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 25, 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.

 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES:

 

• SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
• OWNERSHIP OF CITED REGISTRATIONS
• DISCLAIMER REQUIRED
• RESPONSE OPTIONS FOR DISCLAIMER REQUIREMENT
• IDENTIFICATION AND CLASSIFICATION OF GOODS & SERVICES
• MULTIPLE-CLASS APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS / INSUFFICIENT FEE

 

 

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. 5376371, 5434219, and 5571348.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registrations.

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).

The applicant’s mark is MONEYGRAM FASTSEND in standard characters for “money transfer services; electronic funds transfer services; automated clearing house (ACH) services; processing payments to third parties; direct debit accounting services; electronic credit and debit transactions; electronic debit card and credit card transaction processing.”

The registrant’s marks are:

MONEYGRAM SENDBOT in standard characters (Reg. No. 5571348); MONEYGRAM MYWAY in standard characters (Reg. No. 5434219); and MONEYGRAM MOBILEPASS in standard characters (Reg. No. 5376371), all for “Financial services, namely, money transfer services, electronic funds transfer services, bill payment services, automated clearing house services, electronic transfer of government monetary benefits, electronic check re-presentment services, conversion of negotiable instruments to electronic payment transactions, processing payments to third parties, direct debit accounting services, electronic credit and debit transactions, official check processing and issuance, electronic debit card and credit card transaction processing, check and draft processing; financial risk management services; processing monetary government benefit payments; processing and disbursement of payments associated with coupons, rebates, and gift certificates for third parties.”

Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that so resembles a registered mark that it is likely a potential consumer would be confused, mistaken, or deceived as to the source of the goods and/or services of the applicant and registrant.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).  A determination of likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d) is made on a case-by case basis and 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) aid in this determination.  Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp., Inc., 637 F.3d 1344, 1349, 98 USPQ2d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing On-Line Careline, Inc. v. Am. Online, Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1085, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2000)).  Not all the du Pont factors, however, are necessarily relevant or of equal weight, and any one of the factors may control in a given case, depending upon the evidence of record.  Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp., Inc., 637 F.3d at 1355, 98 USPQ2d at 1260; In re Majestic Distilling Co., 315 F.3d 1311, 1315, 65 USPQ2d 1201, 1204 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d at 1361-62, 177 USPQ at 567.

In this case, the following factors are the most relevant:  similarity of the marks, similarity and nature of the goods and/or services, and similarity of the trade channels of the goods and/or services.  See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1361-62, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Dakin’s Miniatures Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593, 1595-96 (TTAB 1999); 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 Davia, 110 USPQ2d 1810, 1812 (TTAB 2014) (citing In re 1st USA Realty Prof’ls, Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1581, 1586 (TTAB 2007)); In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB 1988)); TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

In this case, the applied-for mark is MONEYGRAM FASTSEND in standard characters; the registered marks are:

 

MONEYGRAM SENDBOT in standard characters (Reg. No. 5571348);

MONEYGRAM MYWAY in standard characters (Reg. No. 5434219); and

MONEYGRAM MOBILEPASS in standard characters (Reg. No. 5376371)

 

The marks are similar in sound, appearance, and connotation because of the dominant wording “MONEYGRAM” common to all the marks.

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 include additional, differing wording does not obviate the similarities between applicant’s and registrant’s marks. 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”).

 

Thus, having given appropriate weight to each feature of the marks, the examining attorney finds the marks, when considered in their entireties, are sufficiently similar to cause confusion or mistake as to the source of the services.

 

Comparison of the Services

The goods and/or services of the parties 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) (“[E]ven if the goods in question are different from, and thus not related to, one another in kind, the same goods can be related in the mind of the consuming public as to the origin of the goods.”); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i). 

The respective goods and/or services need only be “related in some manner and/or if the circumstances surrounding their marketing [be] 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)); Gen. Mills Inc. v. Fage Dairy Processing Indus. SA, 100 USPQ2d 1584, 1597 (TTAB 2011); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).

 

In this case, the application and registrations recite equivalent, if not identical, money transfer, electronic funds-transfer, automated clearing house, and electronic credit and debit transaction and processing services and have no restrictions as to nature, type, channels of trade, or classes of purchasers. Therefore, it is presumed that these services travel in all normal channels of trade, and are available to the same class of purchasers

Where the goods and/or services of an applicant and registrant are identical or virtually identical, 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).

Thus, the fact that the applicant’s and the registrant’s services are identical, equivalent, and overlapping in type increases the likelihood of consumer confusion or mistake, particularly given that the differences in the respective marks, as discussed above, do not reduce the similarities of the marks’ commercial impressions.

Accordingly, applicant’s use of MONEYGRAM FASTSEND in connection with the identified services is likely to lead to consumer confusion or mistake as to the source of the services.  As such, registration is refused under Trademark Act Section 2(d) based on a likelihood of confusion.

