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:  July 19, 2019

 

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

 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES that applicant must address:

• Refusal – Section 2(d) – Likelihood of Confusion
• Requirement – Inquiry on Significance

 

REFUSAL – SECTION 2(d) – 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. 3242563, 4724455, 4899562, and 5106434.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registrations.

 

Applicant has applied for OPPO A (in standard character form) for “Tablet computers; Computer operating programs, recorded; Recorded computer game programs; Recorded computer programs for word processing; Recorded computer programmes for document management; Downloadable game software; Computer peripheral devices; Downloadable intelligent personal assistant software for voice recognition, natural language processing, searching the internet for traffic and weather information, appointment reminders; Downloadable speech recognition software; Recorded speech recognition software; Smartwatches; Smartglasses; Interactive touch screen terminals; Humanoid robots with artificial intelligence; Wearable computers in the nature of smartwatches; Wearable computers in the nature of smartglasses; Downloadable gesture recognition software; Downloadable virtual reality game software; Biometric scanners; Facsimile machines; Electric navigational instruments; Wearable activity trackers; Smartphones; Wireless headsets for smartphones; Protective covers for smartphones; Protective cases for smartphones; Protective films adapted for smartphones; Covers for smartphones; Cell phone straps; Keyboards for mobile phones; Cabinets for loudspeakers; Portable media players; Headphones; Teaching robots; Camcorders; Virtual reality headsets; Security surveillance robots; Photographic cameras; Selfie sticks; USB cables; Electronic chips for the manufacture of integrated circuits; Touch screens; Batteries, electric; Chargers for electric batteries; Rechargeable batteries; Video disks and video tapes with recorded animated cartoons; Air analysis apparatus; Measuring apparatus, namely, clamp meters for measuring electricity; Pressure measuring apparatus; Distance measuring apparatus; Measuring apparatus, namely, angle finders; Bio-chips for research or scientific purposes” in Class 9.

 

U.S. Registration Nos. 3242563, 4724455, and 4899562 are owned by the same registrant. No. 3242563, OPPO (in standard character form), is for, in relevant part, “video disc player; mobile telephones; audio and video cables” in Class 9. No. 4724455, OPPO (in stylized form), is for “Portable telephones; mobile telephones; DVD players; earphones; batteries; battery chargers” in Class 9. No. 4899562, OPPO (in stylized form), is for, in relevant part, “Computers; electronic pocket translators; video disc player; power amplifiers; cabinets for loudspeakers; speech reread apparatus, namely, electronic audio recorder, converter and playback units; telephones; incoming call displays, namely, caller identification boxes; television sets; audio CD players; radios; loudspeakers; cassette players; video tape players; MP3 players; computer software to control and improve computer and audio equipment sound quality and for recording, transmitting, and reproducing sound and images; mobile telephones; mobile phone accessories, namely, batteries, headsets and chargers; phonograph records featuring music and speech; compact discs and pre-recorded audio tapes all featuring music and words; blank re-writable and recordable optical discs; pre-recorded video tapes and video discs featuring music, words and images; blank compact discs, audio tapes and video tapes; audio conferencing equipment comprised of loudspeakers, headphones, wire and wireless microphones, audio mixers and related accessories, namely, speaker stands, microphone stands, and audio cables; video cameras and related accessories, namely, lenses, batteries, tripods, and camera bags; video conferencing systems sold as a unit comprised of video monitors, video cameras, video graphics controllers, cabinets specifically adapted for video conferencing equipment, microphones, and related accessories, namely, camera stands, microphone stands and audio and video cables; video projectors; large screen video display units and related accessories, namely, desktop stands specially adapted for large screen video display units, attached and detachable speakers for such display units; video printers; video camera housings; camcorders; computer game programs; notebook computers; laptop computers; photo-telegraphy apparatus; portable telephones; telephone apparatus; satellite navigational apparatus, namely, a global positioning system (GPS); switchboards; cabinets for loudspeakers; sound transmitting apparatus; television apparatus for projection purposes; DVD players; portable media players; cameras; flashlights for photography; telephone wires; electrical plugs, sockets and contacts; electric connections; burglar alarms; electric batteries; battery chargers” in Class 9.

 

U.S. Registration No. 5106434, OPO (in design form), is for, in relevant part, “computer peripheral devices” in Class 9.

 

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.

 

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).

 

Applicant’s mark OPPO A is highly similar to No. 3242563, No. 4724455, OPPO, and No. 4899562, OPPO, because each mark begins with/contains the identical wording OPPO. That applicant’s mark also contains an “A” does not obviate this finding, as it is well-established that consumers are generally more inclined to focus on the first word, prefix, or syllable in any trademark or service mark.  See Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1372, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1692 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (finding similarity between VEUVE ROYALE and two VEUVE CLICQUOT marks in part because “VEUVE . . . remains a ‘prominent feature’ as the first word in the mark and the first word to appear on the label”); Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Century Life of Am., 970 F.2d 874, 876, 23 USPQ2d 1698, 1700 (Fed Cir. 1992) (finding similarity between CENTURY 21 and CENTURY LIFE OF AMERICA in part because “consumers must first notice th[e] identical lead word”); see also In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1303, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1049 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding “the identity of the marks’ two initial words is particularly significant because consumers typically notice those words first”).

