Offc Action Outgoing

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application

 

 

 

FINAL 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) and/or Electronic System for Trademark Trials and Appeals (ESTTA).  A link to the appropriate TEAS response form and/or to ESTTA for an appeal appears at the end of this Office action. 

 

 

Issue date:  June 19, 2020

 

 

This Final Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on May 28, 2020.  The refusal to register under Section 2(d) is continued and made FINAL as to ten (10) of cites.  See below.  The 2(d) refusal as to seven cites has been withdrawn (as the registrations have been cancelled/abandoned or the Examining Attorney was persuaded by the arguments against these refusals):  4318396, 4351275 (dead), 4351273 (dead), 4362194 (dead), 4471501, 5064544 and 5373222.  The three potential 2(d) cites are dead (two) or withdrawn (one), so no potential 2(d) cites remained.  The refusal to register under Section 2(e)(1) is withdrawn.  Certain wording in the amended Identification of Goods (ID) remains unacceptable, so the requirement for clarification as to said wording is continued and made FINAL.  The multi-class advisory and requirements is continued and made FINAL as some of the indefinite wording could fall into multiple classes, once clarified.

 

Objection to Evidence – Third-party Registrations Not of Record – List of Registrations or Search Report from Commercial Database is Not Acceptable Evidence

 

If an applicant’s response includes improper evidence of third-party registrations, an examining attorney must object to the evidence in the first Office action following the response.  TBMP §1208.02; TMEP §710.03.  Otherwise the Board may consider the objection to be waived.  See In re Peace Love World Live, LLC, 127 USPQ2d 1400, 1405 n.17 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Houston, 101 USPQ2d 1534, 1536 (TTAB 2012); In re 1st USA Realty Prof’ls, 84 USPQ2d 1581, 1583 (TTAB 2007); In re Broyhill Furniture Indus., Inc., 60 USPQ2d 1511, 1513 n.3 (TTAB 2001)); TBMP §1208.02; TMEP §710.03.

 

Accordingly, the Examining Attorney objects.

 

Applicant has submitted a list of registrations and/or search report obtained from a commercial database.  However, the mere submission of a list of registrations or a copy of a private company search report does not make such registrations part of the record.  See In re Peace Love World Live, LLC, 127 USPQ2d 1400, 1405 n.17 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re 1st USA Realty Prof’ls, 84 USPQ2d 1581, 1583 (TTAB 2007); In re Duofold Inc., 184 USPQ 638, 640 (TTAB 1974)); TBMP §1208.02; TMEP §710.03.

 

To make third party registrations part of the record, an applicant must submit copies of the registrations, or the complete electronic equivalent from the USPTO’s automated systems, prior to appeal.  In re Star Belly Stitcher, Inc., 107 USPQ2d 2059, 2064 (TTAB 2013); TBMP §1208.02; TMEP §710.03.  Accordingly, these registrations will not be considered.

 

It is noted that the Applicant has submitted some registrations in its approximately 717 attachments, but that a large number of those attachments are a listing, which includes abandoned, cancelled and “filed” (but not registered) applications, including the Applicant’s application and e.g. Reg. No. 3,989,982 [TICRS Page 431 of Applicant’s response] LUX for “folding knives, pocket knives, … sidearms” etc., which it is noted are not similar to the Applicant’s “Tableware, namely, knives, forks and spoons.”  This registration, e.g., does not “talk to” dilution because the goods are not related goods.

 

To support applicant’s arguments, applicant submitted evidence of cancelled or expired third-party registrations.  However, a cancelled or expired registration is “only evidence that the registration issued and does not afford [an applicant] any legal presumptions under Trademark Act Section 7(b),” including the presumption that the registration is valid, owned by the registrant, and the registrant has the exclusive right to use the mark in commerce in connection with the goods and/or services specified in the registration certificate.  Bond v. Taylor, 119 USPQ2d 1049, 1054-55 (TTAB 2016) (citing In re Pedersen, 109 USPQ2d 1185, 1197 (TTAB 2013)); see Anderson, Clayton & Co. v. Krier, 478 F.2d 1246, 1248, 178 USPQ 46, 47 (C.C.P.A. 1973) (statutory benefits of registration disappear when the registration is cancelled); TBMP §704.03(b)(1)(A); TMEP §1207.01(d)(iii), (d)(iv).  Nor does a cancelled or expired registration provide constructive notice under Section 22, in which registration serves as constructive notice to the public of a registrant’s ownership of a mark.  See Action Temp. Servs. Inc. v. Labor Force Inc., 870 F.2d 1563, 1566, 10 USPQ2d 1307, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“[A] canceled registration does not provide constructive notice of anything.”). 

 

Thus, these third-party registrations have little, if any, probative value with respect to the registrability of applicant’s mark. 

 

Last, as to this issue, LUXE-formative or LUX-formative marks, where the ending is not generic, not descriptive and possible arbitrary are not informative as to 2(d) issues, when there are marks that are identical and/or identical+generic wording.

 

Summary of Issues

 

The following is a summary of issues:

 

(1)   Likelihood of Confusion – Refusal to Register under Section 2(d) – Ten (10) Cites – under Final

(2)   Identification of Goods – Clarification as to Certain Goods in Classes 20 and 21

(3)   Multi-class Advisory and Requirements

 

Likelihood of Confusion – Final Refusal to Register under Section 2(d)

 

For the reasons set forth below, the refusal under Trademark Act Section 2(d) is now made FINAL with respect to U.S. Registration No(s). 5641213, 4549534, 5353578, 5459107, 5429969, 5064646, 3747147, 5457872, 4872266 and 5811401.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b).  Previously attached to the first Office Action.

 

The Applicant has applied to register LUXE for (as amended):

 

Class 4:  Candles, not related to aromatherapy

 

Class 8:  Tableware, namely, knives, forks and spoons

 

Class 20:  Furniture for house, office and garden; household décor, namely, decorative wall art composed of plaster, wood, or plastic; statues of plaster, wood, plastic; cushions; pillows; floor pillows; picture frames; bulletin boards; drapery hardware, namely, curtain rods, curtain hooks and finials; window shades; wall decor, namely, shelving and mirrors; wood garden and household ornaments; cold cast resin garden and household ornaments; decorative boxes made of wood, plastic; outdoor holiday decorations made of clear or translucent PVC or polypropylene die cut forms having holiday themed shapes and icons; luggage racks in the nature of furniture; decorative wood panels in the nature of freestanding furniture; tablet rests; book rests; travelling trunks for use as tables; bird houses; outdoor holiday decorations; holiday ornaments; seasonal indoor décor; seasonal outdoor décor; storage and organization systems comprising shelves, drawers, cupboards, baskets and clothes rods, sold as a unit; coat racks; magazine racks; towel racks; wine racks; display racks; metal racks for storing firewood; baskets of wicker, metal, wood, and cloth for storage and household purposes; storage racks; Prefabricated closet organization systems

 

Class 21:  Dinnerware; barware, namely, for indoor and outdoor household use, cocktail shakers, bar trays, coasters not of paper or textile, wine stoppers, bottle openers, wine openers, acrylic ice cubes, plastic and metal drinking straws, drink floats; drinking glasses, for indoor and outdoor household use, namely, drinkware for wine, cocktails, and other beverages; decanters for wine and whiskey; pitchers; wine chilling buckets; ice buckets; party buckets for storage; mugs; beverage glassware

 

Class 24:  Bedding, namely, bed sheets, fitted bed sheet covers, pillow cases, pillow covers, pillow shams, bed blankets, comforters, quilts, sleeping bags, coverlets, bed skirts, mattress pads, shower curtains, blanket throws; bath towels

 

Class 27:  Rugs

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion (under final) with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos.:

 

5641213 LUXE LUXE AROMATHERAPY (and design) for “Scented candles” – partial refusal as to Class 4.

 

4549534 LUXE FURNITURE & DESIGN for “Retail store services in the field of furniture and home furnishings” – full refusal as to all classes.

 

5353578 LUXE PILLOW for “Pillows” – partial refusal as to Classes 20 and 24.

 

5459107 LUXE L 100% FAUX FUR (stylized) for “Pillows; Pouf ottomans” – partial refusal as to Classes 20 and 24.

 

5429969 LUXE BAG CARE for “Bag hangers in the nature of non-metal hooks used to hang a purse or bag from clothing rods” – partial refusal as Class 20.

 

5064646 LUXE for “Residential and commercial custom seating in the nature of chairs and benches” – partial refusal as to Class 20.

 

3747147 LUXE for “Salon furniture” – partial refusal as to Classes 20 goods, namely, “Furniture for house, office and garden.”

 

5457872 LUXE L 100% FAUX FUR (stylized) for “Lap rugs; Throws” – partial refusal as to Classes 24 and 27.

 

4872266 LUXE POLY FIBER for “Bed linen; Bath linen; Sheets; Sheet sets; Towel sets; Towels; Household linen” – partial refusal as to Class 24.

 

5811401 LUXE RUGS (and design) for “rugs, bathroom rugs” – partial refusal as to Class 27.

 

Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.

 

Similarities of the Marks

 

The applicant’s mark is LUXE.  The registered marks (listed above) are LUXE (identical – as to two registrations) or LUXE + GENERIC or highly descriptive (often disclaimed) wording.  The dominant term in all the marks is the same, namely, LUXE.

 

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).

 

The additional terms, in some cases, are generic: AROMATHERAPY for “scented” (or aromatherapy) candles, FURNITURE & DESIGN for “Retail store services in the field of furniture and home furnishings”, PILLOWS for “pillows”, RUGS for “rugs”.  The addition of the respective generic term in the marks does not change the dominant impression of those marks, the part consumers will use to “call for” the goods or services, namely, LUXE.  It is noted, though, that the addition of the generic term may be part of why these marks can coexist.  These generic terms and the highly descriptive terms are routinely disclaimed.

 

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 Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 1058, 224 USPQ 749, 751 (Fed. Cir. 1985); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii).  Disclaimed matter that is descriptive of or generic for a party’s goods and/or services is typically less significant or less dominant when comparing marks.  In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1305, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re Dixie Rests., Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 1407, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533-34 (Fed. Cir. 1997)); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii).

 

As to the two registered marks that are solely LUXE, they are identical to the registered mark.

 

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 LUXE and two of the registered marks are: LUXE.  These marks are 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 they are 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 and/or services.  Id.

 

Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar. 

 

Here, the Applicant’s mark is the dominant term of all the registered marks and there is no additional term that differentiates it.

 

Adding a term to (or deleting the generic term from) 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.

 

Argument Against Dilution

 

Adding a term to a registered mark generally does not obviate the similarity between the compared marks nor does it overcome a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d).  See, e.g., In re Chatam Int’l Inc., 380 F.3d 1340, 71 USPQ2d 1944 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d 1266 (TTAB 2009).  The only exceptions are when (1) the matter common to the marks is merely descriptive or diluted, and not likely to be perceived by purchasers as distinguishing source, or (2) the compared marks in their entireties convey a significantly different commercial impression – neither of which is the case here.  TMEP §1207.01(b)(iii); see, e.g., Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp., Inc., 637 F.3d 1344, 98 USPQ2d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Shen Mfg. Co. v. Ritz Hotel Ltd., 393 F.3d 1238, 73 USPQ2d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004). 

 

In this case, the matter common to the marks is not merely descriptive or diluted because the term must be considered as to each of the listed goods/services.  This application is drawing multiple 2(d) refusals, in part, because the Applicant has a variety of goods and six (6) classes of goods.

 

In addition, when comparing the marks in their entireties, the marks do not convey a significantly different commercial impression from the other because (a) as to two of the registered marks, the marks are IDENTICAL and (b) as to the remaining registered marks, the first, dominant and often sole non-generic (or non-highly descriptive) term is the same, namely, LUXE.

 

 

Relatedness of the Goods and/or Services and the Channels of Trade

 

Starting with the two IDENTICAL marks:

 

As to: 5064646 LUXE for "Residential and commercial custom seating in the nature of chairs and benches" - partial refusal as to Class 20.

 

The Applicant’s mark is identical and the Applicant’s goods include:  “Furniture for house, office and garden.”

 

While as acceptable ID, the broadness of “furniture” would encompass the registered goods.  As such, the good are deemed identical.  So, here, the marks are identical and goods are identical.  While the Applicant argues dilution is such “that ‘LUXE’ is subject to little, if any, protection” does not make sense.  Two marks that are identical for goods that are deemed identical is a very strong 2(d) cite.

 

As to: 3747147 LUXE for "Salon furniture" - partial refusal as to Classes 20 goods, namely, "Furniture for house, office and garden."  Here, again, the marks are IDENTICAL and the goods are deemed identical.  This is a strong 2(d) cite.

 

Addressing the other 2(d) cite:

 

As to: 5641213 LUXE LUXE AROMATHERAPY (and design) for "Scented candles" - partial refusal as to Class 4.

 

The Applicant’s Class 4 goods (as amended) are “Candles, not related to aromatherapy.”

 

Consumers are used to and expect single-entity candle makers to make both scented and non-scented candles (or, in the case of the Applicant’s goods, “candles” essentially).

 

For example, see attached evidence, Yankee Candle makes/sells both unscented tapers and also scented candles (and is a well-known candle seller).

 

The Applicant, also, can’t narrow a registrant’s ID or goods by adding an “except for” clause to their ID.

 

As to the remaining 2(d) cites, the goods are either identical to (e.g. pillows vs. pillow; rugs vs. rugs) or encompassed by one parties’ broad ID.  In one case the retail store services featuring furniture and accessories vs. furniture and accessories is a strong cite because the retail of goods vs. the very same goods is often a good cite (as is the case here).

 

Accordingly, the refusal to register under Section 2(d) is continued and made FINAL.

 

 

Requirements to be Addressed

 

If applicant responds to the refusal(s), applicant must also respond to the requirement(s) set forth below.

 

Identification of Goods – Clarification Needed

 

Certain wording in the (amended/current) identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.

 

Specifically,

 

(1)   Classes 4, 8 and 27 are acceptable as is.

(2)   See bolding below where clarification is required.

(3)   The wording “window shades” in Class 20 must further specify “interior”.  (This issue also draws the multi-class advisory and requirement – making this a “full” requirement – because e.g. “Car window shades” are Class 12 goods and “Non-metal exterior window shades” are Class 19 goods.)  See attached ID Manual listing (as needed).

(4)     The phrases “outdoor holiday decorations; holiday ornaments; seasonal indoor décor; seasonal outdoor décor;” are unacceptable as they could include goods in other classes and the more precise nature of the goods is not clear.  E.g. “holiday ornaments of plastic” or “Three-dimensional holiday ornaments made from fabric” are in Class 20, but other IDs are in other classes e.g. “Holiday ornaments of common metal” in Class 6.  See attached ID Manual listing for other IDs of “holiday ornaments”.

(5)   The wording “drink floats” should be better clarified e.g. “floating drink holders” in Class 21.

 

Applicant may adopt the following identification, if accurate: 

 

Class 4:  Candles, not related to aromatherapy

 

Class 8:  Tableware, namely, knives, forks and spoons

 

Class 20:  Furniture for house, office and garden; household décor, namely, decorative wall art composed of plaster, wood, or plastic; statues of plaster, wood, plastic; cushions; pillows; floor pillows; picture frames; bulletin boards; drapery hardware, namely, curtain rods, curtain hooks and finials; interior window shades; wall decor, namely, shelving and mirrors; wood garden and household ornaments; cold cast resin garden and household ornaments; decorative boxes made of wood, plastic; outdoor holiday decorations made of clear or translucent PVC or polypropylene die cut forms having holiday themed shapes and icons; luggage racks in the nature of furniture; decorative wood panels in the nature of freestanding furniture; tablet rests; book rests; travelling trunks for use as tables; bird houses; outdoor holiday decorations of plastic; holiday ornaments of plastic; seasonal indoor décor, namely, _______ [specify – must be Class 20 goods to remain in this Class]; seasonal outdoor décor, namely, _________ [specify – must be Class 20 goods to remain in this Class]; storage and organization systems comprising shelves, drawers, cupboards, baskets and clothes rods, sold as a unit; coat racks; magazine racks; towel racks; wine racks; display racks; metal racks for storing firewood; baskets of wicker, metal, wood, and cloth for storage and household purposes; storage racks; Prefabricated closet organization systems

 

Class 21:  Dinnerware; barware, namely, for indoor and outdoor household use, cocktail shakers, bar trays, coasters not of paper or textile, wine stoppers, bottle openers, wine openers, acrylic ice cubes, plastic and metal drinking straws, drink floats, namely, floating drink holders; drinking glasses, for indoor and outdoor household use, namely, drinkware for wine, cocktails, and other beverages; decanters for wine and whiskey; pitchers; wine chilling buckets; ice buckets; party buckets for storage; mugs; beverage glassware

 

Class 24:  Bedding, namely, bed sheets, fitted bed sheet covers, pillow cases, pillow covers, pillow shams, bed blankets, comforters, quilts, sleeping bags, coverlets, bed skirts, mattress pads, shower curtains, blanket throws; bath towels

 

Class 27:  Rugs

 

 

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).

 

 

ID Manual Available Online

 

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.

 

See attached Id listings re: “window shades” and “holiday ornaments” - for acceptable identifications, level of specificity required and proper classification, as needed.

 

 

 

Requirements for a Multi-class Application Based on Intent-to-Use (Section 1(b))

 

 

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 Sections 1(b) and/or 44:

 

(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 fee(s) already paid (view the USPTO’s current fee schedule).  The application identifies goods and/or services that can be classified in at least seven (7) classes; however, applicant submitted a fee(s) sufficient for only six (6) class(es).  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 37 C.F.R. §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, see the Multiple-class Application webpage.

 

 

Proper Response to a Final Office Action – Full Refusal(s)/Requirement(s)

 

Applicant must respond within six months of the date of issuance of this final Office action or the application will be abandoned.  15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §2.65(a).  Applicant may respond by providing one or both of the following:

 

(1)        A request for reconsideration that fully resolves all outstanding requirements and refusals; and/or

 

(2)        An appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board with the required filing fees.

 

TMEP §715.01; see 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b)(1)-(2).

 

 

If the applicant has any questions or needs assistance in responding to this Office action, please telephone the assigned examining attorney.

.

How to respond.  Click to file a request for reconsideration of this final Office action that fully resolves all outstanding requirements and refusals and/or click to file a timely appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) with the required filing fee(s).

 

 

/Gina M. Fink/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 109

(571) 272-9275

gina.fink@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 June 19, 2020 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88589973

 

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. 

 

 

/Gina M. Fink/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 109

(571) 272-9275

gina.fink@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 June 19, 2020, 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.”