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 20, 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.

 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES

 

• SECTION 2(d) PARTIAL REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
• ADVISORY: PRIOR – FILED PENDING APPLICATION
• IDENTIFICATION AND CLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND SERVICES REQUIREMENT

 

SECTION 2(d) PARTIAL REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

 

This partial refusal applies only to the goods and/or services specified therein.

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is partially refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration Nos. 2074241, 4655281, 4963051, and 5603854.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registration.

 

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.

 

Comparison of the Marks

 

Applicant’s mark is ARIA in standard character form owned by Axon Enterprise, Inc.

 

The registrants’ marks are as follows:

 

• The mark in U.S. Registration No. 2074241 is ARIA in typed drawing form, owned by Avaya Inc.
• The mark in U.S. Registration No. 4655281 is ARIA in standard character form, owned by Thermo Finnigan.
• The mark in U.S. Registration No. 4963051 is ARIA in standard character form, owned by Advanced Electronics Limited.
• The mark in U.S. Registration No. 5603854 is ARYA in standard character form, owned by SpinetiX AG.

 

In the case of Registration Nos. 2074241, 4655281, and 4963051, applicant’s and registrant’s marks are confusingly similar because they are identical.

 

In a likelihood of confusion determination, the marks in their entireties are compared for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression.  In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1323, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Stone Lion Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 1321, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1371, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 2005)); In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973); TMEP §1207.01(b)-(b)(v). 

 

In the present case, applicant’s mark is ARIA and registrants’ marks are ARIA.  These marks are identical in appearance, sound, and meaning, “and have the potential to be used . . . in exactly the same manner.”  In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 116 USPQ2d 1406, 1411 (TTAB 2015), aff’d, 866 F.3d 1315, 123 USPQ2d 1744 (Fed. Cir. 2017).  Additionally, because they are identical, these marks are likely to engender the same connotation and overall commercial impression when considered in connection with applicant’s and registrant’s respective goods and/or services.  Id.

 

In the case of Registration No. 5603854, the applied-for and registered marks are similar in appearance, sound, and overall commercial impression. Applicant’s and registrant’s marks are confusingly similar because they are spelled similarly. In fact, the only difference between the marks is that the applied-for mark substitutes the letter “I” for the “Y” that is featured in the registered mark. However, the marks are phonetically equivalent.

 

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).

 

The marks are essentially phonetic equivalents and thus sound similar.  Similarity in sound alone may be sufficient to support a finding that the marks are confusingly similar.  In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB 1988); see In re 1st USA Realty Prof’ls, Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1581, 1586 (TTAB 2007); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iv).

 

Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar.

 

Comparison of the Goods/Services

 

Applicant’s relevant goods and services are as follows:

 

• Class 9:  video cameras featuring voice recognition software; portable electronic devices for the sending and receiving of digital data, for use as a video camera; voice recognition software

 

• Class 38: communication and telecommunication services, namely, electronic transmission and retrieval of data, images, audio, video and documents, including text, messages, and electronic mail, over local or global communications networks, including the internet, intranets, extranets, mobile communication, cellular and satellite networks; communications by computer terminals; communication between computer terminals; delivery of data by telecommunications; electronic transmission of streamed and downloadable audio and video files via computer and other communications networks; delivery of messages by electronic transmission; electronic transmission of audio and video files via communication networks

 

• Class 42: Application service provider services featuring computer software, namely voice recognition software, voice-enabled software applications.

 

Registrant’s goods and services include the following:

 

• Registration No. 2074241 – Class 9: computer software for use in voice mail and voice messaging, electronic mail, automated attendant, interactive voice response, call processing, word processing, fax processing, video and multimedia applications, namely, for integrating voice messaging, electronic mail and business applications software, and for graphical user interfaces, programming tools and utilities and program development, and instructional manuals distributed therewith.

 

• Registration No. 4655281 – Class 9: Software For Use To Control Liquid Chromatographs

 

• Registration No. 4963051 – Class 9: Fire detection apparatus, namely, cameras and sensors to detect fires

 

• Registration No. 5603854 – Class 38:  Telecommunications, namely, electronic data transmission.

 

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).

 

Applicant’s and registrants’ goods and/or services are related to one another because several of the goods and/or services are encompassed by the other parties’ goods and/or services. For example, in the case of Registration Nos. 2074241and 4655281, the registrant’s software has very specific functions. However, the function of applicant’s Class 9 “voice recognition software” and Class 42 “Application service provider services featuring computer software, namely voice recognition software and voice-enabled software applications” is not specified. The function of applicant’s Class 9 and Class 42 software could be the same as these registrants’ software, namely, controlling liquid chromatographs or “integrating voice messaging, electronic mail and business applications software, and for graphical user interfaces, programming tools and utilities and program development, and instructional manuals distributed therewith.”

