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:  April 19, 2021

 

 

Introduction

 

The Office has reassigned this application to the undersigned trademark examining attorney.  This Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on March 23, 2021.

 

In a previous Office action dated September 24, 2020, the trademark examining attorney refused registration of the applied-for mark based on the following:  Trademark Act Section 2(d) refusal for a likelihood of confusion with a registered mark, and specimen refusal for failure to show the applied-for mark in use in commerce with any of the specified goods.  In addition, applicant was required to satisfy the following requirements:  amend the identification of goods, and comply with multiple-class application requirements.

 

Applicant presented arguments regarding the Section 2(d) refusal, but these arguments were found unpersuasive.  Specifically, as discussed below, applicant indicated that cited Registration No. 6078423 and the present application are owned by the same entity, and that applicant was submitting a petition to correct the ownership of Registration No. 6078423.  However, applicant did not provide a properly verified claim of ownership of Registration No. 6078423, and therefore an ownership claim cannot be entered into the record at this time.  Also, the petition submitted for Registration No. 6078423 has not yet been processed by the USPTO.  As such, the owner of Registration No. 6078423 is still “Caliber Products Inc.” in the record, which is different than the owner of the present application, “Caliber, Inc.”  Therefore, the Section 2(d) refusal is maintained and made final.

 

In addition, the following refusal has been withdrawn:  specimen refusal for failure to show the applied-for mark in use in commerce with any of the specified goods.  See TMEP §§713.02, 714.04. 

 

Applicant submitted arguments regarding the identification requirement and multiple-class application requirements, but these arguments were found unpersuasive.  As such, the identification requirement and multiple-class application requirements are maintained and made final.

 

As such, the trademark examining attorney maintains and now makes FINAL the refusal and requirements in the summary of issues below.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b); TMEP §714.04.  All previous arguments and evidence, where applicable, are incorporated by reference herein.

 

Also, please note the advisory below discussing that if the ownership of the present application and Registration No. 6078423 is the same (and the record is changed to reflect this), a refusal may be issued because the present application would be an exact duplicate of U.S. Registration No. 6078423 and the USPTO will not issue duplicate registrations.

 

Summary Of Issues Made Final That Applicant Must Address:

 

·         FINAL Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion – Maintained and Made Final

• FINAL Requirement - Identification of Goods Amendment Required – Maintained and Made Final
• FINAL Multiple-Class Application Requirements – Maintained and Made Final

 

FINAL 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 No. 6078423 (CALIBER).  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the previously attached registration.

 

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 for the mark CALIBER in standard characters for “Guides and grips for use on trailers and truck beds in the nature of plastic attachments having channels and a gripping surface to assist in loading and unloading vehicles and snowmobiles; trailer mounted shields, namely, rigid shields for mounting to a front end of trailer and ramps for loading and unloading vehicles; dollies for vehicles; vehicle and trailer accessories, namely, glides, grips and slides, all in in the nature of plastic attachments having channels and a gripping surface to assist in loading and unloading vehicles and snowmobiles, hitch handles, lifts mounted to trailers; boat trailer accessories, namely, bunk wraps and bunk slides in the nature of plastic attachments for trailer bunks to assist in protecting boats while loading and unloading boats from the trailer and to protect boats during transportation and storage and rollers for attachment to boat trailers to reduce friction when loading and unloading boats” in International Class 12.

 

Registrant’s mark is CALIBER in standard characters for “Guides and grips for use on trailers and truck beds in the nature of plastic attachments having channels and a gripping surface to assist in loading and unloading vehicles and snowmobiles; trailer mounted shields, namely, rigid shields for mounting to a front end of trailer and ramps for loading and unloading vehicles; dollies for vehicles; vehicle and trailer accessories, namely, glides, grips and slides, all in in the nature of plastic attachments having channels and a gripping surface to assist in loading and unloading vehicles and snowmobiles, hitch handles, lifts mounted to trailers; boat trailer accessories, namely, bunk wraps and bunk slides in the nature of plastic attachments for trailer bunks to assist in protecting boats while loading and unloading boats from the trailer and to protect boats during transportation and storage and rollers for attachment to boat trailers to reduce friction when loading and unloading boats” in International Class 12.

 

Comparison of the Marks

 

Applicant’s mark and the cited U.S. Registration No. 6078423 (CALIBER) are likely to be confused due to their similarity.

 

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 a likelihood of confusion determination, the marks in their entireties are compared for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression.  In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1323, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2017); 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)); In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973); TMEP §1207.01(b)-(b)(v). 

