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:  September 08, 2020

 

The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney. Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issue(s) 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

·         Identification of Goods Requires Amendment

·         Entity Unclear

·         Foreign Registration Required

 

Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration Nos. 3239601 and 5043321.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registrations.

 

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 and/or services 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 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. 

 

 

Applicant has applied to register the mark “INTRAMARX” in standard characters for use in connection with “diagnostic preparations for veterinary purposes; diagnostic preparations for medical purposes; biological preparations for medical purposes; medical radiation imaging material; medicines for human purposes; drugs for medical purposes; Sports bra; dietetic foods adapted for medical purposes; vitamin preparations; chemical preparations for pharmaceutical purposes” in International Class 5 and “veterinary apparatus and instruments; Special truck; physiotherapy apparatus; endoscopy cameras for medical purposes; brushes for cleaning body cavities; medical apparatus and instruments; gastroscopes; testing apparatus for medical purposes / apparatus for use in medical analysis; diagnostic apparatus for medical purposes; nursing appliances” in International Class 10.

 

The mark in U.S. Registration No. 3239601 is “INTRAMAX” in standard characters for use in connection with “nutritional supplement” in International Class 5.

 

The mark in U.S. Registration No. 5043321 is “ENTRA” in standard characters for use in connection with “Medical imaging apparatus” in International Class 10.

 

Comparison 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).

 

 

In this case, applicant’s mark is “INTRAMARX” and the registrants mark are “INTRAMAX” and “ENTRA” respectively.

 

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, 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). With respect to the mark in U.S. Registration No. 3239601, the marks are highly similar. Both marks begin with the identical dominant prefix “INTRA,” with the only difference between the marks being the inclusion of the letter “R” by the applicant.

 

With respect to the mark in U.S. Registration No. 3239601, slight differences in the sound of similar marks will not avoid a likelihood of confusion.  In re Energy Telecomm. & Elec. Ass’n, 222 USPQ 350, 351 (TTAB 1983); see In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1367, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1912 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Additionally, 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 in part. The applicant has merely added the wording “MARX” to the phonetic equivalent of registrant’s “ENTRA.”

 

Lastly, where the goods and/or services of an applicant and registrant are “similar in kind and/or closely related,” the degree of similarity between the marks required to support a finding of likelihood of confusion is not as great as in the case of diverse goods and/or services.  In re J.M. Originals Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1393, 1394 (TTAB 1987); see Shen Mfg. Co. v. Ritz Hotel Ltd., 393 F.3d 1238, 1242, 73 USPQ2d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2004); TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

Because the marks in this case look and sound similar and create the same commercial impression, the marks are considered similar for likelihood of confusion purposes. 

 

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).

 

The applicant’s relevant goods include “diagnostic preparations for veterinary purposes; diagnostic preparations for medical purposes; biological preparations for medical purposes; medical radiation imaging material; medicines for human purposes; drugs for medical purposes; Sports bra; dietetic foods adapted for medical purposes; vitamin preparations; chemical preparations for pharmaceutical purposes” in International Class 5 and “veterinary apparatus and instruments; Special truck; physiotherapy apparatus; endoscopy cameras for medical purposes; brushes for cleaning body cavities; medical apparatus and instruments; gastroscopes; testing apparatus for medical purposes / apparatus for use in medical analysis; diagnostic apparatus for medical purposes; nursing appliances” in International Class 10.

 

The relevant goods of the mark in U.S. Registration No. 3239601 include “nutritional supplement” in International Class 5.

 

The relevant goods of the mark in U.S. Registration No. 5043321 include “Medical imaging apparatus” in International Class 10.

 

Determining likelihood of confusion is based on the description of the goods and/or services 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)).  

 

With respect to U.S. Registration No. 3239601, the application uses broad wording to describe “medicines for human purposes; drugs for medical purposes; vitamin preparations,” which presumably encompasses all goods of the type described, including registrant’s more narrow “nutritional supplement.”  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).  Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s 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)).

 

With respect to U.S. Registration No. 5043321, the application uses broad wording to describe “veterinary apparatus and instruments; physiotherapy apparatus; endoscopy cameras for medical purposes; medical apparatus and instruments; gastroscopes; testing apparatus for medical purposes / apparatus for use in medical analysis; diagnostic apparatus for medical purposes; nursing appliances,” which presumably encompasses all goods of the type described, including registrant’s more narrow “Medical imaging apparatus.”  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).  Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s 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)).  Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods are related.

 

Because the marks are similar and the goods are related, there is a likelihood of confusion as to the source of applicant’s goods. Therefore, applicant’s mark is not entitled to registration.

 

Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration. However, if applicant responds to the refusal, applicant must also respond to the requirements set forth below.

 

Identification of Goods Requires Amendment

 

Applicant submitted the following identification of goods with the application:

           

            International Class 5

 

diagnostic preparations for veterinary purposes; diagnostic preparations for medical purposes; biological preparations for medical purposes; medical radiation imaging material; medicines for human purposes; drugs for medical purposes; Sports bra; dietetic foods adapted for medical purposes; vitamin preparations; chemical preparations for pharmaceutical purposes

 

International Class 10

 

veterinary apparatus and instruments; Special truck; physiotherapy apparatus; endoscopy cameras for medical purposes; brushes for cleaning body cavities; medical apparatus and instruments; gastroscopes; testing apparatus for medical purposes / apparatus for use in medical analysis; diagnostic apparatus for medical purposes; nursing appliances

 

The above bolded wording in the identification of goods requires amendment because it does not identify the goods with enough specificity to make clear the scope of the goods offered by applicant. Further, the wording could identify goods in more than one international class and is thus overbroad.   See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03. 

 

Therefore, the identification of goods as submitted with the application requires the following amendments.

 

International Class 5

 

The wording “biological preparations for medical purposes” is indefinite as written and requires additional specificity as to the nature of the goods. Applicant must use additional wording to clarify either the specific goods being offered or their intended use.

 

The wording “medical radiation imaging material” is similarly indefinite because the specific nature of the goods is unclear. Applicant must provide additional clarity as to the specific goods.

 

The wording “medicines for human purposes” and “drugs for medical purposes” is indefinite because the specific use of the goods is not clear. Applicant must use additional wording to clarify the intended use of the goods.

 

The wording “sports bra” while definite, is properly classified in International Class 25.

 

Lastly, the wording “chemical preparations for pharmaceutical purposes” is indefinite because the intended use of the goods is unclear. Applicant must specify the disease or condition to be prevented or treated.

 

International Class 10

 

The wording “veterinary apparatus and instruments,” “physiotherapy apparatus,” “medical apparatus and instruments,” “testing apparatus for medical purposes / apparatus for use in medical analysis,” and “diagnostic apparatus for medical purposes” is all indefinite because the specific goods or their intended use is unclear. Applicant must provide additional clarity as to either the goods or their use.

 

The wording “special truck” is indefinite because the nature of the goods is unclear. The wording could also describe goods in multiple international classes and is thus overbroad. For example, “trucks” are in International Class 12 while “fire trucks” are in International Class 9.

 

Lastly, the wording “nursing appliances” is indefinite because it does not describe the goods with sufficient clarity. Applicant must use additional wording to clarify the specific nature of the goods.

 

Applicant may adopt the following identification of goods, if accurate:

 

            International Class 5

 

diagnostic preparations for veterinary purposes; diagnostic preparations for medical purposes; biological preparations for medical purposes for the treatment of {indicate disease or condition to be treated}; medical radiation imaging material, namely, {indicate specific Class 5 goods}; medicines for human purposes, namely, medicines for {indicate specific use}; drugs for medical purposes, namely, drug delivery agents in the form of {specify form} for {indicate specific use}; dietetic foods adapted for medical purposes; vitamin preparations; chemical preparations for pharmaceutical purposes, namely, for {specify the disease or condition to be prevented or treated}

 

International Class 10

 

veterinary apparatus and instruments, namely, {specify the goods}; physiotherapy apparatus, namely, {indicate specific goods}; endoscopy cameras for medical purposes; brushes for cleaning body cavities; medical apparatus and instruments in the nature of {indicate specific goods}; gastroscopes; testing apparatus for medical purposes, namely, {indicate specific goods e.g., blood testing apparatus}; diagnostic apparatus for medical purposes for the detection of {indicate use e.g., for the detection of cancer}; nursing appliances, namely, {indicate specific goods}

 

International Class 12

 

Special truck in the nature of {indicate specific goods}

 

International Class 25

 

Sports bra

 

Applicant may amend the identification to clarify or limit the goods or services, but not to broaden or expand the goods 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 or services may not later be reinserted.  See TMEP §1402.07(e).

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.

 

The application identifies goods in more than one international class; therefore, applicant must satisfy all the requirements below for each international class based on Trademark Act Section 44

 

(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 fees already paid (view the USPTO’s current fee schedule).  The application identifies goods that are classified in at least 4 classes; however, applicant submitted a fees sufficient for only 2 classes.  Applicant must either submit the filing fees for the classes not covered by the submitted fees or restrict the application to the number of classes covered by the fees already paid.

 

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

 

For an overview of the requirements for a Section 44 multiple-class application and how to satisfy the requirements online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, see the Multiple-class Application webpage.

 

Entity Unclear

 

The application identifies applicant as ANKON MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES (SHANGHAI) CO., LTD, a “corporation.”  However, “CO., LTD” generally refers to a limited company or limited liability company.  See TMEP §803.03.  Therefore, applicant must specify the particular type of legal entity applying, e.g., corporation, association, partnership, or joint venture, and provide the additional information explained below about that entity.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(3)(ii)-(v), 2.61(b); TMEP §803.03.

 

If applicant is a corporation, applicant must specify the U.S. state or foreign country under which it is incorporated.  37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(ii); TMEP §803.03(c).

 

If applicant is an association, applicant must specify the U.S. state or foreign country under whose laws the applicant is organized or exists, and indicate whether the association is incorporated or unincorporated.  37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(ii); TMEP §803.03(c).

 

If applicant is a partnership, applicant must specify the U.S. state or foreign country under whose laws the partnership is organized.  37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(ii); TMEP §803.03(b).  In addition, for a U.S. partnership, applicant must list, if not yet specified, the names, legal entities, and national citizenship (for individuals), or the U.S. state or foreign country of organization or incorporation (for businesses) of all general partners.  37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(iii).  For foreign partnerships, the names and citizenships of the general partners are not required.  See TMEP §803.03(b).

 

If applicant is a joint venture, applicant must specify the U.S. state or foreign country under whose laws the joint venture is organized.  37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(ii); TMEP §803.03(b).  In addition, for a U.S. joint venture, applicant must list the names, legal entities, and national citizenship (for individuals) or the U.S. state or foreign country of organization or incorporation (for businesses) of all active members of the joint venture.  37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(iv); TMEP §803.03(b).  For foreign joint ventures, the names and citizenships of the active members are not required.  TMEP §803.03(b).

 

If, in response to the above request, applicant provides information indicating that it is not the owner of the mark, registration will be refused because the application was void as filed.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(d); TMEP §§803.06, 1201.02(b).  An application must be filed by the party who owns or is entitled to use the mark as of the application filing date.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(d); TMEP §1201.02(b).

 

Foreign Registration Required

 

The application specifies a basis under Trademark Act Section 44(e); however, it does not include a copy of a foreign registration.  An application with a Section 44(e) basis must include a true copy, photocopy, certification, or certified copy of a foreign registration from an applicant’s country of origin.  15 U.S.C. §1126(e); 37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(3)(ii); TMEP §§1004, 1004.01, 1016.  In addition, the applicant’s country of origin must be a party to a convention or treaty relating to trademarks to which the United States is also a party, or must extend reciprocal registration rights to nationals of the United States by law.  15 U.S.C. §1126(b); TMEP §§1002.01, 1004.

 

A copy of a foreign registration must consist of a document issued to an applicant by, or certified by, the intellectual property office in the applicant’s country of origin.  TMEP §1004.01.  If an applicant’s country of origin does not issue registrations or Madrid Protocol certificates of extension of protection, the applicant may submit a copy of the Madrid Protocol international registration that shows that protection of the international registration has been extended to the applicant’s country of origin.  TMEP §1016.

 

Therefore, applicant must provide a copy of the foreign registration from applicant’s country of origin.  If the foreign registration is not written in English, applicant must also provide an English translation.  37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(3)(ii); TMEP §1004.01(a)-(b).  The translation should be signed by the translator.  TMEP §1004.01(b).

 

 

Comments

 

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.    

 

 

/Faucette, Max/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 107

(571)270-5655

max.faucette@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 September 08, 2020 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88945659

 

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. 

 

 

/Faucette, Max/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 107

(571)270-5655

max.faucette@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 September 08, 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.”