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 19, 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-Filed Pending Applications
• Amendment to Mark Description Required

 

 

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. 3939866, 3939867, 5339035, 5677165 and 5842290. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registrations.

 

The applicant’s mark is WARRIOR (plus design) for the following goods:

 

·       “Blank journals” in International Class 16;

·       “Drinking bottles for sports” in International Class 21;

·       “Beanies; Belts; Gloves; Hats; Hoodies; Jackets; Pants; Shirts; Shorts; Socks; Sweatshirts; Sweat bands; Wrist bands as clothing” in International Class 25; and

·       “Athletic sporting goods, namely, athletic wrist and joint supports; Playing cards; Work-out gloves; Weight lifting belts” in International Class 28.

 

The registered marks are the following:

 

• U.S. Reg. No. 3939866- WARRIOR (stylized) for “Clothing, namely t-shirts, sweatshirts, shorts, collared shirts, jerseys, hats and footwear; moisture management garments, namely t-shirts, sweatshirts, shorts, shirts, and jerseys” in International Class 25;
• U.S. Reg. No. 3939867- WARRIOR (stylized) for “Clothing, namely t-shirts, sweatshirts, shorts, collared shirts, jerseys, hats and footwear; moisture management garments, namely t-shirts, sweatshirts, shorts, shirts, and jerseys” in International Class 25;
• U.S. Reg. No. 5339035- WARRIOR STYLE (in standard characters) for “Clothing, namely, t-shirts, tank tops, tops, hats, caps, sweaters, hoodies, headwear, pullovers, sweat pants, sweatshirts” in International Class 25, and “Punching balls for boxing; boxing gloves; boxing swivels; boxing bags; boxing bag swivel mechanisms; sports equipment for boxing and martial arts, namely, boxing gloves, punching mitts, belly protectors, shin guards and mixed martial arts gloves; manually-operated exercise equipment” in International Class 28;
• U.S. Reg. No. 5677165- WARRIOR (in standard characters) for “Clothing, namely, tee shirts, sweatshirts, shorts; moisture management garments, namely, short sleeve shirts, long sleeve shirts, mock turtlenecks, sleeveless shirts, and shorts; hats and footwear” in International Class 25; and
• U.S. Reg. No. 5842290- WARRIOR CATS (in standard characters) for, in relevant part, “Paper; cardboard; greetings cards; postcards; trading cards; paper gift wrap; gift bags; paper gift tags; plastic film for use as wrapping and packaging material for general use; badges made of cardboard or paper; Stickers; iron-on, plastic transfers; Decals; Adhesive wall decorations of paper, namely, decals and stickers for use as home décor; Photographs; Prints in the nature of photographs, lithographs, pictures; posters; stationery; Pens; Pencils; Coloured pencils; Crayons; cases and containers for pens, pencils, coloured pencils, felt-tipped pens, markers and crayons; Erasers; Stencils; Pencil sharpeners; Pen holders; modelling clay; Ink pads; Notebooks; Notepads; Blank journals; Folders; Binders; Document files; Boxes made of paper; Writing paper pads; Colouring books; art paints and art painting sets, namely, arts and craft paint kits; paint boxes; Paint brushes; Pastels; Rubber stamps; Printing blocks; Stamp pad inks; calendars; diaries; fiction books on a variety of topics; sticker books; book covers; address books; scrap books; autograph books; magazines featuring cats, comics, printed periodicals featuring cats, artwork publications, namely, pamphlets, newsletters about cats, newspapers; bookmarks; bookends; printed party invitations; paper party decorations and banners made of paper or cardboard; Coasters made of paper; Paper table covers; table mats of paper; paper table napkins; Paper handkerchiefs; Tissues, namely, paper tissues; printed patterns for making costumes; Note pad holders; document holders” in International Class 16, “Glass jars; Glass vases; Glass carafes; porcelain, ceramic and earthenware goods, namely, figurines; Earthenware, namely, jars; Cups and mugs; bottles, sold empty; drinking glasses; lunch boxes; Thermal insulated containers for food or beverages; cookie cutters; articles for use in cake decorating, namely, decorating tubes, couplers and tips; toiletry cases sold empty” in International Class 21, “Headgear in the nature of headwear, namely, hats, and caps; Clothing, namely, shirts, shorts, trousers, t-shirts, polo shirts, sweatshirts, sweaters, dresses, skirts, boxer shorts, lingerie, socks, hosiery, underwear, coats, jackets, sleepwear, slippers, hats, caps being headwear, visors being headwear, scarves, ear muffs, gloves, swimwear, beachwear, bathrobes, dressing gowns, infant wear, waist belts, fancy dress, masquerade and Halloween costumes” in International Class 25, and “Toy figures; plush dolls; plush toys; soft sculpture toys; Dolls; puppets; Halloween masks; board games; Playing cards and card games; jigsaw puzzles; novelties for parties, namely, novelty plush toys; decorations for Christmas trees, namely, tinsel, bells and baubles; amusement apparatus adapted for use with an external display screen or monitor and electronic arcade games; toy confectionery dispensers” in International Class 28.

 

U.S. Reg. Nos. 3939866, 3939867, and 5677165 are owned by the same entity.

 

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.

 

Similarity of the Marks

 

In a likelihood of confusion determination, the marks in their entireties are compared for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression.  In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1323, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2017); 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)); In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973); TMEP §1207.01(b)-(b)(v). 

