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 31, 2019

 

  

The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney.  Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issues below.  15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(a), 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.

 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES

 

• Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion
• Section 2(e)(1) Refusal – Merely Descriptive
• Amendment to Identification & Classification of Goods Required
• Multiple-Class Application Requirements

 

 

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. 5127620, 5604802, 5818526, 5820060, and 5853687. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registrations.

 

The applicant’s mark is FOIL (stylized) for “electric hydrofoil surfboards; accessories for hydrofoil surfboards” in International Class 28.

 

The registered marks are the following:

 

·       U.S. Reg. No. 5127620- GO FOIL (in standard characters) for “Hydro Foil water sports equipment goods, namely, hydro foils for attachment to surf boards, kite boards and stand up paddle boards” in International Class 28;

·       U.S. Reg. No. 5604802- I-FOIL (in standard characters) for, in relevant part, “Articles and equipment for water sports namely, storage racks for water sports equipment, self-powered water sports boards, water skis, and waterski tow harnesses; foilboards and hydrofoil boards for use in water sports; kiteboards and kite foils for use in water sports; Transport bags adapted for kiteboards, kite foils, foilboards, and hydrofoil boards; foils for use with foilboards for use in water sports; Hydrofoils for water sports apparatus; Kites for water sports apparatus; Kites; Boards used in the practice of water sports” in International Class 28;

·       U.S. Reg. No. 5818526- FOIL STRONGBOX (in standard characters) for “Accessories for surfboards, stand up paddleboards, windsurf boards, hydrofoil boards, namely, board inserts for installation” in International Class 28;

·       U.S. Reg. No. 5820060- VEFOIL (in standard characters) for “Electric hydrofoil surfboards” in International Class 28; and

·       U.S. Reg. No. 5853687- FOILFLUKES (in standard characters) for “Accessory for hydrofoil surfboards, stand-up paddle boards, and kiteboards in the nature of a bolt on tail system that provides forward movement in the water when moved up and down and attaches to hydrofoil surfboards, stand-up paddle boards, and kiteboards, the system is comprised of a mounting plate of stainless steel or aluminum, metal hardware in the nature of nuts and screws for attaching the mounting plate to the board, and a polycarbonate plastic tail for commercial use” in International Class 28.

 

Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that is so similar to a registered mark that it is likely consumers would be confused, mistaken, or deceived as to the commercial source of the goods of the parties.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).  Likelihood of confusion is determined on a case-by-case basis by applying the factors set forth in In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973) (called the “du Pont factors”).  In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1322, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1747 (Fed. Cir. 2017).  Only those factors that are “relevant and of record” need be considered.  M2 Software, Inc. v. M2 Commc’ns, Inc., 450 F.3d 1378, 1382, 78 USPQ2d 1944, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Shen Mfg. Co. v. Ritz Hotel Ltd., 393 F.3d 1238, 1241, 73 USPQ2d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2004)); see In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1744 (TTAB 2018). 

 

Although not all du Pont factors may be relevant, there are generally two key considerations in any likelihood of confusion analysis:  (1) the similarities between the compared marks and (2) the relatedness of the compared goods.  See In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d at 1322, 123 USPQ2d at 1747 (quoting Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 1164-65, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2002)); Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co.,544 F.2d 1098, 1103, 192 USPQ 24, 29 (C.C.P.A. 1976) (“The fundamental inquiry mandated by [Section] 2(d) goes to the cumulative effect of differences in the essential characteristics of the goods [or services] and differences in the marks.”); TMEP §1207.01.

 

Similarity of the Marks

 

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).

 

In this instance, the wording in the applicant’s mark is entirely incorporated in 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 word portions of the marks are identical in part.

 

The fact that the registered marks have additional terms will not obviate the similarities between the applicant’s mark and the registered marks because, although applicant’s mark does not contain the entirety of the registered mark, applicant’s mark is likely to appear to prospective purchasers as a shortened form of registrants’ 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, merely omitting some of the wording from a registered mark may not overcome a likelihood of confusion.  See In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 94 USPQ2d 1257; In re Optica Int’l, 196 USPQ 775, 778 (TTAB 1977); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii). In this case, applicant’s mark does not create a distinct commercial impression from the registered marks because it contains some of the wording in the registered marks and does not add any wording that would distinguish it from those marks.

