United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
|
U.S. Application Serial No. 88426591
Mark: NOOI
|
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
|
Applicant: Jianfeng Cai
|
|
|
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) and/or Electronic System for Trademark Trials and Appeals (ESTTA). A link to the appropriate TEAS response form and/or to ESTTA for an appeal appears at the end of this Office action.
Issue date: August 05, 2019
This Office action is supplemental to and supersedes the previous Office action issued on July 31, 2019, in connection with this application. Based on information and/or documentation in applicant’s response, the trademark examining attorney now issues the following new requirement: U.S. Counsel Required. See TMEP §§706, 711.02.
In a previous Office action dated July 31, 2019, the trademark examining attorney refused registration of the applied-for mark based on the following: (1) Trademark Act Section 2(d) for a likelihood of confusion with a registered mark, and (2) failure to show the applied-for mark in use in commerce with any of the specified goods. In addition, applicant was required to provide additional information about the specimen.
The following is a SUMMARY OF ISSUES that applicant must address:
• NEW ISSUE: U.S.-Licensed Attorney Required
• Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion (MAINTAINED AND CONTINUED)
• Refusal of Registration: Unacceptable Specimen of Use (MAINTAINED AND CONTINUED)
• Request for Additional Information About Specimen (MAINTAINED AND CONTINUED)
Applicant must respond to all issues raised in this Office action and the previous July 31, 2019, Office action, within six (6) months of the date of issuance of this Office action. 37 C.F.R. §2.62(a); see TMEP §711.02. If applicant does not respond within this time limit, the application will be abandoned. 37 C.F.R. §2.65(a).
NEW ISSUE: U.S. LICENSED ATTORNEY REQUIRED
Applicant must be represented by a U.S.-licensed attorney. The application record indicates that applicant’s domicile is outside of the United States in China, but no attorney who is an active member in good standing of the bar of the highest court of a U.S. State or territory has been appointed to represent the applicant in this matter. All applicants whose permanent legal residence or principal place of business is not within the United States or its territories must be represented by a U.S.-licensed attorney at the USPTO. 37 C.F.R. §§2.2(o), 2.11(a). Thus, applicant is required to be represented by a U.S.-licensed attorney and must appoint one. 37 C.F.R. §2.11(a). This application will not proceed to registration without such appointment and representation. See id. See Hiring a U.S.-licensed trademark attorney for more information.
To appoint or designate a U.S.-licensed attorney. To appoint an attorney, applicant should (1) submit a completed Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) Revocation, Appointment, and/or Change of Address of Attorney/Domestic Representative form and (2) promptly notify the trademark examining attorney that this TEAS form was submitted. Alternatively, if applicant has already retained an attorney, the attorney can respond to this Office action by using the appropriate TEAS response form and provide his or her attorney information in the form and sign it as applicant’s attorney. See 37 C.F.R. §2.17(b)(1)(ii).
SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
(MAINTAINED AND CONTINUED)
Registration of the applied-for mark was previously refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 5495936 (NUI). Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. The registration was previously attached. For the reasons set forth below, the refusal under Trademark Act Section 2(d) is now made MAINTAINED AND CONTINUED. See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b).
The Applicant’s mark is NOOI for "Belts for clothing; Board shorts; Briefs; Caps being headwear; Clothing layettes; Down jackets; Dresses for children; Gloves; Hats; Jackets; One-piece garments for children; Pajamas for children; Pants; Pants for children; Pullovers; Scarves; Shirts for children; Shoes; Shoes for children; Shorts; Skirts; Sneakers; Socks and stockings; Sweaters; Sweaters for children; Swimming caps; Swimming trunks; Swimsuits; T-shirts; Topcoats; Underpants; Vests; Waist belts; Waistcoats".
The Registrant’s mark is NUI (+design) for "Booties; Children's and infant's apparel, namely, jumpers, overall sleepwear, pajamas, rompers and one-piece garments; Dresses; Headwear; Infant wearable blankets; Outerwear, namely, jackets, hats, and gloves; Pajamas; Pants; Rompers; Socks; Sweaters; Tights; Tops as clothing; Underwear".
Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that so resembles a registered mark that it is likely a potential consumer would be confused, mistaken, or deceived as to the source of the goods of the applicant and registrant. See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d). A determination of likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d) is made on a case-by-case basis and 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) aid in this determination. Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp., Inc., 637 F.3d 1344, 1349, 98 USPQ2d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing On-Line Careline, Inc. v. Am. Online, Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1085, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). Not all the du Pont factors, however, are necessarily relevant or of equal weight, and any one of the factors may control in a given case, depending upon the evidence of record. Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp., Inc., 637 F.3d at 1355, 98 USPQ2d at 1260; In re Majestic Distilling Co., 315 F.3d 1311, 1315, 65 USPQ2d 1201, 1204 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d at 1361-62, 177 USPQ at 567.
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.
Applicant’s arguments have been considered and found unpersuasive for the reasons set forth below.
COMPARISON OF THE MARKS
Applicant's mark is NOOI.
Registrant's mark is NUI (+design).
In this case, the marks, although spelled slightly differently, sound the same when pronounced aloud. The applied-for mark merely replaces the letter "U" in the registered mark with the letters "OO". Both the letters "OO" and "U" create the same "OO" sound (See previously attached evidence from really-learn-english.com). The marks are essentially phonetic equivalents and thus sound similar. 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). Although Applicant insists that the marks sound differently, Applicant provides no evidence to support this conclusion.
Despite Applicant's arguments, the fact that the registered mark contains a design element will not avoid a likelihood of confusion here. When evaluating a composite mark consisting of words and a design, the word portion is normally accorded greater weight because it is likely to make a greater impression upon purchasers, be remembered by them, and be used by them to refer to or request the goods. In re Aquitaine Wine USA, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1181, 1184 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii). Thus, although marks must be compared in their entireties, the word portion is often considered the dominant feature and is accorded greater weight in determining whether marks are confusingly similar, even where the word portion has been disclaimed. In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d at 1366-67, 101 USPQ2d at 1911 (citing Giant Food, Inc. v. Nation’s Foodservice, Inc., 710 F.2d 1565, 1570-71, 218 USPQ2d 390, 395 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).
COMPARISON 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). The compared goods 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] 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 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, the goods in the application and registration are identical in part. Therefore, it is presumed that the channels of trade and class of purchasers are the same for these goods, namely, pants, socks, and sweaters. See Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., __ F.3d __, 27 USPQ2d 1797, 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods are related.
Further, the registration uses broad wording to describe its clothing goods, including dresses, headwear, outerwear, pajamas, pants, sweaters, tops as clothing, and underwear, which presumably encompasses all goods of the type described, including the applicant's narrower goods. 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 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 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)). Although Applicant argues that the goods travel through different channels of trade, these goods as listed in the registration and application, are not limited in channels of trade or class of purchaser. Therefore, the goods should not be inappropriately limited, as Applicant suggests. The applicant’s and registrant’s goods are related.
The trademark examining attorney has attached evidence from the USPTO’s X-Search database consisting of a number of third-party marks registered for use in connection with the same or similar goods as those of both applicant and registrant in this case. This evidence shows that the goods listed therein, namely, a variety of clothing items, including board shorts, briefs, clothing layettes, waist belts, swimming caps, booties, jumpers, tights, underwear, and infant wearable blankets, are of a kind that may emanate from a single source under a single mark. See In re I-Coat Co., 126 USPQ2d 1730, 1737 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Infinity Broad. Corp., 60 USPQ2d 1214, 1217-18 (TTAB 2001); In re Albert Trostel & Sons Co.,29 USPQ2d 1783, 1785-86 (TTAB 1993); In re Mucky Duck Mustard Co., 6 USPQ2d 1467, 1470 n.6 (TTAB 1988)); TMEP §1207.01(d)(iii).
The overriding concern is not only to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods, 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). Therefore, 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, 1026 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
To the extent that Applicant argues that the purchasers are sophisticated purchasers, it is noted that Applicant does not submit any supporting evidence for such a conclusion. Nevertheless, even if, arguendo, it can be assumed that the consumers are sophisticated in this case, the fact that purchasers are sophisticated or knowledgeable in a particular field does not necessarily mean that they are sophisticated or knowledgeable in the field of trademarks or immune from source confusion. TMEP §1207.01(d)(vii); see, e.g., Stone Lion Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d. 1317, 1325, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1163-64 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Top Tobacco LP v. N. Atl. Operating Co., 101 USPQ2d 1163, 1170 (TTAB 2011). Further, where the purchasers consist of both professionals and the public, the standard of care for purchasing the goods is that of the least sophisticated potential purchaser. In re FCA US LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1214, 1222 (TTAB 2018) (citing Stone Lion Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d. at 1325, 110 USPQ2d at 1163).
