To: | Oberheim, Tom (docketing@kelly-ip.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88854478 - DMX - 363.0006 |
Sent: | January 12, 2021 04:32:21 PM |
Sent As: | ecom127@uspto.gov |
Attachments: |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88854478
Mark: DMX
|
|
Correspondence Address: |
|
Applicant: Oberheim, Tom
|
|
Reference/Docket No. 363.0006
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.
Issue date: January 12, 2021
This Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on December 20, 2020.
In a previous Office action dated June 20, 2020, the trademark examining attorney issued the following requirements: explain significance of the wording in the mark, amend the identification of goods, satisfy the multiple-class application requirements, and sign the application.
Based on applicant’s response, the trademark examining attorney notes that the following requirements have been satisfied: definite amended identification provided, application signed. See TMEP §§713.02, 714.04. The following requirement has also been obviated: multiple-class application requirements. 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:
To permit proper examination of the application, applicant must explain whether the letters DMX in the mark have any significance in the applicant’s industry and/or as applied to applicant’s goods, and/or if such letters represent a “term of art” within applicant’s industry. See 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b); TMEP §814. Failure to comply with a request for information is grounds for refusing registration. In re Harley, 119 USPQ2d 1755, 1757-58 (TTAB 2016); TMEP §814.
The USPTO does not accept emails as responses to Office actions; however, emails can be used for informal communications and are included in the application record. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(c), 2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05.
How to respond. Click to file a 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).
/Maryna K. Gipsov/
Maryna K. Gipsov
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 127
571-270-7630
maryna.gipsov@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE