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:  August 13, 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

 

Registration is refused on the following grounds:

 

• A Section 2(d) likelihood of confusion refusal
• A requirement to amend indefinite wording in the identification of goods
• A requirement to provide attorney representation information

 

 

Advisory:  Per rule changes effective August 3, 2019, all U.S.-licensed attorneys in a trademark matter before the United States Patent and Trademark Office must provide bar membership information and a statement of good standing in the bar in applications and application-related submissions.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.17(b)(3), 2.22(a)(21), 2.32(a)(4).

 

 

• A Section 2(d) likelihood of confusion refusal

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration Nos. 5481607 and 5387351.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registration.

 

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.

 

The Marks Are Confusingly Similar

 

In a likelihood of confusion determination, the marks in their entireties are compared for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression.  In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1323, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2017); 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)); In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973); TMEP §1207.01(b)-(b)(v). 

 

In the present case, applicant’s mark is FABLAB and registrant’s marks are FAB LAB.  The registrant is Jo-Ann Stores, LLC.  These marks are identical sound, and meaning, “and have the potential to be used . . . in exactly the same manner.”  In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 116 USPQ2d 1406, 1411 (TTAB 2015), aff’d, 866 F.3d 1315, 123 USPQ2d 1744 (Fed. Cir. 2017).  Additionally, because they are identical, these marks are likely to engender the same connotation and overall commercial impression when considered in connection with applicant and registrant’s respective goods.  Id.

 

The marks only differ in that the registrant’s marks are displayed as two words, while the applied for mark is one word.  However, this is a minor difference between the marks that does not alter the commercial impression of the marks.  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. 

 

 

The Parties’ Goods are Closely Related

 

The goods in the application are “Tie dye kits comprised of applicator bottles containing dye, rubber bands and protective gloves for children to decorate clothing and accessories; Educational toys and components for creating bath bombs and fragrances; Toy imitation cosmetics; Playsets and kits comprised of materials for children to color hair and nails and to apply temporary tattoos; Playsets and kits for children to apply and remove temporary tattoos; Playsets and kits comprised of nail polish, glitter, stickers and instructions for children to decorate nails; Playsets and kits comprised of hair chalks, protective gloves, hair clips and instructions for children to color hair, Playsets and kits comprised of fragrances, empty gift bottles, labels and instructions for children to create perfumes.”

 

The goods in the registration are “Stencils; arts and crafts paint kits; paper mache; letters, namely, craft-based alphabetic and numeric letter forms made of paper, foam, canvas, fabric, and wire for making signs, crafting and home décor; stationery; chalk and chalkboards; felt; fabrics for arts and crafts” and “Wood boxes; wood crates; decorative glitter; ornaments of acrylic resin and wood; unfinished wood shapes; wooden craft sticks; decorative wooden and plastic wall letters for spelling names and words; letters, namely, craft-based alphabetic and numeric letter forms made of wood and resin for making signs, making crafts and home décor; Arts and crafts findings, namely, plastic wiggly eyes; feathers for ornamentation; buttons, chenille stems; Bells for Christmas trees.”

 

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).

 

Where the marks of the respective parties are identical or virtually identical, as in this case, the degree of similarity or relatedness between the goods and/or services needed to support a finding of likelihood of confusion declines.  See In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 116 USPQ2d 1406, 1411 (TTAB 2015) (citing In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1207, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1993)), aff’d, 866 F.3d 1315, 123 USPQ2d 1744 (Fed. Cir. 2017); TMEP §1207.01(a).  However, in this case, the parties’ goods can all be considered arts and crafts for ornamentation, decoration purposes.  Thus, the goods travel in the same industry and there is a chance the same consumer will encounter the parties’ goods in commerce.   

 

The attached Internet evidence establishes that the same entity commonly manufactures and/or produces the relevant goods and markets them under the same mark and that the relevant goods are sold via the same channels of trade and used by the same classes of consumers in the same fields of use.  The first example is Crayola, which offers product such as nail art kits, as well as chalk, craft kits including paper, paint.  (See attachments showing the same entity is the source of applicant and registrant’s products, identified under the same brand or mark). 

 

Another example is the fact that the parties’ goods travel via the same channels of trade in arts and crafts stores such as Michaels.  (See attachment showing Michaels is the retail source for tie dye kits, fabrics for arts and crafts, playsets for decoration of nails, arts and crafts kits for body paint).  The attachment shows that consumers will run into the goods via the same store so that upon seeing related goods identified by the same mark, consumers will be likely confused into believing the goods are associated, affiliated or come from the same source.  The fact that the goods of the parties differ is not controlling in determining likelihood of confusion.  The issue is not likelihood of confusion between particular goods, but likelihood of confusion as to the source or sponsorship of those goods.  In re Majestic Distilling Co., 315 F.3d 1311, 1316, 65 USPQ2d 1201, 1205 (Fed. Cir. 2003); In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1208, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1993); TMEP §1207.01.

 

Thus, applicant 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).

 

In the eyes of the purchasing public, the trademarks will be confusingly similar since it can appear that the proposed mark identifies a line of goods in registrant’s already existing line of arts and crafts goods, already identified by the mark FAB LAB.

 

Thus, upon encountering FABLAB and FAB LAB in commerce for closely related goods, consumers are likely to be confused and mistakenly believe that the respective goods come from a common source, or that there is some sort of affiliation, association or sponsorship between the parties.

 

Conclusion

 

Consumers may be confused into believing that the products come from the same source, or that the parties are affiliated.  The issue is not likelihood of confusion between particular goods, but likelihood of confusion as to the source or sponsorship of those goods.  In re Majestic Distilling Co., 315 F.3d 1311, 1316, 65 USPQ2d 1201, 1205 (Fed. Cir. 2003); In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1208, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1993); TMEP §1207.01.

 

The overriding concern is not only to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods and/or services, but to protect the registrant from adverse commercial impact due to use of a similar mark by a newcomer.  See In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1208, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1690 (Fed. Cir. 1993).  Therefore, any doubt regarding a likelihood of confusion determination is resolved in favor of the registrant.  TMEP §1207.01(d)(i); see Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1265, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2002); In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 464-65, 6 USPQ2d 1025, 1026 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

 

Having conformed to both steps in the Section 2(d) analysis, the examining attorney herein makes the refusal to register because Applicant’s mark so resembles the mark in U.S. Registration Nos. 5481607 and 5387351, as to be likely to cause confusion when used on or in connection with the goods identified in the application.

 

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

 

 

 

• A requirement to amend indefinite wording in the identification of goods

 

 

CLASS 16 - TIE DYE KITS COMPRISED OF APPLICATOR BOTTLES CONTAINING DYE, RUBBER BANDS AND PROTECTIVE GLOVES FOR CHILDREN TO DECORATE CLOTHING AND ACCESSORIES

 

The identification for “kits” is indefinite and must be clarified.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1401.05(a), 1402.01, 1402.03.  Kits generally consist of a group of components that (1) share a common theme, or (2) are used to make a particular product.  See TMEP §1401.05(a).  Applicant must amend the identification to list the components, using the guidelines below.  See id.

 

For kits consisting of a group of components that share a common theme, the identification should specify the theme followed by the wording “comprising” or “comprised of” and a list of the components that make up the kit, with all of the components in the predominant class listed first.  See id.  Generally, a kit is classified in the same international class as the majority of the components in the kit.  See id.  For example, “nail care kits comprised of nail polish, nail polish remover, false nails, nail files, and printed instructions” are in International Class 3, the class of the kits’ primary components which are listed first in the kits’ components (with “nail files” in International Class 8, and “printed instructions” in International Class 16 listed after the International Class 3 components).

 

If there are no components that are more dominant than another in a shared-theme kit, the first component listed after the wording “comprising” or “comprised of” will determine the class of the kit.  See id.  For example, “tool kits comprising hand saws and power-driven saws” are in International Class 8 (the class for “hand saws”), and “tool kits comprising power-driven saws and hand saws” are in International Class 7 (the class for “power-driven saws”).

