| To: | Global Eye Investments, LLC (trademark@inventuslaw.com) |
| Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88415313 - LOFT - N/A |
| Sent: | July 23, 2019 07:56:44 PM |
| Sent As: | ecom113@uspto.gov |
| Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 Attachment - 6 Attachment - 7 Attachment - 8 Attachment - 9 Attachment - 10 Attachment - 11 Attachment - 12 Attachment - 13 Attachment - 14 Attachment - 15 Attachment - 16 Attachment - 17 Attachment - 18 Attachment - 19 Attachment - 20 Attachment - 21 Attachment - 22 Attachment - 23 Attachment - 24 Attachment - 25 Attachment - 26 Attachment - 27 Attachment - 28 Attachment - 29 Attachment - 30 Attachment - 31 Attachment - 32 Attachment - 33 Attachment - 34 Attachment - 35 Attachment - 36 Attachment - 37 Attachment - 38 Attachment - 39 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
|
U.S. Application Serial No. 88415313
Mark: LOFT
|
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
|
Applicant: Global Eye Investments, LLC
|
|
|
Reference/Docket No. N/A
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
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
(1) Section 2(d) Likelihood of Confusion Refusal
(2) Prior Pending Applications
(3) Misclassification of Goods – Amendment of Identification of Goods and Services Required
(4) Clarification Required of the Number of Classes for Which Registration Is Sought
(5) Date of Execution of Application and Declaration Is After Date Filed – Actual Date of Signature Required
SECTION 2(D) LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION REFUSAL
Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 5398573, 5398572, and 4765217. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the attached registrations.
Applicant has applied to register the standard character mark LOFT for use in connection with “Fish, namely, smoked and marinated fish; preserved tinned fish; fish roe, namely, Salmon roe, Lump-Fish roe, Codfish roe, Mullet roe, Sturgeon roe; caviar; goose and duck foie gras, and pastes and creams made from foie gras; truffles” which applicant has classified in International Class 29 and “Fish, namely, smoked and marinated fish; preserved tinned fish; fish roe, namely, Salmon roe, Lump-Fish roe, Codfish roe, Mullet roe, Sturgeon roe; caviar; goose and duck foie gras, and pastes and creams made from foie gras; truffles” which applicant has classified in International Class 43.
Registration Nos. 5398573 and 5398572 are held by the same entity: August Storck KG.
Registrant in Registration No. 5398573 has registered the standard character mark LOFT CHOCS for use in connection with “Confectionery, namely, candy, chocolate chips, fruit gum sweets, chewing gums, lollipops; chocolate; chocolate products, namely, chocolate powder and chocolate syrup; pastries, ice-cream; preparations for making the aforementioned products, namely, cocoa powder and sugar” in International Class 30. The registration reflects that the wording “CHOCS” has been disclaimed.
Registrant in Registration No. 5398572 has registered the standard character mark LOFT for use in connection with “Confectionery, namely, candy, chocolate chips, fruit gum sweets, chewing gums, lollipops; chocolate; chocolate products, namely, chocolate powder and chocolate syrup; pastries, ice-cream; preparations for making the aforementioned products, namely, cocoa powder and sugar” in International Class 30.
Registrant in Registration No. 4765217 has registered the standard character mark LOFT for use in connection with “Alcoholic beverages except beers” in International Class 33.
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 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. 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.
In this case, the following factors are the most relevant: similarity of the marks, similarity and nature of the goods, and similarity of the trade channels of the goods. See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1361-62, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Dakin's Miniatures Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593, 1595-96 (TTAB 1999); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.
Similarity of the Marks
Similarity of the applied-for mark and the marks in Registration Nos. 5398572 and 4765217
In the present case, applicant’s standard character mark is LOFT and registrants’ standard character marks are LOFT. These marks are identical in appearance, sound, and meaning, “and have the potential to be used . . . in exactly the same manner.” In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 116 USPQ2d 1406, 1411 (TTAB 2015), aff’d, 866 F.3d 1315, 123 USPQ2d 1744 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Additionally, because they are identical, these marks are likely to engender the same connotation and overall commercial impression when considered in connection with applicant’s and registrant’s respective goods. Id.
Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar.
Similarity of the applied-for mark and the mark in Registration No. 5398573
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).
Here, applicant’s standard character mark, LOFT, is confusingly similar to the registered standard character mark LOFT CHOCS. Specifically, both marks consist in large part or entirely of the term “LOFT”. 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). Here, because both marks consist in large part or entirely of the term “LOFT,” they are similar in sound, appearance, and structure.
It is particularly significant that both marks begin with the same first syllable and first word, LOFT, because consumers are generally more inclined to focus on the first word, prefix, or syllable in any trademark or service mark. See Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1372, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1692 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (finding similarity between VEUVE ROYALE and two VEUVE CLICQUOT marks in part because “VEUVE . . . remains a ‘prominent feature’ as the first word in the mark and the first word to appear on the label”); Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Century Life of Am., 970 F.2d 874, 876, 23 USPQ2d 1698, 1700 (Fed Cir. 1992) (finding similarity between CENTURY 21 and CENTURY LIFE OF AMERICA in part because “consumers must first notice th[e] identical lead word”); see also In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1303, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1049 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding “the identity of the marks’ two initial words is particularly significant because consumers typically notice those words first”).
Because both the applied-for and registered mark are standard character marks, applicant could use its mark in a stylization and font similar or even identical to that of the registrant, which would increase the likelihood of confusion. 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).
Although the registered mark contains wording not found in the applied-for mark (specifically, CHOCS), that fact does not obviate this refusal. Applicant’s mark is likely to appear to prospective purchasers as a shortened form of registrant’s mark. See In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 1348, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting United States Shoe Corp., 229 USPQ 707, 709 (TTAB 1985)). Thus, merely omitting some of the wording from a registered mark may not overcome a likelihood of confusion. See In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 94 USPQ2d 1257; In re Optica Int’l, 196 USPQ 775, 778 (TTAB 1977); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii). In this case, applicant’s mark does not create a distinct commercial impression from the registered mark because it contains some of the wording in the registered mark and does not add any wording that would distinguish it from that mark.
Moreover, disclaimed matter that is descriptive of or generic for a party’s goods is typically less significant or less dominant when comparing marks. In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1305, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re Dixie Rests., Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 1407, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533-34 (Fed. Cir. 1997)); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii). Here, the registration reflects that the wording “CHOCS” was disclaimed. Accordingly, for purposes of Section 2(d) analysis, the dominant part of the registered mark is LOFT as compared with the applied-for mark, LOFT.
Ultimately, when purchasers call for the goods of the applicant and the goods of the registrants using marks that are very similar in sound, appearance and meaning, they are likely to believe that the marks identify a single source of goods. Thus, the marks are confusingly similar.
Relatedness of the Goods
The goods 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).
Relatedness of applicant’s goods to those identified in Registration Nos. 5398573 and 5398572
Applicant’s goods are identified as “Fish, namely, smoked and marinated fish; preserved tinned fish; fish roe, namely, Salmon roe, Lump-Fish roe, Codfish roe, Mullet roe, Sturgeon roe; caviar; goose and duck foie gras, and pastes and creams made from foie gras; truffles” which applicant has classified in International Class 29 and “Fish, namely, smoked and marinated fish; preserved tinned fish; fish roe, namely, Salmon roe, Lump-Fish roe, Codfish roe, Mullet roe, Sturgeon roe; caviar; goose and duck foie gras, and pastes and creams made from foie gras; truffles” which applicant has classified in International Class 43.
Registrant’s goods are identified as “Confectionery, namely, candy, chocolate chips, fruit gum sweets, chewing gums, lollipops; chocolate; chocolate products, namely, chocolate powder and chocolate syrup; pastries, ice-cream; preparations for making the aforementioned products, namely, cocoa powder and sugar” in International Class 30.
The attached Internet evidence, consisting of screenshots from Zabars.com, Balduccis.com, and Mansoura.com establishes that the same entity (here, Zabar’s, Balducci’s, and Mansoura) commonly provides the relevant goods (here, on one hand, smoked fish, salmon roe, duck foie gras, caviar, Sturgeon roe, and/or truffles, and, on the other hand, candy, chocolate, and/or pastries) and markets the goods under the same mark. Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods 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).
Relatedness of applicant’s goods to those identified in Registration Nos. 5398573 and 5398572
Registrant’s goods are identified as “Alcoholic beverages except beers” in International Class 33.
The attached Internet evidence, consisting of screenshots from Williams-Sonoma.com, Home.Khavyar.com, and AHistoryOfDrinking.com, establishes that the goods are similar or complementary in terms of purpose or function. Specifically, these screenshots demonstrate that consumers are often advised to consume caviar and vodka together (“A venerable Russian tradition, the pairing of vodka and caviar is customary throughout the world of gastronomy . . . they are the ideal complements to one another”; “traditional vodka and caviar is the peanut butter to jelly in the world of legendary good pairings.”). Additionally, the attached screenshots from TheSpiritsBusiness.com and ReserveBar.com, demonstrate that some makers of vodka sell caviar-flavored vodka. Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods 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).
The refusal applies to all of the applicant’s goods because all of the remaining goods identified by the applicant are also food products which are generally sold in the same category and under the same mark.
Ultimately, when purchasers encounter the applicant’s goods and the registrant’s goods, they are likely to be confused as to the source of goods by the relationship between them. Thus, the goods are closely related.
Therefore, because the marks are confusingly similar and the goods are closely related, purchasers encountering these goods are likely to believe, mistakenly, that they emanate from a common source. Accordingly, there is a likelihood of confusion and registration is refused pursuant to Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.
Response to Section 2(d) – Likelihood of Confusion Refusal
Although the examining attorney has refused registration, the applicant may respond to the refusal to register by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.
PRIOR PENDING APPLICATIONS
The filing dates of pending U.S. Application Serial Nos. 87858281 and 87323755 precede applicant’s filing date. See attached referenced applications. If the mark in either of the referenced applications 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 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.
While applicant is not required to respond to the issue of the pending applications, applicant must respond to the refusal above and the requirements below within six months of the mailing date of this Office Action to avoid abandonment.
REQUIREMENTS
If applicant chooses to respond to the refusal to register, then applicant must also respond to the following requirements:
MISCLASSIFICATION OF GOODS – AMENDMENT OF IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS AND SERVICES REQUIRED
Applicant has classified “Fish, namely, smoked and marinated fish” “preserved tinned fish” “caviar” and “goose and duck foie gras, and pastes and creams made from foie gras” in International Class 43; however, the proper classification for these goods is International Class 29. Additionally, applicant has classified “fish roe, namely, Salmon roe, Lump-Fish roe, Codfish roe, Mullet roe, Sturgeon roe” in International Class 43, but (as explained in greater detail below), the correct classification for these goods is either in Class 29 if they are processed or Class 31 if they are live hatching eggs. Additionally, applicant has classified “truffles” in International Class 43, but (as explained in greater detail below), the correct classification of these goods is Class 29 if they are preserved, Class 30 if they are chocolate, and Class 31 if they are fresh. Therefore, applicant may respond by (1) adding International Classes 30 and/or 31 to the application and reclassifying these goods in the proper international classes, (2) deleting Class 43 in its entirety from the application; or (3) deleting the goods properly classified in Classes 30 and 31 and reclassifying the remaining goods in Class 29. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.86(a), 6.1; TMEP §§1403.02 et seq. If applicant adds one or more international classes to the application, applicant must comply with the multiple-class requirements specified in this Office action. If applicant’s amendment of the identification of goods and services results in duplicative entries, applicant will be advised to delete such duplicative entries.
The identification of goods in International Class 29 must be clarified because the wording “fish roe, namely, Salmon roe, Lump-Fish roe, Codfish roe, Mullet roe, Sturgeon roe” is indefinite and overly broad. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01. It is indefinite because the nature of the goods is unclear. It is overly broad because it could encompass goods in more than one International Class such as processed fish roe in Class 29 or fish roe in the nature of live hatching eggs in Class 31. Applicant must specify the type of fish roe and classify the goods accordingly.
Additionally, the wording “truffles” is indefinite and overly broad. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01. It is indefinite because the nature of the goods is unclear. It is overly broad because the wording encompasses goods in more than one International Class such as preserved truffles in Class 29, chocolate truffles in Class 30, or fresh truffles in Class 31. Applicant must specify the type of truffles and classify the goods accordingly.
In general, commas should be used in an identification (1) to separate a series of related items identified within a particular category of goods, (2) before and after “namely,” and (3) between each item in a list of goods following “namely” (e.g., personal care products, namely, body lotion, bar soap, shampoo). Id. Semicolons generally should be used to separate a series of distinct categories of goods within an international class (e.g., personal care products, namely, body lotion; deodorizers for pets; glass cleaners). Id.
Specific guidance for all requirements has been provided below.
Applicant may adopt the following wording, if accurate:
Class 29 – Fish, namely, smoked and marinated fish; Preserved tinned fish; {Specify type
of fish roe, e.g., Processed} fish roe, namely, salmon roe, lump-fish roe, codfish roe, mullet roe, sturgeon roe; Caviar; Goose foie gras and duck foie gras,; and Pastes and creams made from foie gras; {Specify type of truffles, e.g., Preserved} truffles
Class 30 – {Specify type of truffles, e.g., Chocolate} truffles
Class 31 – Fish roe {specify type of fish roe, e.g., in the nature of live hatching eggs}, namely, salmon roe, lump-fish roe, codfish roe, mullet roe, sturgeon roe; {Specify type of truffles, e.g., Fresh} truffles
Class 43 – Fish, namely, smoked and marinated fish; preserved tinned fish; fish roe, namely, Salmon roe,
Lump-Fish roe, Codfish roe, Mullet roe, Sturgeon roe; caviar; goose and duck foie gras, and pastes and creams made from foie gras; truffles
Stylized wording indicates changes.
These suggestions are merely illustrative, not exhaustive of all the types of goods and/or services and proper classifications thereof which applicant might have intended to identify. These suggestions are based upon the examining attorney’s review of the application and determination of some of the goods and/or services applicant is most likely to offer. If applicant intended to identify goods and/or services other than those suggested above, applicant must so specify and classify these goods and/or services accordingly.
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.
CLARIFICATION REQUIRED OF THE NUMBER OF CLASSES FOR WHICH REGISTRATION IS SOUGHT
The application identifies goods and/or services that could be classified in at least 3 classes; however, applicant submitted fees sufficient for only 2 classes. In a multiple-class application, a fee for each class is required. 37 C.F.R. §2.86(a)(2), (b)(2); TMEP §§810.01, 1403.01.
Therefore, applicant must either (1) restrict the application to the number of classes covered by the fees already paid, or (2) submit the fees for each additional class.
The fee for adding classes to a TEAS Reduced Fee (RF) application is $275 per class. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(1)(iii), 2.23(a). See more information regarding the requirements for maintaining the lower TEAS RF fee and, if these requirements are not satisfied, for adding classes at a higher fee using regular TEAS.
ADVISORY – MULTIPLE CLASS APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS
(1) List the goods and/or services by their international class number in consecutive numerical order, starting with the lowest numbered class.
(2) Submit a filing fee for each international class not covered by the fees already paid (view the USPTO’s current fee schedule). The application identifies goods and/or services that could be classified in at least 3 classes; however, applicant submitted fees sufficient for only 2 classes. Applicant must either submit the filing fees for the classes not covered by the submitted fees or restrict the application to the number of classes covered by the fees already paid.
See 15 U.S.C. §§1051(b), 1112, 1126(e); 37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(6)-(7), 2.34(a)(2)-(3), 2.86(a); TMEP §§1403.01, 1403.02(c).
See an overview of the requirements for a Section 1(b) multiple-class application and how to satisfy the requirements online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form.
DATE OF EXECUTION OF APPLICATION AND DECLARATION IS AFTER DATE FILED – ACTUAL DATE OF SIGNATURE REQUIRED
The application and declaration indicate they were signed on May 4, 2019, which is subsequent to the document’s filing date of May 3, 2019. Because documents cannot be executed after filing, applicant must specify the actual date the document was signed. TMEP §804.03; see 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b). For more information about this, see the Verified statement webpage.
To provide this date. After opening the correct TEAS form, answer “yes” to wizard question #3. On the next page of the form, in the “Additional Statement(s)” section, check the box for “Miscellaneous Statement,” and enter in the text field for the “Miscellaneous Statement” the date the application, AAU, or SOU was signed, along with a statement that the date refers to the actual date the application, AAU, or SOU was signed. Alternatively, to submit a new verified statement, answer “yes” to wizard question #10, and follow the instructions within the form for signing. In the case of a new verified statement, the form will require two signatures: one in the “Declaration Signature” section and one in the “Response Signature” section.
RESPONSE GUIDELINES
To expedite prosecution of the application, applicant is encouraged to file its response to this Office action online via the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), which is available at http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/index.jsp. If applicant has technical questions about the TEAS response to Office action form, applicant can review the electronic filing tips available online at http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/e_filing_tips.jsp and e-mail technical questions to TEAS@uspto.gov.
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
/Dana Dickson/
Examining Attorney
Law Office 113
(571) 270-7552
dana.dickson@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE
