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 07, 2019

 

 

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

 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES:

 

• Section 2(d) Refusal: Likelihood of Confusion
• Failure to Function Refusal: Applied-for Mark as Used on Specimen Does Not Function

 

SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL: LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 4898815, 2121656, and 5610230.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registrations.

 

The applied-for mark is INSIDER in standard characters for “Retail store and online retail store services featuring perfumery, cosmetics, make-up, skincare and beauty products and accessories, bath and body products and accessories, and hair care products, preparations and accessories featuring a bonus incentive program for customers” in Class 035.

 

Reg. No. 4898815 is INSIDERS in standard characters for “Customer loyalty services and incentive award programs to promote the sale of its products and services, for commercial, promotional and/or advertising purposes” in Class 035.

 

Reg. No. 2121656 is INSIDERS in standard characters for “modular organizers for luggage, brief cases, and handbags” in Class 018.

 

Reg. No. 5610230 is INSIDE  in a design plus wording for “On-line retail store services featuring a wide variety of consumer goods of others; Retail furniture stores; Retail stores featuring new and vintage home goods, namely, furniture, home accessories, window treatments, fabric, carpet and related home decor items; Retail store services featuring a wide variety of items; Online retail store services featuring new and vintage home goods, namely, furniture, home accessories, window treatments, fabric, carpet and related home decor items” in Class 035.

 

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.

 

Similarity 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).

 

The applied-for mark is INSIDER in standard characters.

Reg. No. 4898815 is INSIDERS in standard characters.

Reg. No. 2121656 is INSIDERS in standard characters.

Reg. No. 5610230 is INSIDE in a design plus wording.

 

Reg. No. 4898815 and 2121656 (INSIDERS)

 

In the present case, the marks in Reg. No. 4898815 and 2121656 (INSIDERS) are the plural form of the applied-for mark.

 

An applied-for mark that is the singular or plural form of a registered mark is essentially identical in sound, appearance, meaning, and commercial impression, and thus the marks are confusingly similar.  Swiss Grill Ltd., v. Wolf Steel Ltd., 115 USPQ2d 2001, 2011 n.17 (TTAB 2015) (holding “it is obvious that the virtually identical marks [the singular and plural of SWISS GRILL] are confusingly similar”); Weider Publ’ns, LLC v. D & D Beauty Care Co., 109 USPQ2d 1347, 1355 (TTAB 2014) (finding the singular and plural forms of SHAPE to be essentially the same mark) (citing Wilson v. Delaunay, 245 F.2d 877, 878, 114 USPQ 339, 341 (C.C.P.A. 1957) (finding no material difference between the singular and plural forms of ZOMBIE such that the marks were considered the same mark).

 

Reg. No. 5610230 (INSIDE)

 

When evaluating a composite mark consisting of words and 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 and/or services.  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)).

 

With respect to the wording in Reg. No. 5610230, the slight difference in spelling between applicant’s mark INSIDER, ending in –ER and registrant’s mark INSIDE, ending in –E does not obviate the similarities between the marks.

 

These marks are nearly identical in appearance, 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 nearly identical, these marks are likely to engender the same connotation and overall commercial impression when considered in connection with applicant’s and registrant’s respective goods and/or services.  Id.

 

As a result, the applied-for mark and registrant’s mark are confusingly similar.

 

Accordingly, giving each feature of the marks appropriate weight, the marks when compared in their entireties are sufficiently similar to create consumer confusion or mistake as to the source of the goods and/or services despite some differences.

 

Relatedness of the Goods and/or Services

 

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).

 

Applicant’s services are identified as “Retail store and online retail store services featuring perfumery, cosmetics, make-up, skincare and beauty products and accessories, bath and body products and accessories, and hair care products, preparations and accessories featuring a bonus incentive program for customers” in Class 035.

 

Reg. No. 4898815 (INSIDERS) and Reg. No. 5610230 (INSIDE) 

 

Determining likelihood of confusion is based on the description of the goods and/or services 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)).  

 

The services in Reg. No. 4898815 (INSIDERS) are identified as “Customer loyalty services and incentive award programs to promote the sale of its products and services, for commercial, promotional and/or advertising purposes” in Class 035.

 

The services in Reg. No. 5610230 (INSIDE)  are identified as “On-line retail store services featuring a wide variety of consumer goods of others; Retail furniture stores; Retail stores featuring new and vintage home goods, namely, furniture, home accessories, window treatments, fabric, carpet and related home decor items; Retail store services featuring a wide variety of items; Online retail store services featuring new and vintage home goods, namely, furniture, home accessories, window treatments, fabric, carpet and related home decor items” in Class 035.

 

In this case, the registrations use broad wording to describe customer loyalty programs and retail store services featuring a wide variety of consumer goods, which presumably encompasses all services of the type described, including applicant’s more narrow identification which is limited to similar services featuring perfumery, cosmetics, make-up, skincare and beauty products and accessories, bath and body products and accessories, and hair care products, preparations and accessories.  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 services 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)).

 

Reg. No. 2121656 (INSIDERS)

 

The use of similar marks on or in connection with both products and retail-store services has been held likely to cause confusion where the evidence showed that the retail-store services featured the same type of products.  See In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1307, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1051 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding the use of similar marks for various clothing items, including athletic uniforms, and for retail shops featuring sports team related clothing and apparel likely to cause confusion); In re House Beer, LLC, 114 USPQ2d 1073, 1078 (TTAB 2015) (holding the use of identical marks for beer and for retail store services featuring beer likely to cause confusion); In re Thomas, 79 USPQ2d 1021, 1023 (TTAB 2006) (holding the use of similar marks for jewelry and for retail-jewelry and mineral-store services likely to cause confusion); TMEP §1207.01(a)(ii).

 

The goods in Reg. No. 2121656 (INSIDERS) are identified as “modular organizers for luggage, brief cases, and handbags” in Class 018.

 

The attached Internet evidence (listed below) establishes that the same entity commonly provides the relevant goods and/or services and markets the goods and/or services under the same mark.

 

•  MAC:
• • Modular organizers: http://www.maccosmetics.com/esearch?form_id=perlgem_search_form&search=cases
  • Retail store: http://www.maccosmetics.com/stores
•  Sephora:
• • Modular organizers: http://www.sephora.com/search?keyword=organizer&ref=900209
  • Retail store: http://www.sephora.com/happening/stores/sephora-near-me

 

Additionally, the goods and/or services 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 and/or services are related.

 

Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods and/or 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).

 

Conclusion

 

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).

 

In summary, applicant’s and registrant’s marks create the same commercial impression and the respective goods and/or services are highly related. Therefore, consumers are likely to be confused and mistakenly believe that the goods and/or services originate from a common source. Accordingly, registration must be refused under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.

 

Applicant should note the additional ground for refusal below.

 

FAILURE TO FUNCTION REFUSAL: APPLIED-FOR MARK AS USED ON SPECIMEN DOES NOT FUNCTION

 

Registration is refused because the applied-for mark, as used on the specimen of record, does not function as a service mark to identify and distinguish applicant’s services from those of others and to indicate the source of applicant’s services.  Trademark Act Sections 1, 2, 3, and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051-1053, 1127; see In re Keep A Breast Found., 123 USPQ2d 1869, 1879-80 (TTAB 2017); In re Moody’s Investors Serv., Inc., 13 USPQ2d 2043, 2048-49 (TTAB 1989); TMEP §§904.07(b), 1301.02 et seq.

 

The applied-for mark does not function as a service mark because “insider”, “VIB”, and “rouge” are shown in the specimen referring to categories within Sephora’s internal categorization system. This wording does not refer to the source of the retail services, which the specimen provides is Sephora.

 

Whether a designation functions as a mark depends on the commercial impression it makes on the relevant public; that is, whether purchasers would be likely to regard it as a source-indicator for the services.  See In re Keep A Breast Found., 123 USPQ2d 1869, 1879 (TTAB 2017) (quoting In re Eagle Crest Inc., 96 USPQ2d 1227, 1229 (TTAB 2010)); TMEP §1301.02.  The specimen and any other relevant evidence of use is reviewed to determine whether an applied-for mark is being used as a service mark.  See In re Keep A Breast Found., 123 USPQ2d at 1879 (quoting In re Eagle Crest Inc., 96 USPQ2d at 1229); TMEP §1301.02. 

 

Not every designation used in the advertising or performance of services functions as a service mark, even though it may have been adopted with the intent to do so.  In re Keep A Breast Found., 123 USPQ2d at 1879 (quoting Am. Velcro, Inc. v. Charles Mayer Studios, Inc., 177 USPQ 149, 154 (TTAB 1973)); see TMEP §1301.02.  A designation can only be registered when purchasers would be likely to regard it as a source-indicator for the services.  TMEP §1301.02; see In re Moody’s Investors Serv. Inc., 13 USPQ2d 2043, 2047-49 (TTAB 1989).

 

Failure to Function: Substitute Specimen or Amendment to the Filing Basis

 

Applicant may respond to this refusal by submitting a substitute specimen or amending applicant’s basis to intent to use under Section 1(b) for each applicable international class.

 

Submitting a substitute specimen:  Applicant may submit a substitute specimen that shows the applied-for mark used in commerce as a service mark for the services in the application, and the following statement, verified with an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20:  “The substitute specimen was in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application.”  37 C.F.R. §2.59(a); TMEP §904.05; see 37 C.F.R. §2.193(e)(1).  If submitting a substitute specimen requires an amendment to the dates of use, applicant must also verify the amended dates.  37 C.F.R. §2.71(c); TMEP §904.05. 

 

Examples of specimens for services include advertising and marketing materials, brochures, photographs of business signage and billboards, and webpages that show the mark used in the actual sale, rendering, or advertising of the services.  See TMEP §1301.04(a), (h)(iv)(C).  Specimens comprising advertising and promotional materials must show a direct association between the mark and the services.  TMEP §1301.04(f)(ii).

 

To submit a verified substitute specimen online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) response form, applicant should (1) answer “Yes” to form wizard question #2; and then, continuing on to the next portion of the form, do the following for each relevant class for which a substitute specimen is being submitted:  (2) under “Classification and Listing of Goods/Services/Collective Membership Organization,” select the following statement, “Check here to modify the current classification number; listing of goods/services; dates of use; and/or filing basis; or to submit a substitute specimen or foreign registration certificate.  If not checked, the changes will be ignored.”; (3) under “Specimen File,” attach a specimen (attachment may not exceed 5 megabytes); (4) describe what the specimen consists of; and (5) select the following statement: “The substitute (or new, or originally submitted, if appropriate) specimen(s) was/were in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application” [for an application based on Section 1(a), Use in Commerce] OR “The substitute (or new, or originally submitted, if appropriate) specimen(s) was/were in use in commerce prior either to the filing of the Amendment to Allege Use or expiration of the filing deadline for filing a Statement of Use” [for an application based on Section 1(b) Intent-to-Use]. Note:  When submitting a verified substitute specimen, the TEAS online response form requires two signatures:  one in the “Declaration Signature” section and one in the “Response Signature” section. 

 

Amending to Section 1(b):  If applicant cannot provide an acceptable substitute specimen, applicant may amend the application basis to intent to use under Section 1(b), for which no specimen is required, and the refusal will be withdrawn.  See TMEP §806.03(c).  However, if applicant amends the basis to Section 1(b), registration will not be granted until applicant later amends the application back to use in commerce by filing an acceptable allegation of use with a proper specimen.  See 15 U.S.C. §1051(c), (d); 37 C.F.R. §§2.76, 2.88; TMEP §1103.  If the same specimen is submitted with an allegation of use, the same refusal will likely issue.

 

To amend to Section 1(b), applicant must submit the following statement, verified with an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20:  “Applicant has a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce and had a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce as of the application filing date.”  37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(2); TMEP §806.01(b); see 15 U.S.C. §1051(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.35(b)(1), 2.193(e)(1). 

 

To amend to Section 1(b) online using the TEAS response form, applicant should (1) answer “Yes” to form wizard question #2, and then, after proceeding to the next page in the form, do the following for each relevant class for which the basis is being amended:  (2) under “Classification and Listing of Goods/Services/Collective Membership Organization,” select the following statement: “Check here to modify the current classification number; listing of goods/services; dates of use; and/or filing basis; or to submit a substitute specimen or foreign registration certificate.  If not checked, the changes will be ignored.”; (3) under “Filing Basis Section 1(a),” uncheck the box for “Filing Basis Section 1(a)”and delete the information appearing in the Date of First Use of Mark Anywhere and Date of First Use of Mark in Commerce textboxes; and (4) check the box for “Filing Basis Section 1(b).”  Note:  When amending to Section 1(b), the TEAS online response form requires two signatures:  one in the “Declaration Signature” section and one in the “Response Signature” section. 

 

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

 

RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION

 

Applicant should include the following information on all correspondence with the Office: (1) the name and law office number of the trademark examining attorney, (2) the serial number and filing date of the application, (3) the date of issuance of this Office action, (4) Applicant’s name, address, telephone number and e-mail address (if applicable), and (5) the mark. 37 C.F.R. §2.194(b)(1); TMEP §302.03(a).

 

If Applicant has questions regarding this Office action, please telephone or e-mail the assigned trademark examining attorney. All relevant e-mail communications will be placed in the official application record; however, an e-mail communication will not be accepted as a response to this Office Action and will not extend the deadline for filing a proper response. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(c), 2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05. Further, although the trademark examining attorney may provide additional explanation pertaining to the refusal(s) and requirement(s) in this Office action, the trademark examining attorney may not provide legal advice or statements about Applicant’s rights. See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06.

 

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  

 

 

/Jami Holland/

Trademark Examining Attorney

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

Law Office 122

(571) 272-7806

Jami.Holland@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 August 07, 2019 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88468524

 

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. 

 

 

/Jami Holland/

 

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 07, 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.”