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: July 03, 2019

 

INTRODUCTION

 

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

 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES:

 

1. Section 2(d) – Likelihood Of Confusion Refusal-In-Part As To Class 25 Only
2. Advisory:  Potential Section 2(d) Refusal As To Class 25 Only– One Prior Pending Application
3. Information About Goods Required
4. Disclaimer Required
5. Consent Statement Required

 

SECTION 2(d) – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION REFUSAL-IN-PART AS TO CLASS 25 ONLY

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused-in-part as to class 25 only because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 5417705.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registration.

 

In this case, applicant has applied to register the mark “COMBS GLOBAL” for use in connection with, in pertinent part, “Clothing and clothing accessories, namely, shirts, t-shirts, jackets, jogging suits, pants, coats, t-shirts, shorts, tank tops, skirts, warm-up suits, soccer jerseys, sportshirts, jackets, hoodies, beanies, sweatshirts and sweatpants, sweaters, dresses, sleepwear, loungewear, and swimwear; footwear, shoes, sneakers; headbands; socks; baseball caps and hats; fashion accessories, namely, bandanas, belts, ties, gloves, scarves, socks, hosiery, underwear, men's briefs, boxer briefs, boxer shorts and women's lingerie,” among other goods.

 

The mark in Registration No. 5417705 is “LUKE COMBS” used in connection with “Clothing, namely, tops, shirts, T-shirts, sweatshirts.”

 

Introduction to Section 2(d) Analysis

 

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

 

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

 

Similarity 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).

 

Here, applicant’s mark, “COMBS GLOBAL”, is confusingly similar to the registered mark, “LUKE COMBS”, in sound, appearance, and overall commercial impression. Specifically, the marks sound and appear similar in that they share the identical term “COMBS”. When comparing marks, “[t]he proper test is not a side-by-side comparison of the marks, but instead whether the marks are sufficiently similar in terms of their commercial impression such that [consumers] who encounter the marks would be likely to assume a connection between the parties.”  Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., __ F.3d __, 127 USPQ2d 1797, 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1368, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(b).  The proper focus is on the recollection of the average purchaser, who retains a general rather than specific impression of trademarks.  In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1746 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re St. Helena Hosp., 774 F.3d 747, 750-51, 113 USPQ2d 1082, 1085 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Geigy Chem. Corp. v. Atlas Chem. Indus., Inc., 438 F.2d 1005, 1007, 169 USPQ 39, 40 (CCPA 1971)); TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

In this case, the marks share the same overall commercial impression, despite the differences between the marks.  Specifically, the term “COMBS” in each of the marks leaves consumers with the same commercial impression of a surname which also describes an instrument for untangling hair. See http://lookwayup.com/lwu.exe/lwu/d?s=f&w=Combs#n/19900543 and http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/combs.  Additionally, though the applied-for mark and registered mark contain added terms, these added terms do not obviate the similarities of the marks.  To begin, the added term “LUKE” in registrant’s mark is likely to be perceived as identifying the previously anonymous person identified by “COMBS” in applicant’s “COMBS CARTEL” goods and services. See In re Chica, Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1845 (TTAB 2007) (Purchasers encountering goods offered under CORAZON and CORAZON BY CHICA will view CORAZON BY CHICA as an indication of the previously anonymous source of the goods sold under the CORAZON mark); see also In re Fiesta Palms, LLC, 2007 TTAB LEXIS 51 (TTAB 2007); In re Hill-Behan Lumber Company, 201 USPQ 246 (TTAB 1978). 

 

Next, the added term “GLOBAL” in applicant’s mark does not obviate the similarities of the marks because it is less significant in creating commercial impression as a term that is descriptive of the geographic scale on which applicant’s goods are intended to be offered, and must be disclaimed as a descriptive term.  See Disclaimer Requirement. 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 Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 1058, 224 USPQ 749, 751 (Fed. Cir. 1985); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii).  Disclaimed matter that is descriptive of or generic for a party’s goods is typically less significant or less dominant when comparing marks.  In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1305, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re Dixie Rests., Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 1407, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533-34 (Fed. Cir. 1997)); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii).  Therefore, “GLOBAL” is less significant because consumers will immediately recognize that the term conveys information about applicant’s goods, rather than viewing this term as a source-identifying term.  Consequently, consumers will focus on “COMBS” in applicant’s mark.

 

Ultimately, when purchasers call for the goods of applicant and registrant using, “COMBS GLOBAL” and “LUKE COMBS”, they are likely to be confused as to the sources of those goods by the similarities between the marks. Thus, the marks are confusingly similar.

 

Relatedness of the Goods and Services

 

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, both the application and registration identify the following goods, which are identical: “clothing, namely, shirts, t-shirts.” Additionally, the registration uses broad wording to describe “Clothing, namely, tops, sweatshirts”, which presumably encompasses all goods of the type described, including applicant’s more narrow “Clothing and clothing accessories, namely, shirts, t-shirts, jackets, jogging suits, coats, t-shirts, shorts, tank tops, warm-up suits, soccer jerseys, sportshirts, jackets, hoodies, sweatshirts, sweaters, sleepwear, loungewear,” which merely describe particular types of clothing tops or shirts or sweatshirts, or sets of clothing containing clothing tops.  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 aforementioned 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)).  Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods are related.

 

Next, applicant’s various clothing articles are closely related to registrant’s clothing goods because clothing manufacturers frequently offer a wide variety of clothing articles in the same channels of trade and under the same mark,.  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 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 following attached Internet evidence demonstrates that a wide variety of clothing articles are frequently offered in the same channels of trade, and under the same mark.  See e.g.,

 

1.      http://www.forever21.com/us/shop/catalog/category/f21/women-main and http://www.forever21.com/us/shop/catalog/category/21men/mens-main (showing Forever 21 offers a wide variety of clothing, including active wear, bodysuits, clothing bottoms, dresses, shorts, intimates, sleepwear, jackets, outerwear, jeans, jumpsuits, rompers, two piece sets, swimwear, clothing tops and clothing tees, scarves, socks and tights, shoes, gloves, belts, hats, and men’s underwear, all under the same mark).

 

2.      http://www2.hm.com/en_us/women.html, http://www2.hm.com/en_us/men.html, http://www2.hm.com/en_us/women/products/accessories.html and http://www2.hm.com/en_us/search-results.html?q=ties (showing H&M offers a wide variety of clothing, including clothing tops, shirts, blouses, sweaters, knitwear, blazers, outerwear, pants, jeans, shorts, skirts, dresses, jumpsuits, rompers, shoes, swimwear, lingerie, sleepwear, loungewear, socks and tights, sportswear, men’s underwear, belts, gloves, scarves, and hats all under the same mark).

 

3.      http://www.gap.com/browse/category.do?cid=65179#pageId=0&department=136&mlink=5058,17392436,HP_Promo_W, http://www.gap.com/browse/category.do?cid=65179#  and http://www.gap.com/browse/category.do?cid=35300#pageId=0&department=136&mlink=5058,,flyout_women_Categories_Shoes_Accessories_&clink=15682852 (showing Gap offers a wide variety of clothing, including jeans, pants, shorts, rompers, skirts, dresses, jumpsuits, shirts, clothing tops, t-shirts, sweatshirts, sweaters, outerwear, blazers, swim clothing, shoes, and active wear, including capris, leggings, shorts, active wear tops, sweatshirts, jackets, and sports bras, men’s underwear, and accessories, including scarves, belts, socks, hosiery, and hats all under the same mark).

 

The attached evidence establishes that the parties’ respective goods frequently travel in the same channels of trade, and are offered to the same class of class of consumers in the same field of use.  Additionally, the evidence demonstrates that consumers are accustomed to seeing businesses offer a wide variety of clothing articles, all under the same mark.  As a result, consumers encountering applicant’s and registrant’s respective goods at the same time are likely to mistakenly presume the goods and services originate from the same source because of the relationship between the goods.  Consequently, applicant’s and registrant’s respective goods are closely related under the likelihood of confusion analysis.

 

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 and services as those of both applicant and registrant in this case.  This evidence shows that the goods and services listed therein, namely, a wide variety of clothing articles, including clothing tops, suits, jerseys, sweatpants, overalls, rainwear, pants, bandanas, footwear, belts, ties, scarves, gloves, socks, hosiery, boxers, and lingerie, 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).

 

See Registration Nos. 5772561, 5754840, 5593947, 5375225, 4884089, 4896105.

 

This evidence establishes that the relevant goods and services are sold or provided through the same trade channels and used by the same classes of consumers in the same fields of use.  Accordingly, 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).]

 

Ultimately, because the marks are confusingly similar and the goods are closely related, it is likely a potential consumer would be confused, mistaken, or deceived as to the source of the goods of the applicant and registrant.  Therefore, registration must be refused under Section 2(d).

 

Response to Section 2(d) – Likelihood of Confusion Refusal-in-Part

 

The stated refusal refers to International Classes 25 only and does not bar registration in the other classes.

 

Applicant may respond to the stated refusal by submitting evidence and arguments against the refusal.  In addition, applicant may respond by doing one of the following:

 

(1)  Deleting the class to which the refusal pertains;

 

or

 

(2)  Filing a request to divide out the goods that have not been refused registration, so that the mark may proceed toward publication for opposition in the classes to which the refusal does not pertain.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.87.  See generally TMEP §§1110 et seq. (regarding the requirements for filing a request to divide). If applicant files a request to divide, then to avoid abandonment, applicant must also file a timely response to all outstanding issues in this Office action, including the refusal.  37 C.F.R. §2.87(e).; or

ADVISORY:  POTENTIAL SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL AS TO CLASS 25 ONLY– ONE PRIOR PENDING APPLICATION 

The filing date of pending U.S. Application Serial No. 87188303 precedes applicant’s filing date.  See attached referenced application.  If the mark in the referenced application registers, applicant’s mark may be refused registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d) because of a likelihood of confusion between the two marks.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §§1208 et seq.  Therefore, upon receipt of applicant’s response to this Office action, action on this application may be suspended pending final disposition of the earlier-filed referenced application. 

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 mark in the referenced application.  Applicant’s election not to submit arguments at this time in no way limits applicant’s right to address this issue later if a refusal under Section 2(d) issues. 

While applicant is not required to respond to the issue of the pending application, applicant must respond to this Office Action within six months of the mailing date to avoid abandonment.

REQUIREMENTS

 

If applicant responds to the refusal, applicant must also respond to the requirements set forth below.

INFORMATION ABOUT GOODS REQUIRED 

To permit proper examination of the application, applicant must submit additional information about applicant’s goods.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b); TMEP §§814, 1402.01(e).  Specifically, applicant must submit the following: 

1. Are the goods intended, or will the applied-for goods be offered, on a “GLOBAL” or worldwide scale? 
2. Applicant must provide a written statement explaining whether the goods will be manufactured, packaged, shipped from or sold globally.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b); TMEP §§814, 1210.03. 

Factual information about the goods must clearly indicate how they operate, their salient features, and their prospective customers and channels of trade.  Conclusory statements will not satisfy this requirement for information.

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 goods 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 must also respond to the following requirement.

DISCLAIMER REQUIRED

Applicant must disclaim the wording “GLOBAL” in the mark because it is not inherently distinctive.  These unregistrable term(s) are at best primarily geographically descriptive of the origin of applicant’s goods and/or services.  See 15 U.S.C. §§1052(e)(2); In re Societe Generale des Eaux Minerales de Vittel S.A., 824 F.2d 957, 959, 3 USPQ2d 1450, 1451-52 (Fed. Cir. 1987); TMEP §§1210.01(a), 1210.06(a), 1213.03(a).

The term, “GLOBAL” means “worldwide” and immediately conveys that applicant’s goods are intended to be offered worldwide.  See http://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=GLOBAL.   If the goods are intended or will be distributed worldwide, then the applied-for goods originate globally, and a public association of the goods with the place is presumed.  See In re Hollywood Lawyers Online, 110 USPQ2d 1852, 1858 (TTAB 2014) (citing In re Spirits of New Merced, LLC, 85 USPQ2d 1614, 1621 (TTAB 2007)); TMEP §§1210.02(a) 1210.04. 

An applicant may not claim exclusive rights to terms that others may need to use to describe their goods in the marketplace. See Dena Corp. v. Belvedere Int’l, Inc., 950 F.2d 1555, 1560, 21 USPQ2d 1047, 1051 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Aug. Storck KG, 218 USPQ 823, 825 (TTAB 1983). A disclaimer of unregistrable matter does not affect the appearance of the mark; that is, a disclaimer does not physically remove the disclaimed matter from the mark. See Schwarzkopf v. John H. Breck, Inc., 340 F.2d 978, 978, 144 USPQ 433, 433 (C.C.P.A. 1965); TMEP §1213.

If applicant does not provide the required disclaimer, the USPTO may refuse to register the entire mark. See In re Stereotaxis Inc., 429 F.3d 1039, 1040-41, 77 USPQ2d 1087, 1088-89 (Fed. Cir. 2005); TMEP §1213.01(b).

 

Applicant should submit a disclaimer in the following standardized format:

 

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

 

For an overview of disclaimers and instructions on how to satisfy this disclaimer requirement online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, please go to http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/law/disclaimer.jsp.

Applicant must also respond to the following requirement.

CONSENT STATEMENT REQUIRED

 

The applied-for mark includes the name “COMBS”, which refers to the following individual:  “Sean John Combs.”  However, this individual did not sign the application and the application does not include a written consent personally signed by this individual.  To register a mark that consists of or comprises the name of a particular living individual, including a first name, pseudonym, stage name, or nickname, an applicant must provide a written consent personally signed by the named individual.  15 U.S.C. §1052(c); TMEP §§813, 1206.04(a).  Consent to registration is presumed only when the particular individual identified in the mark is also the person who signed the application.  Alford Mfg. Co. v. Alfred Elecs., 137 USPQ 250, 250 (TTAB 1963), aff’d, 333 F.3d 912, 142 USPQ 168 (C.C.P.A. 1964); TMEP §1206.04(b). 

 

Because the individual named in the mark did not sign the application and the application did not include a proper written consent, applicant must provide a statement that the name in the mark identifies a particular living individual and a written consent to register the name.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(c); TMEP §§813.01(a)-(b), 1206.04(a), 1206.05. 

 

Accordingly, applicant must submit both of the following: 

 

(1)               The following statement:  “COMBS” identifies Sean Combs, a living individual whose consent is of record.

 

AND

 

(2)        A written consent, personally signed by the named individual, as follows:  I, Sean Combs, consent to the use and registration of my name, “COMBS”, as a trademark and/or service mark with the USPTO.

 

For an overview of the requirements pertaining to names appearing in marks, and instructions on how to satisfy this requirement online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) response form, please go to http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/law/consent.jsp.

 

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.

Applicant should file a response online using the Response to Examining Attorney Office Action Form available at http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks-application-process/filing-online/response-forms. 

If applicant requires technical assistance in using the online response form, applicant may email TEAS@uspto.gov or call the Trademark Assistance Center at 1-800-786-9199.

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.  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.  

ASSISTANCE

Please call or email the assigned trademark examining attorney with questions about this Office action.

 

 

/Tiffany Y. Chiang/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 113

(571) 272-7681

tiffany.chiang@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)

 

USPTO OFFICIAL NOTICE

 

Office Action (Official Letter) has issued

on July 03, 2019 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88441258

 

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. 

 

 

/Tiffany Y. Chiang/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 113

(571) 272-7681

tiffany.chiang@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 July 03, 2019, 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.”