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 18, 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.

 

Specifically, applicant must address the following issues:

 

·       Section 2(d) refusal; and

·       Specimen requirement.

 

 

Refusal – Section 2(d) 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. 4104624, 4107892, 4107912, 4107891, 4463814, 3653895, 4857145, and 2339794.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registrations.

 

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/or 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/or 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.

 

Here, applicant’s mark is “DIAMOND” in standard characters for:

 

International Class 001:  Transmission fluid; Transmission fluids; Automatic transmission fluids.

 

International Class 004:  Engine oils; Motor oil; Motor oils; Automotive engine oils; Lubricating oil for motor vehicle engines; Gear oils; synthetic gear oil.

 

A summary of the cited registrations is as follows:

 

Registration No. and owner	Mark and Owner	Goods and/or Services
4104624 owned by Petro-Diamond Incorporated	“PETRODIAMOND” in standard characters	International Class 004:  Aviation fuel; Benzene fuel; Diesel fuel; Diesel oil; Ethanol fuels; Fuel for aircraft/ships; Fuel for motor vehicles, namely, gas, gasoline, diesel, oil and petroleum; Fuel from crude oil; Fuel gas; Fuel oil; Fuels; Gaseous fuels; Gases for use as fuel; Gasoline; Industrial gasoline; Liquefied petroleum gas; Liquefied petroleum gases; Liquefied petroleum gases to be used for domestic and industrial purposes and in motor vehicles; Liquid fuels; Methanol fuel; Motor fuel; Petroleum.   International Class 039:  Distribution services, namely, delivery of fuels, gas, gasoline, diesel, oil and petroleum products; Fuel delivery services featuring gas, gasoline, diesel, oil and petroleum products; Gas supplying; Storage, distribution, and transportation of liquefied petroleum gas; Tanker transport; Transmission of oil or gas through pipelines; Transport brokerage; Transport by pipeline; Transport by truck, rail, barge, vessel and pipeline, and terminalling of bulk products, namely, gasoline, diesel, oil and petroleum products; Transport of fuels, gas, gasoline, diesel, oil and petroleum products by truck, rail, barge, vessel and pipeline, and terminalling; Transportation and storage of fuels; Trucking services, namely, hauling of fuels, gas, gasoline, diesel, oil and petroleum products; Warehousing services, namely, storage, distribution, pick-up, packing, and shipping of fuels, gas, gasoline, diesel, oil and petroleum products.
4107892 owned by Petro-Diamond Incorporated	“PETRO DIAMOND” in standard characters with a disclaimer of “PETRO”	International Class 004:  Aviation fuel; Benzene fuel; Diesel fuel; Diesel oil; Ethanol fuels; Fuel for aircraft/ships; Fuel for motor vehicles, namely, gas, gasoline, diesel, oil and petroleum; Fuel from crude oil; Fuel gas; Fuel oil; Fuels; Gaseous fuels; Gases for use as fuel; Gasoline; Industrial gasoline; Liquefied petroleum gas; Liquefied petroleum gases; Liquefied petroleum gases to be used for domestic and industrial purposes and in motor vehicles; Liquid fuels; Methanol fuel; Motor fuel; Petroleum.   International Class 039:  Distribution services, namely, delivery of fuels, gas, gasoline, diesel, oil and petroleum products; Fuel delivery services featuring gas, gasoline, diesel, oil and petroleum products; Gas supplying; Storage, distribution, and transportation of liquefied petroleum gas; Tanker transport; Transmission of oil or gas through pipelines; Transport brokerage; Transport by pipeline; Transport by truck, rail, barge, vessel and pipeline, and terminalling of bulk products, namely, gasoline, diesel, oil and petroleum products; Transport of fuels, gas, gasoline, diesel, oil and petroleum products by truck, rail, barge, vessel and pipeline, and terminalling; Transportation and storage of fuels; Trucking services, namely, hauling of fuels, gas, gasoline, diesel, oil and petroleum products; Warehousing services, namely, storage, distribution, pick-up, packing, and shipping of fuels, gas, gasoline, diesel, oil and petroleum products.
4107912 owned by Petro-Diamond Incorporated	“PD PETRO DIAMOND TERMINAL COMPANY” in a stylized presentation with horizontal lines and a disclaimer of “PETRO” and “TERMINAL COMPANY”	International Class 004:  Aviation fuel; Benzene fuel; Diesel fuel; Diesel oil; Ethanol fuels; Fuel for aircraft/ships; Fuel for motor vehicles, namely, gas, gasoline, diesel, oil and petroleum; Fuel from crude oil; Fuel gas; Fuel oil; Fuels; Gaseous fuels; Gases for use as fuel; Gasoline; Industrial gasoline; Liquefied petroleum gas; Liquefied petroleum gases; Liquefied petroleum gases to be used for domestic and industrial purposes and in motor vehicles; Liquid fuels; Methanol fuel; Motor fuel; Petroleum.   International Class 039:  Distribution services, namely, delivery of fuels, gas, gasoline, diesel, oil and petroleum products; Fuel delivery services featuring gas, gasoline, diesel, oil and petroleum products; Gas supplying; Storage, distribution, and transportation of liquefied petroleum gas; Tanker transport; Transmission of oil or gas through pipelines; Transport brokerage; Transport by pipeline; Transport by truck, rail, barge, vessel and pipeline, and terminalling of bulk products, namely, gasoline, diesel, oil and petroleum products; Transport of fuels, gas, gasoline, diesel, oil and petroleum products by truck, rail, barge, vessel and pipeline, and terminalling; Transportation and storage of fuels; Trucking services, namely, hauling of fuels, gas, gasoline, diesel, oil and petroleum products; Warehousing services, namely, storage, distribution, pick-up, packing, and shipping of fuels, gas, gasoline, diesel, oil and petroleum products.
4107891 owned by Petro-Diamond Incorporated	“PETRO-DIAMOND” in standard characters	International Class 004:  Aviation fuel; Benzene fuel; Diesel fuel; Diesel oil; Ethanol fuels; Fuel for aircraft/ships; Fuel for motor vehicles, namely, gas, gasoline, diesel, oil and petroleum; Fuel from crude oil; Fuel gas; Fuel oil; Fuels; Gaseous fuels; Gases for use as fuel; Gasoline; Industrial gasoline; Liquefied petroleum gas; Liquefied petroleum gases; Liquefied petroleum gases to be used for domestic and industrial purposes and in motor vehicles; Liquid fuels; Methanol fuel; Motor fuel; Petroleum.   International Class 039:  Distribution services, namely, delivery of fuels, gas, gasoline, diesel, oil and petroleum products; Fuel delivery services featuring gas, gasoline, diesel, oil and petroleum products; Gas supplying; Storage, distribution, and transportation of liquefied petroleum gas; Tanker transport; Transmission of oil or gas through pipelines; Transport brokerage; Transport by pipeline; Transport by truck, rail, barge, vessel and pipeline, and terminalling of bulk products, namely, gasoline, diesel, oil and petroleum products; Transport of fuels, gas, gasoline, diesel, oil and petroleum products by truck, rail, barge, vessel and pipeline, and terminalling; Transportation and storage of fuels; Trucking services, namely, hauling of fuels, gas, gasoline, diesel, oil and petroleum products; Warehousing services, namely, storage, distribution, pick-up, packing, and shipping of fuels, gas, gasoline, diesel, oil and petroleum products.
4463814 owned by Diamond Green Diesel LLC	“DIAMOND GREEN DIESEL” and design with a disclaimer of “GREEN DIESEL”	International Class 004:  Renewable diesel fuels.
3653895 owned by Phillips 66 Company	“DIAMOND CLASS” in standard characters	International Class 004:  All purpose lubricants; industrial lubricants; lubricating turbine oil.
4857145 owned by Advantage Dist. LLC	“DIAMOND PLATE” in standard characters	International Class 001:  Hydraulic fluid and transmission fluid for farm and industrial equipment.   International Class 004:  Motor oil, gear and bearing lubricants for farm and industrial equipment.
2339794 owned by Phillips 66 Company	“HYDROCLEAR DIAMOND CLASS” in standard characters	International Class 004:  Industrial lubricants, namely, motor and engine oils, and gear oils, and greases.

 

 

 

            Comparing 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).

 

 

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 and/or services.  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)).

 

 

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).

 

Here, applicant’s mark is entirely incorporated into all the cited registrations.  Applicant’s mark merely deletes matter that appears in all the cited registrations.  Incorporating the entirety of one mark within another does not obviate the similarity between the compared marks 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.

 

Although applicant’s mark does not contain the entirety of the registered marks, applicant’s mark is likely to appear to prospective purchasers as a shortened form of the registered marks.  See In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 1348, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting United States Shoe Corp., 229 USPQ 707, 709 (TTAB 1985)).

 

Thus, when comparing the marks as a whole, the overall impression is that of highly similar marks.

 

            Comparing the Goods and/or Services

 

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

 

Consumers are likely to be confused by the use of similar marks on or in connection with goods and with services featuring or related to those goods.  TMEP §1207.01(a)(ii); see In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1307, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1051 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding retail shops featuring sports team related clothing and apparel related to various clothing items, including athletic uniforms); In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 6 USPQ2d 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (finding retail grocery and general merchandise store services related to furniture); In re United Serv. Distribs., Inc., 229 USPQ 237 (TTAB 1986) (finding distributorship services in the field of health and beauty aids related to skin cream); In re Phillips-Van Heusen Corp., 228 USPQ 949 (TTAB 1986) (finding various items of men’s, boys’, girls’ and women’s clothing related to restaurant services and towels); Steelcase Inc. v. Steelcare Inc., 219 USPQ 433 (TTAB 1983) (finding refinishing of furniture, office furniture, and machinery related to office furniture and accessories); Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Huskie Freightways, Inc., 177 USPQ 32 (TTAB 1972) (finding trucking services related to motor trucks and buses).

 

Here, applicant’s goods are a variety of motor and engine oils and lubricating oils for motor vehicles as well as transmission fluids.  Registrants’ goods and services involve fuels, lubricants, and oils also used with motor vehicles.  As such, the goods are used for the same purposes, by the same consumers, and for the same purposes.  Specifically, applicant’s goods are related to the goods and services in the marks owned by Petro-Diamond in that both parties are providing oils, so the goods overlap.  The registrant in those marks is also providing distribution services involving the same oils. 

 

With regard to the “DIAMOND GREEN DIESEL” mark, the trademark examining attorney has attached evidence from the USPTO’s X-Search database consisting of a number of third-party marks registered for use in connection with the same or similar goods as those of both applicant and registrant in this case.  This evidence shows that the goods listed therein, namely diesel fuels and the goods listed by the applicant, are of a kind that may emanate from a single source under a single mark.  See In re I-Coat Co., 126 USPQ2d 1730, 1737 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Infinity Broad. Corp., 60 USPQ2d 1214, 1217-18 (TTAB 2001); In re Albert Trostel & Sons Co.,29 USPQ2d 1783, 1785-86 (TTAB 1993); In re Mucky Duck Mustard Co., 6 USPQ2d 1467, 1470 n.6 (TTAB 1988)); TMEP §1207.01(d)(iii).

 

Thus, a comparison of the goods and services shows that they are highly related.

 

            Conclusion

 

In sum, for the reasons outlined above, applicant’s mark is refused registration based on a likelihood of confusion with the cited mark(s).  Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal(s) by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.

 

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

 

Requirement – Specimen

 

Registration is refused because the specimen does not show the mark in the drawing in use in commerce.  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(g)(i).  The mark appearing on the specimen and in the drawing must match; that is, the mark in the drawing “must be a substantially exact representation of the mark” on the specimen.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.51(a)-(b); TMEP §807.12(a).

