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:  July 24, 2020

 

 

 

 

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:

• Section 2(d) – Likelihood of Confusion Partial Refusal
• Prior Pending Applications – Potential Likelihood of Confusion
• Identification of Goods Overbroad and Indefinite – Amendment Required
• Clarification of the Number of Classes for Which Registration Is Sought Required
• Request for Information – Information about Goods Required

 

SECTION 2(D) – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION PARTIAL REFUSAL

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is PARTIALLY REFUSED for only “Computer software and mobile application software for controlling operations of umbrellas, parasols, and other shading devices; . . . computer software and mobile application software for providing healthcare analysis and/or guidance based on sensor readings obtained from umbrellas, parasols, and other shading devices; computer software and mobile application software for providing weather analysis, guidance and forecasting based on sensor readings obtained from umbrellas, parasols, and other shading devices” in Class 09 because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration No. 3611201.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registration.

 

Applicant has applied to register the mark SMARTSHADE (standard character form) for use in connection with, in relevant part, “Computer software and mobile application software for controlling operations of umbrellas, parasols, and other shading devices; . . . computer software and mobile application software for providing healthcare analysis and/or guidance based on sensor readings obtained from umbrellas, parasols, and other shading devices; computer software and mobile application software for providing weather analysis, guidance and forecasting based on sensor readings obtained from umbrellas, parasols, and other shading devices” in Class 09.

 

The registered mark SMARTSHADE (standard character form) is for use in connection with “portable outdoor canopies” in Class 22.

 

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 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.  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 and differences in the marks.”); TMEP §1207.01. 

 

In this case, the following factors are the most relevant: similarity of the marks, similarity and nature of the goods, and similarity of the trade channels of the goods. See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1361-62, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Dakin's Miniatures Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593, 1595-96 (TTAB 1999); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.

 

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).

 

Here, applicant’s mark, SMARTSHADE, is confusingly similar to the registered mark, SMARTSHADE. 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. 

 

Ultimately, when purchasers call for the goods of applicant and registrants using SMARTSHADE, they are likely to be confused as to the sources of those goods by the similarities between the marks. Thus, the marks are confusingly similar.

 

Relatedness of the Goods

 

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, applicant’s “Computer software and mobile application software for controlling operations of umbrellas, parasols, and other shading devices; . . . computer software and mobile application software for providing healthcare analysis and/or guidance based on sensor readings obtained from umbrellas, parasols, and other shading devices; computer software and mobile application software for providing weather analysis, guidance and forecasting based on sensor readings obtained from umbrellas, parasols, and other shading devices” is closely related to registrant’s “portable outdoor canopies.”

 

As an initial matter, as explained below, applicant’s identification of goods is overbroad and indefinite, potentially including any form of software. See Identification of Goods Overbroad and Indefinite – Amendment Required. Moreover, the wording “shading devices” could include any type of shading device, including canopies.

 

Further, as the attached Internet evidence establishes, consumers are accustomed to encountering various types of “smart” items for use in providing shade or shelter. See attached The Awning Company, SOL-LUX, Somfy, Curbed, and CNET website evidence (showing smart awnings and canopies, patio umbrellas, and handheld umbrellas with accompanying software applications). This evidence shows that consumers are accustomed to receiving “smart” or “intelligent” shading devices that feature applications or software to control their actions (and to allow limited automated function). As such, these goods are similar or complementary in terms of purpose or function – they are commonly offered as part of an overall “smart” solution to providing shade and shelter. See id. This is particularly so given applicant’s identification can include software for use with smart canopies. Accordingly, 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).

 

Finally, where, as here, the marks of the respective parties are identical, the degree of similarity or relatedness between the goods and/or services needed to support a finding of likelihood of confusion declines.  See In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 116 USPQ2d 1406, 1411 (TTAB 2015) (citing In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1207, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1993)), aff’d, 866 F.3d 1315, 123 USPQ2d 1744 (Fed. Cir. 2017); TMEP §1207.01(a). Put simply, consumers are more likely to associate the parties’ goods to the same source when they encounter their identical marks.

 

Overall, when purchasers encounter the goods of applicant and registrants, they are likely to be confused as to the source of the goods by the relationship between them. Thus, the goods are closely related.

