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:  December 18, 2020

 

 The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney.  Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issues below.  15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(a), 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.

 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES:

 

• Advisory – Prior-Filed Application
• Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion
• Section 2(e)(2) Refusal – Primarily Geographically Descriptive
• Identification of Goods

 

ADVISORY – PRIOR FILED APPLICATION

 

The filing date of pending U.S. Application Serial No. 90120860 precedes applicant’s filing date.  See attached referenced application.  If the mark in the referenced application registers, applicant’s mark may be refused registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d) because of a likelihood of confusion between the two marks.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §§1208 et seq.  Therefore, upon receipt of applicant’s response to this Office action, action on this application may be suspended pending final disposition of the earlier-filed referenced application.

 

In response to this Office action, applicant may present arguments in support of registration by addressing the issue of the potential conflict between applicant’s mark and the mark in the referenced application.  Applicant’s election not to submit arguments at this time in no way limits applicant’s right to address this issue later if a refusal under Section 2(d) issues.

 

SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 3472371; 3272909; 5238512; 5880667; 5880668.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registrations.

 

Applicant’s mark is ARAKU (in special character form) for goods currently identified as “Coffee; artificial coffee; coffee essences; coffee extracts; decaffeinated coffee; ground coffee; iced coffee; instant coffee; unroasted coffee; Coffee, tea, cocoa and artificial coffee; caffeine-free coffee; coffee-based beverages; coffee flavorings; roasted coffee beans; vegetable preparations for use as coffee substitutes; tea; cocoa; rice; tapioca and sago; flour and preparations made from cereals; bread, pastry and confectionery; edible ices; sugar, honey, treacle; yeast, baking-powder; salt; mustard; vinegar, sauces (condiments); spices; Chocolates, Biscuits, Cakes” in International Class 30.

 

Registrants’ marks are:

 

1. ARAKÚ (Reg. No. 3472371) for “Rum, namely, rum flavored with coffee” in International Class 33;

 

2. ARAKÚ (Reg. No. 3272909) for “Coffee-based liqueurs; Liqueurs” in International Class 33;

 

3. ARAKÚ (Reg. No. 5238512) for “Non-alcoholic beverages made with coffee, namely, coffee-flavored soft drink” in International Class 32;

 

4. ARAKU AROMA (Reg. No. 5880667) for “Coffee capsules containing coffee for brewing; Ground coffee beans; Roasted coffee beans; Unroasted coffee” in International Class 30; and “On-line wholesale and retail store services featuring coffee and related goods; Retail store services featuring coffee and related goods” in International Class 35; and

 

5. ARAKU AROMA COFFEE FEEL THE TASTE (Reg. No. 5880668) for “Coffee capsules containing coffee for brewing; Ground coffee beans; Roasted coffee beans; Unroasted coffee” in International Class 30; and “On-line wholesale and retail store services featuring coffee and related goods; Retail store services featuring coffee and related goods” in International Class 35.

 

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. 

 

Comparison of Marks:

 

Comparison as to Reg. Nos. 3472371; 3272909; 5238512

 

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 ARAKU and registrant’s marks are ARAKÚ.  These marks are identical in 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 in sound and meaning, 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.  Id.

 

Further, the slight difference in stylization of the marks fails to obviate the overall similarity of the marks because the word portions of the marks is nearly identical in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression; therefore, the addition of a design element does not obviate the similarity of the marks.  See In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1206, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1993); TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii).

 

Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar. 

 

Comparison as to Reg. Nos. 5880667; 5880668

 

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”).

 

Here, applicant’s and registrant’s marks are similar because they share the identical first term, ARAKU. Applicant’s deletion of AROMA or FEEL THE TASTE fails to obviate the overall similarity of the marks because, 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.

 

Further, applicant’s deletion of design elements from Reg. No. 5880668 fails to create a distinct commercial impression because, although marks must be compared in their entireties, the word portion is often considered the dominant feature and is accorded greater weight in determining whether marks are confusingly similar, even where the word portion has been disclaimed.  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)).

 

Given the shared first term, ARAKU, the marks at issue create a similar overall commercial impression which is sufficient for finding a likelihood of confusion.

 

Relatedness of 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 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).

 

Relatedness as to Reg. Nos. 3472371; 3272909; 5238512

 

First, applicant’s coffee based beverages encompass applicant’s coffee flavored soft drink in Reg. No. 5238512. Determining likelihood of confusion is based on the description of the goods stated in the application and registration at issue, not on extrinsic evidence of actual use.  See In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1307, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1052 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1325, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1749 (Fed. Cir. 2017)).  

 

In this case, the application uses broad wording to describe coffee based beverages, which presumably encompasses all goods of the type described, including registrant’s more narrow coffee flavored soft drinks.  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.

 

Second, applicant’s coffee, coffee essences and flavorings, coffee substitutes and tea and registrant’s coffee flavored alcohol and coffee flavored soft drinks are closely related because the same entity commonly provides applicant’s and registrants goods, under the same mark.

