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 12, 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

 

1.      Prior-Filed Application

2.      Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion

3.      Amended Identification of Goods Required

 

PRIOR-FILED APPLICATION

 

The filing date of pending U.S. Application Serial No. 88374030 precedes applicant’s filing date.  See attached referenced application.  If the mark in the referenced application registers, applicant’s mark may be refused registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d) because of a likelihood of confusion between the two marks.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §§1208 et seq.  Therefore, upon receipt of applicant’s response to this Office action, action on this application may be suspended pending final disposition of the earlier-filed referenced application.

 

In response to this Office action, applicant may present arguments in support of registration by addressing the issue of the potential conflict between applicant’s mark and the mark in the referenced application.  Applicant’s election not to submit arguments at this time in no way limits applicant’s right to address this issue later if a refusal under Section 2(d) issues.

 

SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 4876552.  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.

 

Applicant’s mark is BLACK BALL’D for “Athletic wear, namely, headwear, beach caps, running caps, gym caps, bike caps, exercise caps; golf caps; cap visors; visors; hats; skull caps; beach caps; beach hats; sun hats; shower caps; sports caps; desert caps; bathing caps; slumber caps; knitted caps; swimming caps; baseball caps; waterpolo caps; caps; caps with visors; sports hats; baseball hats; Clothing, namely, tops, bottoms, tee shirts, polo shirts, sweat shirts, cutoffs shirts, tank tops, hooded sweatshirts, sweater-shirts, jeans, jean shorts, jean skirts, shorts, walking shorts, cargo shorts, spandex shorts, spandex pants, sport coats, khakis, skirts, pants, dress slacks, slacks, ties, pocket squares, tuxedos, tuxedo shirts, vests, cummerbunds, belts, socks, athletic socks, dress socks, underwear, undergarments, coats, wind resistant jackets, gloves, scarves; men's dress suits; women's dress suits; Athletic wear, namely, workout tee shirts, tank tops, compression shirts, compression sleeveless tee shirts, compression shorts, workout pants and shorts, long sleeve hooded thin fabric shirts, workout / warm-up suits including long or short sleeve tops and pants; Yoga wear type workout clothes, namely, short and long sleeve tops, women's sports bras and sleeveless bra tops, shorts, and pants; Sports uniforms, namely, shirts, jerseys, pants, shorts, undergarments, socks, cleats or shoes, belts, hats; Footwear, shoes, athletic shoes, casual shoes, dress shoes; Headwear, baseball caps, beanies, dress hats, decorated hats,” in International Class 025.

 

Registrant’s mark is BLACK BALL for “T-shirts,” in International Class 025, in relevant part.

 

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, BLACK BALL’D, is highly similar to the cited registration, BLACK BALL, where the entirety of the cited registration is incorporated by the applied-for mark. Incorporating the entirety of one mark within another 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 Wella Corp. v. Cal. Concept Corp., 558 F.2d 1019, 1022, 194 USPQ 419, 422 (C.C.P.A. 1977) (finding CALIFORNIA CONCEPT and surfer design and CONCEPT confusingly similar); 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 LANCER and design and BENGAL confusingly similar); In re Integrated Embedded, 120 USPQ2d 1504, 1513 (TTAB 2016) (finding BARR GROUP and BARR confusingly similar); In re Mr. Recipe, LLC, 118 USPQ2d 1084, 1090 (TTAB 2016) (finding JAWS DEVOUR YOUR HUNGER and JAWS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iii).  In the present case, the only difference between the applied-for mark and the cited registration is the addition of “’D” to the applied-for mark making the term past tense. Thus, the marks are identical in part and highly similar in commercial impression, sound and appearance.

 

The examining attorney notes that applicant’s evidence of how the mark is used in the marketplace is not relevant. The determination of likelihood of confusion is based on the application record and the relevant registration. Here, the registration is for a standard character mark with no additional design elements. 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”).

 

As such, the marks are confusingly similar.

 

Comparison of the Goods

 

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).

 

In the present case, applicant lists “Athletic wear, namely, headwear, beach caps, running caps, gym caps, bike caps, exercise caps; golf caps; cap visors; visors; hats; skull caps; beach caps; beach hats; sun hats; shower caps; sports caps; desert caps; bathing caps; slumber caps; knitted caps; swimming caps; baseball caps; waterpolo caps; caps; caps with visors; sports hats; baseball hats; Clothing, namely, tops, bottoms, tee shirts, polo shirts, sweat shirts, cutoffs shirts, tank tops, hooded sweatshirts, sweater-shirts, jeans, jean shorts, jean skirts, shorts, walking shorts, cargo shorts, spandex shorts, spandex pants, sport coats, khakis, skirts, pants, dress slacks, slacks, ties, pocket squares, tuxedos, tuxedo shirts, vests, cummerbunds, belts, socks, athletic socks, dress socks, underwear, undergarments, coats, wind resistant jackets, gloves, scarves; men's dress suits; women's dress suits; Athletic wear, namely, workout tee shirts, tank tops, compression shirts, compression sleeveless tee shirts, compression shorts, workout pants and shorts, long sleeve hooded thin fabric shirts, workout / warm-up suits including long or short sleeve tops and pants; Yoga wear type workout clothes, namely, short and long sleeve tops, women's sports bras and sleeveless bra tops, shorts, and pants; Sports uniforms, namely, shirts, jerseys, pants, shorts, undergarments, socks, cleats or shoes, belts, hats; Footwear, shoes, athletic shoes, casual shoes, dress shoes; Headwear, baseball caps, beanies, dress hats, decorated hats,” in International Class 025.

Applicant’s goods fully encompass and are highly similar to the goods listed in the cited registration. Specifically, both applicant and registrant lists “tee shirts” or “t-shirts.” Applicant also lists various other related clothing items. Neither the application nor the registration(s) contains any limitations regarding trade channels for the goods and therefore it is assumed that registrant’s and applicant’s goods are sold everywhere that is normal for such items, i.e., clothing and department stores.  Thus, it can also be assumed that the same classes of purchasers shop for these items and that consumers are accustomed to seeing them sold under the same or similar marks.  See Kangol Ltd. v. KangaROOS U.S.A., Inc., 974 F.2d 161, 23 USPQ2d 1945 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Smith & Mehaffey, 31 USPQ2d 1531 (TTAB 1994); TMEP §1207.01(a)(iii).

 

Applicant has preemptively argued against this refusal stating that applicant’s goods are only sold in gift shops. This is irrelevant. 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)).  Here, 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 are related.

 

Applicant also argues that the specimen in the cited registration should not have been accepted because it is ornamental. This is also not relevant to the present likelihood of confusion determination. The examining attorney notes that there are several reasons why an ornamental specimen may have been accepted by the previous examining attorney including secondary source. See TMEP §1202.03. Additionally, Trademark Act Section 7(b) provides that a certificate of registration on the Principal Register is prima facie evidence of the validity of a registered mark.  15 U.S.C. §1057(b).  The validity of a cited registration “cannot be challenged in an ex parte proceeding.”  In re Fat Boys Water Sports LLC, 118 USPQ2d 1511, 1517 (TTAB 2016).  Thus, applicant’s argument is not being considered because to do so would fail to give the cited registered mark the validity to which it is entitled.  In re Fat Boys Water Sports LLC, 118 USPQ2d at 1517 (citing In re Fiesta Palms LLC, 85 USPQ2d 1360, 1363 (TTAB 2007)).

 

Because the marks are similar and the goods are related, it is likely that consumers would believe that the goods emanate from a common source.

 

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).

 

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

 

AMENDED IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS REQUIRED

 

The identification of goods and/or services requires clarification in several respects.

 

The wording “beach caps, running caps, gym caps, bike caps, exercise caps; desert caps; slumber caps; waterpolo caps; workout / warm-up suits including long or short sleeve tops and pants; short and long sleeve tops; sleeveless bra tops; cleats” in the identification is indefinite and must be clarified because it fails to identify specific goods. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.

 

The wording “caps” in the identification is indefinite, too broad, and must be clarified because it fails to identify specific goods and could include goods in more than one international class (e.g., caps being headwear in International Class 025, wave caps in International Class 026). Id.

 

The wording “visors” in the identification is indefinite, too broad and must be clarified because it fails to identify specific goods and includes goods in more than one international class (e.g., sun visors being headwear in International Class 025, motorcycle helmet visors in International Class 009). Id.

 

Applicant has classified “compression shirts, compression sleeveless tee shirts, compression shorts” in International Class 025; however, all compression garments are properly classified in International Class 010.

 

Applicant may adopt the following wording, if accurate:

 

§  “Athletic wear in the nature of compression garments, namely, compression shirts, compression sleeveless tee shirts, compression shorts,” in International Class 010.

§   

§  “Athletic wear, namely, headwear, beach caps being headwear, running caps being headwear, gym caps being headwear, bike caps being headwear, exercise caps being headwear; golf caps; cap visors; visors being headwear; hats; skull caps; beach caps being headwear; beach hats; sun hats; shower caps; sports caps; desert caps being headwear; bathing caps; slumber caps being headwear; knitted caps; swimming caps; baseball caps; water polo caps being headwear; caps being headwear; caps with visors; sports hats; baseball hats; Clothing, namely, tops, bottoms, tee shirts, polo shirts, sweat shirts, cutoffs shirts, tank tops, hooded sweatshirts, sweater-shirts, jeans, jean shorts, jean skirts, shorts, walking shorts, cargo shorts, spandex shorts, spandex pants, sport coats, khakis, skirts, pants, dress slacks, slacks, ties, pocket squares, tuxedos, tuxedo shirts, vests, cummerbunds, belts, socks, athletic socks, dress socks, underwear, undergarments, coats, wind resistant jackets, gloves, scarves; men's dress suits; women's dress suits; Athletic wear, namely, workout tee shirts, tank tops workout pants and shorts, long sleeve hooded thin fabric shirts, workout and warm-up suits including long or short sleeve tops and pants; Yoga wear type workout clothes, namely, short and long sleeve tops being clothing, women's sports bras and sleeveless bra tops being clothing, shorts, and pants; Sports uniforms, namely, shirts, jerseys, pants, shorts, undergarments, socks, cleats in the nature of __________ {indicate specific types of cleats in International Class 025, e.g., golf cleats, football cleats} and shoes, belts, hats; Footwear, shoes, athletic shoes, casual shoes, dress shoes; Headwear, baseball caps, beanies, dress hats, decorated hats,” in International Class 025.

 

Note that proposed changes are indicated in bold. Some items require applicant to include more complete information. These are designated with a blank space ______ followed by bold braces { } and italicized explanatory text. The information in the braces is suggested as an example for applicant to follow, not to merely be “cut and pasted”. Furthermore, no braces should be included in applicant’s amended identification. Applicant should also note that the above identification is merely a suggestion and applicant is responsible for providing an accurate and acceptable identification.

 

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.  Applicant may clarify or limit the identification by inserting qualifying language or deleting items to result in a more specific identification; however, applicant may not substitute different goods and/or services or add goods and/or services not found or encompassed by those in the original application or as acceptably amended.  See TMEP §1402.06(a)-(b).  The scope of the goods and/or services sets the outer limit for any changes to the identification and is generally determined by the ordinary meaning of the wording in the identification.  TMEP §§1402.06(b), 1402.07(a)-(b).  Any acceptable changes to the goods and/or services will further limit scope, and once goods and/or services are deleted, they are not permitted to be reinserted.  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.

 

Multiple-Class Application Requirements

 

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 and/or services that are classified in at least 2 classes; however, applicant submitted a fee(s) sufficient for only 1 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.

 

RESPONSE GUIDELINES

 

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(s) 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 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  

 

 

/Breanna Freeman/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 114

571-272-7099

breanna.freeman@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 12, 2019 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88482451

 

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. 

 

 

/Breanna Freeman/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 114

571-272-7099

breanna.freeman@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 12, 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.”