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: October 08, 2019

 

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 – Partial

·       Prior-Filed Pending Application Advisory

·       Identification of Goods/Services Requirement

 

SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION - PARTIAL

 

This refusal applies to the following goods and services only: “Downloadable computer game software; Downloadable computer game software for personal computers and home video game consoles; Downloadable computer game software for use on mobile and cellular phones,” in International Class 009, “Board games; Toy figures; Vinyl dolls; Collectable toy figures; PVC toy figures,” in International Class 028, and “Entertainment services in the nature of live-action, dramatic, and animated ongoing television series and motion picture theatrical films; Entertainment services, namely, providing temporary use of non-downloadable video games; Entertainment services, namely, an ongoing series featuring fictional stories provided through television, films, podcasts, and webisodes Providing on-line computer games,” in International Class 041.

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 5351230 and 5197383. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the attached registrations.

 

Applicant’s mark is SHEPHERD (in standard character form) and this refusal applies only to the goods and services listed above.

 

The mark in Registration No. 5351230 is THE KITCHEN SHEPHERD (in standard character form) for, in relevant part, “Educational and entertainment services, namely, a continuing program about homemaking, home care, food preparation, cooking, housekeeping, decorating, gardening, entertaining, weddings, crafts, antique collecting, party planning, holiday planning, and cosmetics accessible by means of radio, television, satellite, audio, video and computer networks; Entertainment services, namely, an ongoing series featuring homemaking, home care, food preparation, cooking, housekeeping, decorating, gardening, entertaining, weddings, crafts, antique collecting, and holiday planning for people who enjoy their homes provided through internet, radio, and television; Entertainment services, namely, providing online computer games that help maintain an active brain and thus improve memory, speed of processing, and that provide a variety of cognitive benefits that positively impact quality of life,” in International Class 041.

 

The mark in Registration No. 5197383 is THE SHEPHERD’S TREASURE (in standard character form) for, in relevant part, “Children's multiple activity toys sold as a unit with printed books; children's toys, namely, dolls;” in International Class 028 and “Providing an interactive website featuring on-line games,” in International Class 041.

 

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 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 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 du Pont factors are the most relevant: similarity of the marks, similarity and nature of the goods and services, and similarity of the trade channels of the goods and services. See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1361-62, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.

 

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).

 

In the present case, applicant’s mark, SHEPHERD, and the marks in Registration Nos. 5351230, THE KITCHEN SHEPHERD, and 5197383, THE SHEPHERD’S TREASURE, are highly similar in appearance, sound, and commercial impression. Specifically, all three marks contain the dominant term SHEPHERD. This term is identical in appearance and pronunciation. Attached evidence from American Heritage dictionary establishes that SHEPHERD means “one who herds, guards, and tends sheep,” or alternatively, “one who cares for and guides a group of people, as a minister or teacher.” Therefore, the marks give the same commercial impression when used in connection with the goods and services, namely, that the games, toys, and programs are related to one that tends to sheep or one that guides a group of people. 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).

 

Moreover, the additional wording THE KITCHEN in Registration No. 5351230, THE KITCHEN SHEPHERD and THE and TREASURE in Registration No. 5197383 do not obviate confusion.

 

First, the wording THE generally has no trademark significance. When comparing similar marks, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has found that inclusion of the term “the” at the beginning of one of the marks will generally not affect or otherwise diminish the overall similarity between the marks. See In re Thor Tech Inc., 90 USPQ2d 1634, 1635 (TTAB 2009) (finding WAVE and THE WAVE “virtually identical” marks; “[t]he addition of the word ‘The’ at the beginning of the registered mark does not have any trademark significance.”); In re Narwood Prods. Inc., 223 USPQ 1034, 1034 (TTAB 1984) (finding THE MUSIC MAKERS and MUSIC-MAKERS “virtually identical” marks; the inclusion of the definite article “the” is “insignificant in determining likelihood of confusion”).

 

Second, the wording KITCHEN is merely descriptive of the registrant’s services and has been disclaimed. 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 Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 1058, 224 USPQ 749, 751 (Fed. Cir. 1985); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii). Disclaimed matter that is descriptive of a party’s services is typically less significant or less dominant when comparing marks. In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1305, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re Dixie Rests., Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 1407, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533-34 (Fed. Cir. 1997)); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii). In the present case, the dominant portion of Registration No. 5351230 is the wording SHEPHERD which is identical to the applied-for mark.

 

Third, although applicant’s mark does not contain the entirety of the registered marks, applicant’s mark is likely to appear to prospective purchasers as a shortened form of the marks. See In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 1348, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting United States Shoe Corp., 229 USPQ 707, 709 (TTAB 1985)). Thus, merely omitting some of the wording from a registered mark may not overcome a likelihood of confusion. See In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 94 USPQ2d 1257; In re Optica Int’l, 196 USPQ 775, 778 (TTAB 1977); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii). In this case, applicant’s mark does not create a distinct commercial impression from the registered marks because it contains some of the wording in the registered marks and does not add any wording that would distinguish it from the marks.

 

For these reasons, applicant’s and registrants’ marks are confusingly similar.

 

Comparison of the Goods and Services

 

The goods and services 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).

 

The compared goods and 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).

 

Determining likelihood of confusion is based on the description of the goods and services 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 the present case, the application uses broad wording to describe “Entertainment services, namely, providing temporary use of non-downloadable video games; Providing on-line computer games,” which presumably encompasses all services of the type described, including the more narrow “Entertainment services, namely, providing online computer games that help maintain an active brain and thus improve memory, speed of processing, and that provide a variety of cognitive benefits that positively impact quality of life,” in Registration No. 5197383, THE KITCHEN SHEPHERD, and “Providing an interactive website featuring on-line games,” in Registration No. 5197383, THE SHEPHERD’S TREASURE. 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). Additionally, the 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 registrants’ services are related.

 

Additionally, the application uses broad wording to describe “Entertainment services in the nature of live-action, dramatic, and animated ongoing television series and motion picture theatrical films; Entertainment services, namely, an ongoing series featuring fictional stories provided through television, films, podcasts, and webisodes,” which presumably encompasses all services of the type described, including the more narrow “Educational and entertainment services, namely, a continuing program about homemaking, home care, food preparation, cooking, housekeeping, decorating, gardening, entertaining, weddings, crafts, antique collecting, party planning, holiday planning, and cosmetics accessible by means of radio, television, satellite, audio, video and computer networks; Entertainment services, namely, an ongoing series featuring homemaking, home care, food preparation, cooking, housekeeping, decorating, gardening, entertaining, weddings, crafts, antique collecting, and holiday planning for people who enjoy their homes provided through internet, radio, and television,” in Registration No. 5197383, THE KITCHEN SHEPHERD. 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). Specifically, the applicant’s services to not specify a subject matter of the television series and therefore are broad enough to encompass a television series with the same subject matter provided by the registrant. Additionally, the 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 registrants’ services are related.

 

Moreover, the applicant’s goods “Board games; Toy figures; Vinyl dolls; Collectable toy figures; PVC toy figures,” are related to the goods in Registration No. 5197383, THE SHEPHERD’S TREASURE, “Children's multiple activity toys sold as a unit with printed books; children's toys, namely, dolls.” Specifically, the same entity commonly provides a wide range of toys, dolls, and games, and markets the goods under the same mark. The attached evidence, consisting of webpages from Mattel, Hasbro, Haba, and Five Below, establishes that the same entity commonly provides the relevant goods and markets the goods under the same mark. 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).

 

Furthermore, the applicant’s goods “Downloadable computer game software; Downloadable computer game software for personal computers and home video game consoles; Downloadable computer game software for use on mobile and cellular phones;,” are related to the services “Entertainment services, namely, providing online computer games that help maintain an active brain and thus improve memory, speed of processing, and that provide a variety of cognitive benefits that positively impact quality of life,” in Registration No. 5197383, THE KITCHEN SHEPHERD, and “Providing an interactive website featuring on-line games,” in Registration No. 5197383, THE SHEPHERD’S TREASURE. Specifically, the same entity commonly provides both downloadable and non-downloadable games, and markets the goods and services under the same mark. The attached evidence, consisting of webpages from MoneyClip, Subway Surfers, Shockwave, and WildTangent Games, establishes that the same entity commonly provides the relevant goods and markets the goods under the same mark. 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).

