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:  January 09, 2020

 

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
• Amendment of Identification of Services
• Disclaimer Required

 

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. 3910782 (“MEDIMPACT”), 3190676 (“MEDIMPACT”), 3190674 (“MEDIMPACT”), 3910783 (“MEDIMPACT”), 3756826 (“MEDIMPACT.COM”), 3841357 (“MEDIMPACT.COM”), 3190693 (“MEDIMPACT HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS, INC.”), all owned by the same entity.  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 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 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 [services] and differences in the marks.”); TMEP §1207.01.

 

a.     Comparing the Marks

 

Applicant’s mark is “ESIS MEDICAL IMPACT” in standard characters, and registrant’s marks are “MEDIMPACT”, “MEDIMPACT.COM”, and “MEDIMPACT HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS, INC.”, all in standard characters.

 

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)

 

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).

 

Additionally, consumer confusion has been held likely for marks that do not physically sound or look alike but that convey the same idea, stimulate the same mental reaction, or may have the same overall meaning.  Proctor & Gamble Co. v. Conway, 419 F.2d 1332, 1336, 164 USPQ 301, 304 (C.C.P.A. 1970) (holding MISTER STAIN likely to be confused with MR. CLEAN on competing cleaning products); see In re M. Serman & Co., 223 USPQ 52, 53 (TTAB 1984) (holding CITY WOMAN for ladies’ blouses likely to be confused with CITY GIRL for a variety of female clothing); H. Sichel Sohne, GmbH v. John Gross & Co., 204 USPQ 257, 260-61 (TTAB 1979) (holding BLUE NUN for wines likely to be confused with BLUE CHAPEL for the same goods); Ralston Purina Co. v. Old Ranchers Canning Co., 199 USPQ 125, 128 (TTAB 1978) (holding TUNA O’ THE FARM for canned chicken likely to be confused with CHICKEN OF THE SEA for canned tuna); Downtowner Corp. v. Uptowner Inns, Inc., 178 USPQ 105, 109 (TTAB 1973) (holding UPTOWNER for motor inn and restaurant services likely to be confused with DOWNTOWNER for the same services); TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

In the present case, the wording “MEDIMPACT” in registrant’s marks stimulates the same mental reaction and would create the same commercial impression as the wording “MEDICAL IMPACT” in applicant’s mark. This is so because registrant’s mark appears to be a shortened form of the word “MEDICAL” or “MEDICARE”, and is likely to be understood as such, combined with the word “IMPACT”. Additionally, although applicant’s mark also contains the word “ESIS” at the beginning of the mark, adding a house mark to an otherwise confusingly similar mark will not obviate a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d).  See In re Fiesta Palms LLC, 85 USPQ2d 1360, 1366-67 (TTAB 2007) (finding CLUB PALMS MVP and MVP confusingly similar); In re Christian Dior, S.A., 225 USPQ 533, 534 (TTAB 1985) (finding LE CACHET DE DIOR and CACHET confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iii).  It is likely that services sold under these marks would be attributed to the same source.  See In re Chica, Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1845, 1848-49 (TTAB 2007).  Here, consumer encountering registrant’s marks are likely mistakenly believe that registrant’s services originate from applicant.

 

Moreover, while some of registrant’s marks comprised of additional matter not present in applicant’s mark, namely, “.COM”, and “HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS INC.”, these additional terms do not add to the source-identifying significance of registrant’s marks and thus, do not help differentiate the marks. Generic top-level domains (gTLDs), such as “.com” and “.net,” are generic locators for Internet website addresses and provide no meaningful source-identifying significance.  See Apple Computer v. TVNET.net, Inc., 90 USPQ2d 1393, 1397 (TTAB 2007); TMEP §§1215.01, 1215.02, 1215.09; cf. In re Hotels.com, L.P., 573 F.3d 1300, 1301, 1304, 91 USPQ2d 1532, 1533, 1535 (Fed. Cir. 2009).  Thus, a non-source-identifying gTLD is less significant in creating a commercial impression in the minds of consumers, and is generally given little weight when comparing marks.  See TMEP §1215.09.

 

As to the wording “HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS INC.”, these terms are merely descriptive of a characteristic of registrant’s marks and have therefore been disclaimed. Disclaimed matter that is descriptive of or generic for a party’s 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).

 

Accordingly, in the present case, the marks are confusingly similar and are likely to create the same commercial impression on the mind of the consumer.

