Offc Action Outgoing

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application

 

 

 

NONFINAL OFFICE ACTION

 

The USPTO must receive applicant’s response to this letter within six months of the issue date below or the application will be abandoned.  Respond using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS).  A link to the appropriate TEAS response form appears at the end of this Office action. 

 

 

Issue date:  May 01, 2020

 

The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney.  Applicant must respond timely and completely to the refusals and requirements below.  15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(a), 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.

 

Summary of Issues

 

·         Advisory—potentially conflicting pending application(s);

·         Partial Sections 1 and 45 refusal—unlawful use under Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act;

·         Section 2(e)(1) refusal—mark is merely descriptive;

·         Identification of goods and services requirement—amend to clarify and avoid Section 2(a) deceptiveness refusal;

·         Information requirement;

·         Mark description requirement.

 

Advisory—Potentially Conflicting Pending Application(s)

 

The trademark examining attorney has searched the USPTO’s database of registered and pending marks and has found no similar registered marks that would bar registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d).  TMEP §704.02; see 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).  However, mark(s) in prior-filed pending application(s) may present a bar to registration of applicant’s mark.

 

The filing dates of pending U.S. Application Serial Nos. 88037882, 88037884, 88416539, 88177102, 88353589, and 88353482 precede applicant’s filing date.  See attached referenced applications.  If one or more of the marks in the referenced applications register, applicant’s mark may be refused registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d) because of a likelihood of confusion with the registered mark(s).  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §§1208 et seq.  Therefore, upon receipt of applicant’s response to this Office action, action on this application may be suspended pending final disposition of the earlier-filed referenced applications.

 

In response to this Office action, applicant may present arguments in support of registration by addressing the issue of the potential conflict between applicant’s mark and the marks in the referenced applications.  Applicant’s election not to submit arguments at this time in no way limits applicant’s right to address this issue later if a refusal under Section 2(d) issues.

 

Applicant must, however, respond to the following issue(s).

 

Partial Sections 1 and 45 Refusal—Unlawful Use under Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act

 

THIS PARTIAL REFUSAL APPLIES ONLY TO THE GOODS AND SERVICES SPECIFIED BELOW

 

Registration is refused because the applicant does not have a bona fide intent to lawfully use the applied-for mark in commerce.  Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; see TMEP §907. 

 

The goods/services to which the mark is applied must comply with all applicable federal laws.  See In re Brown, 119 USPQ2d 1350, 1351 (TTAB 2016) (citing In re Midwest Tennis & Track Co., 29 USPQ2d 1386, 1386 n.2 (TTAB 1993) (noting that “[i]t is settled that the Trademark Act’s requirement of ‘use in commerce,’ means a ‘lawful use in commerce’”)); In re Pepcom Indus., Inc., 192 USPQ 400, 401 (TTAB 1976); TMEP §907. 

 

The applicant seeks to register the mark CBD and design for intended use the following goods and services relevant to this refusal:

 

soft gels; beverages; fruit-based beverages; retail store services featuring … soft gels, beverages …

 

The soft gels and beverages listed in the application are presumed to contain CBD because the mark contains this wording.  Furthermore, the retail store services are presumed to feature soft gels and beverages containing CBD.

 

These items and activities involve a violation of federal law, in particular, of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA).  See In re Brown, 119 USPQ2d at 1352.  The FDCA prohibits the introduction into interstate commerce of a food or dietary supplement to which has been added or which comprises a drug approved under Section 355 of the FDCA or a biological product licensed under 42 U.S.C. §262.  21 U.S.C. §331(ll); see also 21 U.S.C. §321(ff) (indicating that a dietary supplement is deemed to be a food within the meaning of the FDCA).

 

Cannabidiol (CBD), a chemical constituent of the cannabis plant, was the subject of substantial clinical investigations before it was marketed in foods or as dietary supplements.  On June 25, 2018, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first prescription pharmaceutical formulation of plant-derived CBD, Epidiolex®, for the treatment of two rare forms of epilepsy, Lennox-Gastaut syndrome and Dravet syndrome.  The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) placed Epidiolex® on schedule V of the CSA on September 27, 2018.  Nevertheless, marijuana and CBD derived from marijuana remain unlawful.  No other cannabis-derived drug products have been approved by the FDA.  Under the FDCA, any product intended to have a therapeutic or medical use, and any product (other than a food) that is intended to affect the structure or function of the body of humans or animals, is a drug.  21 U.S.C. § 321(g)(1)  An unapproved new drug cannot be distributed or sold in interstate commerce unless it is the subject of an FDA-approved new drug application (NDA) or abbreviated new drug application (ANDA). 21 U.S.C. §§ 331(d) and 355(a), (b), & (j); see also FDA Regulation of Cannabis and Cannabis-Derived Products: Questions and Answers http://www.fda.gov/news-events/public-health-focus/fda-regulation-cannabis-and-cannabis-derived-products-questions-and-answers (copy attached).

 

Thus, because CBD has been approved as a drug for the treatment of epilepsy, it is unlawful to include it in a food or supplement that is sold in interstate commerce, or to market such goods in a retail store.  This prohibition applies regardless of whether the CBD is derived from hemp, and thus in compliance with the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (2018 Farm Bill), which amended the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, to remove “hemp” from the definition of “marijuana” in the Controlled Substances Act.  See 21 U.S.C. §§321(ff)(3)(B)(ii), 331(d), 352(f)(1), 355(a); see also Statement from FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, M.D., on signing of the Agriculture Improvement Act and the agency’s regulation of products containing cannabis and cannabis-derived compounds, http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm628988.htm (copy attached).   

 

In summary, in order for an application to have a valid basis that could properly result in a registration, the use of the mark has to be lawful.  See In re Pepcom Indus., Inc., 192 USPQ 400, 401 (TTAB 1976)  Because introduction of such goods into commerce was not lawful as of the filing date, applicant did not have a bona fide intent to use the applied-for mark in lawful commerce in connection with such goods and/or the identified services.  See e.g. In re JJ206, LLC, 120 USPQ2d 1568, 1569 (TTAB 2016) (“where the identified goods are illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), the applicant cannot use its mark in lawful commerce, and ‘it is a legal impossibility’ for the applicant to have the requisite bona fide intent to use the mark.”); see also In re Brown, 119 USPQ2d, 1351-1352; TMEP §907.   

 

Registration of the mark is accordingly refused pursuant to Sections 1 and 45 of the Trademark Act because the applicant does not have a bona fide intent to lawfully use the applied-for mark in commerce.

 

Partial Refusal Response Options

 

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

 

Furthermore, the stated refusal(s) refer(s) to the following goods and services only: “soft gels; beverages; fruit-based beverages; retail store services featuring … soft gels, beverages.”

 

It does not bar registration of the following goods and services: “Herbal cigarettes; hemp cigarettes; hemp cigarettes containing CBD; herbal pouches; hemp derived CBD pouches; vaporizer pen refill cartridges; vaporizer pen refill cartridges sold empty; cartridges sold filled with hemp derived CBD oil for vaporizer pens; live hemp flower plants;…; retail store services featuring herbal cigarettes, hemp cigarettes, hemp derived CBD pouches, vaporizer pen refill cartridges, … and hemp flower plants.”

 

Please note, however, that the following additional issues may apply to all of the goods and services in the application.

 

Section 2(e)(1) Refusal—Mark Is Merely Descriptive

 

Registration is refused because the applied-for mark merely describes a feature of applicant’s goods and services.  Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); see TMEP §§1209.01(b), 1209.03 et seq.

 

The applicant seeks to register CBD and a design for use in connection with goods containing CBD and retail store services featuring these goods.

 

A mark is merely descriptive if it describes an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose, or use of an applicant’s goods and/or services.  TMEP §1209.01(b); see, e.g., In re TriVita, Inc., 783 F.3d 872, 874, 114 USPQ2d 1574, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 1173, 71 USPQ2d 1370, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004)); In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293, 1297, 75 USPQ2d 1420, 1421 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Estate of P.D. Beckwith, Inc. v. Comm’r of Patents, 252 U.S. 538, 543 (1920)). 

 

The attached dictionary entries show that the wording CBD is defined as “a nonintoxicating cannabinoid found in cannabis and hemp : CANNABIDIOL.”

 

The identification of record states that the applicant is providing hemp cigarettes containing CBD, hemp-derived CBD pouches, cartridges sold filled with hemp derived CBD oil for vaporizer pens, and retail store services featuring these goods.  Thus, the wording CBD in the mark merely describes an ingredient in the goods that are provided and which are featured in the retail stores. See TMEP §1209.01(b); see also In re TriVita, Inc., 783 F.3d 872, 114 USPQ2d 1574 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding NOPALEA merely descriptive of dietary and nutritional supplements containing nopal juice); In re Keebler Co., 479 F.2d 1405, 178 USPQ 155 (C.C.P.A. 1973) (holding RICH ‘N CHIPS merely descriptive of chocolate chip cookies); In re Andes Candies Inc., 478 F.2d 1264, 178 USPQ 156 (C.C.P.A. 1973) (holding CREME DE MENTHE merely descriptive of candy); In re Entenmann’s, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1750 (TTAB 1990) (holding OATNUT merely descriptive of bread containing oats and hazelnuts); Flowers Indus., Inc. v. Interstate Brands Corp., 5 USPQ 2d 1580 (TTAB 1987) (holding HONEY WHEAT merely descriptive of bread containing honey and wheat).

 

The presentation of the mark in stylized lettering does not overcome its descriptive significance.   Stylized descriptive or generic wording is registrable only if the stylization creates a commercial impression separate and apart from the impression made by the wording itself.  See In re Cordua Rests., Inc., 823 F.3d 594, 606, 118 USPQ2d 1632, 1639-40 (Fed. Cir. 2016); In re Northland Aluminum Prods., Inc., 777 F.2d 1556, 1561, 227 USPQ 961, 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985); TMEP §1209.03(w).  Here, the stylization of the lettering is not sufficiently striking, unique, or distinctive as to make an impression on purchasers separate from the wording.  See In re Sadoru Grp., Ltd., 105 USPQ2d 1484, 1487 (TTAB 2012). 

 

Registration on the Principal Register is accordingly refused pursuant to Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act.

 

Supplemental Register Advisory for Intent-to-Use Application

 

Although an amendment to the Supplemental Register would normally be an appropriate response to this refusal, such a response is not appropriate in the present case.  The instant application was filed under Trademark Act Section 1(b) and is not eligible for registration on the Supplemental Register until an acceptable amendment to allege use meeting the requirements of 37 C.F.R. §2.76 has been timely filed.  37 C.F.R. §2.47(d); TMEP §§816.02, 1102.03.

 

If applicant files an acceptable allegation of use and also amends to the Supplemental Register, the application effective filing date will be the date applicant met the minimum filing requirements under 37 C.F.R. §2.76(c) for an amendment to allege use.  TMEP §§816.02, 1102.03; see 37 C.F.R. §2.75(b).  In addition, the undersigned trademark examining attorney will conduct a new search of the USPTO records for conflicting marks based on the later application filing date.  TMEP §§206.01, 1102.03.

 

Disclaimer Advisory

 

Applicant is advised that, if an acceptable allegation of use and an amendment to the Supplemental Register are filed, applicant will be required to disclaim “CBD” because such wording appears to be generic in the context of applicant’s goods and/or services.  See 15 U.S.C. §1056(a); In re Wella Corp., 565 F.2d 143, 144, 196 USPQ 7, 8 (C.C.P.A. 1977); In re Creative Goldsmiths of Wash., Inc., 229 USPQ 766, 768 (TTAB 1986); TMEP §1213.03(b).

 

Applicant may submit a disclaimer in the following format:

 

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

 

TMEP §1213.08(a)(i).

 

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

 

Identification of Goods and Services—Must Clarify Goods and Services and Amend to Avoid Section 2(a) Deceptiveness Refusal

 

The identification of goods and services, which is currently classified in International Class 34 must be clarified because it is too broad and includes goods and services in several international classes.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03.  In particular, this wording could encompass soft gel supplements in class 5; beverages in classes 29, 30, 32, or 33, depending on their ingredients; live hemp flower plants in class 31; cigarettes and vaporizer cartridges in class 34; and retail store services in class 35.  The goods and services must be clarified and classified appropriately.

 

Applicant is further advised that because the mark features the term “CBD,” it conveys to potential purchasers the impression that applicant’s goods contain cannabidiol (CBD) in sufficient levels to have a therapeutic or medical effect.  This feature is considered desirable for applicant’s goods because CBD is touted as being beneficial for a variety of conditions, including pain management, anxiety and sleep problems, depression treatments, muscle spasms, digestive issues and skin ailments.  However, if the goods will not in fact contain CBD, then registration may be refused because the mark includes deceptive matter in relation to the identified goods.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(a); In re Budge Mfg. Co., 857 F.2d 773, 8 USPQ2d 1259 (Fed. Cir. 1988); TMEP §1203.02-.02(b). 

 

Please see the attached examples from the following sources emphasizing the desirability of CBD as an ingredient in dietary supplements:

 

• http://www.newsweek.com/2019/09/06/cbd-oil-miracle-drug-science-1456629.html
• http://time.com/5516745/cbd-oil-legal-healthy/
• http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/is-the-hype-about-cbd-or-cannabidiol-real/2019/01/04/bb824280-ed09-11e8-96d4-0d23f2aaad09_story.html

 

To avoid the Section 2(a) refusal, applicant may amend the identification to specify that the goods contain CBD. See TMEP §§1203.02(e)(ii), (f)(i), 1402.05 et seq. Please note that amending the identification to exclude goods with CBD will not avoid a deceptiveness refusal.  TMEP §1203.02(f)(i).

 

Therefore, to clarify the identification and to avoid a potential Section 2(a) refusal, applicant may amend the identification to the following, if accurate: 

 

International Class 5: soft gels, namely, {specify class 5 goods, e.g., nutritional supplements in the form soft gel capsules}; all of the foregoing containing CBD solely derived from hemp containing no more than .3% THC on a dry weight basis

 

International Class 29: milk-based beverages; all of the foregoing containing CBD solely derived from hemp containing no more than .3% THC on a dry weight basis

 

International Class 30: coffee-based beverages; grain-based beverages; all of the foregoing containing CBD solely derived from hemp containing no more than .3% THC on a dry weight basis

 

International Class 31: live hemp flower plants containing CBD solely derived from hemp containing no more than .3% THC on a dry weight basis

 

International Class 32: fruit-based beverages; all of the foregoing containing CBD solely derived from hemp containing no more than .3% THC on a dry weight basis

 

International Class 34: Herbal cigarettes; hemp cigarettes; hemp cigarettes containing CBD; herbal pouches in the nature of a chewing tobacco substitute; hemp derived CBD pouches in the nature of a chewing tobacco substitute; smoker’s oral vaporizer pen refill cartridges; smoker’s oral vaporizer pen refill cartridges sold empty; cartridges sold filled with hemp derived CBD oil for smoker’s oral vaporizer pens; all of the foregoing containing CBD solely derived from hemp containing no more than .3% THC on a dry weight basis live hemp flower plants; soft gels; beverages; fruit-based beverages; retail store services featuring herbal cigarettes, hemp cigarettes, hemp derived CBD pouches, vaporizer pen refill cartridges, soft gels, beverages and hemp flower plants

 

International Class 35: retail store services featuring herbal cigarettes, hemp cigarettes, hemp derived CBD pouches, vaporizer pen refill cartridges, soft gels, beverages and hemp flower plants; the foregoing retail store services featuring goods containing CBD solely derived from hemp containing no more than .3% THC on a dry weight basis

 

Please note that that specification that the CBD is derived from hemp containing no more than .3% THC is included to indicate compliance with the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, Pub. L. 115-334 (2018 Farm Bill), which amended the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, to remove “hemp” from the definition of “marijuana” in the Controlled Substances Act.  However, this limitation does not obviate the Sections 1 and 45 refusal set forth above, which applies regardless of whether the goods and/or services are 2018 Farm Bill-compliant. See 21 U.S.C. §§812, 841(a)(1), 844(a); see also Examination Guide 1-19 Examination of Marks for Cannabis and Cannabis-Related Goods and Services after Enactment of the 2018 Farm Bill, available at https://www.gov.uspto.report/sites/default/files/documents/Exam%20Guide%201-19.pdf.

 

Applicant may amend the identification to clarify or limit the goods and/or services, but not to broaden or expand the goods and/or services beyond those in the original application or as acceptably amended.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06.  Generally, any deleted goods and/or 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.

 

Multiple-Class Application Requirements

 

The application identifies goods and/or services in more than one international class; therefore, applicant must satisfy all the requirements below for each international class based on Trademark Act Section 1(b):

 

(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 fee(s) already paid (view the USPTO’s current fee schedule).  The application identifies goods and/or services that are classified in at least seven classes; however, applicant submitted a fee(s) sufficient for only one class(es).  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 37 C.F.R. §2.86(a); TMEP §§1403.01, 1403.02(c).

 

For 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, see the Multiple-class Application webpage.

 

Information Requirement

 

To permit proper examination of the application, applicant must submit additional information about applicant’s hemp flower plants because the lawfulness of such goods is not clear from the present record.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b); TMEP §§814, 1402.01(e).

 

The Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (2018 Farm Bill) authorized the production of hemp in the United States and directed the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to establish a new regulatory program for domestic hemp production.  On October 31, 2019, the USDA published an interim final rule that establishes rules and regulations concerning the production of hemp.  See Establishment of a Domestic Hemp Production Program, 84 Fed. Reg. 58,522 (October 31, 2019) (to be codified at 7 CFR pt. 390). 

 

Applicant must provide written responses to the following questions:

 

1.                  Is applicant’s identified hemp flower plant a strain of Cannabis Sativa L or a part of the Cannabis Sativa L plant (also known as cannabis, marijuana or hemp) containing a THC content of more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis?

 

2.                  If applicant has any documentation relative to the THC content of the goods, please submit them with the response.  Otherwise, please provide information on the type of hemp flower plant applicant offers/will offer under the trademark.

 

3.                  Will applicant’s identified hemp flower plants be planted or used for personal use?

 

4.                  Will applicant’s identified hemp flower plants be sold and/or provided to third parties through interstate commerce?

 

5.                  Is the applicant a pilot participant under the Agricultural Act of 2014?  If yes, please provide supporting documentation.

 

6.                  Is the applicant currently an authorized hemp producer under a State, Tribal, or USDA Federal plan?

 

7.                  If yes to Question 6, please specify which plan (State, including identifying which State, Tribal, or USDA), and provide the authorization or license number and any supporting documentation.

 

8.                  Will applicant’s identified goods be grown/produced in the state of Idaho, Mississippi, or South Dakota?

 

9.                  To the applicant’s knowledge and belief, has the wording “CBD” in the mark ever been used, or is intended to be used, as a varietal or cultivar (also known as strain) name?

 

10.              To the applicant’s knowledge and belief, has the wording “CBD” in the mark ever been used, is is intended to be used, in connection with a plant patent, utility patent, or certificate for plant-variety protection?

 

Factual information about the services must clearly indicate what the services are and how they are rendered, their salient features, and their prospective customers and channels of trade.  Conclusory statements regarding the services will not satisfy this requirement for information.  Applicant has a duty to participate in the examination process by responding directly and completely to each request for information. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United States, 393 F.3d 1277, 1284-1285, 73 USPQ2d 1409, 1415 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("So long as there is some legitimate reason for seeking the information . . . the applicant has a duty to respond.")

 

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 about the services 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).

 

Applicant is advised that, upon consideration of the information provided by applicant in response to the above requirement, registration of the applied-for mark may be refused on the ground that the mark, as used/intended to be used in connection with the identified services, is not lawful use in commerce. Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127.  Use of a mark in commerce must be lawful use to be the basis for federal registration of the mark.   Gray v. Daffy Dan’s Bargaintown, 823 F.2d 522, 526, 3 USPQ2d 1306, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 1987); see 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; 37 C.F.R. §2.69; In re Midwest Tennis & Track Co., 29 USPQ2d 1386, 1386 n.2 (TTAB 1993); In re Stellar Int’l, Inc., 159 USPQ 48, 50-51 (TTAB 1968); TMEP §907.

 

Mark Description Requirement

 

Applicant must submit an amended description of the mark because the current one is incomplete and does not describe all the significant aspects of the mark.  37 C.F.R. §2.37; see TMEP §§808.01, 808.02.  Descriptions must be accurate and identify all the literal and design elements in the mark.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.37; TMEP §§808 et seq. 

 

The following description is suggested, if accurate: 

 

The mark consists of the letters “CBD”, with the “C” and “D” made of two half circles, the right side has a solid line completing the half circle, and the left side has a broken line completing the half circle, with the letter “B” between the half circles, all of the above form a circle.

 

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 an examining attorney cannot provide legal advice, the examining attorney can provide additional explanation about the refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) in this Office action.  See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06.

 

The USPTO does not accept emails as responses to Office actions; however, emails can be used for informal communications and are included in the application record.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(c), 2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05. 

 

How to respond.  Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action.    

 

 

/April A. Hesik/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 124

(571) 272-4735

april.hesik@uspto.gov

 

 

RESPONSE GUIDANCE

• Missing the response deadline to this letter will cause the application to abandon.  A response or notice of appeal must be received by the USPTO before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period.  TEAS and ESTTA maintenance or unforeseen circumstances could affect an applicant’s ability to timely respond.  

 

• Responses signed by an unauthorized party are not accepted and can cause the application to abandon.  If applicant does not have an attorney, the response must be signed by the individual applicant, all joint applicants, or someone with legal authority to bind a juristic applicant.  If applicant has an attorney, the response must be signed by the attorney.

 

• If needed, find contact information for the supervisor of the office or unit listed in the signature block.

 

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

 

USPTO OFFICIAL NOTICE

 

Office Action (Official Letter) has issued

on May 01, 2020 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88436133

 

Your trademark application has been reviewed by a trademark examining attorney.  As part of that review, the assigned attorney has issued an official letter that you must respond to by the specified deadline or your application will be abandoned.  Please follow the steps below.

 

(1)  Read the official letter.

 

(2)  Direct questions about the contents of the Office action to the assigned attorney below. 

 

 

/April A. Hesik/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 124

(571) 272-4735

april.hesik@uspto.gov

 

Direct questions about navigating USPTO electronic forms, the USPTO website, the application process, the status of your application, and/or whether there are outstanding deadlines or documents related to your file to the Trademark Assistance Center (TAC).

 

(3)  Respond within 6 months (or earlier, if required in the Office action) from May 01, 2020, using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS).  The response must be received by the USPTO before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period.  See the Office action for more information about how to respond

 

 

 

GENERAL GUIDANCE

·         Check the status of your application periodically in the Trademark Status & Document Retrieval (TSDR) database to avoid missing critical deadlines.

 

·         Update your correspondence email address, if needed, to ensure you receive important USPTO notices about your application.

 

·         Beware of misleading notices sent by private companies about your application.  Private companies not associated with the USPTO use public information available in trademark registrations to mail and email trademark-related offers and notices – most of which require fees.  All official USPTO correspondence will only be emailed from the domain “@uspto.gov.”