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:  November 27, 2019

 

 

Introduction

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.

 

 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES

• Section 2(d) Likelihood of Confusion – Refusal
• Section 2(e)(1) Merely Descriptive – Refusal
• Identification of Goods – Amendment Required

 

Section 2(d) Likelihood of Confusion – Refusal

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 5771598.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registration.

 

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 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.  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.

 

The applied-for mark is “ACOUSTIC CELL PROCESSING” (in standard character form) for “Acoustic separation systems, namely, acoustic separation units for biological material separation, isolation, and purification; acoustic binding systems, namely, acoustic binding units for biological material separation, isolation and purification; scientific apparatus and instruments, namely, apparatus and columns for biological material separation, isolation, and purification, biological material enrichment and depletion, glassware, pumps, valves, beads for use in columns; compounds for use in acoustic separation and binding systems, namely, reagents and affinity compounds for beads; all of the aforesaid goods, for the separation of biological material; instruments and apparatus for biotechnological and scientific purposes, namely, chromatography columns for use in separation, isolation, purification, and analysis in the laboratory; scientific, electric and electronic apparatus and instruments, namely, controllers and software for acoustic separation and binding systems.”

 

The registered mark is “ACOUSTIX” (in standard character form) for “Scientific and laboratory equipment, namely, test tubes and containers for holding chemical and biological compounds and specimens; laboratory equipment, namely, test tubes, containers and container caps, test tube racks, and container racks for use in connection with laboratory storage and dispensing of chemical and biological compounds and specimens.”

 

Comparison of Marks

In a likelihood of confusion comparison, 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 “ACOUSTIC CELL PROCESSING” and registrant’s mark “ACOUSTIX” are highly similar.

 

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).

 

Consumers are generally more inclined to focus on the first word, prefix, or syllable in any trademark or service mark.  See Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1372, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1692 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (finding similarity between VEUVE ROYALE and two VEUVE CLICQUOT marks in part because “VEUVE . . . remains a ‘prominent feature’ as the first word in the mark and the first word to appear on the label”); Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Century Life of Am., 970 F.2d 874, 876, 23 USPQ2d 1698, 1700 (Fed Cir. 1992) (finding similarity between CENTURY 21 and CENTURY LIFE OF AMERICA in part because “consumers must first notice th[e] identical lead word”); see also In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1303, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1049 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding “the identity of the marks’ two initial words is particularly significant because consumers typically notice those words first”).

 

Here, both marks begin with the word “ACOUSTIC” or a novel spelling of the word in plural form, “ACOUSTIX.”  A novel spelling or an intentional misspelling that is the phonetic equivalent of a merely descriptive word or term is also merely descriptive if purchasers would perceive the different spelling as the equivalent of the descriptive word or term.  See In re Quik-Print Copy Shop, Inc., 616 F.2d 523, 526 & n.9, 205 USPQ 505, 507 & n.9 (C.C.P.A. 1980) (holding “QUIK-PRINT,” phonetic spelling of “quick-print,” merely descriptive of printing and photocopying services); In re Calphalon Corp., 122 USPQ2d 1153, 1163 (TTAB 2017) (holding “SHARPIN”, phonetic spelling of “sharpen,” merely descriptive of cutlery knife blocks with built-in sharpeners); In re Carlson, 91 USPQ2d 1198, 1203 (TTAB 2009) (holding “URBANHOUZING,” phonetic spelling of “urban” and “housing,” merely descriptive of real estate services); TMEP §1209.03(j).

 

An applied-for mark that is the singular or plural form of a registered mark is essentially identical in sound, appearance, meaning, and commercial impression, and thus the marks are confusingly similar.  Swiss Grill Ltd., v. Wolf Steel Ltd., 115 USPQ2d 2001, 2011 n.17 (TTAB 2015) (holding “it is obvious that the virtually identical marks [the singular and plural of SWISS GRILL] are confusingly similar”); Weider Publ’ns, LLC v. D & D Beauty Care Co., 109 USPQ2d 1347, 1355 (TTAB 2014) (finding the singular and plural forms of SHAPE to be essentially the same mark) (citing Wilson v. Delaunay, 245 F.2d 877, 878, 114 USPQ 339, 341 (C.C.P.A. 1957) (finding no material difference between the singular and plural forms of ZOMBIE such that the marks were considered the same mark).

 

Adding a term to a registered mark generally 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 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 and BENGAL LANCER and design confusingly similar); In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d 1266, 1269 (TTAB 2009) (finding TITAN and VANTAGE TITAN confusingly similar); In re El Torito Rests., Inc., 9 USPQ2d 2002, 2004 (TTAB 1988) (finding MACHO and MACHO COMBOS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iii).  In the present case, the marks are identical in part.

 

Here, applicant’s additional words “CELL PROCESSING” is descriptive of applicant’s goods.  The attached evidence from Collins Dictionary and Wikipedia® shows that “biological material,” as used in the identification of goods is also called “cellular components,” and “cellular components” are “materials and substances of which CELLS are composed.”  The attached evidence from Collins Dictionary also shows that “PROCESSING” means “the act or process of treating or preparing something by a special method.”  Thus, as applicant’s goods are for separating, isolating and purifying, or processing, biological material, or components of CELLS, these words are merely descriptive of applicant’s goods.  Thus, these words are less significant in terms of affecting the mark’s commercial impression and renders the wording “ACOUSTIC” the more dominant feature of applicant’s mark.

 

Matter that is descriptive of or generic for a party’s goods 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)).

 

Therefore, for the reasons stated above, applicant’s “ACOUSTIC CELL PROCESSING” and registrant’s “ACOUSTIX” are confusingly similar.

 

Relatedness of Goods

Determining likelihood of confusion is based on the description of the goods 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 this case, the registration uses broad wording to describe “Scientific and laboratory equipment, namely, test tubes and containers” “for holding chemical and biological compounds and specimens” and “for use in connection with laboratory storage and dispensing of chemical and biological compounds and specimens” which presumably encompasses all goods of the type described, including application’s more narrow “Acoustic separation systems, namely, acoustic separation units for biological material separation, isolation, and purification.”  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 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 registrant’s goods are related.

 

Because the marks are confusingly similar and because the marks refer to closely related, if not the same, laboratory goods, consumers would be likely to mistakenly believe that the goods emanate from a single source.  Accordingly, registration is refused under Trademark Section 2(d).

 

Applicant should note the following additional ground for refusal.

 

 

Section 2(e)(1) Merely Descriptive – Refusal

Registration is refused because the applied-for mark merely describes a feature, characteristic, purpose or function of applicant’s goods.  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 describes an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose, or use of an applicant’s goods.  TMEP §1209.01(b).

 

In addition to being merely descriptive, the applied-for mark appears to be generic in connection with the identified goods and, therefore, incapable of functioning as a source-identifier for applicant’s goods.  In re Gould Paper Corp., 834 F.2d 1017, 5 USPQ2d 1110 (Fed. Cir. 1987); In re Empire Tech. Dev. LLC, 123 USPQ2d 1544 (TTAB 2017); see TMEP §§1209.01(c) et seq., 1209.02(a).  Under these circumstances, neither an amendment to proceed under Trademark Act Section 2(f) nor an amendment to the Supplemental Register can be recommended.  See TMEP §1209.01(c).

 

The determination of whether a mark is merely descriptive is made in relation to an applicant’s goods, not in the abstract.  TMEP §1209.01(b); see, e.g., In re Polo Int’l Inc., 51 USPQ2d 1061, 1062-63 (TTAB 1999) (finding DOC in DOC-CONTROL would refer to the “documents” managed by applicant’s software rather than the term “doctor” shown in a dictionary definition); In re Digital Research Inc., 4 USPQ2d 1242, 1243-44 (TTAB 1987) (finding CONCURRENT PC-DOS and CONCURRENT DOS merely descriptive of “computer programs recorded on disk” where the relevant trade used the denomination “concurrent” as a descriptor of a particular type of operating system).

 

Generally, if the individual components of a mark retain their descriptive meaning in relation to the goods, the combination results in a composite mark that is itself descriptive and not registrable.  In re Fat Boys Water Sports LLC, 118 USPQ2d 1511, 1516 (TTAB 2016) (citing In re Tower Tech, Inc., 64 USPQ2d 1314, 1317-18 (TTAB (2002)); TMEP §1209.03(d); see, e.g., Apollo Med. Extrusion Techs., Inc. v. Med. Extrusion Techs., Inc., 123 USPQ2d 1844, 1851 (TTAB 2017) (holding MEDICAL EXTRUSION TECHNOLOGIES merely descriptive of medical extrusion goods produced by employing medical extrusion technologies); In re Cannon Safe, Inc., 116 USPQ2d 1348, 1351 (TTAB 2015) (holding SMART SERIES merely descriptive of metal gun safes); In re King Koil Licensing Co., 79 USPQ2d 1048, 1052 (TTAB 2006) (holding THE BREATHABLE MATTRESS merely descriptive of beds, mattresses, box springs, and pillows). 

 

Only where the combination of descriptive terms creates a unitary mark with a unique, incongruous, or otherwise nondescriptive meaning in relation to the goods is the combined mark registrable.  See In re Colonial Stores, Inc., 394 F.2d 549, 551, 157 USPQ 382, 384 (C.C.P.A. 1968); In re Positec Grp. Ltd., 108 USPQ2d 1161, 1162-63 (TTAB 2013).

 

In this case, applicant has applied to register the wording “ACOUSTIC CELL PROCESSING” as trademark for “Acoustic separation systems, namely, acoustic separation units for biological material separation, isolation, and purification; acoustic binding systems, namely, acoustic binding units for biological material separation, isolation and purification; scientific apparatus and instruments, namely, apparatus and columns for biological material separation, isolation, and purification, biological material enrichment and depletion, glassware, pumps, valves, beads for use in columns; compounds for use in acoustic separation and binding systems, namely, reagents and affinity compounds for beads; all of the aforesaid goods, for the separation of biological material; instruments and apparatus for biotechnological and scientific purposes, namely, chromatography columns for use in separation, isolation, purification, and analysis in the laboratory; scientific, electric and electronic apparatus and instruments, namely, controllers and software for acoustic separation and binding systems.”