 

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

 

OWNERSHIP OF CITED REGISTRATIONS

If the marks in the cited registrations are owned by applicant, applicant may provide evidence of ownership of the marks by satisfying one of the following:

 

(1)        Record the assignment with the USPTO’s Assignment Recordation Branch (ownership transfer documents such as assignments can be filed online at http://etas.uspto.gov) and promptly notify the trademark examining attorney that the assignment has been duly recorded.

 

(2)        Submit copies of documents evidencing the chain of title.

 

(3)        Submit the following statement, verified with an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20:  “Applicant is the owner of U.S. Registration Nos. 5376371, 5434219, and 5571348.”  To provide this statement using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), use the “Response to Office Action” form; answer “yes” to wizard questions #3 and #10; then, continuing on to the next portion of the form, in the “Additional Statement(s)” section, find “Active Prior Registration(s)” and insert the U.S. registration numbers in the data fields; and follow the instructions within the form for signing.  The form must be signed twice; a signature is required both in the “Declaration Signature” section and in the “Response Signature” section.

 

TMEP §812.01; see 15 U.S.C. §1060; 37 C.F.R. §§2.193(e)(1), 3.25, 3.73(a)-(b); TMEP §502.02(a).

 

Recording a document with the Assignment Recordation Branch does not constitute a response to an Office action.  TMEP §503.01(d).

 

 

 

 

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

DISCLAIMER REQUIRED

Applicant must disclaim the wording “MONEYGRAM” because it is not inherently distinctive.  This unregistrable term at best is merely descriptive of an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose, or use of applicant’s services.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1251, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2012); TMEP §§1213, 1213.03(a). 

Applicant owns active U.S. Registration Nos. 2127954 and 3367799 for the MONEYGRAM portion of the mark for “electronic funds transfer” and “Financial services, namely, money transfer services, electronic funds transfer services, bill payment services, automated clearing house services, [electronic transfer of government monetary benefits, electronic check re-presentment services, conversion of negotiable instruments to electronic payment transactions,] processing payments to third parties, [direct debit accounting services,] electronic credit and debit transactions, official check processing and issuance, debit and stored value card services, check and draft processing; [risk management services; processing monetary government benefit payments; ] processing and disbursement of payments associated with coupons, rebates, and gift certificates for third parties,” respectively.  In this case, applicant has applied for essentially the same mark and/or portion of that mark for the identical services.

 

In applicant’s prior registration(s), applicant claimed acquired distinctiveness under Trademark Act Section 2(f) unconditionally and not in the alternative in the initial application or a subsequent amendment.  Thus, applicant conceded that this wording was not inherently distinctive but was rather merely descriptive.  See Mini Melts, Inc. v. Reckitt Benckiser LLC, 118 USPQ2d 1464, 1479 (TTAB 2016) (citing Cold War Museum, Inc. v. Cold War Air Museum, Inc., 586 F.3d 1352, 1358, 92 USPQ2d 1626, 1629 (Fed. Cir. 2009)); TMEP §1212.02(b)-(c).  Accordingly, applicant’s prior registrations are probative to show that MONEYGRAM in the applied-for mark is not inherently distinctive in this case.  See In re Thomas Nelson, Inc., 97 USPQ2d 1712, 1713 (TTAB 2011); TMEP §1212.02(c).

An applicant may not claim exclusive rights to terms that others may need to use to describe their goods and/or services in the marketplace.  See Dena Corp. v. Belvedere Int’l, Inc., 950 F.2d 1555, 1560, 21 USPQ2d 1047, 1051 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Aug. Storck KG, 218 USPQ 823, 825 (TTAB 1983).  A disclaimer of unregistrable matter does not affect the appearance of the mark; that is, a disclaimer does not physically remove the disclaimed matter from the mark.  See Schwarzkopf v. John H. Breck, Inc., 340 F.2d 978, 978, 144 USPQ 433, 433 (C.C.P.A. 1965); TMEP §1213. 

If applicant does not provide the required disclaimer, the USPTO may refuse to register the entire mark.  See In re Stereotaxis Inc., 429 F.3d 1039, 1040-41, 77 USPQ2d 1087, 1088-89 (Fed. Cir. 2005); TMEP §1213.01(b).

Applicant should submit a disclaimer in the following standardized format:

No claim is made to the exclusive right to use “MONEYGRAM” apart from the mark as shown.

For an overview of disclaimers and instructions on how to satisfy this disclaimer requirement online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, please go to http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/law/disclaimer.jsp.

RESPONSE OPTIONS FOR DISCLAIMER REQUIREMENT

If applicant believes that a the above-referenced portion of the mark has acquired distinctiveness, applicant may amend the application to add a claim of acquired distinctiveness as to that portion under Trademark Act Section 2(f).  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(f); TMEP §1212.02(f)(i).  Evidence in support of this claim may consist of one or more of the following:

 

(1)        Prior Registrations:  Applicant may claim ownership of one or more active prior registrations on the Principal Register of that portion of the mark for goods and/or services that are sufficiently similar to those named in the pending application.  TMEP §1212.02(f)(i); see 37 C.F.R. §2.41(a)(1).  Applicant may do so by submitting the following statement, if accurate:  “The wording MONEYGRAM in the mark has become distinctive of the goods and/or services as evidenced by the ownership of active U.S. Registration No(s). 3367799 and 2127954 on the Principal Register for the same mark for sufficiently similar services.”  TMEP §1212.04(e).

