Offc Action Outgoing

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application

 

 

FINAL OFFICE ACTION

 

The USPTO must receive applicant’s response to this letter within six months of the issue date below or the application will be abandoned.  Respond using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) and/or Electronic System for Trademark Trials and Appeals (ESTTA).  A link to the appropriate TEAS response form and/or to ESTTA for an appeal appears at the end of this Office action. 

 

Issue date:  November 13, 2020

 

 INTRODUCTION

 

This Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on October 21, 2020 (“Applicant’s Response”).

 

In a previous Office action dated April 22, 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 registered marks

 

In addition, applicant was required to satisfy the following requirements: 

 

·         Amend the identification of services

·         Comply with multiple-class application requirements

·         Clarify the mark on the drawing as compared to the mark on the foreign registration

·         Clarify the description of the mark

 

Based on its response, applicant has satisfied:

 

·         Definite amended identification provided

·         Multiple-class application requirements satisfied through amended identification of services

·         Mark drawing properly clarified

·         Mark description properly clarified

 

See TMEP §§713.02, 714.04. 

 

However, the trademark examining attorney maintains and now makes FINAL the refusal below that applicant must address.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b); TMEP §714.04.

 

 

SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION – THIS PARTIAL REFUSAL APPLIES ONLY TO THE SERVICES SPECIFIED THEREIN

 

For the reasons set forth below, the refusal under Trademark Act Section 2(d) is now made FINAL with respect to U.S. Registration Nos. 3765901, 4790899, and 5168185.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b).

 

The stated refusal refers to the following services and does not bar registration for the other services:  “Airport business administration services, namely, in the field of airport logistics; Providing Business management in the field of airport logistics; Information services relating to the movement of cargo in the nature of tracking of assets in transit for business inventory purposes; The aforesaid services solely relating to airport and aircraft services, including air and lorry cargo traffic services” and “Providing advice relating to air freight forwarding services; Advisory services relating to the storage of goods, namely, air freight; Airport services in the field of airport logistics; Consultancy services relating to storage of goods, namely, air freight; Cargo handling and freighting services in the field of airport logistics.”

 

Refusal to register the applied-for mark is maintained and made final because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 3765901, 4790899, and 5168185.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the previoulsy attached registrations.  U.S. Registration Nos. 3765901 and 5168185 are owned by the same entity.

 

Applicant’s mark is ARC with stylization and design for the relevant services “Airport business administration services, namely, in the field of airport logistics; Providing Business management in the field of airport logistics; Information services relating to the movement of cargo in the nature of tracking of assets in transit for business inventory purposes; The aforesaid services solely relating to airport and aircraft services, including air and lorry cargo traffic services” and “Providing advice relating to air freight forwarding services; Advisory services relating to the storage of goods, namely, air freight; Airport services in the field of airport logistics; Consultancy services relating to storage of goods, namely, air freight; Cargo handling and freighting services in the field of airport logistics.”

 

The cited registrations are

 

ARC in standard characters (Reg. No. 3765901) for the relevant services “Providing business management services to companies in the travel industry, namely, inventory control of travel tickets, reporting on travel ticket transactions settled for others, settlement of commercial transactions in the field of travel tickets and electronic processing of travel ticket orders for others.”

 

ARC LOGISTICS, INC. with stylization and design (Reg. No. 4790899) for “supply chain logistics and reverse logistics services, namely, storage, transportation and delivery of documents, packages, raw materials, and other freight for others by air, rail, ship or truck, and not by aircraft, and excluding storage, transportation and delivery of documents, packages, raw materials, and other freight for others necessary for maintenance, repair and rebuilding of aircraft.”

 

ARC with stylization (Reg. No. 5168185) for the relevant services “Providing business management services to companies in the travel industry, namely, inventory control of travel tickets, reporting on travel ticket transactions settled for others, settlement of commercial transactions in the field of travel tickets and electronic processing of travel ticket orders for others.”

 

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 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 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. 

 

Comparison of 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).

 

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).  Greater weight is often given to this dominant feature when determining whether marks are confusingly similar.  See In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d at 1305, 128 USPQ2d at 1050 (citing In re Dixie Rests., 105 F.3d at 1407, 41 USPQ2d at 1533-34).  For instance, when evaluating a composite mark consisting of words and a design, the word portion is normally accorded greater weight because it is likely to make a greater impression upon purchasers, be remembered by them, and be used by them to refer to or request the services.  In re Aquitaine Wine USA, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1181, 1184 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii).  Thus, the word portion is often considered the dominant feature and is accorded greater weight in determining whether marks are confusingly similar.  In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d at 1366-67, 101 USPQ2d at 1911 (citing Giant Food, Inc. v. Nation’s Foodservice, Inc., 710 F.2d 1565, 1570-71, 218 USPQ2d 390, 395 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).  Additionally, disclaimed matter that is descriptive of or generic for a party’s 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).

 

Reg. Nos. 3765901 and 5168185

 

In this case, the wording in applicant’s mark is ARC and the wording in each of registrants’ marks is ARC.  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 registrants’ respective services.  Id.  Because the word portions of the marks are nearly identical in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression, the addition of a design element does not obviate the similarity of the marks in this case.  See In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1206, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1993); TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii).

 

Reg. No. 4790899

 

And in this case, the wording in applicant’s mark is ARC and the wording in registrant’s mark is ARC LOGISTICS, INC.  Applicant’s mark is essentially entirely incorporated within registrant’s mark, and applicant has merely removed the highly descriptive or generic wording “LOGISTICS, INC.”  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.  Similarly, although applicant’s mark does not contain the entirety of the registered mark, applicant’s mark is likely to appear to prospective purchasers as a shortened form of registrant’s mark.  See In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 1348, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting United States Shoe Corp., 229 USPQ 707, 709 (TTAB 1985)).  Thus, merely omitting some of the wording from a registered mark may not overcome a likelihood of confusion.  See In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 94 USPQ2d 1257; In re Optica Int’l, 196 USPQ 775, 778 (TTAB 1977); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii).  In this case, applicant’s mark does not create a distinct commercial impression from the registered mark because it contains some of the wording in the registered mark and does not add any wording that would distinguish it from that mark.

 

Therefore, applicant’s mark and registrants’ marks share the same commercial impression and are confusingly similar.

 

Comparison of Services

 

Applicant argues that its amendments to the identification of services sufficiently differentiates the services such that there is no likelihood of confusion.  See Applicant’s Response.  However, the compared services 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 services] 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).

 

Additionally, determining likelihood of confusion is based on the description of the 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)). 

 

Reg. Nos. 3765901 and 5168185

 

In this case, the application still uses broad wording to describe “Airport business administration services, namely, in the field of airport logistics; Providing Business management in the field of airport logistics; The aforesaid services solely relating to airport and aircraft services, including air and lorry cargo traffic services,” which presumably encompasses all services of the type described, including registrant’s more narrow “providing business management services to companies in the travel industry, namely, inventory control of travel tickets, reporting on travel ticket transactions settled for others, settlement of commercial transactions in the field of travel tickets and electronic processing of travel ticket orders for others.”  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).  See also the attached evidence from Cob.UNT.edu and Diva-Portal.org defining and showing that “airport logistics” includes “the planning and control of all resources and information that create a value for the customers utilizing the airport.”  This broad definition encompasses such things as processing and control of travel tickets and travel ticket transactions.

 

Reg. No. 4790899

 

And, in this case, the application still uses broad wording to describe “Cargo handling and freighting services in the field of airport logistics,” which presumably encompasses all services of the type described, including registrant’s more narrow “supply chain logistics and reverse logistics services, namely, storage, transportation and delivery of documents, packages, raw materials, and other freight for others by air, rail, ship or truck, and not by aircraft, and excluding storage, transportation and delivery of documents, packages, raw materials, and other freight for others necessary for maintenance, repair and rebuilding of aircraft.”  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 registrants’ 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)).

 

Additionally, the 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)).  Thus, applicant’s and registrants services are related.

 

Finally, all of applicant’s services, including its “Information services relating to the movement of cargo in the nature of tracking of assets in transit for business inventory purposes” and “Providing advice relating to air freight forwarding services; Advisory services relating to the storage of goods, namely, air freight; Airport services in the field of airport logistics; Consultancy services relating to storage of goods, namely, air freight,” are related to each of registrants’ services because these types of services are often offered, advertised, and provided by the same companies to the same consumers for highly complementary purposes.

 

Specifically, the previously attached Internet evidence, consisting of the websites of Delta.com, FedEx.com, FreightServices.net, and USATruckloadShipping.com, and the currently attached Internet evidence from ARC.Fiscal.Treasury.gov, AviationInfrastructure.com, AVPorts.com, ProspectAir.com, and SITA.aero establishes that the same entity commonly provides the relevant services and markets the services under the same mark, the relevant services are provided through the same trade channels and used by the same classes of consumers in the same fields of use, and the services are similar or complementary in terms of purpose or function.  Thus, applicant’s and registrants’ 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).

 

Because the marks are confusingly similar and the services are related, there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks.  Consequently, registration is refused pursuant to Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act for applicant’s “Airport business administration services, namely, in the field of airport logistics; Providing Business management in the field of airport logistics; Information services relating to the movement of cargo in the nature of tracking of assets in transit for business inventory purposes; The aforesaid services solely relating to airport and aircraft services, including air and lorry cargo traffic services” and “Providing advice relating to air freight forwarding services; Advisory services relating to the storage of goods, namely, air freight; Consultancy services relating to storage of goods, namely, air freight; Cargo handling and freighting services in the field of airport logistics.”

 

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 and/or services to which the refusal pertains; or

 

(2)  Filing a Request to Divide Application form (form #3) to divide out the services that have not been refused registration, so that the mark may proceed toward publication for opposition for those services 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).

 

 

RESPONSE GUIDELINES & PARTIAL ABANDONMENT ADVISORY

 

If applicant does not timely respond within six months of the issue date of this final Office action, the following services to which the final refusal applies will be deleted from the application by Examiner’s Amendment:  “Airport business administration services, namely, in the field of airport logistics; Providing Business management in the field of airport logistics; Information services relating to the movement of cargo in the nature of tracking of assets in transit for business inventory purposes; The aforesaid services solely relating to airport and aircraft services, including air and lorry cargo traffic services” and “Providing advice relating to air freight forwarding services; Advisory services relating to the storage of goods, namely, air freight; Airport services in the field of airport logistics; Consultancy services relating to storage of goods, namely, air freight; Cargo handling and freighting services in the field of airport logistics.”  37 C.F.R. §2.65(a); see 15 U.S.C. §1062(b).

 

In such case, the application will proceed for the following services only:

 

International Class 35:   Compilation of statistics in the field of airport logistics; Analysis of business statistics in the field of airport logistics; Analysis of market research data and statistics in the field of airport logistics; Analysis of market research statistics in the field of airport logistics; Conducting Market analysis and research in the field of airport logistics; Provision of market analysis reports in the field of airport logistics; The aforesaid services solely relating to airport and aircraft services, including air and lorry cargo traffic services

 

International Class 39:   Flight planning services; Provision of airport facilities for aviation

 

International Class 42:   Technical measuring being calibration in the field of airport logistics; Technology supervision and inspection in the field of building technology relating to structural engineering in the field of airport structures and airport logistics; Engineering services in the field of building technology; Technical consultancy services relating to structural engineering; Engineering project studies, namely, conducting scientific feasibility studies in the field of planning and construction of airports; Consultancy in the field of construction drafting; Architectural and engineering services; Engineering consultancy services; Engineering services for others in the field of airport structures and airport logistics; Technical project planning in the field of engineering, namely, technical project planning of buildings and infrastructure systems for buildings in the field of airport structures and airport logistics; Architectural services for the design of commercial buildings; Engineering services for the analysis of structures; Civil engineering consultancy; Engineering services for the design of structures; Architectural services for the design of office facilities; Architectural services for the design of industrial buildings; Assessment in the field of technology provided by engineers, namely, engineering services for building and property condition assessment; Engineering and computer-aided engineering services in the field of airport structures and airport logistics; Testing services for the goods and services of others to determine conformity with certification of quality or standards; Engineering consultancy relating to data-processing; Preparation of scientific reports for others relating to technical project studies for construction projects; Civil engineering planning services; Civil engineering drawing services; Testing, analysis and evaluation of the services of others to determine conformity with certification standards; Engineering project management services, namely, computer project management services; Conducting technical scientific feasibility project studies for construction projects; The aforesaid services solely relating to airport structures and airport logistics

 

Applicant may respond to this final Office action by providing one or both of the following:

 

(1)        A request for reconsideration that fully resolves all outstanding requirements and refusals; and/or

 

(2)        An appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board with the required filing fees.

 

TMEP §715.01; see 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b)(1)-(2).

 

How to respond.  Click to file a request for reconsideration of this final Office action that fully resolves all outstanding requirements and refusals and/or click to file a timely appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) with the required filing fee(s).

 

/Steven W. Ferrell Jr./

Examining Attorney

Law Office 121

(571) 270-3424

steven.ferrell@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 November 13, 2020 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88979595

 

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. 

 

 

/Steven W. Ferrell Jr./

Examining Attorney

Law Office 121

(571) 270-3424

steven.ferrell@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 November 13, 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.”