 

The wording “ACOUSTIC” is descriptive of applicant’s goods as applicant uses this wording descriptively in its identification of goods, “Acoustic separation systems, namely, acoustic separation units for biological material separation, isolation, and purification; acoustic binding systems, namely, acoustic binding units for biological material separation, isolation and purification,” for example.

 

The wording “CELL” is descriptive of applicant’s goods. The attached evidence from Collins Dictionary and Wikipedia® shows that “biological material,” as used in the identification of goods, is also called “cellular components,” and “cellular components” are “materials and substances of which CELLS are composed.” Thus, as applicant’s goods are for separating, isolating and purifying biological material, or components of CELLS, this wording is descriptive of applicant’s goods.

 

The wording “PROCESSING” is descriptive of applicant’s goods. The attached evidence from Collins Dictionary defines “PROCESSING” as “the act or process of treating or preparing something by a special method” and “the activity of performing mathematical and logical operations on data according to programmed instructions in order to obtain the required information.”  Thus, as applicant’s goods treat or prepare cells in a process by separating, isolating and purifying biological material, the wording “PROCESSING” is descriptive of applicant’s goods.

 

For the reasons explained above, both the individual components and the composite result are descriptive of applicant’s goods and do not create a unique, incongruous, or nondescriptive meaning in relation to the goods.  The composite term “ACOUSTIC CELL PROCESSING” immediately conveys to consumers a feature or characteristic of applicant’s goods, namely, that applicant’s goods treat, or prepare by a special method, acoustic biological material, or “ACOUSTIC CELL PROCESSING.”

 

Accordingly, the proposed mark “ACOUSTIC CELL PROCESSING” is merely descriptive, and registration is properly refused on the Principal Register under Section 2(e)(1).

 

Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal(s) by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.  However, if applicant responds to the refusal(s), applicant must also respond to the requirement(s) set forth below.

 

 

Identification of Goods – Amendment Required

Applicant has applied for the following identification of goods:

 

Class 9: Acoustic separation systems, namely, acoustic separation units for biological material separation, isolation, and purification; acoustic binding systems, namely, acoustic binding units for biological material separation, isolation and purification; scientific apparatus and instruments, namely, apparatus and columns for biological material separation, isolation, and purification, biological material enrichment and depletion, glassware, pumps, valves, beads for use in columns; compounds for use in acoustic separation and binding systems, namely, reagents and affinity compounds for beads; all of the aforesaid goods, for the separation of biological material; instruments and apparatus for biotechnological and scientific purposes, namely, chromatography columns for use in separation, isolation, purification, and analysis in the laboratory; scientific, electric and electronic apparatus and instruments, namely, controllers and software for acoustic separation and binding systems

 

The identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified according to the explanations and suggestions below. See TMEP §§ 1402.01.

 

The identification for “software” in International Class 9 is indefinite and must be clarified to specify whether the format is downloadable, recorded, or online non-downloadable.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.03(d), 1402.11(a).

 

Applicant may adopt the following as its identification of goods, if accurate, providing additional specificity where indicated:

 

Class 9: Acoustic separation systems, namely, acoustic separation units for biological material separation, isolation, and purification; acoustic binding systems, namely, acoustic binding units for biological material separation, isolation and purification; scientific apparatus and instruments, namely, apparatus and columns for biological material separation, isolation, and purification, biological material enrichment and depletion, glassware, pumps, valves, beads for use in columns; compounds for use in acoustic separation and binding systems, namely, reagents and affinity compounds for beads; all of the aforesaid goods, for the separation of biological material; instruments and apparatus for biotechnological and scientific purposes, namely, chromatography columns for use in separation, isolation, purification, and analysis in the laboratory; scientific, electric and electronic apparatus and instruments, namely, controllers and {applicant must specify, e.g., downloadable, recorded, downloadable and recorded, otherwise delete} software for acoustic separation and binding systems

 

See TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03.

 

An applicant may only amend an identification to clarify or limit the goods, but not to add to or broaden the scope of the goods. 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); see TMEP §§1402.06 et seq., 1402.07.

 

For assistance with identifying and classifying goods, please see the USPTO’s U.S. Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual.  See TMEP §1402.04.

 

 

Response guidelines

For this application to proceed, applicant must explicitly address each refusal and/or requirement in this Office action.  For a refusal, applicant may provide written arguments and evidence against the refusal, and may have other response options if specified above.  For a requirement, applicant should set forth the changes or statements.  Please see “Responding to Office Actions” and the informational video “Response to Office Action” for more information and tips on responding.

 

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  

 

 

/Olivia S. Lee/

Olivia S. Lee

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 128

olivia.lee@uspto.gov

(571) 272-6848

 

 

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 November 27, 2019 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88576830

 

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. 

 

 

/Olivia S. Lee/

Olivia S. Lee

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 128

olivia.lee@uspto.gov

(571) 272-6848

 

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 November 27, 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.”