 

In the present case, applicant’s mark is CALIBER and registrant’s mark is CALIBER.  These marks are identical in appearance, sound, and meaning, “and have the potential to be used . . . in exactly the same manner.”  In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 116 USPQ2d 1406, 1411 (TTAB 2015), aff’d, 866 F.3d 1315, 123 USPQ2d 1744 (Fed. Cir. 2017).  Additionally, because they are identical, these marks are likely to engender the same connotation and overall commercial impression when considered in connection with applicant’s and registrant’s respective goods and/or services.  Id.

 

Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar. 

 

Comparison of the Goods

 

The compared goods and/or 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 goods and/or 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).

 

When analyzing an applicant’s and registrant’s goods and/or services for similarity and relatedness, that determination is based on the description of the goods and/or services in the application and registration at issue, not on extrinsic evidence of actual use.  See Stone Lion Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 1323, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Octocom Sys. Inc. v. Hous. Computers Servs. Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 942, 16 USPQ2d 1783, 1787 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). 

 

In this case, the goods in the application and registration are identical (“Guides and grips for use on trailers and truck beds in the nature of plastic attachments having channels and a gripping surface to assist in loading and unloading vehicles and snowmobiles; trailer mounted shields, namely, rigid shields for mounting to a front end of trailer and ramps for loading and unloading vehicles; dollies for vehicles; vehicle and trailer accessories, namely, glides, grips and slides, all in in the nature of plastic attachments having channels and a gripping surface to assist in loading and unloading vehicles and snowmobiles, hitch handles, lifts mounted to trailers; boat trailer accessories, namely, bunk wraps and bunk slides in the nature of plastic attachments for trailer bunks to assist in protecting boats while loading and unloading boats from the trailer and to protect boats during transportation and storage and rollers for attachment to boat trailers to reduce friction when loading and unloading boats”).  Therefore, it is presumed that the channels of trade and class(es) of purchasers are the same for these goods.  See Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., 901 F.3d 1367, 1372, 127 USPQ2d 1797, 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012)).  Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods are related.  

 

Because the marks are identical and the goods are identical, there is a likelihood of confusion and applicant’s mark is not entitled to registration.

 

Advisory – Ownership of Cited Registration

 

In the response, applicant indicated that Registration No. 6078423 and the present application are owned by the same entity, and that applicant was submitting a petition to correct the ownership of Registration No. 6078423.  However, applicant did not provide a properly verified claim of ownership of Registration No. 6078423, and therefore an ownership claim cannot be entered into the record at this time.  Also, the petition submitted for Registration No. 6078423 has not yet been processed by the USPTO.  As such, the owner of Registration No. 6078423 is still “Caliber Products Inc.” in the record, which is different than the owner of the present application, “Caliber, Inc.”

 

If the mark in the cited registration is owned by applicant, applicant may provide evidence of ownership of the mark by satisfying one of the following:

 

(1)        Record the assignment with the USPTO’s Assignment Recordation Branch (ownership transfer documents such as assignments can be filed online at http://etas.uspto.gov) and promptly notify the trademark examining attorney that the assignment has been duly recorded;

 

(2)        Submit copies of documents evidencing the chain of title; or

 

(3)        Submit the following statement, verified with an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20:  “Applicant is the owner of U.S. Registration No. 6078423.”  To provide this statement using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), use the “Response to Office Action” form; answer “yes” to wizard questions #3 and #9; then, continuing on to the next portion of the form, in the “Additional Statement(s)” section, find “Active Prior Registration(s)” and insert the U.S. registration numbers in the data fields; and follow the instructions within the form for signing.  The form must be signed twice; a signature is required both in the “Declaration Signature” section and in the “Response Signature” section.

 

TMEP §812.01; see 15 U.S.C. §1060; 37 C.F.R. §§2.193(e)(1), 3.25, 3.73(a)-(b); TMEP §502.02(a).

 

Recording a document with the Assignment Recordation Branch does not constitute a response to an Office action.  TMEP §503.01(d).

 

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

 

FINAL Requirement - Identification of Goods Amendment Required

 

The following portions of the identification of goods for International Class 12 must be clarified because each is too broad and could include goods in other international classes:

 

• “Guides and grips for use on trailers and truck beds in the nature of plastic attachments having channels and a gripping surface to assist in loading and unloading vehicles and snowmobiles” – this wording could identify, for example:  “fitted liners for the cargo area of vehicles” in Class 12, or “silicon elastomer with reinforcing support layer, adhesive and release liner used as a peel and stick grip and anti-sliding applique for attachment to solid surfaces, and especially for use in truck beds and on trailer loading surfaces ” in Class 17.
• “Trailer mounted shields, namely, rigid shields for mounting to a front end of trailer and ramps for loading and unloading vehicles” – this wording could identify, for example:  “land vehicle structural parts for trailers” in Class 12, or “light shields for attachment to vehicle interior dome lights that narrow the path of light to passenger compartment for reading purposes” in Class 11.
• “Vehicle and trailer accessories, namely, glides, grips and slides, all in in the nature of plastic attachments having channels and a gripping surface to assist in loading and unloading vehicles and snowmobiles, hitch handles, lifts mounted to trailers” – this wording could identify, for example:  “vehicle and trailer accessories, namely, glides, grips and slides all in in the nature of fitted liners for the cargo area of vehicles comprising plastic attachments having channels and a gripping surface to assist in loading and unloading vehicles and snowmobiles, hitch handles being land vehicle structural parts for trailers,  and lifts mounted to trailers in the nature of tailgate lifts being parts of land vehicles” in Class 12, or “silicon elastomer with reinforcing support layer, adhesive and release liner used as a peel and stick grip and anti-sliding applique for attachment to solid surfaces, and especially for use in truck beds and on trailer loading surfaces” in Class 17.
• “Boat trailer accessories, namely, bunk wraps and bunk slides in the nature of plastic attachments for trailer bunks to assist in protecting boats while loading and unloading boats from the trailer and to protect boats during transportation and storage and rollers for attachment to boat trailers to reduce friction when loading and unloading boats” – this wording could identify, for example:  “boat trailer accessories, namely, bunk wraps and bunk slides in the nature of fitted liners for the cargo area of vehicles comprising plastic attachments for trailer bunks to assist in protecting boats while loading and unloading boats from the trailer and to protect boats during transportation and storage, and rollers for attachment to boat trailers to reduce friction when loading and unloading boats in the nature of land vehicle structural parts for trailers” in Class 12, or “silicon elastomer with reinforcing support layer, adhesive and release liner used as a peel and stick grip and anti-sliding applique for attachment to solid surfaces, and especially for use on trailer loading surfaces” in Class 17.

 

See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03. 

 

Applicant must correct the punctuation in the identification to clarify the individual items in the list of goods.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01(a).  Proper punctuation in identifications is necessary to delineate explicitly each product or service within a list and to avoid ambiguity.  Commas, semicolons, and apostrophes are the only punctuation that should be used in an identification of goods.  TMEP §1402.01(a).  An applicant should not use colons, periods, exclamation points, and question marks in an identification.  Id.  In addition, applicants should not use symbols in the identification such as asterisks (*), at symbols (@), or carets.  Id.

 

In general, commas should be used in an identification (1) to separate a series of related items identified within a particular category of goods or services, (2) before and after “namely,” and (3) between each item in a list of goods or services following “namely” (e.g., personal care products, namely, body lotion, bar soap, shampoo).  Id.  Semicolons generally should be used to separate a series of distinct categories of goods or services within an international class (e.g., personal care products, namely, body lotion; deodorizers for pets; glass cleaners).  Id. 

 

Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate (bolded text indicating suggested changes):

 

In Class 12, Guides and grips for use on trailers and truck beds in the nature of fitted liners for the cargo area of vehicles comprising plastic attachments having channels and a gripping surface to assist in loading and unloading vehicles and snowmobiles; trailer mounted shields, namely, rigid shields for mounting to a front end of trailer and ramps for loading and unloading vehicles in the nature of land vehicle structural parts for trailers; dollies for vehicles; vehicle and trailer accessories, namely, glides, grips and slides all in in the nature of fitted liners for the cargo area of vehicles comprising plastic attachments having channels and a gripping surface to assist in loading and unloading vehicles and snowmobiles, hitch handles being land vehicle structural parts for trailers,  and lifts mounted to trailers in the nature of tailgate lifts being parts of land vehicles; boat trailer accessories, namely, bunk wraps and bunk slides in the nature of fitted liners for the cargo area of vehicles comprising plastic attachments for trailer bunks to assist in protecting boats while loading and unloading boats from the trailer and to protect boats during transportation and storage, and rollers for attachment to boat trailers to reduce friction when loading and unloading boats in the nature of land vehicle structural parts for trailers

