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:  March 20, 2020

 

OPEN APPLICATION ISSUES THAT MUST BE ADDRESSED IN RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION:

 

The following are the open application issues that the applicant must address in order to have a complete response to this Office action:

 

-Refusal to Register Under Trademark Act Section 2(d)

 

-Requirement for Clarification and Proper Classification of Identification Language

 

-Requirement for Submission of Filing Fees for Each Class Identified or Restriction of Identification Language

 

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.

 

 

SEARCH and Potential Suspension –Earlier-Filed Pending Application

 

The filing date of pending U.S. Application Serial No. 88061812 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. The applicant should note the following additional grounds for refusal.

 

 

REFUSAL to Register Under Trademark Act Section 2(d) –Likelihood of Confusion Exists

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 5031940, 5686232 & 5929934.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registrations.

 

The mark for cited Registration Number 5031940 is SECURED BY ARMOR in standard characters for:

 

“Computer security consulting services, namely, consulting services intended to protect computer software and electronic data from computer viruses and cyber security threats; providing information and online information on protecting against computer viruses and cyber security threats being computer, server and data infrastructure equipment security; Internet hosting services, namely, secure hosting of digital content on the internet and secure website hosting; On-line computer security services, namely, providing security and anonymity for electronically transmitted protected health information, credit card and banking transactions; On-line computer security services, namely, identification of cyber threats through multi-source threat intelligence and analysis, development of mitigation strategies to minimize risk of computer system infection and data exfiltration, remote configuration of pre-integrated security tools to protect computer software and electronic data from viruses and cyber security threats, and infrastructure and security tool notification and configuration to return infrastructure to compliant state, all of the foregoing being for data, programming, equipment and software purposes; Technical support services, namely, remote and on-site infrastructure management services for monitoring, protecting, administration and management of public and private cloud computing IT and application system.”

 

 

The mark for cited Registration Number 5686232 is ARMOR COMPLETE in standard characters for:

 

“Providing information and online information in the fields of computer security, Internet security, data security, cybersecurity, information technology, computer systems, virtualization technologies, cloud computing and computing solutions and systems, datacenter architecture, and enterprise architecture; Computer security services, namely, providing security and anonymity for electronically transmitted protected health information, credit card and banking transactions; Computer security services, namely, identification of cyber threats through multi-source threat intelligence and analysis, development of mitigation strategies to minimize risk of computer system infection and data exfiltration, remote configuration of pre-integrated security tools to protect computer software and electronic data from viruses and cyber security threats, and infrastructure and security tool notification and configuration to return infrastructure to compliant state, all of the foregoing being for data, programming, equipment and software purposes; Secure hosting of digital content on the internet and secure website hosting; Technical support services, namely, remote and on-site infrastructure management services for monitoring, protecting, administration, and management of public and private cloud computing IT and application systems; Technical consulting, analysis, advisory, support, and managed security services in the fields of computer security, Internet security, data security, cybersecurity, information technology, computer systems, virtualization technologies, cloud computing and computing solutions and systems, datacenter architecture, and enterprise architecture; Managed security services and computer security services in the nature of detecting, testing, analyzing, and managing and implementing countermeasures and mitigation strategies and tools against data, computer network, and cyber breaches, threats, and invasions; Planning, designing, integration, configuration, implementation, and management of information technology (IT) systems, and virtualization, cloud-based, and cloud-computing systems and technologies; Software as a service (SAAS), platform as a service (PAAS), and infrastructure as a service (IAAS) featuring software platforms and technical support for the protection and defense against and response to data, computer network, and cyber breaches, threats, and invasions; Internet Protocol (IP) address verification services.”

