UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)

OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION

 

 

 

OFFICE ACTION

 

STRICT DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER

TO AVOID ABANDONMENT OF APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION, THE USPTO MUST RECEIVE APPLICANT’S COMPLETE RESPONSE TO THIS LETTER WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF THE ISSUE/MAILING DATE BELOW.  A RESPONSE TRANSMITTED THROUGH THE TRADEMARK ELECTRONIC APPLICATION SYSTEM (TEAS) MUST BE RECEIVED BEFORE MIDNIGHT EASTERN TIME OF THE LAST DAY OF THE RESPONSE PERIOD.

 

 

ISSUE/MAILING DATE: 6/4/2019

 

 

 

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
• Section 2(a) Refusal – False Connection
• Section 2(c) Refusal – Name of an Individual

 

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. 5003674, 4988975, 4684898, 489112, and 4754074.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registrations.

 

Here, the applicant’s mark is SHAQ LIFE (in standard characters) for “Audio visual recordings in all media, featuring entertainment in the nature of an on-going television series in the field of comedy, action, drama and adventure; downloadable television programming featuring comedy, action, drama and adventure distributed via the Internet and wireless communications” in International Class 9.

 

The registered marks are all owned by the same entity, and are as follows:

 

• SHAQ FU (in standard characters) for “Entertainment services, namely, providing online computer, electronic and video games; Providing a website featuring online and non-downloadable electronic and video games; Providing a website featuring news and information in the field of computer and video games, computer and video game characters, music, sports and entertainment; Providing a website featuring information in the nature of tips, hints, and computer enhancements for computer and video game play; Providing a website featuring audio-visual content, namely, online and non-downloadable audio-visual recordings in the field of computer and video games, computer and video game characters, music, sports and entertainment; Providing a website featuring non-downloadable playback of music via a global communications network in the field of computer and video games, computer and video game characters, music, sports, and entertainment; Providing a website featuring temporary use of non-downloadable videos featuring information in the field of computer and video games, computer and video game characters, music, sports, and entertainment; Providing a website featuring an ongoing television program in the fields of computer and video games, computer and video game characters, music, sports, and action, animation, children's and variety entertainment; Providing a website featuring non-downloadable movie films via a video on-demand service in the field of computer and video games, computer and video game characters, music, sports, and action, animation, children's and variety entertainment; Providing a website featuring an on-going animated series featuring a computer and video game and computer and video game characters provided via a global computer network; Providing a website featuring a multimedia program series featuring computer and video games, computer and video game characters, music, sports, and action, animation, children's and variety entertainment via various platforms across multiple forms of transmission media; Entertainment services, namely, an on-going series featuring electronic and video game characters provided through film, television, radio, and global computer network; Entertainment services, namely, providing a web site featuring photographic, audio, video and prose presentations featuring electronic and video games and electronic and video game characters” in International Class 41;

 

• SHAQ FU (in standard characters) for “Electronic game software; Electronic game discs; Video game discs; Video game software; Downloadable manuals, booklets, books, and guides featuring computer and video games and computer and video game characters; Downloadable ring tones, digital wallpapers, screensavers, graphics and music via a global computer network and wireless devices; Digital media, namely, downloadable audiovisual files featuring computer and video games, computer and video game characters, animation, music, sports and entertainment” in International Class 9;

 

• SHAQ’S ALL STAR COMEDY JAM (in standard characters) for “Entertainment services in the nature of live comedy shows; entertainment services, namely, an on-going series featuring comedy provided through television, webcasts, global computer networks and wireless networks; entertainment services, namely, an on-going series featuring comedy distributed via various platforms across multiple forms of transmission media” in International Class 41;

 

• SHAQ (in standard characters) for “Entertainment in the nature of providing information by means of a global computer network in the fields of sports, entertainment and pop culture; entertainment services, namely, personal appearances by a celebrity and athlete” in International Class 41; and

 

• SHAQUILLE O’NEAL (in standard characters) for “Entertainment in the nature of providing information by means of a global computer network in the fields of sports, entertainment and pop culture; entertainment services, namely, personal appearances by a celebrity and athlete” in International Class 41.

 

Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that is so similar to a registered mark that it is likely consumers would be confused, mistaken, or deceived as to the commercial source of the goods and/or services of the parties.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).  Likelihood of confusion is determined on a case-by-case basis by applying the factors set forth in In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973) (called the “du Pont factors”).  In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1322, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1747 (Fed. Cir. 2017).  Only those factors that are “relevant and of record” need be considered.  M2 Software, Inc. v. M2 Commc’ns, Inc., 450 F.3d 1378, 1382, 78 USPQ2d 1944, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Shen Mfg. Co. v. Ritz Hotel Ltd., 393 F.3d 1238, 1241, 73 USPQ2d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2004)); see In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1744 (TTAB 2018). 

 

Although not all du Pont factors may be relevant, there are generally two key considerations in any likelihood of confusion analysis:  (1) the similarities between the compared marks and (2) the relatedness of the compared goods and/or services.  See In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d at 1322, 123 USPQ2d at 1747 (quoting Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 1164-65, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2002)); Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co.,544 F.2d 1098, 1103, 192 USPQ 24, 29 (C.C.P.A. 1976) (“The fundamental inquiry mandated by [Section] 2(d) goes to the cumulative effect of differences in the essential characteristics of the goods [or services] and differences in the marks.”); TMEP §1207.01.

 

Similarity of the Marks

 

The respective marks, SHAQ LIFE, SHAQ FU, SHAQ’S ALL STAR COMEDY JAM, SHAQ, and SHAQUILLE O’NEAL, all share the identical dominant wording “SHAQ”, or the same identical reference to Shaquille O’Neal.

 

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”).

 

In the present case, SHAQ LIFE, SHAQ FU, SHAQ’S ALL STAR COMEDY JAM, SHAQ, and SHAQUILLE O’NEAL, all create the same overall commercial impression. All share the identical dominant wording or prefix “SHAQ”. While the ‘074 registration is for SHAQUILLE O’NEAL, the applicant’s use of SHAQ, undoubtedly refers to Shaquille O’Neal (see attached screenshot from Deadline, showing that applicant’s show is about Shaquille O’Neal). Thus, because the dominant feature of each of the marks above is essentially identical and refers to Shaquille O’Neal, the applicant’s mark is confusingly similar with the registrant’s marks.

 

Similarity of the Goods and Services

 

The applicant’s downloadable television show featuring comedy, action, drama, and adventure is closely related to the registrant’s downloadable and non-downloadable entertainment programs and personal appearances by a celebrity and athlete because both parties offer entertainment shows which are commonly offered in downloadable and non-downloadable format, and celebrities and athletes also commonly have entertainment shows. 

 

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/or services] emanate from the same source.”  Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting 7-Eleven Inc. v. Wechsler, 83 USPQ2d 1715, 1724 (TTAB 2007)); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).

 

The attached Internet evidence, consisting of screenshots from several networks and television shows, establishes that the same entity commonly manufactures/produces/provides the relevant goods and/or services and markets the goods and/or services under the same mark; the relevant goods and/or services are sold or provided through the same trade channels and used by the same classes of consumers in the same fields of use; and the goods and/or services are similar or complementary in terms of purpose or function. Specifically, see the following:

 

• E! show Eric & Jessie, which follows the lives of NFL player Eric Decker and his wife musician Jessie James Decker, which can be viewed online and through downloaded formats;

 

• USA show The Cromarties, a tv show which follows former NFL star Antonio Cromartie and his wife, Terricka;

 

• VH1 show The T.O. Show, a program that followed around NFL star Terrell Owens;

 

• E! show What Would Ryan Lochte Do?, which followed the life of Olympic athlete Ryan Lochte, and

 

• E! show Very Cavallari, which follows the lives of celebrity Kristin Cavallari and her husband, former NFL star Jay Cutler.

 

All of these shows, which feature athletes, musicians, or celebrities, are viewable as either streaming through online sources, or allowed to be downloaded via multiple sources.

 

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).

 

Thus, upon encountering SHAQ LIFE used on a downloadable tv show, and the registered marks, SHAQ FU, SHAQ’S ALL STAR COMEDY JAM, SHAQ, and SHAQUILLE O’NEAL, used on downloadable and non-downloadable entertainment programs and personal appearances by a celebrity and athlete, consumers are likely to be confused and mistakenly believe that the applicant’s gods emanate from the same source as the registrant’s goods and services.

 

Applicant should note the following additional ground for refusal.

 

SECTION 2(a) REFUSAL – FALSE CONNECTION

 

Registration is refused because the applied-for mark consists of or includes matter which may falsely suggest a connection with Shaquille O’Neal, commonly known as Shaq.  Trademark Act Section 2(a), 15 U.S.C. §1052(a).  Although Shaq is not connected with the goods and/or services provided by applicant under the applied-for mark, Shaq is so well-known that consumers would presume a connection.  See id.

 

Under Trademark Act Section 2(a), the registration of a mark that “consists of or comprises matter that may falsely suggest a connection with persons, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols” is prohibited.  In re Pedersen, 109 USPQ2d 1185, 1188 (TTAB 2013).  To establish that an applied-for mark falsely suggests a connection with a person or an institution, the following is required:

 

(1)       The mark sought to be registered is the same as, or a close approximation of, the name or identity previously used by another person or institution.

 

(2)       The mark would be recognized as such, in that it points uniquely and unmistakably to that person or institution.

 

(3)       The person or institution identified in the mark is not connected with the goods sold or services performed by applicant under the mark.

 

(4)       The fame or reputation of the named person or institution is of such a nature that a connection with such person or institution would be presumed when applicant’s mark is used on its goods and/or services.

 

In re Pedersen, 109 USPQ2d at 1188-89; In re Jackson Int’l Trading Co., 103 USPQ2d 1417, 1419 (TTAB 2012); TMEP §1203.03(c)(i); see also Univ. of Notre Dame du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imps. Co., 703 F.2d 1372, 1375-77, 217 USPQ 505, 508-10 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (providing foundational principles for the current four-part test used to determine the existence of a false connection).

 

The mark is the name or identify of another person

 

The wording “SHAQ” in the applied for mark is the same name of Shaq, full name Shaquille O’Neal, a world renowned basketball player. See the attached screenshots form Wikipedia, Ring, USA Today, CBS, and Today, referencing Shaq.

 

The mark would point to Shaq

 

Given that Shaq is “considered one of the greatest players in NBA history” (see previous attached screenshot from Wikipedia), has hosted different television shows including Saturday Night Live, a reality show on ABC titled Shaq’s Big Challenge, acted in the movie Kazaam, and has appeared in numerous commercials, such as the attached screenshot from an IcyHot commercial, Shaq is undoubtedly reached a level of fame across numerous platforms and media, that when people hear or see the name “Shaq”, they would immediately think of Shaquille O’Neal.

 

Shaq is not connected to the goods

 

Based on the evidence of record, there is no indication that Shaq has consented to the use of his name, or is in any other way connected with the application.

 

Consumers would assume Shaq is connected to the goods

 

Because of the fame and notoriety of Shaq, and the fact that Shaq has appeared on TV in different roles, consumers would assume that an entertainment program that includes “SHAQ” in the name of the program, would assume that Shaq is connected with the goods.

 

Therefore, based on the above evidence, the application is properly refused under Section 2(a) of the Trademark Act.

 

Applicant should also note the final refusal below.

 

SECTION 2(c) REFUSAL – NAME OF AN INDIVIDUAL

 

Registration is refused because the applied-for mark consists of or comprises a name, portrait, or signature identifying a particular living individual whose written consent to register the mark is not of record.  Trademark Act Section 2(c), 15 U.S.C. §1052(c); TMEP §1206; see In re Nieves & Nieves LLC, 113 USPQ2d 1639, 1649-50 (TTAB 2015); In re Hoefflin, 97 USPQ2d 1174, 1175-76 (TTAB 2010).

 

For purposes of Section 2(c), a name in a mark identifies a particular living individual if the person bearing the name will be associated with the mark as used on the goods or services because:  “(1) the person is so well known that the public would reasonably assume a connection between the person and the goods or services; or (2) the individual is publicly connected with the business in which the mark is used.”  In re Nieves & Nieves LLC, 113 USPQ2d 1639, 1650 (TTAB 2015); see In re Hoefflin, 97 USPQ2d 1174, 1175-76 (TTAB 2010); Krause v. Krause Publ’ns, Inc., 76 USPQ2d 1904, 1909-10 (TTAB 2005).