 

In this case, the specimen displays the mark as “BLUE DIAMOND”, as the term “BLUE” is fully incorporated into the “D” in “DIAMOND”.  However, the drawing displays the mark as “DIAMOND”.  The mark on the specimen does not match the mark in the drawing because the term “DIAMOND” does not appear without the term “BLUE” in the specimen.  That the term “BLUE” is not separable from “DIAMOND” is evident because “BLUE” is fully enclosed within the “D”.  Applicant has thus failed to provide the required evidence of use of the mark in commerce.  See TMEP §807.12(a).

 

Applicant may respond to this refusal by satisfying one of the following:

 

(1)       Submit a different specimen (a verified “substitute” specimen) that (a) shows the mark in the drawing in actual use in commerce for the goods in the application, and (b) was in actual use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application.

 

Examples of specimens for goods include tags, labels, instruction manuals, containers, photographs that show the mark on the actual goods or packaging, and displays associated with the actual goods at their point of sale.  See TMEP §§904.03 et seq.  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.  TMEP §904.03(i). 

 

(2)       Submit a request to 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(s) and filing requirements such as providing a specimen.

 

The USPTO will not accept an amended drawing submitted in response to this refusal because the changes would materially alter the drawing of the mark in the original application or as previously acceptably amended.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.72(a)-(b); TMEP §807.14.  Specifically, adding the term “BLUE” would change the overall meaning of the mark and require a new search for conflicting marks.

 

For more information about drawings and instructions on how to satisfy these response options online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, see the Drawing webpage.

 

Advisory – Potential Refusals

 

The filing dates of pending U.S. Application Serial Nos. 88303779 and 87503201 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.

 

 

Response Guidelines

 

For this application to proceed toward registration, applicant must explicitly address each refusal and/or requirement raised in this Office action.  If the action includes a refusal, applicant may provide arguments and/or evidence as to why the refusal should be withdrawn and the mark should register.  Applicant may also have other options for responding to a refusal and should consider such options carefully.  To respond to requirements and certain refusal response options, applicant should set forth in writing the required changes or statements.

 

Please call or email the assigned trademark examining attorney with questions about this Office action.  Although the trademark examining attorney cannot provide legal advice or statements about applicant’s rights, the trademark examining attorney can provide applicant with additional explanation about the refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) in this Office action.  See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06.  Although the USPTO does not accept emails as responses to Office actions, emails can be used for informal communications and will be included in the application record.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(c), 2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05. 

 

 

TEAS PLUS OR TEAS REDUCED FEE (TEAS RF) APPLICANTS – TO MAINTAIN LOWER FEE, ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS MUST BE MET, INCLUDING SUBMITTING DOCUMENTS ONLINE:  Applicants who filed their application online using the lower-fee TEAS Plus or TEAS RF application form must (1) file certain documents online using TEAS, including responses to Office actions (see TMEP §§819.02(b), 820.02(b) for a complete list of these documents); (2) maintain a valid e-mail correspondence address; and (3) agree to receive correspondence from the USPTO by e-mail throughout the prosecution of the application.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.22(b), 2.23(b); TMEP §§819, 820.  TEAS Plus or TEAS RF applicants who do not meet these requirements must submit an additional processing fee of $125 per class of goods and/or services.  37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(1)(v), 2.22(c), 2.23(c); TMEP §§819.04, 820.04.  However, in certain situations, TEAS Plus or TEAS RF applicants may respond to an Office action by authorizing an examiner’s amendment by telephone or e-mail without incurring this additional fee.  

 

 

How to respond.  Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action  

 

 

/Andrea R. Hack/

Andrea Hack

Examining Attorney

Law Office 108

571-272-5413

andrea.hack@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 18, 2019 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88599306

 

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. 

 

 

/Andrea R. Hack/

Andrea Hack

Examining Attorney

Law Office 108

571-272-5413

andrea.hack@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 18, 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.”