 

Furthermore, the fact that the applied-for-mark is in stylized font will not obviate the similarities between the marks at issue because the registered marks are in standard characters. A mark in typed or standard characters may be displayed in any lettering style; the rights reside in the wording or other literal element and not in any particular display or rendition.  See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1363, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1909 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 1348, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010); 37 C.F.R. §2.52(a); TMEP §1207.01(c)(iii).  Thus, a mark presented in stylized characters generally will not avoid likelihood of confusion with a mark in typed or standard characters because the word portion could be presented in the same manner of display.  See, e.g., In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d at 1363, 101 USPQ2d at 1909; Squirtco v. Tomy Corp., 697 F.2d 1038, 1041, 216 USPQ 937, 939 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (stating that “the argument concerning a difference in type style is not viable where one party asserts rights in no particular display”).

 

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

 

Based on the foregoing, the marks are confusingly similar.

 

Relatedness of the Goods

 

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

 

In this case, the goods in the application and in U.S. Reg. No. 5820060 are identical in part, namely, “electric hydrofoil surfboards.” Therefore, it is presumed that the channels of trade and class(es) of purchasers are the same for these goods.  See Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., __ F.3d __, 27 USPQ2d 1797, 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012)).  Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods are related.  

 

Further, the both the application and registrations use broad wording to describe the goods, which presumably encompasses all goods of the type described, including more narrowly identified goods. See, e.g., In re Solid State Design Inc., 125 USPQ2d 1409, 1412-15 (TTAB 2018); Sw. Mgmt., Inc. v. Ocinomled, Ltd., 115 USPQ2d 1007, 1025 (TTAB 2015). For example, applicant’s identification contains the following overly broad wording “accessories for hydrofoil surfboards”. The attached evidence shows that a foilboard or hydrofoil board refers to a surfboard with a hydrofoil that extends below the board into the water and, therefore, foildboards, hydrofoil boards, and hydrofoil surfboards essentially refer to the same type of goods. (See attached). Thus, for example, applicant’s “accessories for hydrofoil surfboards” encompasses and overlaps with “Accessories for … hydrofoil boards, namely, board inserts for installation” in U.S. Reg. No. 5818526 and “Accessory for hydrofoil surfboards, … in the nature of a bolt on tail system that provides forward movement in the water when moved up and down and attaches to hydrofoil surfboards, … the system is comprised of a mounting plate of stainless steel or aluminum, metal hardware in the nature of nuts and screws for attaching the mounting plate to the board, and a polycarbonate plastic tail for commercial use” in U.S. Reg. No. 5853687. Additionally, “foilboards and hydrofoil boards for use in water sports” in U.S. Reg. No. 5604802 encompasses and overlaps with applicant’s “electric hydrofoil surfboards,” while “Hydro Foil water sports equipment goods, namely, hydro foils for attachment to surf boards” in U.S. Reg. No. 5127620 and “accessories for hydrofoil surfboards” in the application encompass and overlap each other, since applicant’s accessories encompass hydrofoils, and registrant’s surfboards encompass hydrofoil surfboards.

 

Thus, applicant’s and registrants’ goods are legally identical.  See, e.g., In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 127 USPQ2d 1627, 1629 (TTAB 2018) (citing Tuxedo Monopoly, Inc. v.Gen. Mills Fun Grp., Inc., 648 F.2d 1335, 1336, 209 USPQ 986, 988 (C.C.P.A. 1981); Inter IKEA Sys. B.V. v. Akea, LLC, 110 USPQ2d 1734, 1745 (TTAB 2014); Baseball Am. Inc. v. Powerplay Sports Ltd., 71 USPQ2d 1844, 1847 n.9 (TTAB 2004)).

 

Additionally, the goods of the parties have no restrictions as to nature, type, channels of trade, or classes of purchasers and are “presumed to travel in the same channels of trade to the same class of purchasers.”  In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1268, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).  Thus, applicant’s and registrants’ goods are related.