 

In Class 17, Guides and grips for use on trailers and truck beds in the nature of plastic attachments having channels and a gripping surface to assist in loading and unloading vehicles and snowmobiles in the nature of silicon elastomer with reinforcing support layer, adhesive and release liner used as a peel and stick grip and anti-sliding applique for attachment to solid surfaces, and especially for use in truck beds and on trailer loading surfaces

           

Applicant’s goods and/or services may be clarified or limited, but may not be expanded beyond those originally itemized in the application or as acceptably amended.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06.  Applicant may clarify or limit the identification by inserting qualifying language or deleting items to result in a more specific identification; however, applicant may not substitute different goods and/or services or add goods and/or services not found or encompassed by those in the original application or as acceptably amended.  See TMEP §1402.06(a)-(b).  The scope of the goods and/or services sets the outer limit for any changes to the identification and is generally determined by the ordinary meaning of the wording in the identification.  TMEP §§1402.06(b), 1402.07(a)-(b).  Any acceptable changes to the goods and/or services will further limit scope, and once goods and/or services are deleted, they are not permitted to be reinserted.  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.

 

FINAL Multiple-Class Application Requirements

 

The application identifies goods that may be classified in more than one; however, applicant submitted a fee sufficient for only one class.  In a multiple-class application, a fee for each class is required.  37 C.F.R. §2.86(a)(2), (b)(2); TMEP §§810.01, 1403.01.  For more information about adding classes to an application, see the Multiple-class Application webpage.

 

Therefore, applicant must either (1) restrict the application to the number of classes covered by the fees already paid, or (2) submit the fees for each additional class.

 

The fee for adding classes to a TEAS Standard application is $275 per class.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.6(a)(1)(iii).  For more information about adding classes to an application, see the Multiple-class Application webpage.

 

Moreover, if applicant adds a class to the application, applicant must satisfy all the requirements below for each international class:

 

(1)        List the goods by their international class number in consecutive numerical order, starting with the lowest numbered class (for example, International Class 3: perfume; International Class 18: cosmetic bags sold empty).

 

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

 

(3)        Submit verified dates of first use of the mark anywhere and in commerce for each international class.  See more information about verified dates of use.

 

(4)        Submit a specimen for each international class.  The current specimen is acceptable for Class 12; and applicant needs a specimen for Class 17.  See more information about specimens.

 

Examples of specimens.  Specimens for goods include a photograph of (1) the actual goods bearing the mark; (2) an actual container, packaging, tag or label for the goods bearing the mark; or (3) a point-of-sale display showing the mark directly associated with the goods.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.56(b)(1), (c); TMEP §904.03(a)-(m).  A webpage specimen submitted as a display associated with the goods must show the mark in association with a picture or textual description of the goods and include information necessary for ordering the goods.  TMEP §904.03(i); see 37 C.F.R. §2.56(b)(1), (c). 

 

Any webpage printout or screenshot submitted as a specimen must include the webpage’s URL and the date it was accessed or printed.  37 C.F.R. §2.56(c).

 

(5)        Submit a verified statement that “The specimen was in use in commerce on or in connection with the goods listed in the application at least as early as the filing date of the application.”  See more information about verification.

 

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

 

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

 

Advisory – Potential Duplicate of Existing Registration

 

In the response, applicant indicated that Registration No. 6078423 and the present application are owned by the same entity, and that applicant was submitting a petition to correct the ownership of Registration No. 6078423.  As noted above, the petition for Registration No. 6078423 has not yet been processed, and therefore the ownership of the present application and Registration No. 6078423 are different at this time. 

 

However, if the petition is granted, and if the ownership of the present application and Registration No. 6078423 is the same (and the record is changed to reflect this), applicant is advised that a refusal may be issued because the present application appears to be an exact duplicate of U.S. Registration No. 6078423 (if the owner names are the same).  37 C.F.R. §2.48; TMEP §703.  The USPTO will not issue duplicate registrations.  37 C.F.R. §2.48; TMEP §703. 

 

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).

 

 

/Jessica Hilliard/

Jessica Hilliard

Examining Attorney, Law Office 120

571-272-4031

Jessica.Hilliard@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 April 19, 2021 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 90006149

 

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. 

 

 

/Jessica Hilliard/

Jessica Hilliard

Examining Attorney, Law Office 120

571-272-4031

Jessica.Hilliard@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 April 19, 2021, 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.”