 

In the case of Registration No. 4963051, the registrant’s goods include cameras that are used to detect fires. Applicant’s goods include “video cameras featuring voice recognition software; portable electronic devices for the sending and receiving of digital data, for use as a video camera.” The purpose of applicant’s video cameras could be used to detect fires, which is the same purpose of this registrant’s cameras.

 

Similarly, in the case of Registration No. 5603854, this registrant’s Class 38 services in the nature of “electronic data transmission” is broadly worded and could include the various electronic data transmission services specified in Class 38 of the application (i.e., the various electronic transmission of images, audio, video and documents).

 

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 the case of Registration Nos. 2074241, 4655281 and 4963051, the application use(s) broad wording to describe cameras and software, which presumably encompasses all goods and/or services of the type described, including the registrants more narrow cameras that are used to detect fires and software that is used to control liquid chromotographs, integrating messages, or program and develop software tools and utilities.  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).  In the case of Registration No. 5603854, the registration uses broad wording to describe electronic data transmission services, which presumably encompasses the various types of electronic transmission services specified in the application. Id. Thus, applicant’s and registrants’ goods and/or services 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/or 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/or services are related.

 

Thus, upon encountering ARIA, ARIA, ARIA, ARIA, and ARYA used on the identified goods and/or services, consumers are likely to be confused and mistakenly believe that the respective goods and/or services emanate from a common source. Accordingly, registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration Nos. 2074241, 4655281, 4963051, and 5603854. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.

 

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

 

ADVISORY: PRIOR – FILED PENDING APPLICATION

 

The filing date of pending U.S. Application Serial No. 87955130 precedes applicant’s filing date.  See attached referenced application.  If the mark in the referenced application registers, applicant’s mark may be refused registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d) because of a likelihood of confusion between the two marks.  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 application.

 

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 mark in the referenced application.  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.

 

IDENTIFICATION AND CLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND SERVICES REQUIREMENT

 

The identification of goods and services is unacceptable and must be clarified because the wording used to describe several of the goods and/or services is overly broad and/or does not adequately specify the nature, purpose, function, and/or common commercial name of the goods and/or services. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03.  For example, several of the goods identified as software in Class 9 of the application of does not specify the nature of the software. Thus, the software could be downloadable, which is a Class 9 good, or it could be software as a service, which is a Class 42 service. Thus, further specification about the nature of the software is required.

 

As another example, “providing information via voice-controlled automated inquiries, namely, providing an online automated resources for searching, locating, and providing information in the field of public safety” in Class 35 is vaguely worded such that the nature of the services cannot be identified.

 

Moreover, some of the goods and/or services appear to be misclassified. For example, applicant has classified “providing information in the field of public safety” in International Class 42; however, the proper classification is International Class 45.  Therefore, applicant may respond reclassifying these goods and/or services in the proper international class, deleting the misclassified goods and/or services from the application, or deleting the remainder of the items in the identification and reclassifying the specified goods and/or services in the proper international class.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.86(a), 6.1; TMEP §§1403.02 et seq.  If applicant adds one or more international classes to the application, applicant must comply with the multiple-class requirements specified in this Office action.

 

The examining attorney has provided a recommendation of an acceptable identification of goods and services below. The wording that has been bolded indicates the examining attorney’s recommendation which makes applicant’s initial wording acceptable. Applicant may amend the identification to the following wording, if accurate: 

 

“Class 9: Computers; computer peripheral devices; computer hardware; portable electronic devices for the sending and receiving of digital data, for use as a handheld computer; video cameras featuring voice recognition software; portable electronic devices for the sending and receiving of digital data, for use as a video camera; {specify nature of software in Class 9, e.g., downloadable} computer software for connecting, operating, integrating, controlling, and managing networked portable electronic devices via wireless networks; telephone-based information retrieval software, namely, {specify nature and function of software in Class 9, e.g., downloadable software for retrieving information from the internet via smartphone devices}; personal vehicle integration software, namely, specify nature and function of software in Class 9, e.g., downloadable software for use in mobile devices for integrating electronic data with real world environments for the purpose of locating vehicles}; electronic voice recognition apparatus, namely, {specify nature of device in Class 9, e.g., computer hardware for use in receiving and processing audio content, interactive speakers for receiving and processing audio content}; {specify nature of software in Class 9, e.g., downloadable} computer software for personal information management; {specify nature of software in Class 9, e.g., downloadable} voice recognition software for {specify function or purpose of software, e.g., use as an electronic personal assistant}; {specify nature of software in Class 9, e.g., downloadable} speech to text conversion software; {specify nature of software in Class 9, e.g., downloadable} computer software for accessing, browsing and searching online database; {specify nature of software in Class 9, e.g., downloadable} computer software for the redirection of messages, Internet e-mail, and/or other data to one or more portable electronic devices from a data store on or associated with a personal computer or a server; {specify nature of software in Class 9, e.g., downloadable} computer software used to process voice commands, and create audio responses to voice commands; {specify nature of software in Class 9, e.g., downloadable} computer software for dictation; {specify nature of software in Class 9, e.g., downloadable} computer software for enabling hands-free use of a portable electronic device through voice recognition; {specify nature of software in Class 9, e.g., downloadable} computer software for global positioning and for providing travel directions; {specify nature of software in Class 9, e.g., downloadable} computer software for providing information in the field of public safety

 

Class 35: computerized database and file management; data processing services; creating indexes of information, sites and other resources available on global computer networks and other electronic and communications networks for others; providing information via voice-controlled automated inquiries, namely, providing an online automated resources for searching, locating, and providing information in the field of public safety

 

Class 38: communication and telecommunication services, namely, electronic transmission {delete language that is misclassified in Class 38, i.e., and retrieval} of data, images, audio, video and documents, including text, messages, and electronic mail, over local or global communications networks, including the internet, intranets, extranets, mobile communication, cellular and satellite networks; communications by computer terminals; {specify nature of services, e.g., communication services by computer terminals}, namely, communication between computer terminals; delivery of data by telecommunications, namely, {specify common commercial name of services, e.g., data transmission}; electronic transmission of streamed and downloadable audio and video files via computer and other communications networks; delivery of messages by electronic transmission; electronic transmission of audio and video files via communication networks

 

Class 42: Application service provider services featuring computer software, namely, computer software for creating, authoring, distributing, downloading, transmitting, receiving, playing, editing, extracting, encoding, decoding, displaying, storing and organizing text, graphics, images, audio, video, and multimedia content, computer software for personal information management, database management software, database synchronization software, voice recognition software for {specify function or purpose of voice recognition software, e.g., use as an electronic personal assistant}, speech to text conversion software, voice-enabled software applications for {specify function or purpose of voice recognition software, e.g., use as an electronic personal assistant}, computer software for accessing, browsing and searching online databases, computer software for the redirection of messages, Internet e-mail, and/or other data to one or more electronic handheld devices from a data store on or associated with a personal computer or a server, computer software used to process voice commands and create audio responses to voice commands, computer software for dictation, and computer software for enabling hands-free use of a portable electronic device through voice recognition; software as a service featuring computer software used for controlling stand-alone voice controlled information and portable electronic devices; software as a service featuring computer software for accessing, browsing, and searching online databases, audio, video and multimedia content and software applications; software as a service featuring computer software for accessing, monitoring, tracking, searching, saving, and sharing information on topics in the field of public safety; software as a service featuring computer software for use to connect and control portable electronic devices; providing customized computer searching services, namely, searching and retrieving information at the user's specific request via a {specify type of database, e.g. electronic} database and the internet; creating {specify type of indexes, e.g., computer network-based, website based} indexes of information, sites and other resources available on global computer networks and other electronic and communications networks for others; {specify nature of services in Class 42, e.g., providing a website featuring technology that allows users to make voice-controlled automated inquiries} for searching, locating, and providing information in the field of public safety; {specify nature of services in Class 42, e.g., computer searching services}, namely, electronic {delete language that is misclassified in Class 42, i.e.,  transmission and}retrieval of information in the nature of data, images, audio, video and documents, including text, messages, and electronic mail, over local or global communications networks, including the internet, intranets, extranets, mobile communication, cellular and satellite networks; {specify nature of software in Class 42, e.g., software as a services featuring} computer software for connecting, operating, integrating, controlling, and managing networked portable electronic devices via wireless networks; {specify nature of software in Class 42, e.g., software as a services featuring} computer software for accessing, browsing and searching online database

 

Class 45: Providing information and news in the field of law; providing information and news in the field of personal safety; providing information in the field of public safety

 

Applicant’s goods and/or services 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 and/or services or add goods and/or services 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 and/or services 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 and/or services will further limit scope, and once goods and/or services are deleted, they are not permitted to be reinserted.  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.

 

RESPONSE GUIDELINES

 

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 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. 

 

 

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

 

 

/Dean A. Hopkins II/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 123

(571) 272-5472

dean.hopkins@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 20, 2019 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88672875

 

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. 

 

 

/Dean A. Hopkins II/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 123

(571) 272-5472

dean.hopkins@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 20, 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.”