 

The mark for cited Registration Number 5929934 is ARMOR in standard characters for:

 

“Providing information and online information in the fields of computer security, Internet security, data security, cybersecurity, information technology, computer systems, virtualization technologies, cloud computing and computing solutions and systems, datacenter architecture, and enterprise architecture; Computer security services, namely, providing security and anonymity for electronically transmitted protected health information, credit card and banking transactions; Computer security services, namely, identification of cyber threats through multi-source threat intelligence and analysis, development of mitigation strategies to minimize risk of computer system infection and data exfiltration, remote configuration of pre-integrated security tools to protect computer software and electronic data from viruses and cyber security threats, and infrastructure and security tool notification and configuration to return infrastructure to compliant state, all of the foregoing being for data, programming, equipment and software purposes; computer security services, namely, host-based intrusion detection services; Secure hosting of digital content on the internet and secure website hosting; Technical support services, namely, remote and on-site infrastructure management services for monitoring, protecting, administration, and management of public and private cloud computing IT and application systems; Technical consulting, analysis, advisory, support, and managed security services in the fields of computer security, Internet security, data security, cybersecurity, information technology, computer systems, virtualization technologies, cloud computing and computing solutions and systems, datacenter architecture, and enterprise architecture; Managed security services and computer security services in the nature of detecting, testing, analyzing, and managing and implementing countermeasures and mitigation strategies and tools against data, computer network, and cyber breaches, threats, and invasions; Planning, designing, integration, configuration, implementation, and management of information technology (IT) systems, and virtualization, cloud-based, and cloud-computing systems and technologies; Software as a service (SAAS), platform as a service (PAAS), and infrastructure as a service (IAAS) featuring software platforms and technical support for the protection and defense against and response to data, computer network, and cyber breaches, threats, and invasions; Internet Protocol (IP) address verification services; all of the foregoing for use in connection with IT systems.”

 

All of the cited registrations are owned by Armor Defense, Incorporated.

 

The mark sought in this application is ARMOR in standard characters for:

 

“information technology services, namely, technical support services consisting of troubleshooting of computer hardware and software problems, IT infrastructure consulting; design and development of computer hardware and software; computer programming services, maintenance and updating of computer software; computer consulting services; cloud computing services; managed computer and software services; software licensing services; security, cyber security and compliance services; identity information and device protection services; proactive attack prevention services and management.”

 

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).  Any evidence of record related to those factors need be considered; however, “not all of the DuPont factors are relevant or of similar weight in every case.”  In re Guild Mortg. Co., 912 F.3d 1376, 1379, 129 USPQ2d 1160, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting In re Dixie Rests., Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 1406, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).

 

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

 

Registration Number 5929934   ARMOR

 

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 ARMOR and registrant’s mark is ARMOR.  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 services.  Id.

 

Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar. 

 

Registration Number 5031940   SECURED BY ARMOR

 

The dominant nature of the cited registered mark is the identical shared wording ARMOR. The registrant has stipulated as to the merely descriptive nature of the additional wording SECURED by disclaiming use of the term apart from its use in the mark as a whole. Although marks are compared in their entireties, one feature of a mark may be more significant or dominant in creating a commercial impression.  See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 1058, 224 USPQ 749, 751 (Fed. Cir. 1985); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii).  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).

 

 

Registration Number 5686232   ARMOR COMPLETE

 

The primary, prominent use of the shared identical wording ARMOR shows the dominant nature of the term as it is used in the marks at issue here. Consumers are generally more inclined to focus on the first word, prefix, or syllable in any trademark or service mark.  See Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1372, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1692 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (finding similarity between VEUVE ROYALE and two VEUVE CLICQUOT marks in part because “VEUVE . . . remains a ‘prominent feature’ as the first word in the mark and the first word to appear on the label”); Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Century Life of Am., 970 F.2d 874, 876, 23 USPQ2d 1698, 1700 (Fed Cir. 1992) (finding similarity between CENTURY 21 and CENTURY LIFE OF AMERICA in part because “consumers must first notice th[e] identical lead word”); see also In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1303, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1049 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding “the identity of the marks’ two initial words is particularly significant because consumers typically notice those words first”).

 

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 registrant’s mark.  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 all of the marks at issue, the commercial meaning is identical or nearly identical, namely that the software security services provide shielding or a type of armor for consumers using the identified services.

 

In this case, applicant’s mark does not create a distinct commercial impression from the registered mark because it contains some of the wording in the registered mark and does not add any wording that would distinguish it from that mark. The similarities in the sound, appearance and commercial meaning are all factors that combine to create an overall confusingly similar commercial impression that is shared by the marks in this case.

 

 

COMPARISON OF THE SERVICES

 

Determining likelihood of confusion is based on the description of the services stated in the application and registration at issue, not on extrinsic evidence of actual use.  See In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1307, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1052 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1325, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1749 (Fed. Cir. 2017)).  

 

In this case, the application uses broad wording to describe “information technology services, namely, technical support services consisting of troubleshooting of computer hardware and software problems, IT infrastructure consulting; design and development of computer hardware and software; computer programming services, maintenance and updating of computer software; computer consulting services; cloud computing services; managed computer and software services; security, cyber security and compliance services; identity information and device protection services; proactive attack prevention services and management”, which presumably encompasses all services of the type described, including the following of the registrant’s more narrowly listed relevant services: 

 

“Providing information and online information in the fields of computer security, Internet security, data security, cybersecurity, information technology, computer systems, virtualization technologies, cloud computing and computing solutions and systems, datacenter architecture, and enterprise architecture; Computer security services, namely, providing security and anonymity for electronically transmitted protected health information, credit card and banking transactions; Computer security services, namely, identification of cyber threats through multi-source threat intelligence and analysis, development of mitigation strategies to minimize risk of computer system infection and data exfiltration, remote configuration of pre-integrated security tools to protect computer software and electronic data from viruses and cyber security threats, and infrastructure and security tool notification and configuration to return infrastructure to compliant state, all of the foregoing being for data, programming, equipment and software purposes; Secure hosting of digital content on the internet and secure website hosting; Technical support services, namely, remote and on-site infrastructure management services for monitoring, protecting, administration, and management of public and private cloud computing IT and application systems; Technical consulting, analysis, advisory, support, and managed security services in the fields of computer security, Internet security, data security, cybersecurity, information technology, computer systems, virtualization technologies, cloud computing and computing solutions and systems, datacenter architecture, and enterprise architecture; Managed security services and computer security services in the nature of detecting, testing, analyzing, and managing and implementing countermeasures and mitigation strategies and tools against data, computer network, and cyber breaches, threats, and invasions; Planning, designing, integration, configuration, implementation, and management of information technology (IT) systems, and virtualization, cloud-based, and cloud-computing systems and technologies; Software as a service (SAAS), platform as a service (PAAS), and infrastructure as a service (IAAS) featuring software platforms and technical support for the protection and defense against and response to data, computer network, and cyber breaches, threats, and invasions; Internet Protocol (IP) address verification services”   See, e.g., In re Solid State Design Inc., 125 USPQ2d 1409, 1412-15 (TTAB 2018); Sw. Mgmt., Inc. v. Ocinomled, Ltd., 115 USPQ2d 1007, 1025 (TTAB 2015). 

 

Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s services are legally identical in this case.  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 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.

 

A likelihood of confusion results when the confusingly similar marks are used in the market for the legally identical services. Accordingly, registration of the mark sought in this application is hereby refused under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act in this case. Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusals by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.

 

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

 

 

REQUIREMENT for Clarification and Proper Classification of Identification Language

 

The following bolded wording in the identification of services language is indefinite and must be clarified because it is indefinite as to the intended use or purpose for or form of the services:

 

Information technology services, namely, technical support services consisting of troubleshooting of computer hardware and software problems, IT infrastructure consulting; design and development of computer hardware and software; computer programming services, maintenance and updating of computer software; computer consulting services; cloud computing services; managed computer and software services; software licensing services; security, cyber security and compliance services; identity information and device protection services; proactive attack prevention services and management”. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01. 

 

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

 

The applicant may clarify by amending to some or all of the following suggested amended identification language, if accurate:

 

Please note that parentheses are not acceptable in the identification. See TMEP Section 1402.12. Where the wording “{specify …}” appears in this Office Action, the examining attorney has merely suggested ways to cure the indefiniteness of the identification. The applicant must list the services without parentheses.

 

 

INTERNATIONAL CLASS 037

 

Information technology services, namely, technical support services consisting of troubleshooting in the nature of the repair of computer hardware.

 

 

INTERNATIONAL CLASS 042

 

Information technology services, namely, technical support services consisting of troubleshooting in the nature of diagnosing computer hardware and software problems, IT infrastructure consulting; Design and development of computer hardware and software; Computer programming services, maintenance and updating of computer software; Computer software consulting services; Computer security consulting services; Computer programming consulting services; Cloud computing services, namely, providing temporary use of on-line non-downloadable cloud computing software for {specify the function of the programs, e.g., use in database management, use in electronic storage of data, etc. and, if software is content- or field-specific, the field of use}; Managed application software service provider, namely, hosting, managing, developing, analyzing, and maintaining applications, software and web sites of others in the fields of {specify field, e.g., cyber security}; Computer cyber security services, namely, enforcing, restricting and controlling access privileges of users of computing resources for cloud, mobile or network resources based on assigned credentials; Identity information services in the nature of electronic signature verification services using technology to authenticate user identity; Proactive computer security attack prevention services and management namely, enforcing, restricting and controlling access privileges of users of computing resources for cloud, mobile or network resources based on assigned credentials.

 

 

INTERNATIONAL CLASS 045

 

Computer software licensing services; Security services, namely, providing executive protection; Security guard services; Compliance services, in the nature of regulatory compliance consulting in the field of {specify field or subject matter, e.g., cyber security regulations, internet legal regulations}; Compliance services, namely, legal compliance auditing and regulatory compliance auditing; Identity information services in the nature of verification of personal identity as part of personal background investigations; Device protection services, namely, monitoring of {indicate security devices, e.g., alarms, home security systems} for protecting personal property;

 

 

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.

 

 

REQUIREMENT –Submission of Filing Fees for Each Class Identified or Restriction of Identification Language

 

The application identifies goods and/or services that are classified in at least three (3) classes; however, applicant submitted a fee sufficient for only one (1) class.  In a multiple-class application, a fee for each class is required.  37 C.F.R. §2.86(a)(2), (b)(2); TMEP §§810.01, 1403.01.  For more information about adding classes to an application, see the Multiple-class Application webpage.

 

Therefore, applicant must either (1) restrict the application to the number of classes covered by the fees already paid, or (2) submit the fees for each additional class.

 

The application references goods and/or services 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 and/or services 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 services based on use in commerce that are classified in at least three (3) classes; however, applicant submitted a fee sufficient for only one (1) class.  Applicant must either (a) submit the filing fees for the classes not covered by the submitted fees or (b) restrict the application to the number of classes covered by the fees 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 International Classes 042 & 045; and applicant needs a specimen for class 037.  See more information about specimens.

 

Please note that specimens for services must show a direct association between the mark and the services and include:  (1) copies of advertising and marketing material, (2) a photograph of business signage or billboards, or (3) materials showing the mark in the sale, rendering, or advertising of the services.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.56(b)(2), (c); TMEP §1301.04(a), (h)(iv)(C). 

 

Any webpage printout or screenshot submitted as a specimen, whether for goods or services, must include the webpage’s URL and the date it was accessed or printed.  37 C.F.R. §2.56(c).

 

(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 37 C.F.R. §2.86(a); TMEP §§1403.01, 1403.02(c).

 

For 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, see the Multiple-class Application webpage.

 

 

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

 

 

/Amy Kean/

Trademark Attorney, Law Office 112

Phone: 571-272-8854

Amy.Kean@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 March 20, 2020 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88742302

 

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. 

 

 

/Amy Kean/

Trademark Attorney, Law Office 112

Phone: 571-272-8854

Amy.Kean@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 March 20, 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.”