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:  May 26, 2020

 

 

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) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
• PRIOR-FILED APPLICATION(S)

 

SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the following mark(s), owned by the same registrant:

 

 

·       WOOT!, in standard characters, for “on-line retail store services in the field of consumer electronics, house wares, home furnishings, home appliances, wine, T-shirts, plush toys, computers and computer accessories” in Class 35 (U.S. Registration No. 3397587)

·       WOOT-OFF!, in standard characters, for “On-line retail store services in the field of consumer electronics, house wares, home furnishings, home appliances, wine, T-shirts, plush toys, computers and computer accessories” in Class 35 (U.S. Registration No. 4462963)

·       WOOT!, in stylized font, for “Retail store services featuring a wide variety of consumer goods; providing consumer product information via the Internet or other communications networks; on-line retail store services in the field of consumer electronics, DVD players and recorders, pre-recorded video disc players and recorders, gaming personal computer consoles, computer software, video games and accessories in the nature of video game components, headphones, microphones, and controllers, video players, recorders and accessories in the nature of video game components, headphones, microphones, and controllers, head phones, portable electronic book reading devices, cell phones and accessories in the nature of cell phone cases, and headsets, cameras and accessories in the nature of blank SD cards, batteries, and camera cases, digital cameras, digital recorders, GPS devices, laptop computers, tablet computers, computers, eReaders, computer accessories in the nature of video game components, headphones, microphones, and keyboards, copy machines and accessories in the nature of toner cartridges, electronic scanners, data storage devices, mobile phones and accessories in the nature of cell phone cases, headsets, video equipment, home audio and theater entertainment systems and electronics, portable entertainment electronics, digital audio players and accessories in the nature of audio player cases, headsets, televisions, television monitors, computer monitors, LCD monitors, house wares, candles, heaters, home furnishings, home appliances, wine, T-shirts, pants, coats, shoes, shorts, athletic clothing, sweatshirts, coats, sweaters, handbags, wallets, writing pens, DVDs, books, recorded music, videotapes, compact discs, printed matters, phonographs, toys, games and playthings, plush toys, art supplies, sporting goods and equipment, exercise equipment and accessories in the nature of barbells, exercise belts, batteries, photography equipment, musical instruments and accessories in the nature of headsets, guitar strings, photographs, posters, framed art, stationery, jewelry, watches, fashion accessories in the nature of jewelry, clothing belts, earrings, motor vehicle parts and accessories in the nature of car seat covers, speakers for wireless communication devices for voice transmission, manual and power tools, measuring instruments, physical and chemical instruments in the nature of beakers, compasses, soaps, perfumery, cosmetics, paints, leather, imitation leather, bags, umbrellas, vacuum cleaners, tools in the nature of hand saws, hand operated clamps, and hand operated drills, furniture, fabric, indoor ornaments of textile, gift cards, household electronic appliances, lighting, lighting fixtures, pots and pans for cooking, silverware, cups, knives, tableware, heaters, cosmetic utensils, cosmetics, yarns and thread for textile use, sheets, towels, pillows, linens, kitchen and household utensils and general food products; dissemination of advertising for others via an on-line electronic communications network; on-line ordering services featuring a variety of consumer goods; promoting the goods and services of others through the advertising, promotion and distribution of discount offers, special pricing promotions, gift cards, coupons or rebates” in Class 35 (U.S. Registration No. 4731952)

 

Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the attached registration(s).

 

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. 

 

 

 

 

 

1.     Similarity of the Marks

 

Applicant’s Mark: WOOT, in standard characters

 

 

Marks are compared in their entireties for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression.  Stone Lion Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 1321, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1371, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 2005)); TMEP §1207.01(b)-(b)(v).  “Similarity in any one of these elements may be sufficient to find the marks confusingly similar.”  In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1746 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Davia, 110 USPQ2d 1810, 1812 (TTAB 2014)), aff’d per curiam, 777 F. App’x 516, 2019 BL 343921 (Fed. Cir. 2019); TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

a.      WOOT!, in standard characters (U.S. Registration No. 3397587)

 

In this case, the marks are highly similar because the marks share the wording, WOOT. The only difference between the marks is applicant’s removal of the exclamation mark in its mark.

 

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).

 

In this case, both marks share the similar wording, WOOT. This similarity creates a confusingly similar commercial impression because consumers are likely to believe that registrant has begun offering similar goods and services under another iteration of its registered mark. Thus, the removal of the exclamation mark does not create a distinct commercial impression that distinguishes applicant’s mark from registrant’s mark.

 

Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar.

 

 

b.     WOOT-OFF!, in standard characters (U.S. Registration No. 4462963)

 

In this case, the marks are highly similar because the marks share the wording, WOOT. The only difference between the marks is applicant’s removal of the wording OFF and the exclamation mark in its mark.

 

In this case, both marks share the similar wording, WOOT. This similarity creates a confusingly similar commercial impression because consumers are likely to believe that applicant’s mark is a condensed form of registrant’s mark or registrant has begun offering similar goods and services under another iteration of its registered mark. Thus, the removal of the wording OFF, the hyphen, and the exclamation mark does not create a distinct commercial impression that distinguishes applicant’s mark from registrant’s mark.

 

 

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”).

 

 

Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar.

 

 

c.      WOOT!, in stylized font (U.S. Registration No. 4731952)

 

 

In this case, the marks are highly similar because the marks share the wording, WOOT. The only difference between the marks is applicant’s removal of the exclamation mark in its mark.

 

 

In this case, both marks share the similar wording, WOOT. This similarity creates a confusingly similar commercial impression because consumers are likely to believe that registrant has begun offering similar goods and services under another iteration of its registered mark. Thus, the removal of the exclamation mark does not create a distinct commercial impression that distinguishes applicant’s mark from registrant’s mark.

 

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

 

Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar.

 

Where the goods and/or services of an applicant and registrant are “similar in kind and/or closely related,” the degree of similarity between the marks required to support a finding of likelihood of confusion is not as great as in the case of diverse goods and/or services.  In re J.M. Originals Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1393, 1394 (TTAB 1987); see Shen Mfg. Co. v. Ritz Hotel Ltd., 393 F.3d 1238, 1242, 73 USPQ2d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2004); TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

 

2.     Relatedness of the Goods and Services

 

Applicant’s Goods and/or Services:

 

·       Class 33: Alcoholic beverages except beers; Alcoholic beverages, except beer; Champagne; Dessert wines; Grape wine; Natural sparkling wines; Rose wine; Rose wines; Sparkling fruit wine; Sparkling grape wine; Sparkling wines; Wine; Wines

 

Registrant’s Goods and/or Services:

 

·       Class 35: on-line retail store services in the field of consumer electronics, house wares, home furnishings, home appliances, wine, T-shirts, plush toys, computers and computer accessories (U.S. Registration Nos. 3397587 and 4462963)

·       Class 35: Retail store services featuring a wide variety of consumer goods; providing consumer product information via the Internet or other communications networks; on-line retail store services in the field of consumer electronics, DVD players and recorders, pre-recorded video disc players and recorders, gaming personal computer consoles, computer software, video games and accessories in the nature of video game components, headphones, microphones, and controllers, video players, recorders and accessories in the nature of video game components, headphones, microphones, and controllers, head phones, portable electronic book reading devices, cell phones and accessories in the nature of cell phone cases, and headsets, cameras and accessories in the nature of blank SD cards, batteries, and camera cases, digital cameras, digital recorders, GPS devices, laptop computers, tablet computers, computers, eReaders, computer accessories in the nature of video game components, headphones, microphones, and keyboards, copy machines and accessories in the nature of toner cartridges, electronic scanners, data storage devices, mobile phones and accessories in the nature of cell phone cases, headsets, video equipment, home audio and theater entertainment systems and electronics, portable entertainment electronics, digital audio players and accessories in the nature of audio player cases, headsets, televisions, television monitors, computer monitors, LCD monitors, house wares, candles, heaters, home furnishings, home appliances, wine, T-shirts, pants, coats, shoes, shorts, athletic clothing, sweatshirts, coats, sweaters, handbags, wallets, writing pens, DVDs, books, recorded music, videotapes, compact discs, printed matters, phonographs, toys, games and playthings, plush toys, art supplies, sporting goods and equipment, exercise equipment and accessories in the nature of barbells, exercise belts, batteries, photography equipment, musical instruments and accessories in the nature of headsets, guitar strings, photographs, posters, framed art, stationery, jewelry, watches, fashion accessories in the nature of jewelry, clothing belts, earrings, motor vehicle parts and accessories in the nature of car seat covers, speakers for wireless communication devices for voice transmission, manual and power tools, measuring instruments, physical and chemical instruments in the nature of beakers, compasses, soaps, perfumery, cosmetics, paints, leather, imitation leather, bags, umbrellas, vacuum cleaners, tools in the nature of hand saws, hand operated clamps, and hand operated drills, furniture, fabric, indoor ornaments of textile, gift cards, household electronic appliances, lighting, lighting fixtures, pots and pans for cooking, silverware, cups, knives, tableware, heaters, cosmetic utensils, cosmetics, yarns and thread for textile use, sheets, towels, pillows, linens, kitchen and household utensils and general food products; dissemination of advertising for others via an on-line electronic communications network; on-line ordering services featuring a variety of consumer goods; promoting the goods and services of others through the advertising, promotion and distribution of discount offers, special pricing promotions, gift cards, coupons or rebates (U.S. Registration No. 4731952)

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

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).

 

The attached Internet evidence establishes that the same entity commonly manufactures, produces, or provides the relevant goods and/or services and markets the goods and/or services under the same mark.  Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods and/or services are considered related for likelihood of confusion purposes.  See, e.g., In re Davey Prods. Pty Ltd., 92 USPQ2d 1198, 1202-04 (TTAB 2009); In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d 1266, 1268-69, 1271-72 (TTAB 2009).

 

Please see the following attached Internet evidence establishing that applicant’s goods and/or services and registrant(s)’ goods and/or services are highly related and commonly emanates from a single source and markets the goods under the same mark:

 

·       http://store.districtwinery.com/collections/frontpage (offering various wines and online retail store services featuring wines)

·       http://www.wineryatbullrun.com/Wines (offering various wines and online retail store services featuring wines)

·       http://www.quievremont.com/Store (offering various wines and online retail store services featuring wines)

·       http://www.morganwinery.com/Wines/All-Wines (offering various wines and online retail store services featuring wines)

 

 

Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods and/or services are considered related for likelihood of confusion purposes.  See, e.g., In re Davey Prods. Pty Ltd., 92 USPQ2d 1198, 1202-04 (TTAB 2009); In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d 1266, 1268-69, 1271-72 (TTAB 2009).

 

Consumers are likely to be confused by the use of similar marks on or in connection with goods and with services featuring or related to those goods.  TMEP §1207.01(a)(ii); see In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1307, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1051 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding retail shops featuring sports team related clothing and apparel related to various clothing items, including athletic uniforms); In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 6 USPQ2d 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (finding retail grocery and general merchandise store services related to furniture); In re United Serv. Distribs., Inc., 229 USPQ 237 (TTAB 1986) (finding distributorship services in the field of health and beauty aids related to skin cream); In re Phillips-Van Heusen Corp., 228 USPQ 949 (TTAB 1986) (finding various items of men’s, boys’, girls’ and women’s clothing related to restaurant services and towels); Steelcase Inc. v. Steelcare Inc., 219 USPQ 433 (TTAB 1983) (finding refinishing of furniture, office furniture, and machinery related to office furniture and accessories); Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Huskie Freightways, Inc., 177 USPQ 32 (TTAB 1972) (finding trucking services related to motor trucks and buses).

 

 

The use of similar marks on or in connection with both products and retail-store services has been held likely to cause confusion where the evidence showed that the retail-store services featured the same type of products.  See In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1307, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1051 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding the use of similar marks for various clothing items, including athletic uniforms, and for retail shops featuring sports team related clothing and apparel likely to cause confusion); In re House Beer, LLC, 114 USPQ2d 1073, 1078 (TTAB 2015) (holding the use of identical marks for beer and for retail store services featuring beer likely to cause confusion); In re Thomas, 79 USPQ2d 1021, 1023 (TTAB 2006) (holding the use of similar marks for jewelry and for retail-jewelry and mineral-store services likely to cause confusion); TMEP §1207.01(a)(ii).

 

The marks create the same commercial impression and the attached evidence illustrates that the goods and services are commercially related and are likely to be encountered together in the marketplace by consumers. Accordingly, consumers are likely to be confused and mistakenly believe that the products and services originate from a common source. Therefore, registration must be refused. 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.  However, if applicant responds to the refusal(s), applicant must also respond to the requirement(s) set forth below.

 

 

PRIOR-FILED APPLICATION(S)

 

The filing date of pending U.S. Application Serial No. 88084629 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.

 

 

RESPONSE GUIDELINES

 

If applicant has questions regarding this Office action, please telephone or e-mail the assigned trademark examining attorney.  All relevant e-mail communications will be placed in the official application record; however, an e-mail communication will not be accepted as a response to this Office action and will not extend the deadline for filing a proper response.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(c), 2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05.  Further, although the trademark examining attorney may provide additional explanation pertaining to the refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) in this Office action, the trademark examining attorney may not provide legal advice or statements about applicant’s rights.  See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06.

 

 

.

 

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

 

 

/Philip Liu/

Trademark Examining Attorney

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

Law Office 109

(571) 272 - 6792

Philip.Liu@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 May 26, 2020 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88815127

 

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. 

 

 

/Philip Liu/

Trademark Examining Attorney

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

Law Office 109

(571) 272 - 6792

Philip.Liu@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 May 26, 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.”