 

Additionally, Section 2(c) applies not only to the full name of an individual, but also to any first name, surname, shortened name, pseudonym, stage name, title, or nickname that identifies a particular living individual.  In re Nieves & Nieves LLC, 113 USPQ2d 1629, 1639 (TTAB 2015) (holding registration of the mark PRINCESS KATE barred under Section 2(c) in the absence of consent to register, because the mark “points uniquely and unmistakably to Kate Middleton,” the Duchess of Cambridge, whose identity is renowned); In re Hoefflin, 97 USPQ2d 1174, 1177-78 (TTAB 2010) (holding registration of the marks OBAMA PAJAMA, OBAMA BAHAMA PAJAMAS, and BARACK’S JOCKS DRESS TO THE LEFT barred under Section 2(c) in the absence of consent to register, because the marks create a direct association with President Barack Obama); In re Sauer, 27 USPQ2d 1073, 1074-75 (TTAB 1993) (holding registration of a mark containing BO, used in connection with a sports ball, barred under Section 2(c) in the absence of consent to register, because BO is the nickname of the well-known athlete BO JACKSON and thus use of the mark would lead to the assumption that he was associated with the goods), aff’d per curiam, 26 F.3d 140 (Fed. Cir. 1994). 

 

As discussed in the Section 2(a) refusal above, “SHAQ” is a commonly used short form name to refer to basketball hall of fame member Shaquille O’Neal. Additionally, as discussed above, Shaq is so well known that the public would reasonably assume a connection with the goods in the instant application. Therefore, the application is properly refused under Section 2(c) of the Trademark Act.

 

Consent Statement – Advisory

 

The refusal under Section 2(c) will be withdrawn if applicant provides both of the following:

 

(1)       A statement that the name shown in the mark identifies “SHAQUILLE O’NEAL”, a living individual whose consent is of record.  If the name represents that of a pseudonym, stage name, title and name combination, or nickname, applicant must include a statement that “SHAQ” identifies the nickname of “SHAQUILLE O’NEAL”, a living individual whose consent is of record.

 

(2)       A written consent, personally signed by the individual whose name, signature, or portrait appears in the mark, authorizing applicant to register the identifying matter as a trademark and/or service mark with the USPTO; for example, an applicant may use, if applicable, the following:  “I, “SHAQUILLE O’NEAL”, consent to the use and registration of my name, “SHAQ”, as a trademark and/or service mark with the USPTO.”

 

See TMEP §§813, 813.01(a), 1206.04(a).

 

Applicant is advised that the written consent must include a statement of the party’s consent to applicant’s registration, and not just the use, of the identifying matter as a trademark.  See Krause v. Krause Publ’ns, Inc., 76 USPQ2d 1904, 1912-13 (TTAB 2005); In re New John Nissen Mannequins, 227 USPQ 569, 571 (TTAB 1985); TMEP §1206.04(a).

 

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

 

RESPONSE GUIDELINES 

 

Response guidelines.  For this application to proceed, applicant must explicitly address each refusal and/or requirement in this Office action.  For a refusal, applicant may provide written arguments and evidence against the refusal, and may have other response options if specified above.  For a requirement, applicant should set forth the changes or statements.  Please see “Responding to Office Actions” and the informational video “Response to Office Action” for more information and tips on responding.

 

Please call or email the assigned trademark examining attorney with questions about this Office action.  Although the trademark examining attorney cannot provide legal advice or statements about applicant’s rights, the trademark examining attorney can provide applicant with additional explanation about the refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) in this Office action.  See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06.  Although the USPTO does not accept emails as responses to Office actions, emails can be used for informal communications and will be included in the application record.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(c), 2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05. 

