United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88516978
Mark: CONNECT
|
|
Correspondence Address: |
|
Applicant: GS Holistic, LLC
|
|
Reference/Docket No. GS-00033
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
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: October 08, 2019
SUMMARY OF ISSUES:
PARTIAL SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION WITH REGARD TO SPECIFIED GOODS
Applicant has applied to register the mark CONNECT for “electric vaporizers for aromatherapy purposes; structural parts for electronic vaporizers for aromatherapy purposes, namely, atomizers, electronic vaporizer caps, vaporizer refill cartridges sold empty, clearomizers, coils, cones, drip tips, tanks, glass hydro mouthpieces/stems; refilling tools for electronic vaporizers for aromatherapy purposes, namely, eye droppers for liquid that is vaporizable for aromatherapy purposes, syringes for liquid that is vaporizable for aromatherapy purposes; cartomizers, namely, combination electronic vaporizer refill cartridges sold empty and atomizers, sold as a component of electronic vaporizers; cases for electronic vaporizers for aromatherapy purposes; kits for electronic vaporizers for aromatherapy purposes comprising electronic vaporizers for aromatherapy purposes, refill cartridges for electronic vaporizers for aromatherapy purposes sold empty and glass connecting adaptors” in International Class 11.
Please be aware that the stated refusal refers only to the following goods and does not bar registration for any other goods listed in the application:
International Class 11: “electric vaporizers for aromatherapy purposes; structural parts for electronic vaporizers for aromatherapy purposes, namely, atomizers, electronic vaporizer caps, vaporizer refill cartridges sold empty, clearomizers, coils, cones, drip tips, tanks, glass hydro mouthpieces/stems; cartomizers, namely, combination electronic vaporizer refill cartridges sold empty and atomizers, sold as a component of electronic vaporizers; cases for electronic vaporizers for aromatherapy purposes; kits for electronic vaporizers for aromatherapy purposes comprising electronic vaporizers for aromatherapy purposes, refill cartridges for electronic vaporizers for aromatherapy purposes sold empty and glass connecting adaptors”
The cited marks, both owned by the same registrant, are listed below:
Reg. No. |
MARK |
OWNER |
RELEVANT GOODS AND/OR SERVICES |
CLASS |
5020915 |
VAPE CONNEXX |
VAPE CONNEXX, LLC |
Electronic cigarettes; oral vaporizers for smoking purposes |
34 |
5020916 |
VAPE CONNEXX (stylized) |
VAPE CONNEXX, LLC |
Electronic cigarettes; oral vaporizers for smoking purposes |
34 |
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.
In the present case, the following factors are most relevant: similarity of the marks, relatedness of the goods, and similarity of the trade channels of the goods.
Comparison of the Marks
In the present case, applicant’s mark is confusingly similar with the registered marks because the marks share the substantially similar wording CONNECT and CONNEXX. First, marks may be confusingly similar in appearance where similar terms or phrases or similar parts of terms or phrases appear in the compared marks and create a similar overall commercial impression. See Crocker Nat’l Bank v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 228 USPQ 689, 690-91 (TTAB 1986), aff’d sub nom. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 811 F.2d 1490, 1495, 1 USPQ2d 1813, 1817 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (finding COMMCASH and COMMUNICASH confusingly similar); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65, 66 (TTAB 1985) (finding CONFIRM and CONFIRMCELLS confusingly similar); In re Pellerin Milnor Corp., 221 USPQ 558, 560 (TTAB 1983) (finding MILTRON and MILLTRONICS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii). In this case, the substantially similar wording CONNECT and CONNEXX in the compared marks has the potential to be used in exactly the same manner. See 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, consumers are likely to view the wording CONNEXX in the registered marks as a novel spelling or intentional misspelling of the wording CONNECT in the applied-for mark. Thus, the wording CONNECT and CONNEXX in the respective marks is 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.
Applicant also should note that there is no correct pronunciation of a mark because it is impossible to predict how the public will pronounce a particular mark. See Embarcadero Techs., Inc. v. RStudio, Inc., 105 USPQ2d 1825, 1835 (TTAB 2013) (quoting In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1367, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1912 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re The Belgrade Shoe Co., 411 F.2d 1352, 1353, 162 USPQ 227, 227 (C.C.P.A. 1969)); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iv). The wording CONNECT and CONNEXX in the marks in question could clearly be pronounced the same; such 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). This notwithstanding, slight differences in the sound of similar marks will not avoid a likelihood of confusion. In re Energy Telecomm. & Elec. Ass’n, 222 USPQ 350, 351 (TTAB 1983); see In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1367, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1912 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Moreover, 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). Matter that is descriptive of or generic for a party’s goods and/or services is typically less significant or less dominant in relation to other wording in a mark. See Anheuser-Busch, LLC v. Innvopak Sys. Pty Ltd., 115 USPQ2d 1816, 1824-25 (TTAB 2015) (citing In re Chatam Int’l Inc., 380 F.3d 1340, 1342-43, 71 USPQ2d 1944, 1946 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).
In the present case, the wording “VAPE” in the registered marks is descriptive of registrant’s goods, and has been disclaimed. Thus, the term “VAPE” in the registered marks is less significant in terms of affecting the marks’ commercial impressions, and renders the wording CONNEXX the more dominant element of the marks, which is confusingly similar with the wording CONNECT in the applied-for mark.
In Re: Reg. No: 86822747
In addition, the applied-for mark does not avoid likelihood of confusion with the registered mark here even though the applied-for mark is stylized with design elements and the registered mark is in standard characters. A mark in typed or standard characters as the registered mark is here 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 as the applied-for mark is here, 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 Re: Reg. No: 5020916
Moreover, the applied-for mark does not avoid likelihood of confusion with the registered mark here even though both marks are stylized with design elements. 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)).
Accordingly, applicant’s mark and the registered marks are confusingly similar.
Relatedness of the Goods
Applicant’s mark is mark CONNECT for, in relevant part, “electric vaporizers for aromatherapy purposes; structural parts for electronic vaporizers for aromatherapy purposes, namely, atomizers, electronic vaporizer caps, vaporizer refill cartridges sold empty, clearomizers, coils, cones, drip tips, tanks, glass hydro mouthpieces/stems; cartomizers, namely, combination electronic vaporizer refill cartridges sold empty and atomizers, sold as a component of electronic vaporizers; cases for electronic vaporizers for aromatherapy purposes; kits for electronic vaporizers for aromatherapy purposes comprising electronic vaporizers for aromatherapy purposes, refill cartridges for electronic vaporizers for aromatherapy purposes sold empty and glass connecting adaptors” in International Class 11.
The cited marks are listed below:
Reg. No. |
MARK |
OWNER |
RELEVANT GOODS AND/OR SERVICES |
CLASS |
5020915 |
VAPE CONNEXX |
VAPE CONNEXX, LLC |
Electronic cigarettes; oral vaporizers for smoking purposes |
34 |
5020916 |
VAPE CONNEXX (stylized) |
VAPE CONNEXX, LLC |
Electronic cigarettes; oral vaporizers for smoking purposes |
34 |
In this case, the application uses broad wording “electric vaporizers for aromatherapy purposes”, which presumably encompasses all goods and/or services of the type described, including registrant’s more narrow “oral vaporizers for smoking purposes.” 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 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)).
In this case, applicant’s “electric vaporizers for aromatherapy purposes”, “structural parts for electronic vaporizers for aromatherapy purposes, namely, atomizers, electronic vaporizer caps, vaporizer refill cartridges sold empty, clearomizers, coils, cones, drip tips, tanks, glass hydro mouthpieces/stems”, “refilling tools for electronic vaporizers for aromatherapy purposes, namely, eye droppers for liquid that is vaporizable for aromatherapy purposes, syringes for liquid that is vaporizable for aromatherapy purposes”, “cartomizers, namely, combination electronic vaporizer refill cartridges sold empty and atomizers, sold as a component of electronic vaporizers”, “cases for electronic vaporizers for aromatherapy purposes” and “kits for electronic vaporizers for aromatherapy purposes comprising electronic vaporizers for aromatherapy purposes, refill cartridges for electronic vaporizers for aromatherapy purposes sold empty and glass connecting adaptors” are commercially related to registrant’s “oral vaporizers for smoking purposes” because the goods are used for similar purposes and are complimentary. As the attached evidence from the third-party websites for Davinci, Element Vape, Halo, Gypsy Vapes and Migvapor demonstrates, the goods commonly are purchased and sold together and travel in the same channels of trade. See:
Accordingly applicant’s and registrant’s goods are sufficiently related for purposes of the likelihood of confusion analysis.
Conclusion
Since applicant’s mark and the registered marks are confusingly similar and their goods are sufficiently related, registration of applicant’s mark must be refused under Trademark Act Section 2(d) with regard to the goods specified.
ADVISORY – APPLICANT’S RESPONSE OPTIONS TO PARTIAL REFUSAL
Applicant may respond to the stated refusals by submitting evidence and arguments against the refusals. In addition, applicant may respond by doing one of the following:
(1) Deleting the goods to which the refusals pertain; or
(2) Filing a request to divide out the goods and/or services that have not been refused registration, so that the mark may proceed toward publication for opposition for those goods or services to which the refusal does not pertain. See 37 C.F.R. §2.87. See generally TMEP §§1110 et seq. (regarding the requirements for filing a request to divide). If applicant files a request to divide, then to avoid abandonment, applicant must also file a timely response to all outstanding issues in this Office action, including the refusal. 37 C.F.R. §2.87(e).
ADVISORY - POTENTIAL SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL BASED UPON PRIOR-FILED APPLICATION
Serial No. |
MARK |
OWNER |
RELEVANT GOODS AND/OR SERVICES |
CLASS |
88380212 |
CONNECT |
Light Effect Apparel LLC |
electronic cigarette refill cartridges sold empty; cartridges sold filled with chemical flavorings in liquid form for electronic cigarettes; cartridges sold filled with vegetable glycerin for electronic cigarettes; electronic cigarettes |
34 |
As discussed above, 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). Thus, 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 with the registered mark. 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.
However, if applicant responds to the refusal and/or presents arguments in support of registration by addressing the issue of the potential conflict between applicant’s mark and the mark in the referenced applications, applicant also must respond to the requirements set forth below.
REQUIREMENT TO AMEND IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS
Applicant must clarify the wording “electronic vaporizers for aromatherapy purposes” in the identification of goods and/or services in International Class 10 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 the nature of the vaporizers is not clear. Vaporizers are classified according to their purpose or function. Thus, this wording could identify goods in more than one international class. For example, “electric vaporizers for medical aromatherapy purposes” are in International Class 10, “electric vaporizers for household aromatherapy purposes” are in International Class 11 and “electric smokers’ oral vaporizers for aromatherapy purposes” are in International Class 34. Therefore, applicant must amend the identification to clarify the nature of the vaporizers it provides and ensure proper classification.
Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate (proposed amendments in bold):
International Class 10: Electric vaporizers for {specify purpose of vaporizers, e.g., medical} aromatherapy purposes; Structural parts for electronic vaporizers for {specify purpose of vaporizers, e.g., medical} aromatherapy purposes, namely, atomizers, electronic vaporizer caps, vaporizer refill cartridges sold empty, clearomizers, coils, cones, drip tips, tanks, glass hydro mouthpieces/stems,; Refilling tools for electronic vaporizers for aromatherapy purposes, namely, eye droppers for liquid that is vaporizable for aromatherapy purposes, {specify nature of syringes, e.g., medical, disposable} syringes for liquid that is vaporizable for aromatherapy purposes; Cartomizers, namely, combination electronic vaporizer refill cartridges sold empty and atomizers, sold as a component of electronic vaporizers for {specify purpose of vaporizers, e.g., medical} purposes; Cases for electronic vaporizers for {specify purpose of vaporizers, e.g., medical} aromatherapy purposes; Kits for electronic vaporizers for {specify purpose of vaporizers, e.g., medical} aromatherapy purposes comprising electronic vaporizers for {specify purpose of vaporizers, e.g., medical} aromatherapy purposes and refill cartridges for electronic vaporizers for {specify purpose of vaporizers, e.g., medical} aromatherapy purposes sold empty
International Class 11: Electric vaporizers for {specify purpose of vaporizers, e.g., household} aromatherapy purposes; Structural parts for electronic vaporizers for {specify purpose of vaporizers, e.g., household} aromatherapy purposes, namely, atomizers, electronic vaporizer caps, vaporizer refill cartridges sold empty, clearomizers, coils, cones, drip tips, tanks, glass hydro mouthpieces/stems; Cartomizers, namely, combination electronic vaporizer refill cartridges sold empty and atomizers, sold as a component of electronic vaporizers for {specify purpose of vaporizers, e.g., household} purposes; Cases for electronic vaporizers for {specify purpose of vaporizers, e.g., household} aromatherapy purposes; Kits for electronic vaporizers for {specify purpose of vaporizers, e.g., household} aromatherapy purposes comprising electronic vaporizers for {specify purpose of vaporizers, e.g., household} aromatherapy purposes and refill cartridges for electronic vaporizers for {specify purpose of vaporizers, e.g., household} aromatherapy purposes sold empty
International Class 34: Electric {specify purpose of vaporizers, e.g., smokers’ oral vaporizers} for aromatherapy purposes; Structural parts for electronic {specify purpose of vaporizers, e.g., smokers’ oral vaporizers} for aromatherapy purposes, namely, atomizers, electronic vaporizer caps, vaporizer refill cartridges sold empty, clearomizers, coils, cones, drip tips, tanks, glass hydro mouthpieces/stems,; Refilling tools for electronic vaporizers for aromatherapy purposes, namely, eye droppers for liquid that is vaporizable for aromatherapy purposes, {specify nature of syringes, e.g., medical, disposable} syringes for liquid that is vaporizable for aromatherapy purposes; Cartomizers, namely, combination electronic vaporizer refill cartridges sold empty and atomizers, sold as a component of electronic {specify purpose of vaporizers, e.g., smokers’ oral vaporizers}; Cases for electronic {specify purpose of vaporizers, e.g., smokers’ oral vaporizers} for aromatherapy purposes; Kits for electronic {specify purpose of vaporizers, e.g., smokers’ oral vaporizers} for aromatherapy purposes comprising electronic {specify purpose of vaporizers, e.g., smokers’ oral vaporizers} for { aromatherapy purposes and refill cartridges for electronic {specify purpose of vaporizers, e.g., smokers’ oral vaporizers} for aromatherapy purposes sold empty
Applicant may amend the identification to clarify or limit the goods and/or services, but not to broaden or expand the goods and/or services 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 and/or services 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.
MULTIPLE CLASS APPLICATION ADVISORY
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 already paid (view the USPTO’s current fee schedule). The application identifies goods that are classified in at least 3 classes; however, applicant submitted a fee sufficient for only 1 class. 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.
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.
Applicant should note the following additional requirement.
REQUIREMENT TO AMEND DESCRIPTION OF THE MARK
The following description is suggested, if accurate: The mark consists of a discontinuous circle,
underneath of which is the word “CONNECT” in capital font.
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
/Oreoluwa Alao/
Oreoluwa Alao
Examining Attorney
Law Office 108
(571) 270-7210
oreoluwa.alao@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE