| To: | Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. (trademarks@kelleydrye.com) |
| Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88942259 - INTERCEPT GAMES - 019321-4356 |
| Sent: | February 14, 2021 05:54:24 PM |
| Sent As: | ecom128@uspto.gov |
| Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
|
U.S. Application Serial No. 88942259
Mark: INTERCEPT GAMES
|
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
|
Applicant: Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc.
|
|
|
Reference/Docket No. 019321-4356
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
NEW 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: February 14, 2021
In a previous Office action(s) dated July 21, 2020, 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 for Classes 09, 25, and 41. In addition, applicant was required to satisfy the following requirement(s): amend the identification of goods and/or services, and disclaim descriptive wording in the mark.
Based on applicant’s response, the trademark examining attorney notes that the following requirement(s) have been satisfied: descriptive wording has been disclaimed. See TMEP §713.02.
The following is a SUMMARY OF ISSUES that applicant must address:
• NEW ISSUE: Refusal – Amendment of Identification of Goods Exceeds Scope (Class 09)
• Partial Refusal - Section 2(d) – Likelihood of Confusion (Classes 9 and 41) (Maintained and Modified)
• Requirement - Amend the Identification of Goods and Services (Class 9) (Maintained and Modified)
• Advisory – Partial Abandonment
REFUSAL – AMENDMENT TO IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS EXCEEDS SCOPE
THIS REFUSAL APPLIES ONLY TO CLASS 09
In this case, the application originally identified the goods and/or services as follows: “prerecorded electronic media devices featuring music, namely, compact discs, and phonograph records featuring computer games and video games.”
However, the proposed amendment identifies the following goods and/or services: “prerecorded electronic media devices, namely, digital video discs, compact discs, optical discs, laser discs, and downloadable audio and video featuring music, namely, compact discs, and phonograph records featuring computer games and video games.”
This portion of the proposed amendment is beyond the scope of the original identification because “downloadable audio and video” does not appear to be a “pre-recorded” media, and thus exceeds the scope of the original identification.
PARTIAL REFUSAL - SECTION 2(d) – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
THIS REFUSAL APPLIES ONLY TO THE CLASS 9 AND 41 GOODS AND SERVICES LISTED
Applicant’s mark is INTERCEPT GAMES in standard characters for, in relevant part, “cases for mobile phones and tablet computers; mouse pads,” and “Entertainment services, namely, providing a website featuring news, information, tips, hints, all in the field of computer games and video games; providing information, news and commentary in the field of computer games and video games.”
Registrants’ marks are:
· U.S. Registration No. 3924516 INTERCEPT in standard characters for “mobile phones; smartphones.”
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.
Similarity of the Marks
Applicant’s mark is INTERCEPT GAMES in standard characters.
Registrants’ marks are:
· U.S. Registration No. 3924516 INTERCEPT in standard characters.
· U.S. Registration No. 5312465 THE INTERCEPT 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).
When comparing marks, “[t]he proper test is not a side-by-side comparison of the marks, but instead whether the marks are sufficiently similar in terms of their commercial impression such that [consumers] who encounter the marks would be likely to assume a connection between the parties.” Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., 901 F.3d 1367, 1373, 127 USPQ2d 1797, 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1368, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(b). The proper focus is on the recollection of the average purchaser, who retains a general rather than specific impression of trademarks. In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1746 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re St. Helena Hosp., 774 F.3d 747, 750-51, 113 USPQ2d 1082, 1085 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Geigy Chem. Corp. v. Atlas Chem. Indus., Inc., 438 F.2d 1005, 1007, 169 USPQ 39, 40 (C.C.P.A. 1971)), aff’d per curiam, 777 F. App’x 516, 2019 BL 343921 (Fed. Cir. 2019); TMEP §1207.01(b).