 

 

 

 

TEAS PLUS OR TEAS REDUCED FEE (TEAS RF) APPLICANTS – TO MAINTAIN LOWER FEE, ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS MUST BE MET, INCLUDING SUBMITTING DOCUMENTS ONLINE:  Applicants who filed their application online using the lower-fee TEAS Plus or TEAS RF application form must (1) file certain documents online using TEAS, including responses to Office actions (see TMEP §§819.02(b), 820.02(b) for a complete list of these documents); (2) maintain a valid e-mail correspondence address; and (3) agree to receive correspondence from the USPTO by e-mail throughout the prosecution of the application.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.22(b), 2.23(b); TMEP §§819, 820.  TEAS Plus or TEAS RF applicants who do not meet these requirements must submit an additional processing fee of $125 per class of goods and/or services.  37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(1)(v), 2.22(c), 2.23(c); TMEP §§819.04, 820.04.  However, in certain situations, TEAS Plus or TEAS RF applicants may respond to an Office action by authorizing an examiner’s amendment by telephone or e-mail without incurring this additional fee.  

 

 

 

/Kyle Aurand/

Kyle Aurand

Examining Attorney

Law Office 126

(571) 270-3039

kyle.aurand@uspto.gov

 

TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER:  Go to http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp.  Please wait 48-72 hours from the issue/mailing date before using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), to allow for necessary system updates of the application.  For technical assistance with online forms, e-mail TEAS@uspto.gov.  For questions about the Office action itself, please contact the assigned trademark examining attorney.  E-mail communications will not be accepted as responses to Office actions; therefore, do not respond to this Office action by e-mail.

 

All informal e-mail communications relevant to this application will be placed in the official application record.

 

WHO MUST SIGN THE RESPONSE:  It must be personally signed by an individual applicant or someone with legal authority to bind an applicant (i.e., a corporate officer, a general partner, all joint applicants).  If an applicant is represented by an attorney, the attorney must sign the response. 

 

PERIODICALLY CHECK THE STATUS OF THE APPLICATION:  To ensure that applicant does not miss crucial deadlines or official notices, check the status of the application every three to four months using the Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) system at http://tsdr.gov.uspto.report/.  Please keep a copy of the TSDR status screen.  If the status shows no change for more than six months, contact the Trademark Assistance Center by e-mail at TrademarkAssistanceCenter@uspto.gov or call 1-800-786-9199.  For more information on checking status, see http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/process/status/.

 

TO UPDATE CORRESPONDENCE/E-MAIL ADDRESS:  Use the TEAS form at http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/correspondence.jsp.

 

 

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)

 

 

IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING YOUR

U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION

 

USPTO OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) HAS ISSUED

ON 6/4/2019 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 88424353

 

Please follow the instructions below:

 

(1)  TO READ THE LETTER:  Click on this link or go to http://tsdr.uspto.gov,enter the U.S. application serial number, and click on “Documents.”

 

The Office action may not be immediately viewable, to allow for necessary system updates of the application, but will be available within 24 hours of this e-mail notification.

 

(2)  TIMELY RESPONSE IS REQUIRED:  Please carefully review the Office action to determine (1) how to respond, and (2) the applicable response time period.  Your response deadline will be calculated from 6/4/2019 (or sooner if specified in the Office action).  A response transmitted through the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) must be received before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period.  For information regarding response time periods, see http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/process/status/responsetime.jsp.

 

Do NOT hit “Reply” to this e-mail notification, or otherwise e-mail your response because the USPTO does NOT accept e-mails as responses to Office actions.  Instead, the USPTO recommends that you respond online using the TEAS response form located at http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp.

 

(3)  QUESTIONS:  For questions about the contents of the Office action itself, please contact the assigned trademark examining attorney.  For technical assistance in accessing or viewing the Office action in the Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) system, please e-mail TSDR@uspto.gov.

 

WARNING

 

Failure to file the required response by the applicable response deadline will result in the ABANDONMENT of your application.  For more information regarding abandonment, see http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/basics/abandon.jsp.

 

PRIVATE COMPANY SOLICITATIONS REGARDING YOUR APPLICATION:  Private companies not associated with the USPTO are using information provided in trademark applications to mail or e-mail trademark-related solicitations.  These companies often use names that closely resemble the USPTO and their solicitations may look like an official government document.  Many solicitations require that you pay “fees.” 

 

Please carefully review all correspondence you receive regarding this application to make sure that you are responding to an official document from the USPTO rather than a private company solicitation.  All official USPTO correspondence will be mailed only from the “United States Patent and Trademark Office” in Alexandria, VA; or sent by e-mail from the domain “@uspto.gov.”  For more information on how to handle private company solicitations, see http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/solicitation_warnings.jsp.