When determining whether an applied-for mark is eligible for registration, each application must be considered on its own record. In re Cordua Rests., Inc., 823 F.3d 594, 600, 118 USPQ2d 1632, 1635 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[The Federal Circuit], like the Board, must evaluate the evidence in the present record to determine whether there is sufficient evidence . . . .”); In re Shinnecock Smoke Shop, 571 F.3d 1171, 1174, 91 USPQ2d 1218, 1221 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“Applicant’s allegations regarding similar marks are irrelevant because each application must be considered on its own merits.”); see also In re Nett Designs, Inc., 236 F.3d 1339, 1342, 57 USPQ2d 1564, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“Even if some prior registrations had some characteristics similar to Nett Designs’ application, the PTO’s allowance of such prior registrations does not bind the [Trademark Trial and Appeal] Board or this court.”). Prior decisions and actions of other trademark examining attorneys in registering other marks have little evidentiary value and are not binding upon the USPTO or the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. TMEP §1207.01(d)(vi); see In re USA Warriors Ice Hockey Program, Inc., 122 USPQ2d 1790, 1793 n.10 (TTAB 2017). Each case is decided on its own facts, and each mark stands on its own merits. In re USA Warriors Ice Hockey Program, Inc., 122 USPQ2d at 1793 n.10 (quoting In re Boulevard Entm’t, 334 F.3d 1336, 1343, 67 USPQ2d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).
In light of the similarities between the marks and the relatedness of the goods, it is likely that consumers who encounter the parties' goods will falsely conclude that they originate from the same source.
Although Applicant’s mark has been refused registration, Applicant may respond to the refusals by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration. If Applicant responds to the refusals, Applicant must also respond to the requirement set forth below.
For the reasons set forth above, the Refusal of Registration pursuant to Trademark Act Section 2(d) is hereby MAINTAINED AND CONTINUED.
REFUSAL OF REGISTRATION: UNACCEPTABLE SPECIMEN OF USE
(MAINTAINED AND CONTINUED)
Applicant was previously refused registration in International Class 025 because the specimen appears to consist of a digitally altered image or a mock-up of the mark on the goods. Response options for overcoming that refusal, if any, were set forth in the prior Office action. Applicant, however, did not respond to this issue. Thus, the refusal to register the applied-for mark in International Class 025 is now MAINTAINED AND CONTINUED because applicant failed to provide evidence of use of the mark 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), 2.63(b); TMEP §§904, 904.07, 1301.04(g)(i).
Registration is refused because the specimen in International Class 025 appears to consist of a digitally altered image or a mock-up of the mark on the goods or their packaging and does not show the applied-for mark in actual 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).
An image of a product or packaging that has been digitally created or otherwise altered to include the mark does not show actual use of the mark in commerce. See 15 U.S.C. §1127; TMEP §§904.04(a), 904.07(a); cf. In re Chica, Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1845, 1848 (TTAB 2007) (holding that “a mere drawing of the goods with an illustration of how the mark may be displayed” was not an acceptable specimen because it did not show actual use in commerce); In re The Signal Cos., 228 USPQ 956, 957-58 n.4 (TTAB 1986) (noting that a printer’s proof of an advertisement would not be an acceptable specimen because it does not show actual use in commerce). In addition, a photo of the mark on a label, tag, or piece of paper that appears on applicant’s or a third party’s goods or packaging is generally not acceptable to show applicant’s use of the applied-for mark in commerce. See 15 U.S.C. §1127; TMEP §§904.03(a), 904.07(a). Applicant must show the mark on applicant’s own goods or packaging as it is seen by the purchasing public, with goods that have actually been sold or transported in commerce. See TMEP §904.07(a).
In this case, magnification of the specimen reveals a high degree of pixilation surrounding the mark. In addition, the mark is displayed on a label in a manner in which it appears to float above the goods. This suggests that the mark was digitally imposed onto a pre-existing image to create a composite image incorporating two separate images. 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). As noted above, an image that has been digitally created or altered to show the applied-for mark on, or in connection with, Applicant’s goods does not show actual use of the mark in commerce. See 15 U.S.C. §1127; TMEP §§904.04(a), 904.07(a).
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 and/or 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). “Use in commerce” means (1) a bona fide use of the applied-for mark in the ordinary course of trade (and not merely to reserve a right in the mark), (2) the mark is placed in any manner on the goods, packaging, tags or labels, or displays of the goods, and (3) the goods are actually sold or transported in commerce. See 15 U.S.C. §1127.
In addition to the examples of specimens in (2) in the above paragraph, examples of specimens for goods also include instruction manuals, containers, and webpages that include a picture or textual description of the goods associated with the mark and the means to order the goods. See TMEP §§904.03 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 goods 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 fee(s) 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, see the Specimen webpage.
Although Applicant’s mark has been refused registration, Applicant may respond to the refusal(s) by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.
For the reasons set forth above, the Refusal of Registration pursuant to Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45 is hereby MAINTAINED AND CONTINUED.
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT SPECIMEN
(MAINTAINED AND CONTINUED)
A specimen must show the mark as used in commerce, which means use in the ordinary course of trade (not merely to reserve a right in the mark). 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1052, 1127. A specimen shows a mark used in commerce for goods only if it shows the mark placed on the goods, packaging, tags or labels affixed to the goods, or displays of the goods, and the goods are actually sold or transported for sale in commerce. 15 U.S.C. §1127. Because the specimen of record appears to be digitally created or altered, or is otherwise a mock-up, it does not appear to show the mark as actually used in commerce. Therefore, to permit proper examination of the application, applicant was previously required submit additional information for the record about the specimen and how the mark as shown in the specimen is in use in commerce with applicant’s goods. See 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b); TMEP §814. However, the applicant did not address this requirement in its Response dated August 2, 2019. Therefore, this requirement is hereby MAINTAINED AND CONTINUED.
(1) Identify the particular good(s) listed in the application for which the specimen(s) was submitted to show use of the mark.
(2) Was the specimen created for submission with this application? If so, specify the date each specimen was created. If applicant obtained the image(s) of the goods shown in the specimen(s) from a third-party website, provide the URL of the website and a digital copy of relevant webpage(s) for each image.
(3) Provide information about and examples of how applicant’s goods appear in the actual sales environment.
(a) If sold in stores, provide a representative sample of the name(s) of the stores and of photographs showing the goods for sale in the named stores, such as photographs of the sales displays or goods on shelves with the mark.
(b) If sold online, provide a representative sample of the name(s) of the online retailers, the website URL(s) for each named retailer, and a digital copy of the webpages showing the goods for sale on the named website.
(c) If sold in another type of sales environment (e.g., catalogs, trade shows), identify the environment and provide photographs and/or documentation showing the goods for sale in that environment.
(4) If the information in question (3) about how the goods appear in the actual sales environment is not available to applicant, please describe how applicant’s goods are sold or transported and provide photographs and other documentation showing how applicant’s mark appears on the goods and/or its packaging when the goods are sold or transported to or within the United States.
(5) For each category of sales environment specified in response to questions (3) and (4), specify when the goods bearing the mark were first available for purchase within the United States, the date of the first sale of the goods to or within the United States, and whether the goods are still for sale to or within the United States in that environment.
(6) For the goods identified in response to question (1), specify the dollar amount of sales with or within the United States and provide at least three invoices or other supporting documentation that show payments or other consideration made, redacting personal or private information of buyers as necessary.
See 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b); TMEP §814.
Failure to comply with a request for information is grounds for refusing registration. In re Harley, 119 USPQ2d 1755, 1757-58 (TTAB 2016); TMEP §814. Merely stating that information is available on applicant’s website is an insufficient response and will not make the relevant information of record. See In re Planalytics, Inc., 70 USPQ2d 1453, 1457-58 (TTAB 2004).
For the reasons set forth above, this requirement is hereby MAINTAINED AND CONTINUED.
Response Guidelines
For this application to proceed, applicant must explicitly address each refusal and/or requirement in this Office action. For a refusal, applicant may provide written arguments and evidence against the refusal, and may have other response options if specified above. For a requirement, applicant should set forth the changes or statements. Please see “Responding to Office Actions” and the informational video “Response to Office Action” for more information and tips on responding.
If the applicant has any questions or requires assistance in responding to this Office Action, please contact the examining attorney at the contact information provided below. 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.
Yi, Crystal
/Crystal H. Yi/
Examining Attorney
Law Office 123
571.270.0763
crystal.yi@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 final Office action and/or appeal it to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB).
RESPONSE GUIDANCE
