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:  August 21, 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) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion
• Advisory: Prior-Filed Pending Applications
• Advisory: Duplicative Wording in Identification of Goods in International Class 032
• Disclaimer Requirement – Descriptive Wording
• Applicant Domicile Address Requirement

 

 

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. 3559479; 3600247; 5603910.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registrations.

 

Standard of Analysis for Section 2(d) Refusal

 

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. 

 

Applicant seeks to register the mark ZODIAC BEVERAGE COMPANY for “Beer; Energy drinks; Smoothies; Alcohol-free beers; Ale; Flavored beers; Fruit flavored soft drinks; Italian soda; Lager; Lemonades; Limeade; Non-alcoholic beverages containing fruit juices; Non-alcoholic beverages with tea flavor; Non-alcoholic beverages, namely, carbonated beverages; Non-alcoholic carbonated beverages; Non-alcoholic fruit juice beverages; Non-alcoholic honey-based beverages; Non-alcoholic sparkling fruit juice beverages; Non-alcoholic water-based beverages; Pale beer; Pilsner; Pop; Protein-enriched sports beverages; Smoothies; Soft drinks, namely, sodas; Stout; Vegetable juices; Spirits; Whiskey; Alcoholic energy drinks; Alcoholic fruit beverages; Alcoholic punch; Bourbon whisky; Liquor; Pre-mixed alcoholic beverages, other than beer-based; Whiskey spirits.

 

The registered mark ZODIAC (U.S. Registration No. 3559479) is for “Distilled Spirits.”

 

The registered mark ZODIAC TEA (U.S. Registration No. 3600247) is for “Beverages made of tea; fruit teas; tea; tea-based beverages with fruit flavoring.”

 

The registered mark ZODIAK (U.S. Registration No. 5603910) is for “Beer and beer based beverages.”

 

Similarity of the Marks

 

In a likelihood of confusion determination, the 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).

 

In the present case, the applied-for mark is ZODIAC BEVERAGE COMPANY and the registered marks are ZODIAC, ZODIAC TEA, and ZODIAK. These marks are similar in general appearance, sound, connotation, meaning, and commercial impression.

 

Firstly, although marks are compared in their entireties, one feature of a mark may be more significant or dominant in creating a commercial impression.  See In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1305, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re Dixie Rests., 105 F.3d 1405, 1407, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533-34 (Fed. Cir. 1997)); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii).  Matter that is descriptive of or generic for a party’s goods is typically less significant or less dominant in relation to other wording in a mark.  See Anheuser-Busch, LLC v. Innvopak Sys. Pty Ltd., 115 USPQ2d 1816, 1824-25 (TTAB 2015) (citing In re Chatam Int’l Inc., 380 F.3d 1340, 1342-43, 71 USPQ2d 1944, 1946 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).

 

In the present case, the wording “BEVERAGE COMPANY” is descriptive or generic for applicant’s identified goods, as discussed in the Disclaimer Requirement section below.  Thus, the addition of “BEVERAGE COMPANY” to the applied-for mark, especially when considering the relatedness of applicant’s and registrants’ goods, does not alter the overall similar commercial impression when compared to the registered marks.  Further, it renders the wording “ZODIAC” as the dominant portion of the mark.

 

Further, disclaimed matter that is descriptive of or generic for a party’s goods is typically less significant or less dominant when comparing marks.  In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1305, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re Dixie Rests., Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 1407, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533-34 (Fed. Cir. 1997)); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii). Here, the wording “TEA” in the registered mark ZODIAC TEA is disclaimed, thus rendering the wording “ZODIAC” the dominant wording.

 

Secondly, marks may be confusingly similar in appearance where similar terms or similar parts of terms 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).

 

Here, the applied-for mark ZODIAC BEVERAGE COMPANY is confusingly similar to the registered marks ZODIAC and ZODIAK, because the applied-for mark consists of the registered mark, merely followed by descriptive matter that does not alter the identical, or virtually identical, appearance and identical meaning and sound of the shared wording. Further, adding a term to a registered mark generally does not obviate the similarity between the compared marks, as in the present case, nor does it overcome a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d).  See Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Jos. E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 526 F.2d 556, 557, 188 USPQ 105, 106 (C.C.P.A. 1975) (finding BENGAL and BENGAL LANCER and design confusingly similar); In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d 1266, 1269 (TTAB 2009) (finding TITAN and VANTAGE TITAN confusingly similar); In re El Torito Rests., Inc., 9 USPQ2d 2002, 2004 (TTAB 1988) (finding MACHO and MACHO COMBOS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iii).  In the present case, the marks are identical or virtually identical in part.

 

The applied-for mark ZODIAC BEVERAGE COMPANY is confusingly similar to the registered mark ZODIAC TEA because the dominant wording is identical and the marks are merely followed by disclaimed matter. The disclaimed matter does not obviate the likelihood of confusion because it does not alter the identical appearance, meaning and sound of the shared wording.

 

Based on the foregoing, the applied-for and registered marks are sufficiently similar to find a likelihood of confusion.

 

Comparison 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).

 

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 “spirits,” which presumably encompasses all goods of the type described, including “distilled spirits” in U.S. Registration No. 3559479. 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). U.S. Registration No. 3559479 uses the broad wording “distilled spirits,” which presumably encompasses all goods of the type described, including applicant’s “Whiskey; Bourbon whisky; Liquor; Whiskey spirits.” See id.

 

The application uses broad wording to describe “Non-alcoholic beverages containing fruit juices; Non-alcoholic beverages with tea flavor; Non-alcoholic fruit juice beverages; Non-alcoholic honey-based beverages,” which presumably encompasses all goods of the type described, including “Beverages made of tea; fruit teas; tea; tea-based beverages with fruit flavoring” in U.S. Registration No. 3600247. See id.

 

U.S. Registration No. 5603910 uses the broad wording “Beer and beer based beverages,” which presumably encompasses all goods of the type described, including applicant’s “Beer; Alcohol-free beers; Ale; Flavored beers; Lager; Pale beer; Pilsner; Stout.” See id.

 

Thus, applicant’s and registrants’ relevant 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)). 

 

Further, the attached Internet evidence from Appalachian Brewing Co., Motor City Brewing, Sarnac, Arizona, Turkey Hill, Wellsley Farms, Essential Everyday, Zevia, and Sprecher establishes that the same entity commonly provides the relevant goods and markets them under the same mark.  The evidence also demonstrates that the relevant goods are provided through the same trade channels and used by the same classes of consumers in the same fields of use.  For example, the attached evidence indicates that entities in the industry commonly provide a wide variety of alcoholic and non-alcoholic type beverages all under the same mark. Thus, consumers would reasonably believe that applicant’s and the registrants’ goods emanate from the same source. Accordingly, applicant’s and registrants’ goods 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).

 

In conclusion, because the applied-for and registered marks are confusingly similar and the goods in the registrations are related to applicant’s goods, there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks.  Therefore, registration is refused pursuant to Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.

 

Applicant may respond to the stated refusal by submitting evidence and arguments against the refusal.

 

ADVISORY: PRIOR FILED APPLICATIONS

 

In addition to the above-cited registrations, the filing date of pending U.S. Application Serial Nos. 87960881; 87960912; and 88712323 precede applicant’s filing date. See attached referenced applications. If 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, in addition to any arguments regarding the above-cited registrations, 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 as to the prior-filed applications in no way limits applicant’s right to address this issue later if a refusal under Section 2(d) issues for the prior-filed applications.

 

If applicant responds to the refusal, applicant MUST also respond to the requirements set forth below.

 

 

ADVISORY: DUPLICATIVE WORDING IN IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS

 

Applicant is advised to delete or modify the duplicate entry in the identification of goods in International Class 032 for “smoothies.”  See generally TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.01(a).  If applicant does not respond to this issue, be advised that the USPTO will remove duplicate entries from the identification prior to registration.