 

The attached Internet evidence, consisting of webpage screenshots from McMenamins, Two Brothers, Godiva and Koloa Rum Co., establishes that the same entity commonly provides the relevant goods and markets the goods under the same mark. In addition, the relevant goods are sold or provided through the same trade channels and used by the same classes of consumers in the same fields of use. Finally, the goods are similar or complementary in terms of purpose or function.  Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods are considered related for likelihood of confusion purposes.  See, e.g., In re Davey Prods. Pty Ltd., 92 USPQ2d 1198, 1202-04 (TTAB 2009); In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d 1266, 1268-69, 1271-72 (TTAB 2009).

 

The third-party Internet evidence shows that the applicant’s goods and the registrant’s goods are closely related and travel through similar trade channels to the same class of consumers.

 

Thus, upon encountering registrant’s marks used for the aforementioned goods and applicant’s mark used for the aforementioned goods, consumers are likely to be confused and mistakenly believe that the respective goods emanate from a common source.

 

Relatedness as to Reg. Nos. 5880667; 5880668

 

First, applicant’s coffee, coffee essences, coffee extracts, tea, cocoa, coffee substitutes, flour, tapioca, sago, bread, pastry, confectionery, sugar, honey, yeast, baking powder, salt, mustard, vinegar, sauces, spices, chocolates, biscuits and cakes and registrant’s coffee are closely related because the same entity commonly provides applicant’s and registrants goods, under the same mark.

 

The attached Internet evidence, consisting of webpage screenshots from The Andersen’s, Caribou Coffee, Cherry Republic, Flying M Coffee, Harry & David, Panera, Zabars, Dilettante, Kona Mountain, Newman’s Own, Stonewall Kitchen, Essential Everyday, Fly Creek and Boca Java, establishes that the same entity commonly provides the relevant goods and markets the goods under the same mark. In addition, the relevant goods are sold or provided through the same trade channels and used by the same classes of consumers in the same fields of use. Finally, the goods are similar or complementary in terms of purpose or function.  Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods are considered related for likelihood of confusion purposes.  See, e.g., In re Davey Prods. Pty Ltd., 92 USPQ2d 1198, 1202-04 (TTAB 2009); In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d 1266, 1268-69, 1271-72 (TTAB 2009).

 

The third-party Internet evidence shows that the applicant’s goods and the registrant’s goods are closely related and travel through similar trade channels to the same class of consumers.

 

Thus, upon encountering registrant’s marks used for the aforementioned goods and applicant’s mark used for the aforementioned goods, consumers are likely to be confused and mistakenly believe that the respective goods emanate from a common source.

 

Given the foregoing, registration is refused under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.

 

Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.

 

Applicant should note the following additional ground for refusal.

 

SECTION 2(e)(2) REFUSAL – PRIMARILY GEOGRAPHICALLY DESCRIPTIVE

 

Registration is refused because the applied-for mark is primarily geographically descriptive of the origin of applicant’s goods.  Trademark Act Section 2(e)(2), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(2); see TMEP §§1210, 1210.01(a).

 

A mark is primarily geographically descriptive when the following is demonstrated:

 

(1)        The primary significance of the mark to the purchasing public is a generally known location;

 

(2)        The goods or services originate in the place identified in the mark; and

 

(3)        The purchasing public would be likely to believe that the goods originate in the geographic place identified in the mark; that is, to make a goods-place association.

 

TMEP §1210.01(a); see In re Societe Generale des Eaux Minerales de Vittel S.A., 824 F.2d 957, 959, 3 USPQ2d 1450, 1452 (Fed. Cir. 1987); In re Hollywood Lawyers Online, 110 USPQ2d 1852, 1853 (TTAB 2014); see also In re Newbridge Cutlery Co., 776 F.3d 854, 860-61, 113 USPQ2d 1445, 1448-49 (Fed. Cir. 2015). 

 

Primary Significance of the Mark is a Geographic Location:

 

The primary significance of ARAKU is a geographic location, namely, a valley in Andra Pradesh, India. See the attached evidence from Wikipedia. Further, the attached evidence from Wikipedia shows that Araku Valley is known for coffee plantations.

 

The Origin of Applicant’s Goods is the Geographic Location in the Mark:

 

Goods are considered to originate from a geographic location when the record shows that the goods are sold there, manufactured or produced there, packaged and shipped from there, and/or contain a main ingredient or component derived from there.  See In re Joint-Stock Co. “Baik,” 80 USPQ2d 1305, 1310 (TTAB 2006) (holding applicant’s vodka originated from BAIKALSKAYA, a Russian word meaning “from Baikal,” because it was made from the water of Lake Baikal and applicant produced various vodkas from a location near Lake Baikal); In re JT Tobacconists, 59 USPQ2d 1080, 1083 (TTAB 2001) (holding applicant’s cigars, cigar cases, and humidors originated from MINNESOTA because they were packaged and shipped from MINNESOTA, and applicant’s business was located in MINNESOTA); In re Nantucket Allserve Inc., 28 USPQ2d 1144, 1145-46 (TTAB 1993) (holding applicant’s beverages originated from NANTUCKET because labels for applicant’s goods suggested a connection with NANTUCKET, additional evidence suggested that some ingredients came from NANTUCKET and that applicant’s goods were sold at applicant’s store located in NANTUCKET, and applicant’s corporate headquarters and research and development center were located in NANTUCKET); TMEP §1210.03.

 

Here, the attached evidence from applicant’s website shows that the coffee is picked by farmers in the Araku valley and is grown in the highlands of the Araku valley. Accordingly, it is presumed that the goods originate in ARAKU.

 

Goods/Place Association Presumed:

 

A goods-place or services-place association may be presumed where (1) the location in the mark is generally known to the purchasing public, (2) the term’s geographical significance is its primary significance, and (3) the goods do, in fact, originate from the named location in the mark.  TMEP §1210.04; see, e.g., In re Cal. Pizza Kitchen Inc., 10 USPQ2d 1704, 1705 (TTAB 1988) (finding a services-place association was presumed between applicant’s restaurant services and California because the services originated in California); In re Handler Fenton Ws., Inc., 214 USPQ 848, 850 (TTAB 1982) (finding a goods-place association was presumed between applicant’s t-shirts and Denver because the goods had their geographical origin in Denver); see also In re Nantucket, Inc., 677 F.2d 95, 102, 213 USPQ 889, 895 (C.C.P.A. 1982) (Nies, J., concurring) (“[W]e must start with the concept that a geographic name of a place of business is a descriptive term when used on the goods of that business.  There is a public goods/place association, in effect, presumed.” (internal footnote removed)).

 

Applicant grows and collects coffee in Araku. Therefore, it can be presumed that consumers will presume the goods originate in Araku.

 

For all of the reasons discussed above, the primary significance of ARAKU in applicant’s mark is that of a geographic location. Further, the evidence of record establishes a goods/place association between applicant’s goods and ARAKU.

 

Given this, registration is hereby refused under Section 2(e)(2) of the Trademark Act.

 

ADVISORY – SUPPLEMENTAL REGISTER

 

THIS RESPONSE OPTION ONLY APPIES TO THE SECTION 2(e)(2) REFUSAL

 

Although an amendment to the Supplemental Register would normally be an appropriate response to this refusal, such a response is not appropriate in the present case.  The instant application was filed under Trademark Act Section 1(b) and is not eligible for registration on the Supplemental Register until an acceptable amendment to allege use meeting the requirements of 37 C.F.R. §2.76 has been timely filed.  37 C.F.R. §2.47(d); TMEP §§816.02, 1102.03.

 

If applicant files an acceptable allegation of use and also amends to the Supplemental Register, the application effective filing date will be the date applicant met the minimum filing requirements under 37 C.F.R. §2.76(c) for an amendment to allege use.  TMEP §§816.02, 1102.03; see 37 C.F.R. §2.75(b).  In addition, the undersigned trademark examining attorney will conduct a new search of the USPTO records for conflicting marks based on the later application filing date.  TMEP §§206.01, 1102.03.

 

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 requirement set forth below.

 

IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS

 

The wording “coffee flavorings” is unacceptable as indefinite because applicant must specify the nature and use for the goods.

 

The wording “flour and preparations made from cereals” is unacceptable as indefinite because applicant must specify the nature of the preparations in Class 30.

 

The wording “confectionery” is unacceptable as indefinite because applicant must specify the nature of the confectionery.

 

The wording “sauces (condiments)” is unacceptable as indefinite because applicant must delete the parenthesis and incorporate the parenthetical language into the identification.

 

Applicant may adopt any or all of the following suggested amendment to the identification of goods:

 

-          International Class 30:            Coffee; artificial coffee; coffee essences; coffee extracts; decaffeinated coffee; ground coffee; iced coffee; instant coffee; unroasted coffee; Coffee, tea, cocoa and artificial coffee; caffeine-free coffee; coffee-based beverages; coffee flavorings being syrup used in making food and beverages; roasted coffee beans; vegetable preparations for use as coffee substitutes; tea; cocoa; rice; tapioca and sago; flour and preparations made from cereals being {specify specific nature of items in Class 30}; bread, pastry and confectionery being {specify nature of confectionery, i.e. frozen confectionery, confectionery made of sugar}; edible ices; sugar, honey, treacle; yeast, baking-powder; salt; mustard; vinegar, sauces as condiments; spices; Chocolates, Biscuits, Cakes

 

Applicant may amend the identification to clarify or limit the goods, but not to broaden or expand the goods beyond those in the original application or as acceptably amended.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06.  Generally, any deleted goods 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.

 

RESPONSE GUIDELINES

 

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.    

 

 

/Tara L. Bhupathi/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 124

(571) 272-5557

tara.bhupathi@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 December 18, 2020 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 90122073

 

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. 

 

 

/Tara L. Bhupathi/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 124

(571) 272-5557

tara.bhupathi@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 December 18, 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.”