To: | ENRIQUE TECHNOLOGY GROUP CO., LIMITED (yi.wan@tbchadwick.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88511011 - ECOOLINK - SYM9123105 |
Sent: | February 11, 2020 09:39:49 AM |
Sent As: | ecom122@uspto.gov |
Attachments: |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88511011
Mark: ECOOLINK
|
|
Correspondence Address: |
|
Applicant: ENRIQUE TECHNOLOGY GROUP CO., LIMITED
|
|
Reference/Docket No. SYM9123105
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
SUSPENSION NOTICE
No Response Required
Issue date: February 11, 2020
The application is suspended for the reason(s) specified below. See 37 C.F.R. §2.67; TMEP §§716 et seq.
The pending application(s) below has an earlier filing date or effective filing date than applicant’s application. If the mark in the application(s) below registers, the USPTO may refuse registration of applicant’s mark under Section 2(d) because of a likelihood of confusion with the registered mark(s). 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see 37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §§1208.02(c). Action on this application is suspended until the prior-filed application(s) below either registers or abandons. 37 C.F.R. §2.83(c). Information relevant to the application(s) below was sent previously.
- U.S. Application Serial No(s). 88224585 (“ECOLINX”)
Refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) resolved and maintained and continued. The following refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) is/are satisfied and/or obviated:
• acceptable specimen provided
• additional information regarding the specimen provided
• U.S. licensed attorney obtained
See TMEP §713.02.
The following refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) is/are maintained and continued:
• Section 2(d) likelihood of confusion refusal is continued and maintained: applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive because of the similarity of the marks and the relatedness of the goods, which 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)).
See id. These refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) will be made final once this application is removed from suspension, unless a new issue arises. See TMEP §716.01.
Suspension process. The USPTO will periodically check this application to determine if it should remain suspended. See TMEP §716.04. As needed, the trademark examining attorney will issue a letter to applicant to inquire about the status of the reason for the suspension. TMEP §716.05.
No response required. Applicant may file a response, but is not required to do so.
/Corinne Kleinman/
Corinne Kleinman
Examining Attorney
Law Office 122
571-272-7461
corinne.kleinman@uspto.gov