 

If modifying one of the duplicate entries, applicant may amend it to clarify or limit the goods, but not to broaden or expand the goods beyond those in the original application or as acceptably amended.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06.  Also, generally, any deleted goods may not later be reinserted.  TMEP §1402.07(e).

 

 

DISCLAIMER REQUIREMENT – DESCRIPTIVE WORDING

 

Applicant must disclaim the wording “BEVERAGE COMPANY” because it is merely descriptive of an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose, or use of applicant’s goods.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1251, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2012); TMEP §§1213, 1213.03(a). 

 

Firstly, the wording “beverage” as shown by the attached Internet dictionary evidence means “a drinkable liquid” applicant’s goods consist of drinkable liquids, i.e., beverages. Thus, such wording is merely descriptive and must be disclaimed.

 

Secondly, regarding the wording “company,” business type designations and abbreviations such as “Corporation,” “Inc.,” “Company,” “LLC,” and “Ltd.” or family business designations such as “& Son’s” or “Bros.” must be disclaimed, because they merely indicate applicant’s business type or structure and generally have no source-indicating capacity.  TMEP §1213.03(d); see, e.g., Goodyear’s India Rubber Glove Mfg. Co. v. Goodyear Rubber Co., 128 U.S. 598, 602-03 (1888); In re Piano Factory Grp., Inc., 85 USPQ2d 1522, 1526 (TTAB 2006); In re Patent & Trademark Servs., Inc., 49 USPQ2d 1537, 1539-40 (TTAB 1998).  Here, as shown from the application, applicant is a “company.” Accordingly, such wording has no source-indicating capacity of applicant’s goods and must be disclaimed.

 

Applicant may respond to this issue by submitting a disclaimer in the following format: 

 

No claim is made to the exclusive right to use “BEVERAGE COMPANY” apart from the mark as shown. 

 

For an overview of disclaimers and instructions on how to provide one using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), see the Disclaimer webpage. 

 

 

APPLICANT DOMICILE ADDRESS REQUIREMENT

 

Applicant must provide applicant’s domicile address.  All applications must include the applicant’s domicile address, and domicile dictates whether an applicant is required to have an attorney who is an active member in good standing of the bar of the highest court of a U.S. state or territory represent the applicant at the USPTO.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.2(o)-(p), 2.11(a), 2.189; Requirement of U.S.-Licensed Attorney for Foreign-Domiciled Trademark Applicants & Registrants, Examination Guide 4-19, at I.A. (Rev. Sept. 2019). 

 

An individual applicant’s domicile is the place a person resides and intends to be the person’s principal home.  37 C.F.R. §2.2(o); Examination Guide 4-19, at I.A.  A juristic entity’s domicile is the principal place of business, i.e. headquarters, where a juristic entity applicant’s senior executives or officers ordinarily direct and control the entity’s activities.  37 C.F.R. §2.2(o); Examination Guide 4-19, at I.A.  An applicant whose domicile is located outside of the United States or its territories is foreign-domiciled and must be represented at the USPTO by a U.S.-licensed attorney qualified to practice before the USPTO under 37 C.F.R. §11.14.  37 C.F.R. §2.11(a).

 

The application record lists applicant as a juristic entity and specifies applicant’s domicile as a post office box or mail forwarding service instead of a street address.  In most cases, a post office box or mail forwarding service is not acceptable as a domicile address because it does not identify the location of applicant’s headquarters where the entity’s senior executives or officers ordinarily direct and control the entity’s activities.  See37 C.F.R. §§2.2(o)-(p), 2.189; Examination Guide 4-19, at I.A.3.  Thus, applicant must provide its domicile street address.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.189.  Alternatively, an applicant may demonstrate that the listed address is, in fact, the applicant’s domicile.  Examination Guide 4-19, at I.A.3.

 

To provide documentation supporting applicant’s domicile.  Open the correct TEAS response form and enter the serial number, answer “yes” to wizard question #3, and on the “Additional Statement(s)” page, below the “Miscellaneous Statement” field, click the button below the text box to attach documentation to support the address.

 

To provide applicant’s domicile street address.  After opening the correct TEAS response form and entering the serial number, answer “yes” to wizard question #5, and provide applicant’s street address on the “Owner Information” page.  Information provided in the TEAS response form will be publicly viewable.

 

If applicant wants to hide its domicile address from public view because of privacy or other concerns, applicant must have a mailing address that can be made public and differs from its domicile address.  In this case, applicant must follow the steps below in the correct order to ensure the domicile address will be hidden:

 

(1)        First submit a TEAS Change Address or Representation (CAR) form.  Open the form, enter the serial number, click “Continue,” and

(a)        Use the radio buttons to select “Owner” for the role of the person submitting the form;

(b)        Answer “Yes” to the wizard question asking, “Do you want to UPDATE the mailing address, email address, phone or fax number(s) for the trademark owner/holder?” and click “Continue;”

(c)        On the “Owner Information” page, if the previously provided mailing address has changed, applicant must enter its new mailing address in the “Mailing Address” field, which will be publicly viewable;

(d)       On the “Owner Information” page, uncheck the box next to “Domicile Address” and enter the new domicile address in the text box immediately below the checkbox. 

(2)        Then submit a TEAS response form to indicate the domicile address has been changed.  Open the form and

(a)        Answer “yes” to wizard question #3 and click “Continue;”

(b)        Click on the “Miscellaneous Statement” box on the “Additional Statement(s)” page, and enter a statement in the text box immediately below the checkbox that the domicile address was previously changed in the CAR form. 

 

If applicant amends the application to list a domicile street address located outside of the United States or its territories, applicant is foreign-domiciled and must appoint a U.S. licensed attorney qualified to practice before the USPTO under 37 C.F.R. §11.14 as its representative before the application may proceed to registration.  See Hiring a U.S.-licensed trademark attorney for more information.  If applicant’s domicile street address is located within the United States or its territories, applicant is not required to appoint a U.S.-licensed attorney.

 

To appoint or designate a U.S.-licensed attorney.  To appoint an attorney, applicant should submit a completed Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) Change Address or Representation form.  The newly-appointed attorney must submit a TEAS Response to Examining Attorney Office Action form indicating that an appointment of attorney has been made and address all other refusals or requirements in this action, if any.  Alternatively, if applicant retains an attorney before filing the response, the attorney can respond to this Office action by using the appropriate TEAS response form and provide his or her attorney information in the form and sign it as applicant’s attorney.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.17(b)(1)(ii).

 

 

RESPONSE GUIDELINES

 

For this application to proceed, applicant must explicitly address each refusal and/or 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.

 

Because of the legal technicalities and strict deadlines of the trademark application process, applicant is encouraged to hire a private attorney who specializes in trademark matters to assist in this process.  The assigned trademark examining attorney can provide only limited assistance explaining the content of an Office action and the application process.  USPTO staff cannot provide legal advice or statements about an applicant’s legal rights.  TMEP §§705.02, 709.06.  See Hiring a U.S.-licensed trademark attorney for more information. 

 

Applicant may call or email the assigned trademark examining attorney with questions about this Office action.  Although the trademark examining attorney cannot provide legal advice or statements about applicant’s rights, the trademark examining attorney can provide applicant with additional explanation about the refusal, requirements, and advisory in this Office action.  See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06.  Although the USPTO does not accept emails as responses to Office actions, emails can be used for informal communications and will be 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.    

 

 

/Michael J. Clark/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 121

(571) 272-4967

michael.clark1@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 August 21, 2020 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88924033

 

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. 

 

 

/Michael J. Clark/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 121

(571) 272-4967

michael.clark1@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 August 21, 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.”