the identification of services is indefinite and must be clarified to indicate specific payment transaction services.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.  The wording “facilitating credit services through electronic means and mobile devices, namely, processing payments and authorizations, and account management services” is indefinite and must be clarified to indicate specific services.  The wording “mobile banking services” is indefinite and must be clarified to indicate specific services.  The wording “Point of Sale and Point of Transaction services, namely, credit application processing in the nature of evaluating credit worthiness of companies and private individuals and issuing credit cards, payment transaction processing services and credit card authorization services” is indefinite and must be clarified to indicate specific services.  The wording “facilitating credit services through electronic means and mobile devices, namely, processing of credit card applications in the nature of evaluating credit worthiness of companies and private individuals, credit card authorization services, credit card payment services and financial account management services” is indefinite and must be clarified to indicate specific services.  The wording “providing services for processing credit card transactions for merchants, namely, processing of credit card applications in the nature of evaluating credit worthiness of companies and private individuals, credit card authorization services, credit card payment services and financial account management services” is indefinite and must be clarified to indicate specific services.  The wording “computer services, namely, hosting mobile platforms and an interactive website for users to participate in discussions related to promotional offers and customized financing options” is indefinite and must be clarified to indicate specific services. 

 

Applicant may adopt the following identification of goods and services, if accurate:

 

Class 9:  No Changes Required.

 

Class 36:  “Electronic credit card transaction processing services; point of sale and point of transaction services, namely, credit card payment transaction processing and account authorization services; facilitating credit services through electronic means and mobile devices, namely, processing credit card payments and authorizations, and financial administration of credit card accounts; promotional financing for purchases including through installment loans; financial services, namely, credit and loan services; financial loan consultation; providing financial information in the fields of finance and loans; mobile banking services, namely, online banking services accessible by means of downloadable mobile applications; financial services, namely, processing of credit card payments and issuing credit cards, including private label credit cards and credit cards that serve as both private label credit cards and general purpose credit cards; electronic credit card transaction processing services; Point of Sale and Point of Transaction services, namely, credit application processing in the nature of evaluating credit worthiness of companies and private individuals and issuing credit cards, credit card payment transaction processing services and credit card authorization services; facilitating credit services through electronic means and mobile devices, namely, processing of credit card applications in the nature of evaluating credit worthiness of companies and private individuals, credit card authorization services, credit card payment processing services and financial account management services; promotional financing services for purchases including through the use of private label, multipurpose and general purpose credit cards; providing services for processing credit card transactions for merchants, namely, processing of credit card applications in the nature of evaluating credit worthiness of companies and private individuals, credit card authorization services, credit card payment processing services and financial account management services.”

 

Class 42:  “Providing temporary use of online, non-downloadable software for enabling processing of electronic funds transfers and payments made via credit card, debit card, electronic check, and electronic, mobile, and online payments; providing temporary use of online, non-downloadable software for processing payment transactions; providing temporary use of online, non-downloadable software that provides customized recommendations and financing options based on user information, preferences, and purchases; providing temporary use of online, non-downloadable software that disseminates advertising and promotional matter for goods and services of others based on user information, preferences, and purchases; computer services, namely, hosting mobile software platforms and an interactive website for others that allows users to participate in discussions related to promotional offers and customized financing options.”

 

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).

 

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.

 

DISCLAIMER REQUIRED

 

Applicant must provide a disclaimer of the unregistrable part of the applied-for mark even though the mark as a whole appears to be registrable.  See 15 U.S.C. §1056(a); TMEP §§1213, 1213.03(a).  A disclaimer of an unregistrable part of a mark will not affect the mark’s appearance.  See Schwarzkopf v. John H. Breck, Inc., 340 F.2d 978, 979-80, 144 USPQ 433, 433 (C.C.P.A. 1965).

 

In this case, applicant must disclaim the wording “SOLUTION” because it is not inherently distinctive.  This unregistrable term is merely descriptive of a feature of applicant’s goods and services.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1251, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2012); TMEP §§1213, 1213.03(a). 

 

The attached evidence from lexico.com defines “solution” as “Products or services designed to meet a particular need.”  Further, the attached evidence from techtarget.com and technologyadvice.com shows that this word is commonly used to describe software products and services.  Thus, the wording “solution” merely describes a feature of applicant’s goods and services, namely, that applicant produces and provides software solutions.

 

Applicant may respond to this issue by submitting a disclaimer in the following format: 

 

No claim is made to the exclusive right to use “SOLUTION” apart from the mark as shown. 

 

For an overview of disclaimers and instructions on how to satisfy this issue using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), see the Disclaimer webpage. 

 

AMENDED MARK DESCRIPTION REQUIRED

 

Applicant must submit an amended description of the mark that agrees with the mark on the drawing.  37 C.F.R. §2.37; see TMEP §§808.01, 808.02.  The current description is inconsistent with the mark on the drawing and thus is inaccurate because of a typographical error.  37 C.F.R. §2.37; see TMEP §§808.01, 808.02.  Descriptions must be accurate and identify only those literal and design elements appearing in the mark.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.37; TMEP §§808.02, 808.03(d). 

 

The following description is suggested, if accurate: 

 

The mark consists of the term “LYFE” with a comment balloon off the “E” that contains a block style “L” over the terms “A SYNCHRONY SOLUTION” that start after the tail of the “Y” in “LYFE”.

 

RESPONSE GUIDELINES

 

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

 

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/or 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  

 

 

/Clare Cahill/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 120

(571) 272-5218

clare.cahill@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 July 23, 2019 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88413916

 

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. 

 

 

/Clare Cahill/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 120

(571) 272-5218

clare.cahill@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 23, 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.”