 

In sum, the key elements of the parties’ marks are highly similar and the goods and/or services are related and likely to be encountered together in the marketplace. For these reasons, consumers are likely to mistakenly believe that applicant’s and registrant’s respective goods and/or services emanate from a common source or are connected in some way. Accordingly, registration is refused under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.

 

Applicant may respond to the stated refusal by submitting evidence and arguments against the refusal.  In addition, applicant may respond by doing one of the following:

 

(1)  Deleting the services to which the refusal pertains; or

 

(2) Filing a request to divide out the services that have not been refused registration, so that the mark may proceed toward publication for opposition for those 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).

 

If the applicant responds to the refusal, they must also comply with the requirements below.

 

PRIOR-FILED PENDING APPLICATIONS ADVISORY

 

The filing dates of pending U.S. Application Serial Nos. 87607450, 87838731, and 87838853 precede applicant’s filing date. See attached referenced applications. If the marks in the referenced applications register, applicant’s mark may be refused registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d) because of a likelihood of confusion between the 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 dispositions of the earlier-filed referenced applications.

 

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 marks in the referenced applications. 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.

 

While applicant is not required to respond to the issue of the pending application, applicant must respond to the refusal above and the requirements below within six months of the mailing date of this Office Action to avoid abandonment.

 

IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS/SERVICES REQUIREMENT

 

The identification of goods and services contains indefinite wording that requires clarification, as outlined below.

 

Applicant must clarify the wording “Entertainment services in the nature of live-action, dramatic, and animated ongoing television series and motion picture theatrical films” in the identification of services in International Class 041 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 or services are. Further, this wording could identify goods and services in more than one international class. For example, “production and distribution of motion pictures” is in International Class 041 and “motion picture films about video games,” are in International Class 009. 

 

The wording “Entertainment services, namely, an ongoing series featuring fictional stories provided through television, films, podcasts, and webisodes” in the identification of services is indefinite and must be clarified because the nature of the services is not clear. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01. Specifically, the applicant must specify the subject matter of the series, not just a broad genre.

 

Applicant should also note the additional necessary specifications included in the suggested identification below.

 

Applicant may adopt the following wording, if accurate (suggested edits in bold):

 

009: Downloadable computer game software; Downloadable computer game software for personal computers and home video game consoles; Downloadable computer game software for use on mobile and cellular phones; Downloadable podcasts in the field of entertainment; Motion picture theatricalfilms about [applicant to specify subject matter, e.g. video games, etc.]

 

016: Coffee table books featuring original artwork; Comic books; Comics; Graphic novels; Picture books; Stickers; Blank journals

 

020: Busts of wood, wax, plaster, fabric, or plastic; Statuettes of wood, wax, plaster, fabric, or plastic

 

028: Board games; Toy figures; Vinyl dolls; Collectable toy figures; PVC toy figures

 

041: Entertainment services in the nature of live-action, dramatic, and animated ongoing television series in the field of [applicant to specify subject matter, e.g. video games, etc.]; Entertainment services, namely, [applicant to specify the service provided, e.g. Production and distribution of, etc.] motion picture theatrical films; Entertainment services, namely, providing temporary use of non-downloadable video games; Entertainment services, namely, an ongoing series featuring fictional stories about [applicant to specify the subject matter, e.g. video games, etc.] provided through television, films, podcasts, and webisodes; Entertainment services, namely, providing podcasts in the field of entertainment; Providing on-line computer games

 

Applicant may amend the identification to clarify or limit the goods and services, but not to broaden or expand the goods and 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 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.

 

RESPONSE GUIDELINES

 

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.  

 

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. 

 

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

 

 

/Fox, Lyal/

Lyal Fox

Examing Attorney

Law Office 113

571-270-7884

lyal.fox@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 October 08, 2019 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88521472

 

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. 

 

 

/Fox, Lyal/

Lyal Fox

Examing Attorney

Law Office 113

571-270-7884

lyal.fox@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 October 08, 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.”