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 27, 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:

• Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion
• Identification of Goods
• Multi-Class Application Requirements
• Unsigned Application

 

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. 4436862 for "OASIS".  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 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.

 

Applicant's mark is "OASIS" for "Eye drops; Ophthalmic pharmaceutical preparations, namely, Viscoelastic solutions; viscoelastic surgical fluid for use during ophthalmic surgical procedures; permeable protective eye coverings, bandages or patches made of collagen for veterinary use; protective collagen coverings, bandages or patches for placement on the eye; Eyelid cleansers; Eyelid cleansers, medicated pre-moistened wipes, and medicated facial cleansers, namely, foams, solutions, creams, gels, lotions and ointments for eyelid cleansing and removal of encrustation and other foreign matter from the eyelids, eyelashes, and periocular area; antiseptic wipes; antibacterial wipes; Antibacterial cleansers in the nature of antibacterial wipes; antiseptic gel; antibacterial gel; Antibacterial cleansers in the nature of antibacterial gels; antiseptic spray; antibacterial spray; Antibacterial cleansers in the nature of antibacterial sprays; Dietary and nutritional supplements; Nutritional supplements; Nutritional supplements for ocular wellness; Nutritional supplements for promoting healthy eyes and vision; Nutritional supplements for treating dry eyes; Dietary supplements and nutritional supplements for antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and treating vision issues; nutritional and herbal supplements to treat eyesight problems and to improve vision" in International Class 5.

 

Already registered is the mark "OASIS" for "medicated care products for relief of dry mouth and associated symptoms and conditions, namely, medicated toothpaste, medicated dentifrices in the form of chewing gum, medicated breath mints, dentifrices, medicinal preparations for the mouth and as sprays, medicated lozenges, medicated candy, medicated mouth strips, spray sanitizer for personal use, antiseptic preparations, medicated oral care gels, medicated moisturizers, medicated mouth rinse, medicated mouth wash, spray sanitizer for personal use, and antiseptic preparations; medicated toothpaste; medicated chewing gum; medicated breath mints; medicated dentifrices; medicinal preparations for the mouth and as sprays; medicated candy; medicated mouth strips; medicated breath mints; spray sanitizer for personal use; antiseptic preparations; medicated breath fresheners; medicated oral care gels; medicated moisturizers; medicated lozenges; medicated mouth rinse; medicated mouth wash; medicated prophylaxis pastes; medicated liquid dental floss; medicated cold sore treatment preparations; anti-cavity dental coating preparations; dental tablets for disclosing plaque and tartar on the teeth; dental bleaching gel; bleaching preparations for teeth; tooth polishing preparations; tooth whitening preparations, namely, stain removal preparations of teeth; anti-cavity dental rinses; temporary teeth fillings; denture adhesives; disinfectants for dentures; medicated teeth and gum sensitivity preparations; medicinal preparations for the mouth and as sprays; anti-plaque preparation" in International Class 5.

 

Similarity of the Marks

 

The respective marks, "OASIS" and "OASIS", are confusingly similar, as set forth below.

 

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 “OASIS” and registrant’s mark is “OASIS”.  These marks are 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 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.  Id.  Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar and create the same overall commercial impression.

 

Where the marks of the respective parties are identical, as in this case, the degree of similarity or relatedness between the goods 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).

 

Similarity of the Goods

 

Applicant seeks registration of its mark for "Eye drops; Ophthalmic pharmaceutical preparations, namely, Viscoelastic solutions; viscoelastic surgical fluid for use during ophthalmic surgical procedures; permeable protective eye coverings, bandages or patches made of collagen for veterinary use; protective collagen coverings, bandages or patches for placement on the eye; Eyelid cleansers; Eyelid cleansers, medicated pre-moistened wipes, and medicated facial cleansers, namely, foams, solutions, creams, gels, lotions and ointments for eyelid cleansing and removal of encrustation and other foreign matter from the eyelids, eyelashes, and periocular area; antiseptic wipes; antibacterial wipes; Antibacterial cleansers in the nature of antibacterial wipes; antiseptic gel; antibacterial gel; Antibacterial cleansers in the nature of antibacterial gels; antiseptic spray; antibacterial spray; Antibacterial cleansers in the nature of antibacterial sprays; Dietary and nutritional supplements; Nutritional supplements; Nutritional supplements for ocular wellness; Nutritional supplements for promoting healthy eyes and vision; Nutritional supplements for treating dry eyes; Dietary supplements and nutritional supplements for antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and treating vision issues; nutritional and herbal supplements to treat eyesight problems and to improve vision".

 

The goods identified in the cited registration are "medicated care products for relief of dry mouth and associated symptoms and conditions, namely, medicated toothpaste, medicated dentifrices in the form of chewing gum, medicated breath mints, dentifrices, medicinal preparations for the mouth and as sprays, medicated lozenges, medicated candy, medicated mouth strips, spray sanitizer for personal use, antiseptic preparations, medicated oral care gels, medicated moisturizers, medicated mouth rinse, medicated mouth wash, spray sanitizer for personal use, and antiseptic preparations; medicated toothpaste; medicated chewing gum; medicated breath mints; medicated dentifrices; medicinal preparations for the mouth and as sprays; medicated candy; medicated mouth strips; medicated breath mints; spray sanitizer for personal use; antiseptic preparations; medicated breath fresheners; medicated oral care gels; medicated moisturizers; medicated lozenges; medicated mouth rinse; medicated mouth wash; medicated prophylaxis pastes; medicated liquid dental floss; medicated cold sore treatment preparations; anti-cavity dental coating preparations; dental tablets for disclosing plaque and tartar on the teeth; dental bleaching gel; bleaching preparations for teeth; tooth polishing preparations; tooth whitening preparations, namely, stain removal preparations of teeth; anti-cavity dental rinses; temporary teeth fillings; denture adhesives; disinfectants for dentures; medicated teeth and gum sensitivity preparations; medicinal preparations for the mouth and as sprays; anti-plaque preparation".

 

Applicant’s goods are closely related to registrant’s goods as set forth below.

 

The compared goods 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).

 

Determining likelihood of confusion is based on the description of the goods stated in the application and registration at issue, not on extrinsic evidence of actual use.  See In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1307, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1052 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1325, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1749 (Fed. Cir. 2017)).

 

In this case, the registration uses broad wording to describe “antiseptic preparations”, which presumably encompasses all goods of the type described, including applicant’s more narrow “antiseptic wipes; antiseptic gel; antiseptic spray”.  See, e.g., In re Solid State Design Inc., 125 USPQ2d 1409, 1412-15 (TTAB 2018); Sw. Mgmt., Inc. v. Ocinomled, Ltd., 115 USPQ2d 1007, 1025 (TTAB 2015).  Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods are legally identical.  See, e.g., In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 127 USPQ2d 1627, 1629 (TTAB 2018) (citing Tuxedo Monopoly, Inc. v.Gen. Mills Fun Grp., Inc., 648 F.2d 1335, 1336, 209 USPQ 986, 988 (C.C.P.A. 1981); Inter IKEA Sys. B.V. v. Akea, LLC, 110 USPQ2d 1734, 1745 (TTAB 2014); Baseball Am. Inc. v. Powerplay Sports Ltd., 71 USPQ2d 1844, 1847 n.9 (TTAB 2004)).

 

Additionally, the goods of the parties have no restrictions as to nature, type, channels of trade, or classes of purchasers and are “presumed to travel in the same channels of trade to the same class of purchasers.”  In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1268, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).  Thus, applicant's goods are closely related to registrant's goods for likelihood of confusion purposes.

 

Therefore, upon encountering "OASIS" used for "Eye drops; Ophthalmic pharmaceutical preparations, namely, Viscoelastic solutions; viscoelastic surgical fluid for use during ophthalmic surgical procedures; permeable protective eye coverings, bandages or patches made of collagen for veterinary use; protective collagen coverings, bandages or patches for placement on the eye; Eyelid cleansers; Eyelid cleansers, medicated pre-moistened wipes, and medicated facial cleansers, namely, foams, solutions, creams, gels, lotions and ointments for eyelid cleansing and removal of encrustation and other foreign matter from the eyelids, eyelashes, and periocular area; antiseptic wipes; antibacterial wipes; Antibacterial cleansers in the nature of antibacterial wipes; antiseptic gel; antibacterial gel; Antibacterial cleansers in the nature of antibacterial gels; antiseptic spray; antibacterial spray; Antibacterial cleansers in the nature of antibacterial sprays; Dietary and nutritional supplements; Nutritional supplements; Nutritional supplements for ocular wellness; Nutritional supplements for promoting healthy eyes and vision; Nutritional supplements for treating dry eyes; Dietary supplements and nutritional supplements for antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and treating vision issues; nutritional and herbal supplements to treat eyesight problems and to improve vision", and "OASIS" used for "medicated care products for relief of dry mouth and associated symptoms and conditions, namely, medicated toothpaste, medicated dentifrices in the form of chewing gum, medicated breath mints, dentifrices, medicinal preparations for the mouth and as sprays, medicated lozenges, medicated candy, medicated mouth strips, spray sanitizer for personal use, antiseptic preparations, medicated oral care gels, medicated moisturizers, medicated mouth rinse, medicated mouth wash, spray sanitizer for personal use, and antiseptic preparations; medicated toothpaste; medicated chewing gum; medicated breath mints; medicated dentifrices; medicinal preparations for the mouth and as sprays; medicated candy; medicated mouth strips; medicated breath mints; spray sanitizer for personal use; antiseptic preparations; medicated breath fresheners; medicated oral care gels; medicated moisturizers; medicated lozenges; medicated mouth rinse; medicated mouth wash; medicated prophylaxis pastes; medicated liquid dental floss; medicated cold sore treatment preparations; anti-cavity dental coating preparations; dental tablets for disclosing plaque and tartar on the teeth; dental bleaching gel; bleaching preparations for teeth; tooth polishing preparations; tooth whitening preparations, namely, stain removal preparations of teeth; anti-cavity dental rinses; temporary teeth fillings; denture adhesives; disinfectants for dentures; medicated teeth and gum sensitivity preparations; medicinal preparations for the mouth and as sprays; anti-plaque preparation", consumers are likely to be confused as to the source of the goods.

 

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

 

Applicant must clarify the wording “permeable protective eye coverings, bandages or patches made of collagen for veterinary use”, “protective collagen coverings, bandages or patches for placement on the eye”, and “eyelid cleansers” in the identification of goods in International Class 5 because it is indefinite and too broad.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03.  This wording is indefinite because it does not make clear what the goods are.  Further, this wording could identify goods in more than one international class.  For example, “eye patches for medical purposes” are in International Class 5 and “eye covers for protective purposes” are in International Class 9.  “Eyelid cleansers” is broad enough to include non-medicated cleansers in International Class 3 and medicated cleansers in International Class 5.

 

Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate, with suggested amendments in bold:

 

Class 5:           Eye drops; Ophthalmic pharmaceutical preparations, namely, viscoelastic solutions; viscoelastic surgical fluid for use during ophthalmic surgical procedures; Eye patches for medical purposes, namely, bandages and patches made of collagen for veterinary use; Eye patches for medical purposes, namely, bandages and patches for placement on the eye; Medicated eyelid cleansers; Medicated eyelid cleansers, medicated pre-moistened wipes, and medicated facial cleansers, namely, foams, solutions, creams, gels, lotions and ointments for eyelid cleansing and removal of encrustation and other foreign matter from the eyelids, eyelashes, and periocular area; antiseptic wipes; antibacterial wipes; Antibacterial cleansers in the nature of antibacterial wipes; antiseptic gel; antibacterial gel; Antibacterial cleansers in the nature of antibacterial gels; antiseptic spray; antibacterial spray; Antibacterial cleansers in the nature of antibacterial sprays; Dietary and nutritional supplements; Nutritional supplements; Nutritional supplements for ocular wellness; Nutritional supplements for promoting healthy eyes and vision; Nutritional supplements for treating dry eyes; Dietary supplements and nutritional supplements for antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and treating vision issues; nutritional and herbal supplements to treat eyesight problems and to improve vision

 

Class 9:           Eye covers for protective purposes, namely, permeable protective eye coverings and protective collagen eye coverings

 

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 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 references goods based on use in commerce in more than one international class; therefore, applicant must satisfy all the requirements below for each international class:

 

(1)        List the goods by their international class number in consecutive numerical order, starting with the lowest numbered class (for example, International Class 3: perfume; International Class 18: cosmetic bags sold empty).

 

(2)        Submit a filing fee for each international class not covered by the fee already paid (view the USPTO’s current fee schedule).  Specifically, the application identifies goods based on use in commerce that are classified in at least two classes; however, applicant submitted a fee sufficient for only one class.  Applicant must either (a) submit the filing fees for the classes not covered by the submitted fees or (b) restrict the application to the number of classes covered by the fees already paid.

 

(3)        Submit verified dates of first use of the mark anywhere and in commerce for each international class.  See more information about verified dates of use.

 

(4)        Submit a specimen for each international class.  The current specimen is acceptable for class 5; and applicant needs a specimen for class 9.  See more information about specimens.

 

            Examples of specimens for goods include tags, labels, instruction manuals, containers, and photographs that show the mark on the actual goods or packaging, or displays associated with the actual goods at their point of sale.  Webpages may also be specimens for goods when they include a picture or textual description of the goods associated with the mark and the means to order the goods.  

 

(5)        Submit a verified statement that “The specimen was in use in commerce on or in connection with the goods listed in the application at least as early as the filing date of the application.”  See more information about verification.

 

See 15 U.S.C. §§1051(a), 1112; 37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(6)-(7), 2.34(a)(1), 2.86(a); TMEP §§904, 1403.01, 1403.02(c).

 

See an overview of the requirements for a Section 1(a) multiple-class application and how to satisfy the requirements online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form.

 

UNSIGNED APPLICATION

 

The application was unsigned, resulting in the application not being properly verified.  See TMEP §804.  Applicant must properly sign and therefore verify the application in an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.2(n), 2.33(a)-(c), 2.34(a)(1)(i), (a)(2), (a)(3)(i), (a)(4)(ii); TMEP §804.02.

 

The following statements must be verified:  That 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; that applicant believes applicant is entitled to use the mark in commerce on or in connection with the goods or services specified in the application; that applicant believes applicant is the owner of the mark; that the mark is in use in commerce and was in use in commerce as of the application filing date; that to the best of the signatory’s knowledge and belief, no other persons, except, if applicable, concurrent users, have the right to use the mark in commerce, either in the identical form or in such near resemblance as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods/services of such other persons, to cause confusion or mistake, or to deceive; that the specimen shows the mark as used on or in connection with the goods or services as of the application filing date; and that the facts set forth in the application are true.  37 C.F.R. §§2.33(b), (c), 2.34(a)(1)(i), (a)(2), (a)(3)(i), (a)(4)(ii), 2.59(a).  For more information about this, see the Verified statement webpage.

 

To provide these verified statements.  After opening the correct TEAS response form, answer “yes” to wizard question #10, and follow the instructions within the form for signing.  In this case, the TEAS online form will require two signatures:  one in the “Declaration Signature” section and one in the “Response Signature” section.

 

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 and/or requirements 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  

 

If applicant has any questions or requires assistance in responding to this Office Action, please telephone the assigned examining attorney.

 

 

 

 

Matthew Howell

/Matthew Howell/

Examining Attorney

Trademark Law Office 123

(571)270-0992

matthew.howell@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 27, 2019 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88510722

 

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. 

 

 

Matthew Howell

/Matthew Howell/

Examining Attorney

Trademark Law Office 123

(571)270-0992

matthew.howell@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 27, 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.”