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:  April 16, 2020

 

 

 

.

 

INTRODUCTION

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

 

The applicant must address:

 

• Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion
• Specimen Refusal
• Amendment of the Identification of Goods Required
• Clarification of the Number of Classes for Which Registration is Sought

 

Also contained herein is an advisory regarding a potential Section 2(d) Refusal for a likelihood of confusion of a prior pending application and an advisory regarding multiple class application requirements

 

POTENTIAL SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL - PRIOR-FILED APPLICATIONS

 

The filing dates of pending U.S. Application Serial Nos. 88206159 and 88356548 precede applicant’s filing date.  See attached referenced applications.  If one or more of the marks in the referenced applications register, applicant’s mark may be refused registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d) because of a likelihood of confusion with the registered mark(s).  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §§1208 et seq.  Therefore, upon receipt of applicant’s response to this Office action, action on this application may be suspended pending final disposition of the earlier-filed referenced applications.

 

In response to this Office action, applicant may present arguments in support of registration by addressing the issue of the potential conflict between applicant’s mark and the marks in the referenced applications.  Applicant’s election not to submit arguments at this time in no way limits applicant’s right to address this issue later if a refusal under Section 2(d) issues.

 

Although the applicant is not required to respond to the issue of the prior pending applications, the applicant must respond to the below refusal and requirements within six months of the mailing date of this Office action to avoid abandonment.

 

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. 3123077 (ICE) and 4569686 (GT ICE JUST COOLER).  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registrations.

 

Here, the applicant’s mark is ICE for “solid-state electronic components; solid-state electronic components for cooling systems; electro-hydrodynamic cooling systems; electro-hydrodynamic cooling systems using a forced convective gaseous flow; ionic cooling systems; ionic cooling systems using a forced convective gaseous flow; electronic components in the nature of cooling systems”, and the registrant’s marks are:

 

• ICE (U.S. Registration No. 3123077) for “Electronic products, namely a filter set to be used with power conditioners for the filtering of electrical noise from an AC power source”
• GT ICE JUST COOLER (U.S. Registration No. 4569686) for “Air filters for industrial installations; air-conditioning, air cooling and ventilation apparatus and instruments; coils as parts of distilling, heating or cooling installations; components for air conditioning and cooling systems, namely, evaporative air coolers; filters and filtering devices for air and gas conditioning; turbine ventilators”

 

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. 

 

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)), aff’d per curiam, 777 F. App’x 516, 2019 BL 343921 (Fed. Cir. 2019); TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

Comparison with Mark ICE

 

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 ICE and registrant’s mark is ICE.  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.  Id.

 

Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar. 

 

Comparison with Mark GT ICE JUST COOLER

 

Here, the applicant's standard character mark ICE is confusingly similar to the registrant's mark GT ICE JUST COOLER.

 

Applicant's mark is confusingly similar to registrant's mark because they both contain the wording ICE.  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 registrant’s mark also includes the tag line JUST COOLER as well as the letters GT.  The applicant’s deletion of this matter, however, is not enough to obviate the similarities between the marks.  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 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.  Rather, the wording JUST COOLER appears in the mark like a tagline and separate from the other wording GT ICE.  Furthermore, the letter GT does not create a different commercial impression as GT has no meaning and doesn’t change the meaning of the word ICE in the mark. 

 

For these reasons, when consumers encounter the parties' goods using marks with these similarities, they are likely to be confused as to the source of the goods.  Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar.

 

Relatedness of the Goods

 

The goods 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).

 

The compared goods 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] 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).

 

Here, the applicant's “solid-state electronic components; solid-state electronic components for cooling systems; electro-hydrodynamic cooling systems; electro-hydrodynamic cooling systems using a forced convective gaseous flow; ionic cooling systems; ionic cooling systems using a forced convective gaseous flow; electronic components in the nature of cooling systems” are closely related to the registrants’ “Electronic products, namely a filter set to be used with power conditioners for the filtering of electrical noise from an AC power source” (ICE) and “Air filters for industrial installations; air-conditioning, air cooling and ventilation apparatus and instruments; coils as parts of distilling, heating or cooling installations; components for air conditioning and cooling systems, namely, evaporative air coolers; filters and filtering devices for air and gas conditioning; turbine ventilators” (GT ICE JUST COOLER). 

 

Determining likelihood of confusion is based on the description of the goods 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 “solid-state electronic components; solid-state electronic components for cooling systems; electro-hydrodynamic cooling systems; electro-hydrodynamic cooling systems using a forced convective gaseous flow; ionic cooling systems; ionic cooling systems using a forced convective gaseous flow; electronic components in the nature of cooling systems”, which presumably encompasses all goods of the type described, including registrants’ more narrow “Electronic products, namely a filter set to be used with power conditioners for the filtering of electrical noise from an AC power source” (ICE) and “Air filters for industrial installations; air-conditioning, air cooling and ventilation apparatus and instruments; coils as parts of distilling, heating or cooling installations; components for air conditioning and cooling systems, namely, evaporative air coolers; filters and filtering devices for air and gas conditioning; turbine ventilators” (GT ICE JUST COOLER).  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 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 registrant’s goods are related.