 

Further, applicant has merely added a letter onto already registered marks. Adding a term to a registered mark generally does not obviate the similarity between the compared marks, as in the present case, nor does it overcome a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d).  See Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Jos. E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 526 F.2d 556, 557, 188 USPQ 105, 106 (C.C.P.A. 1975) (finding BENGAL and BENGAL LANCER and design confusingly similar); In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d 1266, 1269 (TTAB 2009) (finding TITAN and VANTAGE TITAN confusingly similar); In re El Torito Rests., Inc., 9 USPQ2d 2002, 2004 (TTAB 1988) (finding MACHO and MACHO COMBOS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iii).  In the present case, the marks are identical in part.

 

Applicant’s mark OPPO A is highly similar to No. 5106434, OPO, because OPPO and OPO share a similar visual appearance and can be pronounced in the same manner. There is no correct pronunciation of a mark because it is impossible to predict how the public will pronounce a particular mark.  See Embarcadero Techs., Inc. v. RStudio, Inc., 105 USPQ2d 1825, 1835 (TTAB 2013) (quoting In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1367, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1912 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re The Belgrade Shoe Co., 411 F.2d 1352, 1353, 162 USPQ 227, 227 (C.C.P.A. 1969)); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iv).  The marks in question could clearly be pronounced the same; such 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).

 

That Nos. 4724455 and 4899562 are in stylized form, and No. 5106434 is in design form, does not obviate this finding, as the literal element of each mark is dominant to its stylization/design. When evaluating a composite mark consisting of words and stylization and/or 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)).

 

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).

 

Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar.

 

Relatedness of the Goods

Generally, the greater degree of similarity between the applied-for mark and the registered mark, the lesser the degree of similarity between the goods of the parties is required to support a finding of likelihood of confusion.  In re C.H. Hanson Co., 116 USPQ2d 1351, 1353 (TTAB 2015) (citing In re Opus One Inc., 60 USPQ2d 1812, 1815 (TTAB 2001)); In re Thor Tech, Inc., 90 USPQ2d 1634, 1636 (TTAB 2009). 

 

The goods of the parties are closely related. The goods of applicant, “Computer peripheral devices; Camcorders; Cabinets for loudspeakers; Batteries, electric,” are identical to No. 4899562’s “camcorders; cabinets for loudspeakers; electric batteries” and No. 5106434’s “computer peripheral devices.” When analyzing an applicant’s and registrant’s goods for similarity and relatedness, that determination is based on the description of the goods in the application and registration at issue, not on extrinsic evidence of actual use.  See Stone Lion Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 1323, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Octocom Sys. Inc. v. Hous. Computers Servs. Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 942, 16 USPQ2d 1783, 1787 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). 

 

In this case, the goods in the application and registrations are identical.  Therefore, it is presumed that the channels of trade and classes of purchasers are the same for these goods.  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, No. 3242563’s “mobile telephones,” No. 4724455’s “Portable telephones; mobile telephones; batteries; battery chargers,” No. 4899562,’s “Computers; telephones; mobile telephones; mobile phone accessories, namely, batteries, headsets and chargers; pre-recorded video tapes and video discs featuring music, words and images; computer game programs; photo-telegraphy apparatus; portable telephones; telephone apparatus; sound transmitting apparatus; cameras; electric connections; battery chargers,” and No. 5106434’s “computer peripheral devices” are broadly written such that they encompass a wide array of more narrowly identified types of goods, including applicant’s “Tablet computers; Recorded computer game programs; Downloadable game software; Smartwatches; Smartglasses; Interactive touch screen terminals; Wearable computers in the nature of smartwatches; Wearable computers in the nature of smartglasses; Downloadable virtual reality game software; Biometric scanners; Wearable activity trackers; Smartphones; Photographic cameras; USB cables; Touch screens; Chargers for electric batteries; Rechargeable batteries; Video disks and video tapes with recorded animated cartoons.” 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 registrations use broad wording to describe the above-noted goods, which presumably encompasses all goods of the type described, including applicant’s more narrowly identified goods, noted above.  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)).  Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods are related.

 

Moreover, applicant’s “Tablet computers; Computer operating programs, recorded; Recorded computer game programs; Recorded computer programs for word processing; Recorded computer programmes for document management; Downloadable game software; Computer peripheral devices; Downloadable intelligent personal assistant software for voice recognition, natural language processing, searching the internet for traffic and weather information, appointment reminders; Downloadable speech recognition software; Recorded speech recognition software; Smartwatches; Smartglasses; Interactive touch screen terminals; Humanoid robots with artificial intelligence; Wearable computers in the nature of smartwatches; Wearable computers in the nature of smartglasses; Downloadable gesture recognition software; Downloadable virtual reality game software; Biometric scanners; Facsimile machines; Electric navigational instruments; Wearable activity trackers; Smartphones; Wireless headsets for smartphones; Protective covers for smartphones; Protective cases for smartphones; Protective films adapted for smartphones; Covers for smartphones; Cell phone straps; Keyboards for mobile phones; Cabinets for loudspeakers; Portable media players; Headphones; Teaching robots; Camcorders; Virtual reality headsets; Security surveillance robots; Photographic cameras; Selfie sticks; USB cables; Electronic chips for the manufacture of integrated circuits; Touch screens; Batteries, electric; Chargers for electric batteries; Rechargeable batteries; Video disks and video tapes with recorded animated cartoons; Air analysis apparatus; Measuring apparatus, namely, clamp meters for measuring electricity; Pressure measuring apparatus; Distance measuring apparatus; Measuring apparatus, namely, angle finders; Bio-chips for research or scientific purposes” are closely related to No. 3242563’s “video disc player; mobile telephones; audio and video cables,” No. 4724455’s “Portable telephones; mobile telephones; DVD players; earphones; batteries; battery chargers,” No. 4899562’s “Computers; electronic pocket translators; video disc player; power amplifiers; cabinets for loudspeakers; speech reread apparatus, namely, electronic audio recorder, converter and playback units; telephones; incoming call displays, namely, caller identification boxes; television sets; audio CD players; radios; loudspeakers; cassette players; video tape players; MP3 players; computer software to control and improve computer and audio equipment sound quality and for recording, transmitting, and reproducing sound and images; mobile telephones; mobile phone accessories, namely, batteries, headsets and chargers; phonograph records featuring music and speech; compact discs and pre-recorded audio tapes all featuring music and words; blank re-writable and recordable optical discs; pre-recorded video tapes and video discs featuring music, words and images; blank compact discs, audio tapes and video tapes; audio conferencing equipment comprised of loudspeakers, headphones, wire and wireless microphones, audio mixers and related accessories, namely, speaker stands, microphone stands, and audio cables; video cameras and related accessories, namely, lenses, batteries, tripods, and camera bags; video conferencing systems sold as a unit comprised of video monitors, video cameras, video graphics controllers, cabinets specifically adapted for video conferencing equipment, microphones, and related accessories, namely, camera stands, microphone stands and audio and video cables; video projectors; large screen video display units and related accessories, namely, desktop stands specially adapted for large screen video display units, attached and detachable speakers for such display units; video printers; video camera housings; camcorders; computer game programs; notebook computers; laptop computers; photo-telegraphy apparatus; portable telephones; telephone apparatus; satellite navigational apparatus, namely, a global positioning system (GPS); switchboards; cabinets for loudspeakers; sound transmitting apparatus; television apparatus for projection purposes; DVD players; portable media players; cameras; flashlights for photography; telephone wires; electrical plugs, sockets and contacts; electric connections; burglar alarms; electric batteries; battery chargers,” and No. 5106434’s “computer peripheral devices because providers of applicant’s electronic goods and software products also commonly provide the electronic products of the registrants.

 

The attached Internet evidence, consisting of the above-noted electronic products and software, establishes that the same entity commonly provides the relevant goods and markets the goods under the same mark and through the same trade channels for use by the same classes of consumers in the same fields of use, and that the goods are similar or complementary in terms of purpose or function.  Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods 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).

 

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 above-noted electronic products and software, 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).

 

Thus, consumers familiar with the above-noted goods of Nos. 3242563, 4724455, 4899562, and 5106434 in connection with the marks OPPO, OPPO, OPPO, and OPO, upon encountering the above-noted goods of applicant in connection with the mark OPPO A, are likely to be confused and believe that the goods originate with the same source. Registration on the Principal Register is, therefore, refused under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.

 

Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.  However, if applicant responds to the refusal, applicant must also respond to the requirement set forth below.

 

REQUIREMENT – INQUIRY ON SIGNIFICANCE

 

To permit proper examination of the application, applicant must explain whether the letter in the mark “A” have any significance in the electronic and/or software trade or industry or as applied to applicant’s goods, if this letter refers to a particular series of line of products, or if such letters represent a “term of art” within applicant’s industry.  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.

 

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.  

 

Assistance

 

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 and requirement 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. 

 

 

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

 

 

/Joan Blazich/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 122

571-272-7810

joan.blazich@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 July 19, 2019 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88442043

 

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. 

 

 

/Joan Blazich/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 122

571-272-7810

joan.blazich@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 19, 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.”