 

(2)        Five Years’ Use:  Applicant may submit a verified statement that that portion of the mark has become distinctive of applicant’s goods and/or services through the applicant’s substantially exclusive and continuous use of the mark in commerce that the U.S. Congress may lawfully regulate for the five years before the date when the claim of distinctiveness is made.  TMEP §1212.02(f)(i); see 37 C.F.R. §2.41(a)(2).  Applicant may do so by submitting the following statement, if accurate:  “The wording MONEYGRAM in the mark has become distinctive of the goods and/or services through the applicant’s substantially exclusive and continuous use of the mark in commerce that the U.S. Congress may lawfully regulate for at least the five years immediately before the date of this statement.”  TMEP §1212.05(d).

 

(3)        Other Evidence:  Applicant may submit other evidence of acquired distinctiveness of that portion of the mark, which may include “advertising expenditures, sales success, length and exclusivity of use, unsolicited media coverage, and consumer studies (linking the name to a source).”  In re Change Wind Corp., 123 USPQ2d 1453, 1467 (TTAB 2017) (quoting In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293, 1300, 75 USPQ2d 1420, 1424 (Fed. Cir. 2005)).  In addition to the evidence, applicant should submit the following statement, if accurate:  “The evidence shows that the wording MONEYGRAM in the mark has become distinctive of the goods and/or services.”  

 

 

IDENTIFICATION AND CLASSIFICATION OF GOODS & SERVICES

The services are:

Class 36:         money transfer services; electronic funds transfer services; automated clearing house (ACH) services; processing payments to third parties; direct debit accounting services; electronic credit and debit transactions; electronic debit card and credit card transaction processing

Some of the wording in the identification of services, highlighted in bold type, above, is indefinite because it does not clearly specify the nature, function, or purpose of the services. Applicant must amend to description to clarify, as appropriate, the nature of the services as well as their main purpose and field of use or channels of trade.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03.

In addition, some of the underlined services are misclassified or are described so broadly that they implicate multiple international classes. Accordingly, applicant must amend the application to delete, reword, and/or re-classify the services as indicated below. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(7), 2.85; TMEP §§1401.02(a), 1401.03(b), 1402.03 et seq. If applicant adds one or more international classes to the application, applicant must comply with the multiple-class requirements specified in this Office action.

 

Applicant may adopt the following identification and classifications, if accurate:

 

Class 35:           direct debit accounting services

 

Class 36:            money transfer services; electronic funds transfer services; automated clearing house (ACH) transaction processing services; processing payments to third parties; direct debit account services in the nature of debit transaction processing services provided via {indicate the method by which the services are offered, e.g., mobile applications, a website, etc.}; electronic credit and debit transactions; electronic debit card and credit card transaction processing

 

Applicant’s goods and/or services may be clarified or limited, but may not be expanded beyond those originally itemized in the application or as acceptably amended.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06.  Applicant may clarify or limit the identification by inserting qualifying language or deleting items to result in a more specific identification; however, applicant may not substitute different goods and/or services or add goods and/or services not found or encompassed by those in the original application or as acceptably amended.  See TMEP §1402.06(a)-(b).  The scope of the goods and/or services sets the outer limit for any changes to the identification and is generally determined by the ordinary meaning of the wording in the identification.  TMEP §§1402.06(b), 1402.07(a)-(b).  Any acceptable changes to the goods and/or services will further limit scope, and once goods and/or services are deleted, they are not permitted to be reinserted.  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.

MULTIPLE-CLASS APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS / INSUFFICIENT FEE

The application identifies goods and/or services in more than one international class; therefore, applicant must satisfy all the requirements below for each international class based on Trademark Act Section 1(b):

(1)        List the goods and/or services by their international class number in consecutive numerical order, starting with the lowest numbered class.

 (2)       Submit a filing fee for each international class not covered by the fees already paid (view the USPTO’s current fee schedule at http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/tm_fee_info.jsp).  The application identifies services that are classified in at least 2 classes; however, applicant submitted a fee sufficient for only 1 class.  Applicant must either submit the filing fees for the classes not covered by the submitted fees or restrict the application to the number of classes covered by the fees already paid.

See 15 U.S.C. §§1051(b), 1112, 1126(e); 37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(6)-(7), 2.34(a)(2)-(3), 2.86(a); TMEP §§1403.01, 1403.02(c).

For an overview of the requirements for a Section 1(b) multiple-class application and how to satisfy the requirements online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, please go to http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/law/multiclass.jsp.

 

 

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.  

 

CONTACT EXAMINING ATTORNEY

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.    

 

 

/Roger T. McDorman/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 109

571-272-5224

roger.mcdorman@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 25, 2019 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88585070

 

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. 

 

 

/Roger T. McDorman/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 109

571-272-5224

roger.mcdorman@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 25, 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.”