 

In the present case, applicant’s mark is WARRIOR and the marks in U.S. Reg. Nos. 3939866, 3939867, and 5677165 are WARRIOR. The word portion of the marks is identical in appearance, sound, and meaning, “and have the potential to be used . . . in exactly the same manner.”  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, because the word portion is identical, these marks are likely to engender the same connotation and overall commercial impression when considered in connection with applicant’s and registrant’s respective goods.  Id.

 

Furthermore, both applicant’s mark and the marks in U.S. Reg. Nos. 5339035 and 5842290 share the term WARRIOR. 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).

 

The fact that the marks in U.S. Reg. Nos. 5339035 and 5842290 contain additional wording, “STYLE” and “CATS”, respectively, will not overcome the likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue. 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 attached registrations show that the terms “STYLE” and “CATS” have been disclaimed because these terms are merely descriptive of or generic for the registrants’ goods.  Thus, this wording is less significant in terms of affecting the marks’ commercial impression, and renders the term WARRIOR the more dominant element of the marks.

 

Additionally, the fact that the applied-for-mark contains design elements and some of the registered marks are stylized will also not overcome the likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue because, 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.  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)). Thus, in this instance, the marks at issue share the same dominant identical term, WARRIOR.

 

Lastly, where the goods of an applicant and registrant are identical or virtually identical, as further explained below, the degree of similarity between the marks required to support a finding that confusion is likely declines.  See Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., __ F.3d __, 127 USPQ2d 1797, 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1363, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

Based on the foregoing, the marks are confusingly similar.

 

Relatedness of the Goods

 

When analyzing an applicant’s and registrant’s goods for similarity and relatedness, that determination is based on the description of the goods in the application and registration at issue, not on extrinsic evidence of actual use.  See Stone Lion Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 1323, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Octocom Sys. Inc. v. Hous. Computers Servs. Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 942, 16 USPQ2d 1783, 1787 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). 

 

In this case, the goods in the application and registrations are identical in part. Specifically:

 

• The wording “blank journals” is identical in the application and in U.S. Reg. No. 5842290;
• The wording “gloves” is identical in the application and in U.S. Reg. No. 5842290;
• The wording “hats” is identical in the application and in all the cited registrations;
• The wording “hoodies” is identical in the application and in U.S. Reg. No. 5339035;
• The wording “jackets” is identical in the application and in U.S. Reg. No. 5842290;
• The wording “shirts” is identical in the application and in U.S. Reg. Nos. 3939866, 3939867, 5339035, and 5842290;
• The wording “shorts” is identical in the application and in U.S. Reg. Nos. 3939866, 3939867, 5677165 and 5842290;
• The wording “socks” is identical in the application and in U.S. Reg. No. 5842290; and
• The wording “sweatshirts” is identical in the application and in all the cited registrations; and
• The wording “playing cards” is identical in the application and in U.S. Reg. No. 5842290.

 

Therefore, it is presumed that the channels of trade and class(es) of purchasers are the same for these goods.  See Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., __ F.3d __, 27 USPQ2d 1797, 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012)).

 

In addition, both the application and registrations at issue use broad wording to describe the goods, which presumably encompasses all goods of the type described, including more narrowly identified goods. 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 wording “bottles, sold empty” in U.S. Reg. No. 5842290 encompasses applicant’s “Drinking bottles for sports”;
• The wording “pants” in the application encompasses “sweat pants” in U.S. Reg. No. 5339035; and
• The wording “headwear” in U.S. Reg. No. 5339035 encompasses applicant’s “beanies”.

 

Thus, applicant’s and registrants’ 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 registrants’ goods are related.

 

Furthermore, the compared goods 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] 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).

 

The attached Internet evidence consists of third parties providing the applicant’s goods and the goods in U.S. Reg. No. 5339035 as it related to Class 28, under the same name. (See attached). For example:

 

• http://www.titleboxing.com/ (makes and sells a variety of wrist and joint supports, as well as boxing goods, such as boxing gloves, punching bags, and protective goods, such as shin guards, under the same name);
• http://www.everlast.com/ (makes and sells a variety of wrist and joint supports, boxing gloves, punching bags, and protective equipment, under the same name); and
• http://www.msmfightshop.com/collections/victory-fight-gear (makes and sells a variety of wrist and joint supports, as well boxing gloves and protective equipment, such as shin guards, under the same name).

 

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

 

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

 

 

PRIOR-FILED PENDING APPLICATIONS

The filing dates of pending U.S. Application Serial Nos. 87884826, 88395545, 88476839, and 88494693 precede applicant’s filing date.  See attached referenced applications.  If one or more of 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 with the registered mark(s).  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 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.

 

 

AMENDMENT TO MARK DESCRIPTION REQUIRED

Applicant must submit an amended description of the mark because the current one is incomplete and does not describe all the significant aspects of the mark.  37 C.F.R. §2.37; see TMEP §§808.01, 808.02. Specifically, the mark description does not mention which of the three R’s in the literal element WARRIOR is being represented by silhouette of a man. Descriptions must be accurate and identify all the literal and design elements in the mark.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.37; TMEP §§808 et seq. 

 

The following description is suggested, if accurate:  The mark consists of the literal element “WARRIOR” with an underscore and a silhouette of a man wielding a sword and a shield collectively representing the first letter R of the literal element.

 

 

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  

 

 

If the applicant has any questions regarding this Office Action, please telephone or email the assigned examining attorney.

 

 

/Keyla Gandara/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 117

Telephone: (571) 272-7164

Email: Keyla.Gandara@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 November 19, 2019 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88579902

 

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. 

 

 

/Keyla Gandara/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 117

Telephone: (571) 272-7164

Email: Keyla.Gandara@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 November 19, 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.”