 

Based on the foregoing, registration is refused under Trademark Act Section 2(d) because consumers are likely to be confused as to source when encountering the applicant’s mark and the registrants’ marks.

 

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

 

Applicant should note the following additional ground for refusal.

 

 

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

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

 

In addition to being merely descriptive, the applied-for mark appears to be generic in connection with the identified goods and, therefore, incapable of functioning as a source-identifier for applicant’s goods.  In re Gould Paper Corp., 834 F.2d 1017, 5 USPQ2d 1110 (Fed. Cir. 1987); In re Empire Tech. Dev. LLC, 123 USPQ2d 1544 (TTAB 2017); see TMEP §§1209.01(c) et seq., 1209.02(a).  Under these circumstances, neither an amendment to proceed under Trademark Act Section 2(f) nor an amendment to the Supplemental Register can be recommended.  See TMEP §1209.01(c).

 

The applicant’s mark is FOIL (stylized) for “electric hydrofoil surfboards; accessories for hydrofoil surfboards” in International Class 28.

 

A mark is merely descriptive if it describes an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose, or use of an applicant’s goods.  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)). 

 

The attached Internet evidence shows that “FOIL” is defined as “a hydrofoil,” which in turn is defined as “any of the winglike structures attached to the hull of some watercraft.” (See attached). As the identification of goods in the instant application shows, the applicant identifies its goods as consisting of “electric hydrofoil surfboards” and “accessories for hydrofoil surfboards.” The attached evidence shows that a hydrofoil surfboards refer to surfboards that have a hydrofoil that extends below the board into the water. (See attached). Thus, the applied-for-mark merely describes the very nature of applicant’s goods, which consist of surfboards that have hydrofoils attach to them or accessories in the nature of hydrofoils.

 

Furthermore, the attached evidence shows third parties in the applicant’s industry using the applied-for-mark to refer to accessories for surfboards or hydrofoil boards. (See attached). For example:

 

• http://foiloutlet.com/product-category/prone-surf-foil/foils/ (uses the term “foil” to describe a category of surfing goods for use with surfboards and other aquatic sporting goods);
• http://www.mackiteboarding.com/pro-choice-hydrofoil-surfboard-package/ (uses the term “foil” to describe and refer to a type of surfboard, such as “foil boards”, as well as surfboard accessories, such as “surf foils”); and
• http://techwewant.com/lift-efoil-review-electric-hydrofoil-surfboard-b5eb79941e2c (refers to electric hydrofoil surfboards are comprising in part of “foils”).

 

Additionally, the applied-for mark shows the wording in stylized lettering.  Stylized descriptive or generic wording is registrable only if the stylization creates a commercial impression separate and apart from the impression made by the wording itself.  See In re Cordua Rests., Inc., 823 F.3d 594, 606, 118 USPQ2d 1632, 1639-40 (Fed. Cir. 2016); In re Northland Aluminum Prods., Inc., 777 F.2d 1556, 1561, 227 USPQ 961, 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985); TMEP §1209.03(w).  Common and ordinary lettering with minimal stylization, as in this case, is generally not sufficiently striking, unique, or distinctive as to make an impression on purchasers separate from the wording.  See In re Sadoru Grp., Ltd., 105 USPQ2d 1484, 1487 (TTAB 2012). In this instance, the stylization in applicant’s mark is minimal and does not create a distinctive impression on potential consumers that is separate from its descriptive wording.

 

Thus, the mark merely describes a feature and the very nature of applicant’s goods. Therefore, registration is refused under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1).

 

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

 

 

AMENDMENT TO IDENTIFICATION & CLASSIFICATION OF GOODS REQUIRED

The identification for “accessories for hydrofoil surfboards” in International Class 28 is indefinite and too broad and must be clarified because this wording does not make clear the nature of the type of accessory and could include goods in more than one international class.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03(a).  For example, waxes for surfboards are in International Class 4, hands tools in the nature of surfboard wax removal tools are in International Class 8, holders used to mount surfboards to motorcycles are in International Class 12, surfboard display racks are in International Class 20, and hydrofoils for surfboards are in International Class 28.  Applicant must either (1) specify the common commercial or generic name for each accessory item, or (2) delete this wording from the identification.  See TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03(a). 

 

Applicant may adopt the following wording, if accurate:

 

Class 4: “Accessories for hydrofoil surfboards, namely, wax”

 

Class 8: “Accessories for hydrofoil surfboards, namely, hands tools in the nature of hydrofoil surfboard wax removal tool”

 

Class 12: “Accessories for hydrofoil surfboards, namely, holder used to mount a hydrofoil surfboard to a motorcycle”

 

Class 20: “Accessories for hydrofoil surfboards, namely, hydrofoil surfboard display rack”

 

Class 28: “electric hydrofoil surfboards; accessories in the nature of hydrofoils for hydrofoil surfboards.”

 

Applicant’s goods 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 or add goods 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 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 will further limit scope, and once goods are deleted, they are not permitted to be reinserted.  TMEP §1402.07(e).

 

For assistance with identifying and classifying goods 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

The application references goods based on use in commerce in more than one international class; therefore, applicant must satisfy all the requirements below for each international class:

 

(1)       List the goods by their international class number in consecutive numerical order, starting with the lowest numbered class (for example, International Class 3: perfume; International Class 18: cosmetic bags sold empty).

 

(2)       Submit a filing fee for each international class not covered by the fee already paid (view the USPTO’s current fee schedule). Specifically, the application identifies goods based on use in commerce that are classified in at least 5 classes; however, applicant submitted a fee sufficient for only 1 class. Applicant must either (a) submit the filing fees for the classes not covered by the submitted fee or (b) restrict the application to the class covered by the fee already paid.

 

(3)       Submit verified dates of first use of the mark anywhere and in commerce for each international class.  See more information about verified dates of use.

 

(4)       Submit a specimen for each international class. The current specimen is acceptable for class 28; and applicant needs a specimen for classes 4, 8, 12, and 20. See more information about specimens.

 

            Examples of specimens for goods include tags, labels, instruction manuals, containers, and photographs that show the mark on the actual goods or packaging, or displays associated with the actual goods at their point of sale.  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.  

 

(5)       Submit a verified statement that “The specimen was in use in commerce on or in connection with the goods and/or services listed in the application at least as early as the filing date of the application.”  See more information about verification.

 

See 15 U.S.C. §§1051(a), 1112; 37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(6)-(7), 2.34(a)(1), 2.86(a); TMEP §§904, 1403.01, 1403.02(c).

 

See an overview of the requirements for a Section 1(a) multiple-class application and how to satisfy the requirements online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form.

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

/Keyla Gandara/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 117

Telephone: (571) 272-7164

Email: Keyla.Gandara@USPTO.gov

 

 

RESPONSE GUIDANCE

• Missing the response deadline to this letter will cause the application to abandon.  A response or notice of appeal must be received by the USPTO before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period.  TEAS and ESTTA maintenance or unforeseen circumstances could affect an applicant’s ability to timely respond.  

 

• Responses signed by an unauthorized party are not accepted and can cause the application to abandon.  If applicant does not have an attorney, the response must be signed by the individual applicant, all joint applicants, or someone with legal authority to bind a juristic applicant.  If applicant has an attorney, the response must be signed by the attorney.

 

• If needed, find contact information for the supervisor of the office or unit listed in the signature block.

 

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

 

USPTO OFFICIAL NOTICE

 

Office Action (Official Letter) has issued

on December 31, 2019 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88622718

 

Your trademark application has been reviewed by a trademark examining attorney.  As part of that review, the assigned attorney has issued an official letter that you must respond to by the specified deadline or your application will be abandoned.  Please follow the steps below.

 

(1)  Read the official letter.

 

(2)  Direct questions about the contents of the Office action to the assigned attorney below. 

 

 

/Keyla Gandara/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 117

Telephone: (571) 272-7164

Email: Keyla.Gandara@USPTO.gov

 

Direct questions about navigating USPTO electronic forms, the USPTO website, the application process, the status of your application, and/or whether there are outstanding deadlines or documents related to your file to the Trademark Assistance Center (TAC).

 

(3)  Respond within 6 months (or earlier, if required in the Office action) from December 31, 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.”