 

Therefore, as these goods originate from the same sources, these goods are related for likelihood of confusion purposes. 

 

Because the marks are confusingly similar and the goods are closely related, consumers are likely to be confused as to the source of the goods.  Thus, registration is refused pursuant to Trademark Act Section 2(d). 

 

RESPONSE TO REFUSAL

 

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

 

SPECIMEN REFUSAL

 

Specimen is not an acceptable webpage display.  Registration is refused because the specimen in International Classes 9 or 11 is not acceptable as a display associated with the goods and does not show the applied-for mark as actually used in commerce.  Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; 37 C.F.R. §2.56(a), (b)(1); see TMEP §§904, 904.03(g)-(i), 904.07(a).  An application based on Trademark Act Section 1(a) must include a specimen showing the applied-for mark as actually used in commerce for each international class of goods identified in the application or amendment to allege use.  15 U.S.C. §1051(a)(1); 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a). 

 

A webpage or catalog display specimen (1) must show use of the mark directly associated with the goods and (2) such use must be of a point-of-sale nature.  37 C.F.R. §2.56(b)(1).  This means that this type of display specimen must include the following:

 

(1)       A picture or sufficient textual description of the goods;

(2)       The mark associated with the goods; and

(3)       A means for ordering the goods such as a “shopping cart” button/link, an order form, or a telephone number for placing orders. 

 

See In re Sones, 590 F.3d 1282, 1286-89, 93 USPQ2d 1118, 1122-24 (Fed. Cir. 2009); In re Azteca Sys., Inc., 102 USPQ2d 1955, 1957-58 (TTAB 2012); In re Dell Inc., 71 USPQ2d 1725, 1727 (TTAB 2004); Lands’ End v. Manbeck, 797 F. Supp. 511, 514, 24 USPQ2d 1314, 1316 (E.D. Va. 1992); TMEP §904.03(h), (i)-.03(i)(D).  

 

In this case, the specimen does not show the mark associated with applicant’s goods that is separable from the word VENTIVA and does not show sufficient means for ordering the goods.  Specifically, the specimen submitted shows the applied-for mark on the webpage as “VENTIVA ICE S2 SOLUTION”, “VENTIVA ICE S1 SOLUTION”, and VENTIVA ICE P1 DEVELOPMENT POWER SUPPLY”, which shows the mark as VENTIVA ICE as ICE does not seem separable from the word VENTIVA.  Furthermore, the button says “Request Demo” and there is not a means of ordering the product on the page”.  Therefore, this specimen is merely advertising and not a display association with the goods at a point of sale. 

 

Accordingly, such material is mere advertising, which is not acceptable as a specimen for goods.  See In re Siny Corp., 920 F.3d 1331, 1336, 2019 USPQ2d 127099, at *2-3 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citing Powermatics, Inc. v. Globe Roofing Prods. Co., 341 F.2d 127, 130, 144 USPQ 430, 432 (C.C.P.A. 1965)); see also Avakoff v. S. Pac. Co., 765 F.2d 1097, 1098, 226 USPQ 435, 436 (Fed. Cir. 1985); TMEP §904.04(b), (c). 

 

Examples of specimens.  Specimens for goods include a photograph of (1) the actual goods bearing the mark; (2) an actual container, packaging, tag or label for the goods bearing the mark; or (3) a point-of-sale display showing the mark directly associated with the goods.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.56(b)(1), (c); TMEP §904.03(a)-(m).  As specified above, a webpage specimen submitted as a display associated with the goods must show the mark in association with a picture or textual description of the goods and include information necessary for ordering the goods.  TMEP §904.03(i); see 37 C.F.R. §2.56(b)(1), (c).  Any webpage printout or screenshot submitted as a specimen must include the webpage’s URL and the date it was accessed or printed.  37 C.F.R. §2.56(c).

 

Response options.  Applicant may respond to this refusal by satisfying one of the following for each applicable international class:

 

(1)       Submit a different specimen (a verified “substitute” specimen) that (a) was in actual use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application or prior to the filing of an amendment to allege use and (b) shows the mark in actual use in commerce for the goods identified in the application or amendment to allege use.  A “verified substitute specimen” is a specimen that is accompanied by the following statement made in a signed affidavit or supported by a declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20:  “The substitute (or new, or originally submitted, if appropriate) specimen(s) was/were in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application or prior to the filing of the amendment to allege use.”  The substitute specimen cannot be accepted without this statement.