 

For kits that make a particular product, the identification must specify the product being made using the following format:  “kits for making [specify item] comprising [specify components]” or “kits for making [specify item] comprised of [specify components].”  See id.  Generally, this type of kit is classified in the international class of the product being made.  For example, “kits for making wine consisting of fresh grapes and chemicals for fermenting wine” are classified in International Class 33 (the class for “wine”).

 

For examples of other acceptable identifications for kits (e.g., sewing kits, face painting kits), please see the USPTO’s U.S. Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual (ID Manual).

 

Here, the nature of the kits must be clarified in order to determine proper classification.  Applicant may amend to the following if accurate:

 

Tie dye kits comprised of dye stored in applicator bottles, rubber bands and protective gloves for children to decorate clothing and accessories, in Class 2.

 

 

CLASS 28 - EDUCATIONAL TOYS AND COMPONENTS FOR CREATING BATH BOMBS AND FRAGRANCES; TOY IMITATION COSMETICS; PLAYSETS AND KITS COMPRISED OF MATERIALS FOR CHILDREN TO COLOR HAIR AND NAILS AND TO APPLY TEMPORARY TATTOOS; PLAYSETS AND KITS FOR CHILDREN TO APPLY AND REMOVE TEMPORARY TATTOOS; PLAYSETS AND KITS COMPRISED OF NAIL POLISH, GLITTER, STICKERS AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR CHILDREN TO DECORATE NAILS; PLAYSETS AND KITS COMPRISED OF HAIR CHALKS, PROTECTIVE GLOVES, HAIR CLIPS AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR CHILDREN TO COLOR HAIR, PLAYSETS AND KITS COMPRISED OF FRAGRANCES, EMPTY GIFT BOTTLES, LABELS AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR CHILDREN TO CREATE PERFUMES

 

Note the underlined wording requires clarification.

 

The term “components” is unacceptable because it is vague and indefinite and may refer to goods not classified in Class 28.

 

Classification for the kits requires clarification.  All playsets are in Class 28, but not all kits are in Class 28.  Kits are classified according to the above guidelines.  Here then it is unclear that the kits would be in Class 28.  For example, kits for nails would be in 3 where nail care kits comprising nail polish and other nail polish is classified; kits for temporary tattoos would in Class 16 where temporary tattoos are classified and so on.  The kits would likely be classified according to the particular product that is the end product of the kit. 

 

 

Guidance for Adding International Classes:

 

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 that could be classified in at least 3 classes; however, applicant submitted a fee(s) sufficient for only 2 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 15 U.S.C. §§1051(b), 1112, 1126(e); 37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(6)-(7), 2.34(a)(2)-(3), 2.86(a); TMEP §§1403.01, 1403.02(c).

 

See 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.

 

 

General Guidance for Identification Amendments:

Applicant’s goods and/or services may be clarified or limited, but may not be expanded beyond those originally itemized in the application or as acceptably amended.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06. 

The USPTO has the discretion to determine the degree of particularity needed to clearly identify goods and/or services covered by a mark.  In re Fiat Grp. Mktg. & Corp. Commc’ns S.p.A, 109 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (TTAB 2014) (citing In re Omega SA, 494 F.3d 1362, 1365, 83 USPQ2d 1541, 1543-44 (Fed. Cir. 2007)).  Accordingly, the USPTO requires the description of goods and/or services in a U.S. application to be specific, definite, clear, accurate, and concise.  TMEP §1402.01; see In re Fiat Grp. Mktg. & Corp. Commc’ns S.p.A, 109 USPQ2d at 1597-98; Cal. Spray-Chem. Corp. v. Osmose Wood Pres. Co. of Am., 102 USPQ 321, 322 (Comm’r Pats. 1954). 

“The purpose of the identification of goods [and/or services] is to provide the general population, including consumers and members of the relevant industry, with an understandable description of the goods and services, which is done by using the common commercial name for the goods [and/or services].”  In re Gulf Coast Nutritionals, Inc., 106 USPQ2d 1243, 1247 (TTAB 2013) (citing In re Sones, 590 F.3d 1282, 1289, 93 USPQ2d 1118, 1124 (Fed. Cir. 2009)).  If there is no common, ordinary name for the goods and/or services, applicant should describe the goods and/or services using wording that would be generally understood by the average person.  See Schenley Indus., Inc. v. Battistoni, 112 USPQ 485, 486 (Comm’r Pats. 1957); Cal. Spray-Chem. Corp. v. Osmose Wood Pres. Co. of Am., 102 USPQ 321, 322 (Comm’r Pats. 1954); TMEP §1402.01.

An in depth knowledge of the relevant field should not be necessary for understanding a description of the goods and/or services.  TMEP §1402.01.  “[T]echnical, high-sounding verbiage” should be avoided.  Cal. Spray-Chem. Corp. v. Osmose Wood Pres. Co. of Am., 102 USPQ at 322.

Applicant must adopt the appropriate international classification number for the goods and/or services identified in the application.  The USPTO follows the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks (Nice Classification), established by the World Intellectual Property Organization, to classify goods and services.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.85(a); TMEP §§1401.02, 1401.02(a). 

Proper classification of goods and services is a purely administrative matter within the sole discretion of the USPTO.  See In re Faucher Indus. Inc., 107 USPQ2d 1355, 1357 (TTAB 2013) (quoting In re Tee-Pak, Inc., 164 USPQ 88, 89 (TTAB 1969)).

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.

 

• A requirement to provide attorney representation information

Attorney bar information required.  Applicant’s attorney must provide the following bar information:  (1) his or her bar membership number, if the bar provides one; (2) the name of the U.S. state, commonwealth, or territory of his or her bar membership; and (3) the year of his or her admission to the bar.  37 C.F.R. §2.17(b)(3).  This information is required for all U.S.-licensed attorneys who are representing trademark applicants at the USPTO.  Id.  If the attorney’s bar does not issue bar membership numbers, applicant must state this for the record.  See id.

Attorney attestation required.  Applicant’s attorney must provide the following statement:  “I attest that I am an attorney who is an active member in good standing of the bar of the highest court of a U.S. state (including the District of Columbia and any U.S. Commonwealth or territory).”  See 37 C.F.R. §2.17(b)(3).  This is required for all U.S.-licensed attorneys who are representing trademark applicants at the USPTO.  Id. 

 

RESPONSE GUIDELINES

 

TEAS PLUS OR TEAS REDUCED FEE (TEAS RF) APPLICANTS – TO MAINTAIN LOWER FEE, ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS MUST BE MET, INCLUDING SUBMITTING DOCUMENTS ONLINE:  Applicants who filed their application online using the lower-fee TEAS Plus or TEAS RF application form must (1) file certain documents online using TEAS, including responses to Office actions (see TMEP §§819.02(b), 820.02(b) for a complete list of these documents); (2) maintain a valid e-mail correspondence address; and (3) agree to receive correspondence from the USPTO by e-mail throughout the prosecution of the application.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.22(b), 2.23(b); TMEP §§819, 820.  TEAS Plus or TEAS RF applicants who do not meet these requirements must submit an additional processing fee of $125 per class of goods and/or services.  37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(1)(v), 2.22(c), 2.23(c); TMEP §§819.04, 820.04.  However, in certain situations, TEAS Plus or TEAS RF applicants may respond to an Office action by authorizing an examiner’s amendment by telephone or e-mail without incurring this additional fee.  

 

 

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

 

 

/Giselle Agosto-Hincapie/

Examining Attorney Advisor

Trademarks Law Office 102

giselle.agosto@uspto.gov (Informal inquires only)

571-272-5868

 

 

 

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 August 13, 2019 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88446893

 

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. 

 

 

/Giselle Agosto-Hincapie/

Examining Attorney Advisor

Trademarks Law Office 102

giselle.agosto@uspto.gov (Informal inquires only)

571-272-5868

 

 

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 August 13, 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.”