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:  September 10, 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. 

• Partial Section 2(d) refusal – likelihood of confusion
• Identification of goods amendment required
• Multiple-class application requirements

 

Partial Section 2(d) refusal – likelihood of confusion.  This partial refusal applies only to the goods specified therein.

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 5151015 and 5165568.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registrations.

 

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 [or services] and differences in the marks.”); TMEP §1207.01.

 

Comparison of 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).

 

The marks at issue are:

·       Application – “TOUGHBUILT” in standard characters;

·       Registration No. 5151015 – “TUFF-BILT” in standard characters; and

·       Registration No. 5165568 – “TUFF-BILT "THE LITTLE TRACTOR THAT CAN" WWW.TUFF-BILT.COM” with design features; and

 

The applied-for mark and the mark in Registration No. 5151015 are essentially phonetic equivalents and thus sound similar.  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).  Thus, the marks are similar.

 

A mark in typed or standard characters may be displayed in any lettering style; the rights reside in the wording or other literal element and not in any particular display or rendition.  See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1363, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1909 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 1348, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010); 37 C.F.R. §2.52(a); TMEP §1207.01(c)(iii).  Thus, a mark presented in stylized characters and/or with a design element generally will not avoid likelihood of confusion with a mark in typed or standard characters because the word portion could be presented in the same manner of display.  See, e.g., In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d at 1363, 101 USPQ2d at 1909; Squirtco v. Tomy Corp., 697 F.2d 1038, 1041, 216 USPQ 937, 939 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (stating that “the argument concerning a difference in type style is not viable where one party asserts rights in no particular display”).

 

In the instant case, the design features of the mark in Registration No. 5165568 do not obviate its similarity with the applied-for mark because the latter mark is in standard characters and could be presented in a similar rendition as the applied-for mark.

 

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”).

 

In the instant case, consumers will be inclined to focus on the wording “TUFF-BILT” in the mark in Registration No. 5165568.

 

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 Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1305, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re Dixie Rests., 105 F.3d 1405, 1407, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533-34 (Fed. Cir. 1997)); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii).  Greater weight is often given to this dominant feature when determining whether marks are confusingly similar.  See In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d at 1305, 128 USPQ2d at 1050 (citing In re Dixie Rests., 105 F.3d at 1407, 41 USPQ2d at 1533-34).

 

In the instant case, the wording “TUFF-BILT” in the mark in Registration No. 5165568 is its dominant feature because consumers will be inclined to focus on this part of the mark.  Thus, this mark is similar to the applied-for mark because the dominant feature of the registered mark is the phonetic equivalent of the applied-for mark.

 

Comparison of goods.  The goods are compared to determine whether they are similar, commercially related, or travel in the same trade channels.  See Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369-71, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722-23 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 1165, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2002); TMEP §§1207.01, 1207.01(a)(vi).

 

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)).  

 

The goods at issue are:

·       Application – Air compressors, and parts therefor, namely, air hoses and inflation kit comprised of compressed air blow guns with nozzles and extensions therefor; air-operated power tools and devices; power-operated rotary multi tool with accessories, namely, cut off discs and attachments for grinding, sanding and woodworking; Lawn mowers, electric lawn trimmers and power-operated lawn edgers, electric hedge trimmers, power-operated blowers, lawn vacuums and sweepers, power- operated lawn and garden tillers, power-operated garden cultivator, electric pruning saw, electric pole saw, powered lopper, grass shears and their accessories, namely, replacement blades; lawn and garden string trimmer spools; and

·       Registrations – Power-operated cultivators; Plow blades for vehicles; Plows; Tractor towed agricultural implements, namely, plows, harrows, mowers, reapers; Snow blowers; Power-operated sprayers for insecticides.

 

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)). 

 

The attached Internet evidence consists of screenshots from deere.com, northerntool.com, quincycompressor.com, and husqvarna.com.  This evidence establishes that the same entity commonly provides the relevant goods and markets the goods under the same mark, the relevant goods are sold or provided through the same trade channels and used by the same classes of consumers in the same fields of use, and 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).

 

Summary of Section 2d refusal.  In total: the parties’ marks are similar because the marks are phonetic equivalents, or the dominant feature of the registered mark is the phonetic equivalent of the applied-for mark; the parties’ goods are available in the same trade channels because neither party has restricted its channels of trade; and the evidence shows that the parties’ goods are commercially related.  Thus, consumers encountering the marks are likely to confuse them and mistake the underlying sources of the goods.  Accordingly, registration must be 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 requirements set forth below.

 

Identification of goods amendment required.  The following portions of the identification of goods for International Class 7 must be clarified because each is too broad and could include goods in other international classes: 

 

• “Hammer drills” – this wording could identify, for example:  “hand-operated percussion hammer drills” in Class 8, or “power tools, namely, hammer drills” in Class 7.

 

• “Wired and battery-operated drills and their accessories therefor, namely, chucks, keyless chucks, chuck keys, wire wheels, drill bits, screwdriver bit, router bits, drive socket adaptors and bit tips” – this wording could identify, for example:  “electrical drills” and “screwdriver bit  for electric screwdrivers” in Class 7, or “manual drills” and “bits for non-electric screwdrivers” in Class 8.

 

• “Air compressors, and parts therefor, namely, air hoses and inflation kit comprised of compressed air blow guns with nozzles and extensions therefor” – this wording could identify, for example:  “air compressors, and parts therefor namely, air hoses” and “kit comprised of compressed air blow guns in the nature of compressed air machines” in Class 7, or “kit comprised of air blow guns in the nature of hand operated air pumps” in Class 8.

 

• “Air-operated power tools and devices” – this wording could identify, for example:  “air-operated power tools, namely, impact wrenches, ratchet wrenches, drills, grinders, and orbital sanders” in Class 7, or “air pumps, hand-operated” in Class 8.

 

• “Powered saws, namely, circular saws, trim saws, jig saws, reciprocating saws, powered hand saws and accessories therefor, namely, power saw blades for cutting and power abrasive saw blades” – this wording could identify, for example:  “power-operated saws” and “hand-held power-operated saws” in Class 7, or “hand saws” in Class 8.

 

• “Power operated angle grinders and grinding wheels” – this wording could identify, for example:  “power operated angle grinders and power operated grinding wheels” in Class 7, or “hand tools, namely, manually-operated grinding wheels” in Class 8.

 

• “Power-operated rotary multi tool with accessories, namely, cut off discs and attachments for grinding, sanding and woodworking” – this wording could identify, for example:  “rotary grinding machines and electric sanders, parts therefor, and extensions for power tools” in Class 7, or “kits comprised of sandpaper sheets configured to fit non-electric, hand-operated sanders” in Class 8.

 

Moreover wording “multi tool” is a non-punctuated form of a registered mark not owned by applicant; accordingly, applicant must amend the identification to delete this wording and, if not already included in the identification, provide the common commercial or generic name of the goods.  TMEP §1402.09; see 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); Camloc Fastener Corp. v. Grant, 119 USPQ 264, 264 n.1 (TTAB 1958).  See the attached U.S. Registration No. 1663185. 

 

Identifications of goods should generally be comprised of generic everyday wording for the goods, and exclude proprietary or potentially-proprietary wording.  See TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.09.  A registered mark indicates origin in one particular party and so may not be used to identify goods or services that originate in a party other than that registrant.  TMEP §1402.09 (citing Camloc Fastener Corp. v. Grant, 119 USPQ at 264 n.1). 

 

Applicant may replace such wording with the following, if appropriate:  “multi-purpose.”

 

• “Electric planers and planer replacement blades” – this wording could identify, for example:  “electric planers and planer replacement blades for electric planers” in Class 7, or “replacement parts for hand-operated planes, namely, blades” in Class 8.

 

• “Power tools, namely, routers and accessories therefor, namely, router trim attachments” – this wording could identify, for example:  “power tools, namely, routers and parts therefor, namely, router trim attachments” in Class 7, or “hand tool accessories, namely, router templates for cutting inlays using manually operated routers” in Class 8.

 

• “Nail guns” – this wording could identify, for example:  “power-operated nailing guns” in Class 7, or “hand-operated nailing guns” in Class 8.

 

• “Electric sanders, namely, belt sanders, orbital sanders, finishing sanders, sheet sanders and grinders and their accessories required for sanding and grinding” – this wording could identify, for example:  “electric sanders air-operated power tools in the nature of grinders, and parts therefor” in Class 7, or “hand tools, namely, manually-operated grinding wheels” in Class 8.

 

• “Lawn vacuums and sweepers” – this wording could identify, for example: “hand-held vacuum cleaners” and “electric sweepers” in Class 7, or “non-electric carpet sweepers” in Class 21.

 

• “Grass shears and their accessories, namely, replacement blades” – this wording could identify, for example:  “electric hedge shears and replacement blades therefor” in Class 7, or “gardening shears” in Class 8.

 

See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03. 

 

The following portions of the identification of goods are indefinite and must be clarified because each could identify multiple, discrete types of goods:

 

• “Power-operated oscillating multi tool with oscillating attachments for sanding and grinding” – this wording could identify, for example:  “power-operated oscillating multi-purpose tool comprising electric sanders utilizing rotational motion and grinding machines with spiral bevel gears, and extensions for the aforementioned power tools,” or “multi-purpose high pressure washers also incorporating electric sanders.”

 

Moreover wording “multi tool” is a non-punctuated form of a registered mark not owned by applicant; accordingly, applicant must amend the identification to delete this wording and, if not already included in the identification, provide the common commercial or generic name of the goods.  TMEP §1402.09; see 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); Camloc Fastener Corp. v. Grant, 119 USPQ 264, 264 n.1 (TTAB 1958).  See the attached U.S. Registration No. 1663185. 

 

Identifications of goods should generally be comprised of generic everyday wording for the goods, and exclude proprietary or potentially-proprietary wording.  See TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.09.  A registered mark indicates origin in one particular party and so may not be used to identify goods or services that originate in a party other than that registrant.  TMEP §1402.09 (citing Camloc Fastener Corp. v. Grant, 119 USPQ at 264 n.1). 

 

Applicant may replace such wording with the following, if appropriate:  “multi-purpose.”

 

See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.  Applicant must amend the above-identified portions of the identification to specify the common commercial or generic name of the goods.  See TMEP §1402.01.  If the goods have no common commercial or generic name, applicant must describe the product, its main purpose, and its intended uses.  See id.

 

The wording “power- operated” in the identification of goods appears to be misspelled and is thus indefinite; the spelling must be corrected or the wording further clarified.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01(a).  Applicant may substitute the following wording for the incorrect spelling, if accurate:  “power-operated.”

 

Applicant must correct the punctuation in the identification to clarify the individual items in the list of goods.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01(a).  Proper punctuation in identifications is necessary to delineate explicitly each product or service within a list and to avoid ambiguity.  Commas, semicolons, and apostrophes are the only punctuation that should be used in an identification of goods.  TMEP §1402.01(a).  An applicant should not use colons, periods, exclamation points, and question marks in an identification.  Id.  In addition, applicants should not use symbols in the identification such as asterisks (*), at symbols (@), or carets.  Id.

 

In general, commas should be used in an identification (1) to separate a series of related items identified within a particular category of goods or services, (2) before and after “namely,” and (3) between each item in a list of goods or services following “namely” (e.g., personal care products, namely, body lotion, bar soap, shampoo).  Id.  Semicolons generally should be used to separate a series of distinct categories of goods or services within an international class (e.g., personal care products, namely, body lotion; deodorizers for pets; glass cleaners).  Id. 

