To: | KUKUA CORP. (ATTORNEY@CUMMINGSLAW.NET) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88826896 - OZZIE & BO - IL-011 |
Sent: | January 05, 2021 05:12:56 PM |
Sent As: | ecom125@uspto.gov |
Attachments: |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88826896
Mark: OZZIE & BO
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
Applicant: KUKUA CORP.
|
|
Reference/Docket No. IL-011
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
FINAL 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) and/or Electronic System for Trademark Trials and Appeals (ESTTA). A link to the appropriate TEAS response form and/or to ESTTA for an appeal appears at the end of this Office action.
This Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on November 26, 2020.
In a previous Office action, the trademark examining attorney refused registration of the applied-for mark based on the following: Trademark Act Section 2(d) for a likelihood of confusion with a registered mark. In addition, applicant was required to satisfy the following requirement(s): clarify the mark ownership.
The following refusal has been withdrawn: Section 2(d) refusal. See TMEP §§713.02, 714.04.
Further, the trademark examining attorney maintains and now makes FINAL the requirement in the summary of issues below. See 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b); TMEP §714.04.
SUMMARY OF ISSUES MADE FINAL that applicant must address:
Unacceptable Name/Entity Change
Because applicant’s response still does not clarify this matter, this requirement is now made final.
In response to the initial requirement, applicant stated “Applicant?s company, INFINITE LOOKS, INC., is a corporation registered in the state of New York”. However, applicant did not change the “owner” section in the application, which sets for Kukua Corp. Applicant did however change the entity type to a corporation. Thus, it is unclear if “applicant’s company” refers to the actual applicant, or a related entity, and it is still unclear what the name of the applicant is and what type of legal entity the applicant is and it still appears that applicant has improperly attempted to change the owner of the application.
Applicant has requested that the applicant name be amended; however, applicant has not provided or recorded in the USPTO database ownership transfer documentation or any other documentation showing transfer of title nor has applicant indicated whether the assignee is a successor to applicant’s business. An intent-to-use application is void if, prior to filing an allegation of use, the application is assigned to a party other than either a successor to the applicant’s business or to a portion of the applicant’s business to which the mark pertains, if that business is ongoing and existing. 15 U.S.C. §1060(a)(1); 37 C.F.R. §3.16; TMEP §501.01(a); see Cent. Garden & Pet Co. v. Doskocil Mfg. Co., 108 USPQ2d 1134, 1146 (TTAB 2013); Clorox Co. v. Chem. Bank, 40 USPQ2d 1098, 1105-06 (TTAB 1996). Accordingly, the request to amend the applicant name is denied until (1) clear chain of title to the new party has been established and (2) a statement that the assignee is a successor to applicant’s business is provided. 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b); TMEP §814.
To establish chain of title to the application, one of the following must be satisfied:
(1) The new owner must (a) record an assignment, name change, or other documentation affecting title with the USPTO’s Assignment Recordation Branch showing a clear chain of title to the mark in the new owner; and (b) promptly notify the trademark examining attorney that the documentation has been recorded.; OR
(2) The new owner must file either (a) a written statement, verified with an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20, explaining in detail the chain of title to the new owner; or (b) documentation showing transfer of title to the new owner. However, the registration will not issue in the name of the new owner without recording chain of title documentation with the USPTO and notifying the trademark examining attorney, as specified in (1) above.
TMEP §502.01; see 15 U.S.C. §1060; 37 C.F.R. §§2.193(e)(1), 3.73(b)(1); TMEP §502.02(a).
Assignments and other documents affecting title may be filed electronically. There is a fee for recording ownership changes. 37 C.F.R. §§2.6(b)(6), 3.41(a); TMEP §503.03(d). Recording an assignment or other ownership transfer document does not constitute a response to an Office action. TMEP §503.01(d). Applicant must still file a separate response to this Office action. See id.
If the application was filed by the owner and the there is an inadvertent error in the applicant’s name, such as a minor typographical error or misspelling, or the name identifies a party that did not exist as of the application filing date, the application may be amended to correct the applicant’s name. TMEP §1201.02(c). In either case, applicant should include in the amendment request the reason for the correction (such as “ABC Corporation did not exist as of the filing date of the application,” or “Company” was inadvertently omitted from the applicant’s name in the application). Id.
Further, the proposed entity change identifies the owner as a “limited liability company” but the owner name includes “Corp.”, indicating that the owner is a corporation. If applicant properly amends the name of the owner, this inconsistency must also be resolved.
Therefore, this refusal is now made final.
How to respond. Click to file a request for reconsideration of this final Office action that fully resolves all outstanding requirements and refusals and/or click to file a timely appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) with the required filing fee(s).
Carr, Patrick
/Patrick Carr/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 125
(571) 272-9634
patrick.carr@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE