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:  December 03, 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:

 

In response to this Office action, applicant must address the following issues:

 

• Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood Of Confusion
• Section 2(e)(1) Refusal - Merely Descriptive
• Specimen Does Not Show Use In Commerce – New Specimen Or Amendment Required

 

Also, please note the potential Section 2(d) – Likelihood of Confusion Refusal although no response is required to the issue of the pending applications.

 

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. 4416885, 4416884, and 3232699.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registrations.

 

In this case, applicant has applied to register the mark LOCKDOWN for use in connection with “Downloadable mobile applications for secure electronic file transfer and storage, encryption and decryption of data, computer network and endpoint security, identity authentication, and for the prevention of data theft” and “Platform as a service (PAAS) featuring computer software platforms for secure electronic file transfer and storage, encryption and decryption of data, computer network and endpoint security, identity authentication, and for the prevention of data theft.”

 

Registration No. 4416885 is for the mark LOCKDOWN BROWSER used in connection with “browser software for use in enabling user access to selected resources via the Internet while restricting user access to other resources; browser software for use in controlling user access to Internet resources during tests, quizzes and other assessment activities.”

 

Registration No. 4416884 is for the mark RESPONDUS LOCKDOWN BROWSER used in connection with “Browser software for use in enabling user access to selected resources via the Internet while restricting user access to other resources; browser software for use in controlling user access to Internet resources during tests, quizzes and other assessment activities.”

 

Registration No. 3232699 is for the mark SIMPLIFY LOCKDOWN used in connection with “computer software and computer software architecture and downloadable computer software for use in providing a secure user environment, preventing unauthorized applications and malware from running on terminal servers, for controlling user access to applications and services, and for use in preventing security breaches and server crashes.”

 

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 and services 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 and services.  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

 

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).

 

Here, applicant’s mark, LOCKDOWN, is confusingly similar to the registered marks RESPONDUS LOCKDOWN BROWSER, LOCKDOWN BROWSER, and SIMPLIFY LOCKDOWN. Specifically, all four marks contain the term LOCKDOWN.  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).

 

Further, the additional wording in the registered marks does not obviate the similarity between the marks as the applied-for mark is entirely encompassed by the registered marks.  Incorporating the entirety of one mark within another 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 Wella Corp. v. Cal. Concept Corp., 558 F.2d 1019, 1022, 194 USPQ 419, 422 (C.C.P.A. 1977) (finding CALIFORNIA CONCEPT and surfer design and CONCEPT confusingly similar); 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 LANCER and design and BENGAL confusingly similar); In re Integrated Embedded, 120 USPQ2d 1504, 1513 (TTAB 2016) (finding BARR GROUP and BARR confusingly similar); In re Mr. Recipe, LLC, 118 USPQ2d 1084, 1090 (TTAB 2016) (finding JAWS DEVOUR YOUR HUNGER and JAWS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iii).  In the present case, the marks are identical in part.

 

Ultimately, when purchasers call for the goods and services of the applicant and registrant using LOCKDOWN, RESPONDUS LOCKDOWN BROWSER, LOCKDOWN BROWSER, and SIMPLIFY LOCKDOWN, they are likely to be confused as to the sources of those goods and services by the similarities between the marks. Thus, the marks are confusingly similar.

 

            Relatedness of the Goods and Services

 

The compared goods and services 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 and 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)); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).

 

In this case, applicant's “Downloadable mobile applications for secure electronic file transfer and storage, encryption and decryption of data, computer network and endpoint security, identity authentication, and for the prevention of data theft” and “Platform as a service (PAAS) featuring computer software platforms for secure electronic file transfer and storage, encryption and decryption of data, computer network and endpoint security, identity authentication, and for the prevention of data theft” are related to the goods in Registration No. 4416885, browser software for use in enabling user access to selected resources via the Internet while restricting user access to other resources; browser software for use in controlling user access to Internet resources during tests, quizzes and other assessment activities”; Registration No. 4416884, “Browser software for use in enabling user access to selected resources via the Internet while restricting user access to other resources; browser software for use in controlling user access to Internet resources during tests, quizzes and other assessment activities”; and Registration No. 3232699, “computer software and computer software architecture and downloadable computer software for use in providing a secure user environment, preventing unauthorized applications and malware from running on terminal servers, for controlling user access to applications and services, and for use in preventing security breaches and server crashes.”  Specifically, both the application and registration identify security and user access software.

 

Determining likelihood of confusion is based on the description of the goods and/or services 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 application uses broad wording to describe the security and access features of the software, which presumably encompasses all goods and services of the type described, including registrant’s more narrow software for creating secure and access-restricted computer environments and data.  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 and services 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 and services are related.

 

Further, the attached Internet evidence, consisting of the websites of third party software companies that provide both downloadable and online software, establishes that the same entity commonly provides the relevant goods and services and markets the goods and services under the same mark.  See attached websites for TURBOTAX, http://turbotax.intuit.com/; BP LOGIX, http://www.bplogix.com/; and MICROSTRATEGY, http://www.microstrategy.com/us.  Thus, applicant’s services and registrant’s 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).

 

When purchasers encounter the software goods and services of the applicant and registrant, they are likely to be confused as to the source of the goods and services by the relationship between them. Thus, the goods and services are closely related.

 

Therefore, because the marks are confusingly similar and the goods and services are closely related, purchasers encountering these goods and services are likely to believe, mistakenly, that they emanate from a common source. Accordingly, there is a likelihood of confusion and registration is refused pursuant to Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.

 

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

 

SECTION 2(e)(1) REFUSAL - MERELY DESCRIPTIVE

Registration is refused because the applied-for mark merely describes the purpose of applicant’s goods and services.  Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); see TMEP §§1209.01(b), 1209.03 et seq.

 

In this case, applicant has applied to register the mark LOCKDOWN for use in connection with “Downloadable mobile applications for secure electronic file transfer and storage, encryption and decryption of data, computer network and endpoint security, identity authentication, and for the prevention of data theft” and “Platform as a service (PAAS) featuring computer software platforms for secure electronic file transfer and storage, encryption and decryption of data, computer network and endpoint security, identity authentication, and for the prevention of data theft.”

 

A mark is merely descriptive if it describes an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose, or use of an applicant’s goods and services.  TMEP §1209.01(b); see, e.g., In re TriVita, Inc., 783 F.3d 872, 874, 114 USPQ2d 1574, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 1173, 71 USPQ2d 1370, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004)); In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293, 1297, 75 USPQ2d 1420, 1421 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Estate of P.D. Beckwith, Inc. v. Comm’r of Patents, 252 U.S. 538, 543 (1920)). 

 

Here, the term LOCKDOWN, meaning “to restrict the functionality of a system” immediately conveys that the goods and services are used to restrict the functionality of a system to restrict unwanted access.  See attached PC ENCYCLOPEDIA entry, http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia/term/46252/lock-down.

 

Further, the term “LOCKDOWN” is commonly used to describe a type of software that is used to restrict the functionality of a system to restrict unwanted access.  See attached websites for HORIZON DATASYS Lockdown Software, http://horizondatasys.com/lockdown-software/# (“Lockdown software is intended to restrict access to sensitive Windows functions and to prevent public user tampering of PC systems. There are many popular Lockdown Software packages available and they’re often deployed on public access machines to make the IT administrator’s job easier.”); FARONICS DEEP FREEZE CLOUD CONNECTOR Browser and Desktop Lockdown, http://www.faronics.com/deep-freeze-cloud-connector-browser-and-desktop-lockdown; TECHREPUBLIC article “Alternatives to Windows’ standard desktop lockdown feature,” http://www.techrepublic.com/article/alternatives-to-windows-standard-desktop-lockdown-features/ (“A wide variety of desktop lockdown software solutions are available that you can suggest to clients.”).  Therefore, consumers are conditioned to view the term “LOCKDOWN” as describing a specific kind of software used for restricting access to computers.

 

Ultimately, when purchasers encounter applicant’s goods and services using the mark LOCKDOWN, they will immediately understand the mark as an indication of the purpose of applicant’s goods and services that they restrict the functionality of a computer system rather than as an indication that applicant is the source of the goods and services.  Therefore, the mark is merely descriptive and registration is refused pursuant to Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act. 

 

Response to Section 2(e)(1) – Mere Descriptiveness Refusal

 

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

 

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

 

POTENTIAL SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – 4 PENDING APPLICATIONS

 

The filing dates of pending U.S. Application Serial Nos. 88014838, 88282945, 88377320 and 88546222 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.

 

While applicant is not required to respond to the issue of the pending applications, applicant must respond to the refusals and requirements within six months of the mailing date of this Office action to avoid abandonment.

 

SPECIMEN DOES NOT SHOW USE IN COMMERCE – NEW SPECIMEN OR AMENDMENT REQUIRED

 

Registration is refused because the specimen in International Class 09 is not acceptable as a display associated with downloadable software and appears to be mere advertising material; thus, the specimen fails to show the applied-for mark in use in commerce for that international class.  Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a).  Specifically, the specimen fails to provide the means to enable the user to download or purchase the software from the website, as both website specimens redirect to other shopping platforms to download or purchase the goods.  See In re Sones, 590 F.3d 1282, 1286-89, 93 USPQ2d 1118, 1122-24 (Fed. Cir. 2009); In re Azteca Sys., Inc., 102 USPQ2d 1955, 1957 (TTAB 2012); TMEP §§904.03(e), (i) et seq.  Without this feature, the specimen is mere advertising material, which is not acceptable as a specimen to show use in commerce for goods.  See In re Kohr Bros., 121 USPQ2d 1793, 1794 (TTAB 2017) (quoting In re Quantum Foods, Inc., 94 USPQ2d 1375, 1379 (TTAB 2010)); In re Genitope Corp., 78 USPQ2d 1819, 1822 (TTAB 2006); TMEP §904.04(b), (c).