 

            Conclusion

 

Therefore, because the marks are confusingly similar and the goods are closely related, purchasers encountering these goods are likely to believe, mistakenly, that they emanate from a common source. Accordingly, there is a likelihood of confusion and registration is PARTIALLY REFUSED for only “Computer software and mobile application software for controlling operations of umbrellas, parasols, and other shading devices; . . . computer software and mobile application software for providing healthcare analysis and/or guidance based on sensor readings obtained from umbrellas, parasols, and other shading devices; computer software and mobile application software for providing weather analysis, guidance and forecasting based on sensor readings obtained from umbrellas, parasols, and other shading devices” in Class 09pursuant to Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.

 

Response to Section 2(d) – Likelihood of Confusion Refusal

 

The stated refusal refers to “Computer software and mobile application software for controlling operations of umbrellas, parasols, and other shading devices; . . . computer software and mobile application software for providing healthcare analysis and/or guidance based on sensor readings obtained from umbrellas, parasols, and other shading devices; computer software and mobile application software for providing weather analysis, guidance and forecasting based on sensor readings obtained from umbrellas, parasols, and other shading devices” in Class 09 only and does not bar registration in the other classes. Applicant may respond to the stated refusal by submitting evidence and arguments against the refusal.  In addition, applicant may respond by doing one of the following:

 

1.      Deleting the goods to which the refusal pertains;

 

2.      Filing a Request to Divide Application form (form #3) to divide out the goods that have not been refused registration, so that the mark may proceed with the goods to which the refusal does not pertain.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.87.  See generally TMEP §§1110 et seq. (regarding the requirements for filing a request to divide).  If applicant files a request to divide, then to avoid abandonment, applicant must also file a timely response to all outstanding issues in this Office action, including the refusal.  37 C.F.R. §2.87(e).

 

Should applicant respond to this refusal, applicant must still respond to the requirements included in this Office action. See Requirements sections, infra.

 

PRIOR PENDING APPLICATIONS – POTENTIAL LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

 

The filing dates of pending U.S. Application Serial Nos. 88030121, 88143622, and 88810887 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 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 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.

 

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

 

REQUIREMENTS

 

If applicant chooses to respond to the refusal to register, then applicant must also respond to the following requirements:

 

IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS OVERBROAD AND INDEFINITE – AMENDMENT REQUIRED

 

As an initial matter, applicant has included the term “and/or” in the identification of.  However, this term is generally not accepted in identifications when (1) it is unclear whether applicant is using the mark, or intends to use the mark, on all the identified goods or services; (2) the nature of the goods and services is unclear; or (3) classification cannot be determined from such wording.  See TMEP §1402.03(a).  In this case, “and/or” renders it unclear precisely which of the goods or services are offered by applicant.

 

An application must specify, in an explicit manner, the particular goods or services on or in connection with which the applicant uses, or has a bona fide intention to use, the mark in commerce.  See 15 U.S.C. §1051(a)(2), (b)(2); 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.  Therefore, applicant should replace “and/or” with “and” in the identification of goods or services, if appropriate, or rewrite the identification with the “and/or” deleted and the goods or services specified using definite and unambiguous language.

 

Moreover, the application includes multiple clauses identifying “computer software” or “mobile application software” without further specification. The identification of computer software or mobile application software in International Class 9 is indefinite and too broad and must be clarified to specify whether the format is downloadable, recorded, or online non-downloadable.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.03(d), 1402.11(a).  Downloadable and recorded software is in International Class 9, whereas providing temporary, online non-downloadable use of software is a service in International Class 42.  See TMEP §1402.03(d).  Put simply, applicant must specify whether it offers downloadable software in Class 09 or non-downloadable software as a service in Class 42.

 

The wording “electronic devices, namely, sensors for environmental monitoring, control, and automation” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01. Specifically, the type of sensor is unclear – this could include any sensor of any type used in environmental monitoring, from light and temperature sensors to more advanced barometric sensors. Applicant must specify the specific type (or types) of sensor(s) offered.

 

The wording “computer software for use in environmental monitoring, control, and automation systems” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified because it is too broad and could include goods and/or services in other international classes.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03.  As explained above, this language could include non-downloadable software as a service in Class 42 or downloadable software in Class 09. Moreover, the function of this software is unclear. In addition to their form, software must include its use or function and, if field- or content-specific, the field of use. Here, software “for use in environmental monitoring, control, and automation systems” could encompass a wide variety of uses, including data transfer, controlling environmental systems, displaying data, performing diagnostics, functioning as an operating system, etc. Applicant must specify the software’s particular use or function (in addition to clarifying its nature).

 

 

The wording “electronic devices and computer software that allow users to remotely interact with environmental monitoring, control, and automation systems” and “electronic devices and computer software that allow the sharing and transmission of data and information between devices for the purposes of facilitating environmental monitoring, control, and automation” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified because it is too broad and could include goods and/or services in other international classes.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03. First, it is unclear whether this is a single bundled device (featuring a device with recorded software sold as a unit), or whether this refers to two separate goods. Assuming the former, it must be clarified that applicant’s software is recorded or downloadable (not non-downloadable software as a service in Class 42). Moreover, the type of device is unclear – this could include any type of electronic device (including remote controls, control panels, tablets, etc.). Applicant must specify the nature of the software, the type of devices, and the relationship between the devices and software.

 

Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate (suggested amended language in bold):

 

Class 09:   Downloadable computer software and mobile application software for controlling operations of umbrellas, parasols, and other shading devices; Downloadable computer software and mobile application software for storing and communicating audio and video information and data and sensor information, and for setting parameters on computing devices and server devices; Downloadable computer software and mobile application software for providing healthcare analysis and guidance based on sensor readings obtained from umbrellas, parasols, and other shading devices; Downloadable computer software and mobile application software for providing weather analysis, guidance and forecasting based on sensor readings obtained from umbrellas, parasols, and other shading devices; Downloadable computer software and mobile application software for providing solar energy analysis and guidance based on sensor readings, solar cell array output, and solar charging assembly output; wireless cameras; digital cameras; motion activated cameras; remote video monitoring system consisting primarily of a camera and video monitor for recording and transmitting images and videos to local and remote locations; video cameras; Downloadable computer software for mobile phones, tablets and other wireless devices, namely, software for use in recording, viewing, storing, sharing and analyzing online audio and video; Downloadable computer software for use as an application programming interface (API); electric or electronic sensors for motion, humidity, temperature, and light; electronic devices, namely, {specify type of sensor, e.g., humidity, light, temperature, etc.} sensors for use in environmental monitoring, control, and automation; Downloadable computer software for use {specify particular use here, e.g., in controlling, as an operating system for, etc.} environmental monitoring, control, and automation systems; Electronic {specify type of device here, e.g., remote controls, control panels, etc.} and recorded computer software sold as a unit for use in controlling environmental monitoring, control, and automation systems; Electronic {specify type of device here, e.g., remote controls, control panels, etc.} and recorded computer software sold as a unit for use in sharing and transmitting data and information between devices for the purposes of facilitating environmental monitoring, control, and automation; Downloadable software for managing machine-to-machine (M2M) and internet of things (IoT) communications and interactions; Downloadable software for providing machine-to-machine (M2M) and internet of things (IoT) communication integration services, namely, the integration of disparate computer systems, networks, hardware and software through the application of wireless communication technology to facilitate M2M and IoT communication via web based browsers, personal digital assistants, mobile phones, embedded microprocessors, sensors and other electronic devices;

 

Class 42:   Providing online non-downloadable computer software and mobile application software for controlling operations of umbrellas, parasols, and other shading devices; Providing online non-downloadable computer software and mobile application software for storing and communicating audio and video information and data and sensor information, and for setting parameters on computing devices and server devices; Providing online non-downloadable computer software and mobile application software for providing healthcare analysis and guidance based on sensor readings obtained from umbrellas, parasols, and other shading devices; Providing online non-downloadable computer software and mobile application software for providing weather analysis, guidance and forecasting based on sensor readings obtained from umbrellas, parasols, and other shading devices; Providing online non-downloadable computer software and mobile application software for providing solar energy analysis and guidance based on sensor readings, solar cell array output, and solar charging assembly output; Providing online non-downloadable computer software for mobile phones, tablets and other wireless devices, namely, software for use in recording, viewing, storing, sharing and analyzing online audio and video; Providing online non-downloadable computer software for use as an application programming interface (API); Providing online non-downloadable computer software for use {specify particular use here, e.g., in controlling, as an operating system for, etc.} environmental monitoring, control, and automation systems; Providing online non-downloadable software for managing machine-to-machine (M2M) and internet of things (IoT) communications and interactions; Providing online non-downloadable software for providing machine-to-machine (M2M) and internet of things (IoT) communication integration services, namely, the integration of disparate computer systems, networks, hardware and software through the application of wireless communication technology to facilitate M2M and IoT communication via web based browsers, personal digital assistants, mobile phones, embedded microprocessors, sensors and other electronic devices;

 

TMEP §1402.01

 

Applicant may amend the identification to clarify or limit the goods and/or services, but not to broaden or expand the goods and/or services beyond those in the original application or as acceptably amended.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06.  Generally, any deleted goods and/or services may not later be reinserted.  See TMEP §1402.07(e).

 

For assistance with identifying and classifying goods and/or 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 application identifies goods and services that could be classified in at least 2 classes; however, applicant submitted fees sufficient for 1 class ONLY.  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.

 

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.

 

ADVISORY – MULTIPLE CLASS APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR APPLICATIONS BASED ON SECTION 1(b)

 

The application identifies goods and/or services in more than one international class; therefore, applicant must satisfy all the requirements below for each international class based on Trademark Act Section 1(b):

 

(1)        List the goods and/or services by their international class number in consecutive numerical order, starting with the lowest numbered class.

 

(2)        Submit a filing fee for each international class not covered by the fee(s) already paid (view the USPTO’s current fee schedule). 

 

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

 

For an overview of the requirements for a Section 1(b) multiple-class application and how to satisfy the requirements online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, see the Multiple-class Application webpage.

 

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION – INFORMATION ABOUT GOODS AND/OR SERVICES REQUIRED

 

To permit proper examination of the application, applicant must submit additional information about applicant’s goods and/or services.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b); TMEP §814.  The requested information should include fact sheets, brochures, and/or advertisements.  If these materials are unavailable, applicant should submit similar documentation for goods and/or services of the same type, explaining how its own goods and/or services will differ. Conclusory statements regarding the services will not satisfy this requirement for information.

 

Additionally, applicant must answer the following questions:

 

1. Are applicant’s software products offered generally, or are they specifically for use with applicant’s own goods?

 

2. To what extent, if any, is applicant’s software compatible with shading devices, parasols, and umbrellas other than those sold by applicant?

 

3. To what extent, if any, are applicant’s sensors, software, and other devices offered separately from its parasols, umbrellas, and shading devices?

 

4. To what extent, if any, is applicant’s software used with applicant’s parasols, umbrellas, and shading devices? Does or will applicant offer any software independent of its devices?

 

5. To what do the terms “shading devices” in applicant’s identification refer? Please clarify the general types of items to which applicant refers by “shading devices” (such as window shades, freestanding metallic structures, wearable items to protect from sunlight, etc.)

 

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.  Merely stating that information about the services is available on applicant’s website is an insufficient response and will not make the relevant information of record.  See In re Planalytics, 70 USPQ2d 1453, 1457-58 (TTAB 2004).

 

RESPONSE GUIDELINES

 

For this application to proceed, applicant must explicitly address each refusal and requirement in this Office action.  For a refusal, applicant may provide written arguments and evidence against the refusal, and may have other response options if specified above.  For a requirement, applicant should set forth the changes or statements.  Please see “Responding to Office Actions” and the informational video “Response to Office Action” for more information and tips on responding.

 

Please call or email the assigned trademark examining attorney with questions about this Office action.  Although an examining attorney cannot provide legal advice, the examining attorney can provide additional explanation about the refusal and requirements in this Office action.  See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06. 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 response to this nonfinal Office action.    

 

 

/Hunter Bayliss/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 113

571-272-6526

Hunter.Bayliss@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 July 24, 2020 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88887372

 

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. 

 

 

/Hunter Bayliss/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 113

571-272-6526

Hunter.Bayliss@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 July 24, 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.”