 

b.     Comparing the Services

 

Applicant seeks to register its mark in connection with the following services:

 

• “Medical cost containment services to improve health, affordability and patient experience; health benefit plan management services of others in the nature of cost management for the health benefit plans of others; Health related insurance services, namely, cost management of health insurance plans, consumer driven health care plans, and health reimbursement arrangements that mutually benefit employees, employers, and the greater society based on dynamic pricing and risk-management analysis, and health benefit plan cost management services; Health care utilization and review services; Business information services, namely, providing health claim audit information obtained pursuant to medical bill review and insurance premium audits; Cost management for the healthcare, clinical and prescription drug benefit plans of others; medical cost management; business services, namely, prescription drug formulary cost management services; consulting services regarding healthcare and pharmacy costs; healthcare utilization review services; organization and administration of networks of preferred healthcare providers, namely, arranging of managed care contractual services in the fields of health and medical services; cost management for the health care benefit plans of others; health care cost management services and healthcare utilization and review services; business risk management; interactive record-keeping services for use in risk management and regulatory compliance by insurers; providing statistical evaluation of insurance claims performance measures for others; financial record-keeping for insurance risk management; business management consulting services, namely, insurance review in the nature of insurance claims auditing services and tracking and monitoring insurance compliance for business purposes; insurance claims auditing services; business risk assessment and business risk management consultation, namely, providing advice regarding safety and loss programs that identify, mitigate, and prevent risk” in International Class 35; and

 

• “Insurance services, namely, risk control and risk management services, and claims administration and claims processing services, all in the field of workers compensation insurance; Pharmacy benefit management services; medical benefit management services; administration of pharmacy benefit plans; organization and administration of networks of preferred healthcare providers; claims administration services in the field of health insurance; insurance administration in the field of health care; medical insurance case and utilization review and insurance claims adjustment services; administration of managed health care plans; insurance services, namely, administration of healthcare benefit insurance plans; organization and administration of networks of preferred healthcare provider; medical and pharmacy benefit management services, namely, tracking, monitoring, assessing and analyzing information and statistics regarding patient prescription drug use, medical care, and healthcare habits, to identify potential cost savings and clinical benefits; Insurance claims processing, insurance administration and insurance claims adjudication; insurance claims processing in the field of pharmacy claims; Organizing preferred provider programs in the field of workers compensation” in International Class 36.

 

Registrant’s services are identified as follows:

 

• U.S. Registration Nos. 3910782, 3910783: “Administering healthcare management programs, namely, providing healthcare benefit cost consultation, management and tracking” in International Class 35; and “Healthcare benefit management services” in International Class 36;
• U.S. Registration Nos. 3190676, 3190674, and 3190693: “Administering pharmacy reimbursement programs and services; cost management of health benefit plans of others; health care utilization and review services and pharmaceutical utilization and review services; health care cost review and health care cost containment” in International Class 35; and “Pharmacy benefit management services, namely, pharmacy claims processing for insurance companies, employer groups, government programs, and health maintenance organizations via a global computer network and enrollment eligibility administration for healthcare plans and medical plans provided on-line; organization and administration of a network of pharmacy providers; pharmacy benefit management services, namely, providing on-line databases in the field of pharmacy benefits for customers; formulary administration of health plan covered drug benefits, namely, administration of a list of medications covered by a specific health benefits plan” in International Class 36
• U.S. Registration Nos. 3756826 and 3841357: “Providing an Internet website featuring secured and unsecured access to on-line pharmacy benefit management services and information related thereto.” In International Class 36

 

The services are compared to determine whether they are similar, commercially related, or travel in the same trade channels.  See Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369-71, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722-23 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 1165, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2002); TMEP §§1207.01, 1207.01(a)(vi).

 

When analyzing an applicant’s and registrant’s services for similarity and relatedness, that determination is based on the description of the services 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 services identified as “health care utilization and review services” in the application and registrations are identical.  Therefore, it is presumed that the channels of trade and class of purchasers are the same for these services.  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 services are related.  

 

Further, certain wording in the applied for mark is encompassed by the wording in the registrations. For example, applicant’s services identified as “medical benefit management services” and “cost management for the healthcare, clinical and prescription drug benefit plans of others” are encompassed by registrant’s services identified as “healthcare benefit management services” and “cost management of health benefit plans of others”, respectively. Therefore, these services are related. 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). 

 

Additionally, the 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 services are related.

 

With respect to the remaining services, the attached evidence from North American HMS, BRMS, and Optum shows that providers of insurance, generally provide a number of services including, for instance, healthcare benefit management and websites providing information on pharmacy benefit management services, like the services of registrant, and a broad variety of other services, including various services of applicant such as health reimbursement arrangements, insurance claim administration,

 

Accordingly, registration must be 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.  However, if applicant responds to the refusal, applicant must also respond to the requirements set forth below.

 

AMENDMENT OF IDENTIFICATION OF SERVICES

 

Particular wording in the identification of services is indefinite and must be clarified because it does not make clear the nature of the services, does not provide enough specificity as to the nature of the services, or otherwise does not make clear what the services are, as further explained in the suggestions below.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01. 