 

Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate (bolded wording indicating suggested changes): 

 

In Class 7, Power tools, namely, hammer drivers, impact drivers and wrenches; power tools, namely, hammer drills; wired and battery-operated drills being electrical drills and structural parts therefor, namely, chucks, keyless chucks, chuck keys, wire wheels, drill bits, router bits, drive socket adaptors and bit tips; screwdriver bit  for electric screwdrivers; Air compressors, and parts therefor, namely, air hoses; inflation kit for air compressors comprised of compressed air blow guns in the natures of compressed air machines with nozzles and extensions therefor; air-operated power tools, namely, impact wrenches, ratchet wrenches, drills, grinders, and orbital sanders; Power-operated saws, namely, circular saws, trim saws, jig saws, reciprocating saws, hand-held power-operated saws and accessories therefor, namely, power saw blades for cutting and power abrasive saw blades; power operated angle grinders and power operated grinding wheels; Power-operated oscillating multi-purpose tool comprising electric sanders utilizing rotational motion and grinding machines with spiral bevel gears, and extensions for the aforementioned power tools for sanding and grinding; power-operated rotary multi-purpose tool comprising rotary grinding machines and electric sanders, parts therefor in the nature of cut off discs, and attachments for grinding, sanding and woodworking being extensions for the aforementioned power tools; electric planers and planer replacement blades for electric planers; power tools, namely, routers and parts therefor, namely, router trim attachments; nail guns in the nature of power-operated nailing guns; electric sanders, namely, belt sanders, orbital sanders, finishing sanders, sheet sanders and ir-operated power tools in the nature of grinders, and parts therefor for sanding and grinding; Lawn mowers, electric lawn trimmers and power-operated lawn edgers; electric hedge trimmers; power-operated blowers; lawn vacuums being hand-held vacuum cleaners and electric sweepers; power-operated lawn and garden tillers; power-operated garden cultivator; corded and cordless chain saws; electric pruning saw; electric pole saw; powered lopper; electric grass shears and their accessories, namely, electric hedge shears and replacement blades therefor; lawn and garden string trimmer spools

 

Applicant may amend the identification to clarify or limit the goods, but not to broaden or expand the goods beyond those in the original application or as acceptably amended.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06.  Generally, any deleted goods may not later be reinserted.  See TMEP §1402.07(e).

 

For assistance with identifying and classifying goods and services in trademark applications, please see the USPTO’s online searchable U.S. Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual.  See TMEP §1402.04.

 

Applicant must also respond to the following requirement(s).

 

Multiple-class application requirements.  The application identifies goods that may be classified in more than one class; however, applicant submitted a fee sufficient for only one class.  In a multiple-class application, a fee for each class is required.  37 C.F.R. §2.86(a)(2), (b)(2); TMEP §§810.01, 1403.01.

 

Therefore, applicant must either (1) restrict the application to the number of classes covered by the fees already paid, or (2) submit the fees for each additional class.

 

The fee for adding classes to a TEAS Reduced Fee (RF) application is $275 per class.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(1)(iii), 2.23(a).  See more information regarding the requirements for maintaining the lower TEAS RF fee and, if these requirements are not satisfied, for adding classes at a higher fee using regular TEAS.

 

Moreover, if applicant adds a class to the application, applicant must satisfy all the requirements below for each international class based on Trademark Act Section 1(b):

 

(1)       List the goods 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 already paid (view the USPTO’s current fee schedule).  

 

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.

 

Conclusion.  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/or requirement(s) 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. 

 

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.  

 

 

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

 

 

/Joshua S. Toy/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 120

571-272-4856

joshua.toy@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 September 10, 2019 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88476518

 

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. 

 

 

/Joshua S. Toy/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 120

571-272-4856

joshua.toy@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 September 10, 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.”