 

Further, registration is refused because the specimen does not show use in commerce of the applied-for mark with the identified services in International Class 42.  Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a), 1301.04(f)(ii), (g)(i).  Specifically, the specimen fails to show the mark used in a way that would create in the minds of potential consumers a sufficient nexus or direct association between the mark and the services being offered.  In re Universal Oil Prods. Co., 476 F.2d 653, 655, 177 USPQ 456, 457 (C.C.P.A. 1973); TMEP §1301.04(f)(ii); see also In re JobDiva, Inc., 843 F.3d 936, 942, 121 USPQ2d 1122, 1126 (Fed. Cir. 2016); In re Adver. & Mktg. Dev., Inc., 821 F.2d 614, 620, 2 USPQ2d 2010, 2014 (Fed. Cir. 1987). 

 

When determining whether a mark is used in connection with the services in the application, a key consideration is the perception of the user.  In re JobDiva, Inc., 843 F.3d at 942, 121 USPQ2d at 1126 (citing Lens.com, Inc. v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc., 686 F.3d 1376, 1381-82, 103 USPQ2d 1672, 1676 (Fed Cir. 2012)).  A specimen must show the mark used in a way that would create in the minds of potential consumers a sufficient nexus or direct association between the mark and the services being offered.  In re Universal Oil Prods. Co., 476 F.2d at 655, 177 USPQ2d at 457; TMEP §1301.04(f)(ii); see also In re JobDiva, Inc., 843 F.3d at 942, 121 USPQ2d at 1126; In re Adver. & Mktg. Dev., Inc., 821 F.2d at 620, 2 USPQ2d at 2014. 

 

To show a direct association, specimens consisting of advertising or promotional materials must (1) explicitly reference the services and (2) show the mark used to identify the services and their source.  In re WAY Media, Inc., 118 USPQ2d at 1698 (quoting In re Osmotica Holdings, Corp., 95 USPQ2d 1666, 1668 (TTAB 2010)); TMEP §1301.04(f)(ii).  Although the exact nature of the services does not need to be specified in the specimen, there must be something which creates in the mind of the purchaser an association between the mark and the services.  In re Adair, 45 USPQ2d 1211, 1215 (TTAB 1997) (quoting In re Johnson Controls Inc., 33 USPQ2d 1318, 1320 (TTAB 1994)). 

 

In the present case, the specimen does not show a direct association between the mark and services in that there is no specific reference to software platforms that are not downloadable and offered as a service.  Here, the specimen only shows software for downloadable purchase and use on a mobile phone and desktop and does not reference platforms being provided online as a service.  Therefore, the specimen is not acceptable.

 

An application based on Trademark Act Section 1(a) must include a specimen showing the applied-for mark in use in commerce for each international class of goods and services identified in the application.  15 U.S.C. §1051(a)(1); 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a). 

 

Examples of specimens for downloadable software include instruction manuals and screen printouts from (1) web pages showing the mark in connection with ordering or purchasing information or information sufficient to download the software, (2) the actual program that shows the mark in the title bar, or (3) launch screens that show the mark in an introductory message box that appears after opening the program.  See TMEP §904.03(e), (i), (j).  Webpages may also be specimens for goods when they include a picture or textual description of the goods associated with the mark and the means to order the goods.  See In re Sones, 590 F.3d at 1286-89, 93 USPQ2d at 1122-24; In re Azteca Sys., Inc., 102 USPQ2d at 1957; TMEP §§904.03(i) et seq.

 

Examples of specimens for services include advertising and marketing materials, brochures, photographs of business signage and billboards, and webpages that show the mark used in the actual sale, rendering, or advertising of the services.  See TMEP §1301.04(a), (h)(iv)(C).  Specimens comprising advertising and promotional materials must show a direct association between the mark and the services.  TMEP §1301.04(f)(ii).

 

Applicant may respond to this refusal by satisfying one of the following for each applicable international class:

 

(1)        Submit a different specimen (a verified “substitute” specimen) that (a) was in actual use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application and (b) shows the mark in actual use in commerce for the software identified in the application.  A “verified substitute specimen” is a specimen that is accompanied by the following statement made in a signed affidavit or supported by a declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20:  “The substitute (or new, or originally submitted, if appropriate) specimen(s) was/were in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application or prior to the filing of the amendment to allege use.”  The substitute specimen cannot be accepted without this statement.

 

(2)        Amend the filing basis to intent to use under Section 1(b), for which no specimen is required.  This option will later necessitate additional fee and filing requirements such as providing a specimen.

 

For an overview of both response options referenced above and instructions on how to satisfy either option online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, please go to the Specimen webpage.  

 

RESPONSE TO THIS OFFICE ACTION

 

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.  

 

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 refusals and requirement 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.    

 

 

/Emma Sirignano/

Examining Attorney, Law Office 113

United States Patent and Trademark Office

(571) 272-7031

emma.sirignano@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 December 03, 2019 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88592847

 

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. 

 

 

/Emma Sirignano/

Examining Attorney, Law Office 113

United States Patent and Trademark Office

(571) 272-7031

emma.sirignano@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 December 03, 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.”