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 29, 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
• Prior Pending Applications
• Section 2(e)(1) Refusal – Merely Descriptive
• Amended Identification of Services Requirement

 

SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 3436937 and 4501162.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registrations.

 

Applicant has applied to register the mark CLEAN for Business administration assistance; Business management; Computerized on-line retail store services in the field of vaporizers, vaporizer cartridges and accessories, pharmaceuticals, refill cartridges, electronic cigarettes, electronic cigarette cartridges and accessories, electronic cigarette liquid (e-liquid), packaging, batteries and chargers, carrying cases and storage cases, hardware accessories for electronic cigarettes, smokers' articles, tobacco substitutes, flavor enhancers and flavorings, clothing, footwear, and headgear, medical apparatus, digital recording media, digital and data insight platforms; On-line retail store services featuring vaporizers, vaporizer cartridges and accessories, pharmaceuticals, refill cartridges, electronic cigarettes, electronic cigarette cartridges and accessories, electronic cigarette liquid (e-liquid), packaging, batteries and chargers, carrying cases and storage cases, hardware accessories for electronic cigarettes, smokers' articles, tobacco substitutes, flavor enhancers and flavorings, clothing, footwear, and headgear, medical apparatus, digital recording media, digital and data insight platforms; Retail store services featuring vaporizers, vaporizer cartridges and accessories, pharmaceuticals, refill cartridges, electronic cigarettes, electronic cigarette cartridges and accessories, electronic cigarette liquid (e-liquid), packaging, batteries and chargers, carrying cases and storage cases, hardware accessories for electronic cigarettes, smokers' articles, tobacco substitutes, flavor enhancers and flavorings, clothing, footwear, and headgear, medical apparatus, digital recording media, digital and data insight platforms

 

Already registered are the marks:

 

• SMOKIN’CLEAN (Registration No. 3436937) for cigarette papers; and

 

• CLEAN SMOKE (Registration No. 4501162) for electronic cigarette liquid (e-liquid) comprised of flavorings in liquid form used to refill electronic cigarette cartridges

 

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.

 

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).

 

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).  Greater weight is often given to this dominant feature when determining whether marks are confusingly similar.  See In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d at 1305, 128 USPQ2d at 1050 (citing In re Dixie Rests., 105 F.3d at 1407, 41 USPQ2d at 1533-34).  In this case applicant’s mark CLEAN and the registrations SMOKIN’CLEAN and CLEAN SMOKE all contain the dominant term “CLEAN”.   

 

Moreover, 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 marks are identical in part.

 

With regard to the other wording in registrants’ marks, 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)).  The registrants’ use of the terms SMOKIN’ and SMOKE are descriptive of the cigarettes, electronic cigarettes and related goods the registrants offer under their respective marks.  In fact, “cigarette” is defined as “a small roll of finely cut tobacco for smoking.”  “Smoke” is defined as “a vapor.”  See attached dictionary evidence from www.ahdictionary.com, and electronic cigarettes emit vapors.  See attached webpage from www.cancer.org. 

 

Registrant’s mark SMOKIN’CLEAN is used for cigarette papers, and registrant’s mark CLEAN SMOKE is used for electronic cigarette liquids and cartridges.  As such the terms SMOKIN’ and SMOKE are descriptive of the registrants’ goods and do nothing to detract from the dominant feature of the marks, CLEAN.  This further supports the fact that the cited marks are identical in part. 

 

As such, the applicant’s proposed mark is confusingly similar in sound and appearance to the registered marks and creates the same commercial impression.

 

Comparison of the Goods/Services

 

The goods and/or 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/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 this case applicant intends to offer Business administration assistance; Business management; Computerized on-line retail store services in the field of vaporizers, vaporizer cartridges and accessories, pharmaceuticals, refill cartridges, electronic cigarettes, electronic cigarette cartridges and accessories, electronic cigarette liquid (e-liquid), packaging, batteries and chargers, carrying cases and storage cases, hardware accessories for electronic cigarettes, smokers' articles, tobacco substitutes, flavor enhancers and flavorings, clothing, footwear, and headgear, medical apparatus, digital recording media, digital and data insight platforms; On-line retail store services featuring vaporizers, vaporizer cartridges and accessories, pharmaceuticals, refill cartridges, electronic cigarettes, electronic cigarette cartridges and accessories, electronic cigarette liquid (e-liquid), packaging, batteries and chargers, carrying cases and storage cases, hardware accessories for electronic cigarettes, smokers' articles, tobacco substitutes, flavor enhancers and flavorings, clothing, footwear, and headgear, medical apparatus, digital recording media, digital and data insight platforms; Retail store services featuring vaporizers, vaporizer cartridges and accessories, pharmaceuticals, refill cartridges, electronic cigarettes, electronic cigarette cartridges and accessories, electronic cigarette liquid (e-liquid), packaging, batteries and chargers, carrying cases and storage cases, hardware accessories for electronic cigarettes, smokers' articles, tobacco substitutes, flavor enhancers and flavorings, clothing, footwear, and headgear, medical apparatus, digital recording media, digital and data insight platforms under its brand.

 

Registration No. 3436937 offers cigarette papers under its brand.

 

Registration No. 4501162 offers electronic cigarette liquid (e-liquid) comprised of flavorings in liquid form used to refill electronic cigarette cartridges under its brand. 

 

Importantly, “article” is defined as “an individual thing or element.”  See attached dictionary evidence from www.ahdictionary.com.  Applicant’s “smoking articles” include such things as registrant’s cigarette papers used for smoking.  See attached webpage from www.smokersoutletonline.com.

 

It is also important to note that, consumers are likely to be confused by the use of similar marks on or in connection with goods and with services featuring or related to those goods.  TMEP §1207.01(a)(ii); see In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1307, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1051 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding retail shops featuring sports team related clothing and apparel related to various clothing items, including athletic uniforms); In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 6 USPQ2d 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (finding retail grocery and general merchandise store services related to furniture); In re United Serv. Distribs., Inc., 229 USPQ 237 (TTAB 1986) (finding distributorship services in the field of health and beauty aids related to skin cream); In re Phillips-Van Heusen Corp., 228 USPQ 949 (TTAB 1986) (finding various items of men’s, boys’, girls’ and women’s clothing related to restaurant services and towels); Steelcase Inc. v. Steelcare Inc., 219 USPQ 433 (TTAB 1983) (finding refinishing of furniture, office furniture, and machinery related to office furniture and accessories); Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Huskie Freightways, Inc., 177 USPQ 32 (TTAB 1972) (finding trucking services related to motor trucks and buses).

 

Third parties commonly offer the applicant’s and registrants’ goods and services under the same brand.  For example, Smoker’s Outlet is an online retail store selling pipe tobacco, cigarette papers, electronic cigarettes, and flavorings.  See attached webpages from www.smokersoutletonline.com.  Vapors Smoke Shops is an online retail store offering tobacco products, including cigarettes and cigarette papers, as well as, electronic cigarettes and flavorings under its brand.  See attached webpages from http://vaporsmokeshop.com.  Finally, Vape n Cigar is an online retail store offering tobacco products and accessories, including cigarettes and cigarette papers, as well as, electronic cigarettes, batteries and chargers, and flavorings.  See attached webpages from http://vapencigar.com. 

 

The attached Internet evidence, establishes that the same entity commonly provides the relevant goods and/or services and markets the goods and/or services under the same mark.  The relevant goods and/or services are sold or provided through the same trade channels and used by the same classes of consumers in the same fields of use.  The goods and/or services are similar or complementary in terms of purpose or function.  Thus, applicant’s and registrants’ goods and/or services 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).

 

Therefore, the applicant and the registrants use their respective marks for similar and related retail store services selling related smoking and vaping products.  Consequently, customers encountering the applicant’s mark CLEAN and the registrants’ SMOKIN’CLEAN and CLEAN SMOKE marks on the same and closely related goods/services would come to the mistaken conclusion that the goods/services emanate from the same source.  Accordingly, registration is refused.

 

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

 

Applicant should note the following.

 

PRIOR FILED APPLICATIONS

 

The filing date of pending U.S. Application Serial Nos. 88341797, 87897953, 88202619, 88386096, and 88152058 precede 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.

 

Applicant should note the following additional ground for refusal.

 

SECTION 2(e)(1) REFUSAL – MERELY DESCRIPTIVE

 

Registration is refused because the applied-for mark merely describes a feature of applicant’s goods and/or services.  Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); see TMEP §§1209.01(b), 1209.03 et seq.

 

A mark is merely descriptive if “it immediately conveys information concerning a feature, quality, or characteristic of [an applicant’s] goods or services.”  In re N.C. Lottery, 866 F.3d 1363, 1367, 123 USPQ2d 1707, 1709 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing In re Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, 488 F.3d 960, 963, 82 USPQ2d 1828, 1831 (Fed. Cir. 2007)); TMEP §1209.01(b); see DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1251, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Abcor Dev. Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 814, 200 USPQ 215, 218 (C.C.P.A. 1978)). 

 

In this case, the mark  CLEAN conveys information that the products applicant sells “deliver clean vapor.”  More specifically, applicant touts that “[u]nlike the common wick and coil systems, our ceramic heating element delivers diffused heat over a wider surface area for gentler and more controlled vaporization that removes burn and the unwanted by products.  The result is clean, great tasting vapor.”  See attached webpage from applicant’s website at www.airgraft.com.  As such, applicant’s mark CLEAN is merely descriptive and registration is refused under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act.

 

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

 

If applicant responds to the refusal, applicant must also respond to the requirements set forth below.

 

AMENDED IDENTIFICATION OF SERVICES REQUIREMENT

 

The wording in the identification of services for International Class 35 must be clarified as noted below because it is too broad.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03.  In particular, the wording “digital and data insight platforms” lacks clarity as its fails to identify particular “goods” that would be sold in retail stores, or fails to clarify the means by which applicant’s retail store services are to be provided. 

 

Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate, suggested changes in bold, alternative suggestions in {bold brackets}: 

 

(Intent to Use Based on 44(d) Priority Application) Business administration assistance; Business management; Computerized on-line retail store services in the field of vaporizers, vaporizer cartridges and accessories, pharmaceuticals, refill cartridges, electronic cigarettes, electronic cigarette cartridges and accessories, electronic cigarette liquid (e-liquid), packaging, batteries and chargers, carrying cases and storage cases, hardware accessories for electronic cigarettes, smokers' articles, tobacco substitutes, flavor enhancers and flavorings, clothing, footwear, and headgear, medical apparatus, digital recording media, all provided through {alternatively, computer software for} digital and data insight platforms; On-line retail store services featuring vaporizers, vaporizer cartridges and accessories, pharmaceuticals, refill cartridges, electronic cigarettes, electronic cigarette cartridges and accessories, electronic cigarette liquid (e-liquid), packaging, batteries and chargers, carrying cases and storage cases, hardware accessories for electronic cigarettes, smokers' articles, tobacco substitutes, flavor enhancers and flavorings, clothing, footwear, and headgear, medical apparatus, digital recording media, all provided through {alternatively, computer software for}  digital and data insight platforms; Retail store services featuring vaporizers, vaporizer cartridges and accessories, pharmaceuticals, refill cartridges, electronic cigarettes, electronic cigarette cartridges and accessories, electronic cigarette liquid (e-liquid), packaging, batteries and chargers, carrying cases and storage cases, hardware accessories for electronic cigarettes, smokers' articles, tobacco substitutes, flavor enhancers and flavorings, clothing, footwear, and headgear, medical apparatus, digital recording media, all provided through {alternatively, computer software for} digital and data insight platforms in Class 35

 

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.

 

ASSISTANCE

 

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  

 

 

/Laraine Burrell/

Laraine M. I. Burrell

Examining Attorney

Law Office 111

(571) 272-8220

laraine.burrell@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 29, 2019 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88532480

 

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. 

 

 

/Laraine Burrell/

Laraine M. I. Burrell

Examining Attorney

Law Office 111

(571) 272-8220

laraine.burrell@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 29, 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.”