 

Additionally, the identification of “medical and pharmacy benefit management services, namely, tracking, monitoring, assessing and analyzing information and statistics regarding patient prescription drug use, medical care, and healthcare habits, to identify potential cost savings and clinical benefits” appears to be misclassified. Particularly, the underlined portion of the identification seems to suggest that applicant’s services are business-related in nature and thus, belong in International Class 35.

 

Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate (changes and suggestions in bold):

 

·       International Class 35: medical cost containment services to improve health, affordability and patient experience; health benefit plan management services of others in the nature of cost management for the health benefit plans of others; Health related insurance services for others, namely, cost management of health insurance plans and consumer driven health care plans, and health reimbursement arrangements that mutually benefit employees, employers, and the greater society based on dynamic pricing and risk-management analysis, and health benefit plan cost management services; Health care utilization and review services; Business information services, namely, providing health insurance claim audit information obtained pursuant to medical bill review and insurance premium audits; Cost management for the healthcare, clinical and prescription drug benefit plans of others; medical cost management; business services, namely, prescription drug formulary cost management services; {specify type of consulting, e.g. cost management} consulting services regarding healthcare and pharmacy costs; healthcare utilization review services; organization and administration of networks of preferred healthcare providers, namely, arranging of managed care contractual services in the fields of health and medical services; cost management for the health care benefit plans of others; health care cost management services and healthcare utilization and review services; business risk management; interactive record-keeping services for use in risk management and regulatory compliance by insurers; providing statistical evaluation of insurance claims performance measures for others; financial record-keeping for insurance risk management; business management consulting services, namely, insurance review in the nature of insurance claims auditing services and tracking and monitoring insurance compliance for business purposes; insurance claims auditing services; business risk assessment and business risk management consultation, namely, providing advice regarding safety and loss programs that identify, mitigate, and prevent risk; Cost management for the health benefit and pharmacy benefit plans of others, namely, tracking, monitoring, assessing and analyzing information and statistics regarding patient prescription drug use, medical care, and healthcare habits, to identify potential cost savings

 

·       International Class 36: Insurance services, namely, risk control and risk management services, and claims administration and claims processing services, all in the field of workers compensation insurance; Pharmacy benefit management services; medical benefit management services; Insurance administration of pharmacy benefit plans; Financial organization and financial administration of networks of preferred healthcare providers; claims administration services in the field of health insurance; insurance administration in the field of health care; medical insurance case and utilization review and insurance claims adjustment services; administration of managed health care insurance plans; insurance services, namely, administration of healthcare benefit insurance plans; Financial organization and financial administration of networks of preferred healthcare provider; medical and pharmacy benefit management services, namely, tracking, monitoring, assessing and analyzing information and statistics regarding patient prescription drug use, medical care, and healthcare habits, to identify clinical benefits; Insurance claims processing, insurance administration and insurance claims adjudication; Insurance claims processing in the field of pharmacy claims; Organizing preferred provider programs in the field of workers compensation

 

Applicant may amend the identification to clarify or limit the services, but not to broaden or expand the 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 services may not later be reinserted.  See TMEP §1402.07(e).

 

For assistance with identifying and classifying goods and services in trademark applications, please see the USPTO’s online searchable U.S. Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual.  See TMEP §1402.04.

 

DISCLAIMER REQUIRED

 

Applicant must provide a disclaimer of the unregistrable part of the applied-for mark even though the mark as a whole appears to be registrable.  See 15 U.S.C. §1056(a); TMEP §§1213, 1213.03(a).  A disclaimer of an unregistrable part of a mark will not affect the mark’s appearance.  See Schwarzkopf v. John H. Breck, Inc., 340 F.2d 978, 979-80, 144 USPQ 433, 433 (C.C.P.A. 1965).

 

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

 

The attached evidence from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/medical shows this wording means “of, relating to, or concerned with physicians or the practice of medicine.” Additionally, the identification of services uses the word “MEDICAL” to describe the field of applicant’s services.

 

Applicant may respond to this issue by submitting a disclaimer in the following format: 

 

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

 

For an overview of disclaimers and instructions on how to satisfy this issue using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), see the Disclaimer webpage. 

 

RESPONDING TO THIS OFFICE ACTION

 

Applicant is encouraged to call or email the assigned trademark examining attorney below to resolve the issues in this Office action.  Although the USPTO will not accept an email as a response to an Office action, an applicant can communicate by phone or email to agree to a proposed amendment to the application that will immediately place the application in condition for publication, registration, or suspension.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.62(c); TMEP §707.

 

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.    

 

 

Scleidorovich, Joanna

/Joanna Scleidorovich/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 128

(571) 270-7384

Joanna.Scleidorovich@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 January 09, 2020 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88670483

 

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. 

 

 

Scleidorovich, Joanna

/Joanna Scleidorovich/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 128

(571) 270-7384

Joanna.Scleidorovich@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 January 09, 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.”