To: | Fragrance Foodstuff Pte Ltd (mail@iphorgan.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88536695 - FRAGRANCE - LL1 0005 US |
Sent: | October 17, 2019 10:52:29 AM |
Sent As: | ecom101@uspto.gov |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88536695
Mark: FRAGRANCE
|
|
Correspondence Address: 195 ARLINGTON HEIGHTS ROAD, SUITE 125
|
|
Applicant: Fragrance Foodstuff Pte Ltd
|
|
Reference/Docket No. LL1 0005 US
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 17, 2019
The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney. Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issue(s) below. 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(a), 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.
IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS
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.
The following wording in bold print in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified because it does not put consumers on notice as to the nature of the goods. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01. Applicant must amend this wording to specify the common commercial or generic name of the goods. See TMEP §1402.01. If the goods have no common commercial or generic name, applicant must describe the product, its main purpose, and its intended uses. See id.
Class 29
Salted egg-based snack foods; salted egg fish skin; prepared fish skins; salted egg potato chips; potato chips; potato crisps; meat-based snack foods; vegetable-based snack foods; snack foods made from cuttlefish; preserved cuttlefish; pork; sliced, dried and grilled pork; barbequed pork; dried minced pork; minced and shredded pork; pork floss; meat floss; chicken floss; sausages; tinned meat; canned meat; preserved, dried and cooked fruits and vegetables; prepared nuts; processed peanuts.
The following is acceptable:
Salted egg-based snack foods; salted egg fish skin; prepared fish skins; salted egg potato chips; potato chips; potato crisps; meat-based snack foods; vegetable-based snack foods; cuttlefish; preserved cuttlefish based snack foods; pork; sliced, dried and grilled pork; barbequed pork; dried minced pork; minced and shredded pork; pork floss; meat floss; chicken floss; sausages; tinned meat; canned meat; preserved, dried and cooked fruits and vegetables; prepared nuts; processed peanuts.
Class 30
Tapioca-based snacks; tapioca chips; pastries; confectionery; coffee
The following is acceptable:
Tapioca-based snacks; tapioca chips; pastries; confectionery made from sugar; coffee
The transliteration of record is incorrect. Applicant should change it to read: The non-Latin characters in the mark transliterate to Xiang Wei and this means Fragrant in English.
Note, “Xiang” alone means “awkward” not “fragrance”.
SEARCH OF OFFICE’S DATABASE OF MARKS
The trademark examining attorney has searched the Office’s database of registered and pending marks and has found no conflicting marks that would bar registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d). TMEP §704.02; see 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).
If applicant has questions regarding this Office action, please telephone or e-mail the assigned trademark examining attorney. All relevant e-mail communications will be placed in the official application record; however, an e-mail communication will not be accepted as a response to this Office action and will not extend the deadline for filing a proper response. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(c), 2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05. Further, although the trademark examining attorney may provide additional explanation pertaining to the refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) in this Office action, the trademark examining attorney may not provide legal advice or statements about applicant’s rights. See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06.
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
/Robert Clark/
Robert Clark
Examining Attorney
Law Office 101
571-272-9144
Robert.Clark@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE