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: 6/26/2019

 

The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney.  Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issue(s) 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
• Identification and Classification of Services
• Disclaimer 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. 5600043 and 5760589.  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/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.

 

Applicant has applied to register the mark SOLDER REDEFINED in standard characters for use in connection with “Technical consulting services related to manufacture, selection and use of nano-materials, specialty alloys, solder paste, solder preforms, solder spheres, solder wire, solder tubing, solder ribbon, solder foil, solder fluxes, electrically conductive adhesives, electrically conductive underfills, electrically conductive polymers, indium containing fabrications and pure indium” in Class 40.

 

Registrants’ marks are as follows:

 

1.     5600043 – RE-DEFINED in standard characters for use in connection with “precious metals and alloys thereof” in Class 14, “precious metal refining and recycling services” in Class 40, and “assay services for precious metals and alloys” in Class 42.

 

2.     5760589 – RE-DEFINED in stylized characters for use in connection with “precious metals and alloys thereof” in Class 14, “precious metal refining and recycling services” in Class 40, and “assay services for precious metals and alloys” in Class 42.

 

COMPARISON OF THE MARKS

 

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).

 

Although marks are compared in their entireties, one feature of a mark may be more significant or dominant in creating a commercial impression.  See In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1305, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re Dixie Rests., 105 F.3d 1405, 1407, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533-34 (Fed. Cir. 1997)); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii). Greater weight is often given to this dominant feature when determining whether marks are confusingly similar.  See In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d at 1305, 128 USPQ2d at 1050 (citing In re Dixie Rests., 105 F.3d at 1407, 41 USPQ2d at 1533-34). Matter that is descriptive of or generic for a party’s goods and/or services is typically less significant or less dominant in relation to other wording in a mark.  See Anheuser-Busch, LLC v. Innvopak Sys. Pty Ltd., 115 USPQ2d 1816, 1824-25 (TTAB 2015) (citing In re Chatam Int’l Inc., 380 F.3d 1340, 1342-43, 71 USPQ2d 1944, 1946 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).

 

In the present case, applicant’s mark, SOLDER REDEFINED, is similar to registrant’s marks, RE-DEFINED and RE-DEFINED, because the marks are similar in appearance, meaning, and commercial impression. The marks are similar because the common dominant wording in all of the marks is REDEFINED or RE-DEFINED. The only differences are (1) the fact that applicant’s mark has additional wording “SOLDER”, (2) the fact that registrant’s marks have a dash within the wording “RE-DEFINED”, and (3) the fact that registrant’s second mark is stylized while the applicant’s mark is in standard character.

 

Furthermore, the wording “SOLDER” is descriptive in the case of the applicant’s services, which are “Technical consulting services related to manufacture, selection and use of nano-materials, specialty alloys, solder paste, solder preforms, solder spheres, solder wire, solder tubing, solder ribbon, solder foil, solder fluxes, electrically conductive adhesives, electrically conductive underfills, electrically conductive polymers, indium containing fabrications and pure indium”. The attached evidence from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/solder shows the wording “SOLDER” means “a metal or metallic alloy used when melted to join metallic surfaces”, and thus “SOLDER” is descriptive because the applicant provides technical consulting related to types of solder. Because “SOLDER” is descriptive here, the wording REDEFINED in applicant’s mark is the only dominant feature when determining whether the marks are confusingly similar, and the fact that the applicant provides the additional wording “SOLDER” will not obviate similarity.

 

Thus, the dominant, literal elements between the applicant’s mark and registrant’s marks, “REDEFINED” and “RE-DEFINED”, are highly similar except for a slight difference in appearance between applicant’s mark, which appears as a compound word with no space separating the words, that is, “REDEFINED”; and registrant’s marks, which appear as a compound word with a dash separating the words, that is, “RE-DEFINED”. As such, the dominant, literal elements of the marks are identical in sound and virtually identical in appearance, and are thus confusingly similar for the purposes of determining likelihood of confusion.  See, e.g., Seaguard Corp. v. Seaward Int’l, Inc., 223 USPQ 48, 51 (TTAB 1984) (“[T]he marks ‘SEAGUARD’ and ‘SEA GUARD’ are, in contemplation of law, identical [internal citation omitted].”); In re Best W. Family Steak House, Inc., 222 USPQ 827, 827 (TTAB 1984) (“There can be little doubt that the marks [BEEFMASTER and BEEF MASTER] are practically identical”); Stock Pot, Inc., v. Stockpot Rest., Inc., 220 USPQ 52, 52 (TTAB 1983), aff’d 737 F.2d 1576, 222 USPQ 665 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (“There is no question that the marks of the parties [STOCKPOT and STOCK POT] are confusingly similar.  The word marks are phonetically identical and visually almost identical.”).

 

The word portions of the marks are nearly identical in appearance, connotation, and commercial impression; therefore, the addition of a design element does not obviate the similarity of the marks in this case.  See In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1206, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1993); TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii). Thus, the fact that registrant’s second mark is stylized will not obviate a similarity between the marks in this case.

 

Therefore, the marks are similar and the above differences do not change the commercial impression of the marks.

 

COMPARISON OF THE GOODS AND SERVICES

 

The goods and/or 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/or 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).

 

With regard to registrant’s marks 1 and 2, the applicant’s services are “Technical consulting services related to manufacture, selection and use of nano-materials, specialty alloys, solder paste, solder preforms, solder spheres, solder wire, solder tubing, solder ribbon, solder foil, solder fluxes, electrically conductive adhesives, electrically conductive underfills, electrically conductive polymers, indium containing fabrications and pure indium”. Registrant’s goods are “precious metals and alloys thereof” in Class 14, “precious metal refining and recycling services” in Class 40, and “assay services for precious metals and alloys” in Class 42.

 

Thus, applicant’s services, “Technical consulting services related to manufacture, selection and use of . . . specialty alloys”, are related to registrant’s goods, namely, “precious metals and alloys”, because both are likely to involve the same channels of trade and the same classes of consumers.  The attached evidence from http://www.asi-alloys.com/index.php, http://www.imacroinc.com/Company-refractories-refractory.html, http://www.sharrettsplating.com/free-quote, http://www.sharrettsplating.com/additional-services/consulting, http://www.neymetals.com/about-us/, and http://www.aimalloys.com/ shows that it is common for both applicant’s and registrant’s goods and services to be sold and performed by a single source. Specifically, the attached websites show companies that manufacture metals and alloys and provide consulting related to the use or manufacture of metals and alloys.

 

Therefore applicant’s services are related to registrant’s goods.

 

CONCLUSION

 

In conclusion, the parties utilize highly similar marks that have the same dominant feature conveying a highly similar overall impression in connection with closely related goods and services that appear to be marketed to the same consumers through similar channels of trade.  Therefore, registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration Nos. 5600043 and 5760589.

 

IDENTIFICATION AND CLASSIFICATION OF SERVICES

 

Applicant has applied for the following identification of services:

 

Class 40: Technical consulting services related to manufacture, selection and use of nano-materials, specialty alloys, solder paste, solder preforms, solder spheres, solder wire, solder tubing, solder ribbon, solder foil, solder fluxes, electrically conductive adhesives, electrically conductive underfills, electrically conductive polymers, indium containing fabrications and pure indium

 

Applicant must clarify the wording “Technical consulting services related to manufacture, selection and use of nano-materials, specialty alloys, solder paste, solder preforms, solder spheres, solder wire, solder tubing, solder ribbon, solder foil, solder fluxes, electrically conductive adhesives, electrically conductive underfills, electrically conductive polymers, indium containing fabrications and pure indium” in the identification of services in International Class 40 because it is indefinite and includes services outside of Class 40. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03.  This wording is indefinite because “Technical consulting services related to manufacture, selection and use” does not clearly indicate the nature of the services. Further, this wording could identify services in more than one international class.  For example, “Technical consulting services related to manufacture” is in Class 40, and “Technical consulting services related to selection” is in Class 35. Therefore applicant must amend the application in order to clarify the services.

 

Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate: 

 

Class 35: Technical consulting services related to selection of nano-materials, specialty alloys, solder paste, solder preforms, solder spheres, solder wire, solder tubing, solder ribbon, solder foil, solder fluxes, electrically conductive adhesives, electrically conductive underfills, electrically conductive polymers, indium containing fabrications and pure indium

 

Class 40: Technical consulting services related to manufacture of nano-materials, specialty alloys, solder paste, solder preforms, solder spheres, solder wire, solder tubing, solder ribbon, solder foil, solder fluxes, electrically conductive adhesives, electrically conductive underfills, electrically conductive polymers, indium containing fabrications and pure indium

 

Applicant may amend the identification to clarify or limit the services, but not to broaden or expand the 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 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.

 

ADVISORY – MULTIPLE CLASSES

 

The application references goods and/or services based on use in commerce in more than one international class; therefore, applicant must satisfy all the requirements below for each international class:

 

(1)       List the goods and/or services by their international class number in consecutive numerical order, starting with the lowest numbered class (for example, International Class 3: perfume; International Class 18: cosmetic bags sold empty).

 

(2)       Submit a filing fee for each international class not covered by the fees already paid (view the USPTO’s current fee schedule).  Specifically, the application identifies services based on use in commerce that are classified in at least 2 classes; however, applicant submitted a fee sufficient for only 1 class.  Applicant must either (a) submit the filing fees for the classes not covered by the submitted fees or (b) restrict the application to the number of classes covered by the fees already paid.

 

(3)       Submit verified dates of first use of the mark anywhere and in commerce for each international class.  See more information about verified dates of use.

 

(4)       Submit a specimen for each international class.  The current specimen is acceptable for classes 35 and 40.  See more information about specimens.  

 

(5)       Submit a verified statement that “The specimen was in use in commerce on or in connection with the services listed in the application at least as early as the filing date of the application.”  See more information about verification.

 

See 15 U.S.C. §§1051(a), 1112; 37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(6)-(7), 2.34(a)(1), 2.86(a); TMEP §§904, 1403.01, 1403.02(c).

 

See an overview of the requirements for a Section 1(a) multiple-class application and how to satisfy the requirements online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form.

 

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 “SOLDER” because it is not inherently distinctive.  This unregistrable term at best is merely descriptive of a feature or use of applicant’s 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 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/solder shows the wording “SOLDER” means “a metal or metallic alloy used when melted to join metallic surfaces”. Thus, the wording merely describes a feature applicant’s services because the applicant is providing “Technical consulting services related to manufacture, selection and use of nano-materials, specialty alloys, solder paste, solder preforms, solder spheres, solder wire, solder tubing, solder ribbon, solder foil, solder fluxes, electrically conductive adhesives, electrically conductive underfills, electrically conductive polymers, indium containing fabrications and pure indium”.

 

Furthermore, the applicant’s identification shows that its technical consulting services relate to the manufacture and use of “solder paste, solder preforms, solder spheres, solder wire, solder tubing, solder ribbon, solder foil, solder fluxes”. Use of a term in the identification is a clear indication of the descriptive nature of the term in connection with the services.  Accordingly, since the term SOLDER describes a feature or use of the applicant’s services, the term is descriptive and must be disclaimed.

 

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

 

No claim is made to the exclusive right to use “SOLDER” 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. 

 

RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION

 

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.  

 

Solite, Joshua

/Joshua A. Solite/

Law Clerk

Law Office 123

U.S. Patent & Trademark Office

(571) 272-3199

joshua.solite@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 6/26/2019 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 88429449

 

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 6/26/2019 (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.