 

(2)       Amend the filing basis to intent to use under Section 1(b) (which includes withdrawing an amendment to allege use, if one was filed), as no specimen is required before publication.  This option will later necessitate additional fee(s) and filing requirements, including a specimen.

 

For an overview of the response options referenced above and instructions on how to satisfy these options using the online Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, see the Specimen webpage.  

 

REQUIREMENTS

 

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

 

AMENDMENT OF THE IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS REQUIRED

 

The wording in the identification of goods for International Class 9 must be clarified because it is too broad and could include goods in other international classes.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03.  In particular, this wording could encompass cooling pads for computers in Class 9 or cooling systems being air conditioners in Class 11.

 

Therefore, the applicant may adopt the following identification of goods, if accurate:

 

Class 9: solid-state electronic components, namely, {indicate the specific type, e.g., drives}; solid-state electronic components for cooling systems, namely, {indicate the specific type e.g., drives}; electro-hydrodynamic cooling systems being cooling pads for { indicate goods, e.g. computers, notebooks}; electro-hydrodynamic cooling systems using a forced convective gaseous flow being cooling pads for {indicate goods, e.g. computers, notebooks}; ionic cooling systems, namely, cooling pads for {indicate goods, e.g. computers, notebooks}; ionic cooling systems using a forced convective gaseous flow, namely, cooling pads for {indicate goods, e.g. computers, notebooks}; electronic components in the nature of cooling systems, namely cooling pads for {indicate goods, e.g. computers, notebooks}; electronic components in the nature of cooling systems being cooling pads for {indicate goods, e.g. computers, notebooks}

 

Class 11: electro-hydrodynamic cooling systems being {indicate the type of cooling system, e.g., cooling fan systems for wall ovens}; electro-hydrodynamic cooling systems using a forced convective gaseous flow being {indicate the type of cooling system, e.g., cooling fan systems for wall ovens}; ionic cooling systems, namely, {indicate the specific type of cooling system, e.g., air-conditioning, air cooling and ventilation apparatus and instruments}; ionic cooling systems using a forced convective gaseous flow, namely, {indicate the specific type of cooling system, e.g., air-conditioning, air cooling and ventilation apparatus and instruments}; electronic components in the nature of cooling systems, namely {indicate the specific type of cooling system, e.g., air-conditioning, air cooling and ventilation apparatus and instruments}

 

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 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 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 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.

 

CLARIFICATION OF THE NUMBER OF CLASSES FOR

WHICH REGISTRATION IS SOUGHT REQUIRED

 

The applicant has identified goods that could be classified in at least two (2) classes.  However, the applicant submitted a fee sufficient for only one (1) class.  Applicant must either submit the filing fees for the classes not covered by the submitted fees or restrict the application to the number of classes covered by the fees already paid.

 

MULTIPLE-CLASS APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS ADVISORY

 

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 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(s) already paid (view the USPTO’s current fee schedule). 

 

(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 not acceptable for any international class.  See more information about specimens.

 

Examples of specimens.  Specimens for goods include a photograph of (1) the actual goods bearing the mark; (2) an actual container, packaging, tag or label for the goods bearing the mark; or (3) a point-of-sale display showing the mark directly associated with the goods.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.56(b)(1), (c); TMEP §904.03(a)-(m).  A webpage specimen submitted as a display associated with the goods must show the mark in association with a picture or textual description of the goods and include information necessary for ordering the goods.  TMEP §904.03(i); see 37 C.F.R. §2.56(b)(1), (c). 

 

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).

 

The USPTO changed the federal trademark rules to eliminate the TEAS RF application, which is now considered a “TEAS Standard” application.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.6(a)(iii).  The fee for adding classes to a TEAS Standard application is $275 per class.  See id.  For more information about these changes, see the Mandatory Electronic Filing webpage.

 

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.

 

TEAS RF NAME CHANGE

 

USPTO changed federal trademark rules to rename TEAS Reduced Fee (RF) application to “TEAS Standard” and to eliminate TEAS Regular application form.  Current TEAS RF applicants will generally need to continue to meet similar application requirements.  See Changes to the Trademark Rules of Practice to Mandate Electronic Filing Final Rule and Correction, 84 Fed. Reg. 37,081, 68,045, 69,330 (published July 31, 2019, effective Feb. 15, 2020) (codified at 37 C.F.R. pts. 2 & 7).  And current TEAS Regular applicants must now provide an email address when submitting documents through TEAS, will generally be sent correspondence electronically from the USPTO, and will pay a filing fee of $275 per class (instead of $400) when adding a class.  For more information about these changes, see the Mandatory Electronic Filing webpage. 

 

RESPONSE GUIDELINES

 

Please call or email the assigned trademark examining attorney with questions about this Office action. 

 

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

 

 

/Sarah C. Hopkins/

Sarah Hopkins

Examining Attorney

Trademark Office 123

(571) 270-0942

sarah.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.