Applicant correctly states that marks must be compared in their entireties and should not be dissected; however, a trademark examining attorney may weigh the individual components of a mark to determine its overall commercial impression. In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1305, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“[Regarding the issue of confusion,] there is nothing improper in stating that . . . more or less weight has been given to a particular feature of a mark, provided the ultimate conclusion rests on consideration of the marks in their entireties.” (quoting In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 1058, 224 USPQ 749, 751 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
In the present case, the applied-for INTERCEPT GAMES mark incorporates the entirety of the registered 3924516 INTERCEPT mark, and virtually the entirety of the THE INTERCEPT mark. Incorporating the entirety of one mark within another 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 Wella Corp. v. Cal. Concept Corp., 558 F.2d 1019, 1022, 194 USPQ 419, 422 (C.C.P.A. 1977) (finding CALIFORNIA CONCEPT and surfer design and CONCEPT confusingly similar); 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 LANCER and design and BENGAL confusingly similar); In re Integrated Embedded, 120 USPQ2d 1504, 1513 (TTAB 2016) (finding BARR GROUP and BARR confusingly similar); In re Mr. Recipe, LLC, 118 USPQ2d 1084, 1090 (TTAB 2016) (finding JAWS DEVOUR YOUR HUNGER and JAWS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iii). In the present case, the marks are identical in part. Furtheremore, the term “THE” in the THE INTERCEPT mark does not affect the similarities between the marks because the “THE” term does not have any source identifying significance in consumers’ minds. When comparing similar marks, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has found that inclusion of the term “the” at the beginning of one of the marks will generally not affect or otherwise diminish the overall similarity between the marks. See In re Thor Tech Inc., 90 USPQ2d 1634, 1635 (TTAB 2009) (finding WAVE and THE WAVE “virtually identical” marks; “[t]he addition of the word ‘The’ at the beginning of the registered mark does not have any trademark significance.”); In re Narwood Prods. Inc., 223 USPQ 1034, 1034 (TTAB 1984) (finding THE MUSIC MAKERS and MUSIC-MAKERS “virtually identical” marks; the inclusion of the definite article “the” is “insignificant in determining likelihood of confusion”).
Applicant argues that the addition of the GAMES term to the INTERCEPT term, which is the entirety of the 3924516 INTERCEPT registered mark, changes the appearance, sound, and connotation of the marks, and therefore confusion is not likely. However, the examining attorney is not persuaded by this argument. The addition of GAMES term does not change the overall commercial similarities between the marks. 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).
The weakness or dilution of a particular mark is generally determined in the context of the number and nature of similar marks in use in the marketplace in connection with similar goods and/or services. See Nat’l Cable Tel. Ass’n, Inc. v. Am. Cinema Editors, Inc., 937 F.2d 1572, 1579-80, 19 USPQ2d 1424, 1430 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973). Evidence of widespread third-party use of similar marks with similar goods and/or services “is relevant to show that a mark is relatively weak and entitled to only a narrow scope of protection” in that particular industry or field. Omaha Steaks Int’l, Inc. v. Greater Omaha Packing Co., 908 F.3d 1315, 1324, 128 USPQ2d 1686, 1693 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee en 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1373, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1693 (Fed. Cir. 2005)).
However, evidence comprising only a small number of third-party registrations for similar marks with similar goods and/or services, as in the present case, is generally entitled to little weight in determining the strength of a mark. See In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1328-29, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1751-52 (Fed. Cir. 2017); AMF Inc. v. Am. Leisure Products, Inc., 474 F.2d 1403, 1406, 177 USPQ 268, 269 (C.C.P.A. 1973). These few registrations are “not evidence of what happens in the market place or that customers are familiar with them.” AMF Inc. v. Am. Leisure Prods., Inc., 474 F.2d at 1406, 177 USPQ at 269; In re I-Coat Co., 126 USPQ2d 1730, 1735 (TTAB 2018). Thus, the few similar third-party registrations submitted by applicant are insufficient to establish that the wording INTERCEPT is weak or diluted.
Further, evidence comprising third-party registrations for similar marks with different or unrelated goods and/or services, as in the present case, has “no bearing on the strength of the term in the context relevant to this case.” See Tao Licensing, LLC v. Bender Consulting Ltd., 125 USPQ2d 1043, 1058 (TTAB 2017) (citing In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d at 1328, 123 USPQ2d at 1751). Thus, these third-party registrations submitted by applicant are insufficient to establish that the wording INTERCEPT is weak or diluted in Class 09.
The applied-for INTERCEPT GAMES and the registered THE INTERCEPT mark share the identical “INTERCEPT” term, and are thus similar in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression. 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). The additional terms in the registrations and the applied-for mark does not change the similarities in the commercial impression because of the shared INTERCEPT term.
Furthermore, the term “THE” in the THE INTERCEPT mark holds no trademark significance, and therefore the dominant term is INTERCEPT, which is wholly incorporated as the first term in the applied-for mark. When comparing similar marks, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has found that inclusion of the term “the” at the beginning of one of the marks will generally not affect or otherwise diminish the overall similarity between the marks. See In re Thor Tech Inc., 90 USPQ2d 1634, 1635 (TTAB 2009) (finding WAVE and THE WAVE “virtually identical” marks; “[t]he addition of the word ‘The’ at the beginning of the registered mark does not have any trademark significance.”); In re Narwood Prods. Inc., 223 USPQ 1034, 1034 (TTAB 1984) (finding THE MUSIC MAKERS and MUSIC-MAKERS “virtually identical” marks; the inclusion of the definite article “the” is “insignificant in determining likelihood of confusion”).
The INTERCEPT term being the first term in the INTERCEPT GAMES application means consumers are more likely to focus on this term and be confused as to the source of the goods and/or services when they encounter applicant’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”).
Additionally, the application has disclaimed the term GAMES in connection to the relevant classes, bringing further focus to the INTERCEPT term that the marks have in common. 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 Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 1058, 224 USPQ 749, 751 (Fed. Cir. 1985); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii). Disclaimed matter that is descriptive of or generic for a party’s goods and/or services 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). Thus, the addition of the highly descriptive GAMES term to the INTERCEPT and THE INTERCEPT registered marks, does not change the commercial impression because consumers are likely to focus on the dominant INTERCEPT term.
As such, viewed as a whole, applicant’s mark is substantially similar in sound, appearance, connotation and commercial impression to the registered marks.
Relatedness of the Goods
Registrants’ marks are:
· U.S. Registration No. 3924516 INTERCEPT in standard characters for “mobile phones; smartphones.”
· U.S. Registration No. 5312465 THE INTERCEPT in standard characters for, in relevant part, “providing websites featuring non-downloadable editorial articles in the fields of entertainment; providing websites featuring non-downloadable news, commentary, audio, videos and images in the fields of entertainment; providing network-based services, namely, providing news, commentary, and non-downloadable audio, videos and images in the fields of entertainment.”
Generally, the greater degree of similarity between the applied-for mark and the registered mark, the lesser the degree of similarity between the goods and/or services of the parties is required to support a finding of likelihood of confusion. In re C.H. Hanson Co., 116 USPQ2d 1351, 1353 (TTAB 2015) (citing In re Opus One Inc., 60 USPQ2d 1812, 1815 (TTAB 2001)); In re Thor Tech, Inc., 90 USPQ2d 1634, 1636 (TTAB 2009).
In the case of the THE INTERCEPT mark for Class 41, the registration uses broad wording to describe “providing websites featuring non-downloadable editorial articles in the fields of entertainment; providing websites featuring non-downloadable news, commentary, audio, videos and images in the fields of entertainment,” which presumably encompasses all goods and/or services of the type described, including applicant’s more narrow “Entertainment services, namely, providing a website featuring news, information, tips, hints, all in the field of computer games and video games; providing information, news and commentary in the field of computer games and video games.” Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s services 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)). Further, the previously attached Internet evidence, consisting of screenshots from Richmond.com, nature.com, and desmoinesregister.com, establishes that the same entity commonly manufactures, produces, or provides the relevant goods and/or services and markets the services under the same mark, namely, providing a website providing editorial articles, news, commentary, audio, videos and images, and information in the field of entertainment, including video games. 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). Applicant argues that its Class 41 services and registrant’s are not the same, and therefore confusion is not likely. However, the examining attorney is not persuaded by this argument. Registrant’s services specify they are in the field of “entertainment,” and applicant’s services are described as “intended to promote and related to the specific games and related entertainment services,” as in applicant’s field, like registrant’s, is also entertainment.
Although applicant argues that its goods and services and those of the registrants will be provided through different trade channels, the goods and/or services 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)). Applicant’s and registrant’s respective goods and services are also closely related for the additional reason that they commonly travel through the same channels of trade to the same class of consumers. Specifically, the above-referenced evidence shows that the goods and/or services are frequently sold in the same stores to the same type of purchasers – that is, ordinary consumers of electronic goods and accessories, and provided to the same consumers of entertainment services.
Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods and/or services are related.
Conclusion
In summary, applicant’s and registrants’ marks are confusingly similar in appearance, sound, and connotation, creating a similar overall commercial impression, and their respective goods and/or services are highly related. Therefore, consumers are likely to be confused and mistakenly believe that the goods and/or services originate from a common source. Accordingly, registration must be refused under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.
REQUIREMENT – AMEND THE IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS AND SERVICES
The wording “prerecorded electronic media devices featuring music, namely, compact discs, and phonograph records featuring computer games and video games” in the identification of goods in Class 9 was in fact definite, and the examiner apologizes for any confusion.
However, applicant made add the additional wording from its amendment to further clarify the wording “downloadable digital materials…”
Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate:
Class 9: Recorded computer game and video game programs and software; downloadable computer and video game programs and software; downloadable digital materials, namely, ring tones, wallpapers, screensavers, digital music files, and graphics, videos, films, multimedia files, live action programs, motion pictures, and animation in the field of video games and computer games, and downloadable audio and video featuring music, all delivered via global computer networks and wireless devices; prerecorded digital media devices, namely, digital video discs, compact discs, optical discs, laser discs, and downloadable audio and video, featuring computer games and video games, ring tones, wallpapers, screensavers, digital music files, and graphics, videos, films, multimedia files, live action programs, motion pictures, and animation in the field of video games and computer games; prerecorded USB flash drives featuring computer games and video games; cases for mobile phones and tablet computers; mouse pads; prerecorded electronic media devices, namely, compact discs featuring music, and phonograph records featuring computer games and video games; downloadable computer application software for mobile phones, portable media players, tablet computers, and handheld computers namely, downloadable computer and video game software
Class 16: [ NO CHANGE ]
Class 25: [ NO CHANGE ]
Class 41: [ NO CHANGE ]
Class 42: [ NO CHANGE ]
ADVISORY
For assistance with identifying and classifying goods and services in trademark applications, please see the USPTO’s online searchable U.S. Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual. See TMEP §1402.04.
ADVISORY - PARTIAL ABANDONMENT
If applicant does not respond to this Office action within the six-month period for response, the following goods and/or services in International Class(es) 09 will be deleted from the application: cases for mobile phones and tablet computers; mouse pads”; the following services in International Class 41 will be deleted: “Entertainment services, namely, providing a website featuring news, information, tips, hints, all in the field of computer games and video games; providing information, news and commentary in the field of computer games and video games.”
The application will then proceed with International Class(es) 16, 25, 42, and the following goods in International Class 09 only: Recorded computer game and video game programs and software; downloadable computer and video game programs and software; downloadable digital materials, namely, ring tones, wallpapers, screensavers, digital music files, and graphics, videos, films, multimedia files, live action programs, motion pictures, and animation in the field of video games and computer games, all delivered via global computer networks and wireless devices; prerecorded digital media devices, namely, digital video discs, compact discs, optical discs, laser discs, and downloadable audio and video, featuring computer games and video games, ring tones, wallpapers, screensavers, digital music files, and graphics, videos, films, multimedia files, live action programs, motion pictures, and animation in the field of video games and computer games; prerecorded USB flash drives featuring computer games and video games; prerecorded electronic media devices featuring music, namely, compact discs, and phonograph records featuring computer games and video games; downloadable computer application software for mobile phones, portable media players, tablet computers, and handheld computers, namely, downloadable computer and video game software.”
Also, the following services in International Class 41: “Entertainment services, namely, providing online computer games and video games, providing a website featuring online non-downloadable computer games and video games, contests, computer interface themes, computer enhancements, audio-visual content, in the nature of music, films, videos, television programs, animated series, and multimedia entertainment content, all in the field of computer games and video games; providing information, news and commentary in the field of computer games and video games.”
See 37 C.F.R. §2.65(a)-(a)(1); TMEP §718.02(a).
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(s) and/or requirement(s) 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.
Solano, Carlita
/Carlita Jaye Solano/
Examining Attorney
Law Office 128
(571)270-0348
carlita.solano@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE
