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:  January 28, 2021

 

 

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:

 

In response to this Office action, the applicant must address the following issues:

 

• Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion
• Section 2(e)(1) Refusal – MERELY DESCRIPTIVE
• Specimen Does Not Show Use In Commerce – New Specimen Or Amendment 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 No. 4188827.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registration.

 

In this case, applicant has applied to register the mark AQUAPAQQ for use in connection with “Water bottle belts for active mobility and sports; Water bottles sold empty; Lids with drinking spouts for reusable water bottles; Plastic water bottle holders and attached carabiner clip sold as a unit; Plastic water bottles sold empty; Reusable plastic water bottles sold empty; Reusable pastic, silicone, rubber water bottles sold empty; Siphon bottles for aerated water.”

 

Registration No. 4188827 is for the mark A AQUA PAC used in connection with, in relevant part, “all-purpose carrying bags, travel bags and sport bags made of plastic and plastic materials; duffel, hiking, and overnight bags; waterproof travel and tote bags; waterproof travel and tote bags made of plastic; hermetically sealable waterproof all purpose carrying bags; travelling bags; rucksacks; bumbags; luggage; toiletry cases sold empty; all purpose sports bags; tote bags; attaché cases; briefcase-type portfolios and briefcases; purses, handbags, shoulder bags, make-up bags sold empty, suitcases, carry on luggage, travel kits sold empty, shoulder bags, back packs, book bags, waist packs, key cases, pocket wallets, passport wallets; travelling cases, namely, panniers; component and replacement parts for all the aforesaid goods.”

 

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. 

 

Similarity 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).

 

 

Here, applicant’s mark, AQUAPAQQ, is confusingly similar to the registered mark A AQUA PAC. Specifically, both marks create the same overall commercial impression. Marks may be confusingly similar in appearance where similar terms or phrases or similar parts of terms or phrases appear in the compared marks and create a similar overall commercial impression.  See Crocker Nat’l Bank v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 228 USPQ 689, 690-91 (TTAB 1986), aff’d sub nom. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 811 F.2d 1490, 1495, 1 USPQ2d 1813, 1817 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (finding COMMCASH and COMMUNICASH confusingly similar); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65, 66 (TTAB 1985) (finding CONFIRM and CONFIRMCELLS confusingly similar); In re Pellerin Milnor Corp., 221 USPQ 558, 560 (TTAB 1983) (finding MILTRON and MILLTRONICS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii). Here, both marks create the same overall commercial impression of a container made to be carried on the body related to water.  Therefore, the marks are similar for likelihood of confusion purposes.

 

Further, the design elements in the registered mark do not obviate the similarities between the marks. 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 goods and/or 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, 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)). Here, the less significant design elements in the registered mark do not obviate the similarities between the dominant literal elements of the mark.  Therefore, the marks are similar for likelihood of confusion purposes.

 

Ultimately, when purchasers call for the goods of the applicant and registrant using AQUAPAQQ and A AQUA PAC, they are likely to be confused as to the sources of those goods by the similarities between the marks. Thus, the marks are confusingly similar.

 

            Relatedness of the Goods

 

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).

 

In this case, applicant's “Water bottle belts for active mobility and sports; Water bottles sold empty; Lids with drinking spouts for reusable water bottles; Plastic water bottle holders and attached carabiner clip sold as a unit; Plastic water bottles sold empty; Reusable plastic water bottles sold empty; Reusable pastic, silicone, rubber water bottles sold empty; Siphon bottles for aerated water” are related to registrant’s “all-purpose carrying bags, travel bags and sport bags made of plastic and plastic materials; duffel, hiking, and overnight bags; waterproof travel and tote bags; waterproof travel and tote bags made of plastic; hermetically sealable waterproof all purpose carrying bags; travelling bags; rucksacks; bumbags; luggage; toiletry cases sold empty; all purpose sports bags; tote bags; attaché cases; briefcase-type portfolios and briefcases; purses, handbags, shoulder bags, make-up bags sold empty, suitcases, carry on luggage, travel kits sold empty, shoulder bags, back packs, book bags, waist packs, key cases, pocket wallets, passport wallets; travelling cases, namely, panniers; component and replacement parts for all the aforesaid goods.” Specifically, both the application and registration identify goods that are commonly provided by the same source.

 

The attached Internet evidence, consisting of the websites of third party water bottle companies, establishes that the same entity commonly manufactures, produces, or provides the relevant goods and markets the goods under the same mark. See attached websites for NATHAN SPORTS, http://www.nathansports.com/; CAMELBAK, http://www.camelbak.com/; and ULTIMATE DIRECTION, http://ultimatedirection.com/. 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).

 

When purchasers encounter the goods of the applicant and registrant, they are likely to be confused as to the source of the goods by the relationship between them. Thus, the goods are closely related.

 

Therefore, because the marks are confusingly similar and the goods are closely related, purchasers encountering these goods are likely to believe, mistakenly, that they emanate from a common source. Accordingly, there is a likelihood of confusion and registration is refused pursuant to Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.

 

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

 

SECTION 2(e)(1) REFUSAL - MERELY DESCRIPTIVE

Registration is refused because the applied-for mark merely describes a feature of applicant’s goods.  Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); see TMEP §§1209.01(b), 1209.03 et seq.

 

In this case, applicant has applied to register the mark AQUAPAQQ used in connection with “Water bottle belts for active mobility and sports; Water bottles sold empty; Lids with drinking spouts for reusable water bottles; Plastic water bottle holders and attached carabiner clip sold as a unit; Plastic water bottles sold empty; Reusable plastic water bottles sold empty; Reusable pastic, silicone, rubber water bottles sold empty; Siphon bottles for aerated water.” 

 

A mark is merely descriptive if it describes an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose, or use of an applicant’s goods and/or services.  TMEP §1209.01(b); see, e.g., In re TriVita, Inc., 783 F.3d 872, 874, 114 USPQ2d 1574, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 1173, 71 USPQ2d 1370, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004)); In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293, 1297, 75 USPQ2d 1420, 1421 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Estate of P.D. Beckwith, Inc. v. Comm’r of Patents, 252 U.S. 538, 543 (1920)). 

 

Here, the term AQUA, meaning “water”, is combined with the phonetic spelling of the term “pack,” meaning “container made to be carried on the body”. See attached American Heritage Dictionary definitions. Together, the terms immediately conveys that the goods are containers made to be carried on the body for water.

 

In addition, the novel spelling of the term “pack” as PAQQ does not obviate the descriptive nature of the mark. A novel spelling or an intentional misspelling that is the phonetic equivalent of a merely descriptive word or term is also merely descriptive if purchasers would perceive the different spelling as the equivalent of the descriptive word or term.  See In re Quik-Print Copy Shop, Inc., 616 F.2d 523, 526 & n.9, 205 USPQ 505, 507 & n.9 (C.C.P.A. 1980) (holding “QUIK-PRINT,” phonetic spelling of “quick-print,” merely descriptive of printing and photocopying services); In re Calphalon Corp., 122 USPQ2d 1153, 1163 (TTAB 2017) (holding “SHARPIN”, phonetic spelling of “sharpen,” merely descriptive of cutlery knife blocks with built-in sharpeners); In re Carlson, 91 USPQ2d 1198, 1203 (TTAB 2009) (holding “URBANHOUZING,” phonetic spelling of “urban” and “housing,” merely descriptive of real estate services); TMEP §1209.03(j).  Here, consumers will perceived the term PAQQ as “pack” and as describing a feature of the goods. Therefore, the mark is merely descriptive.

 

Further, the term “AQUA” is often used in connection with similar goods to describe that they are used in connection with water.  See attached websites for ARROW H2O Aqua + Fill Sport Bottle, http://www.arrowhomeproducts.com/product/32-oz-h2o-aqua-fill-sport-bottle/; TUNING ELEMENT AQUA TUNE Sport Water Bottle, http://tuningelement.com/product/aqua-tune-sport-water-bottle-black/; and  XLAB Aqua-shot 25oz Racing Bottle, http://www.xlab-usa.com/aqua-shot.html. In addition, the term “pack” is commonly used to describe similar goods that are used as a container. See attached websites for REI article “How to Choose Hydration Packs,” http://www.rei.com/learn/expert-advice/hydration-system.html; CAMELBAK Packs, http://www.camelbak.com/recreation/shop/packs/; and CABELA’S Hydration Packs, http://www.cabelas.com/shop/en/hydration-packs#facet:&productBeginIndex:0&facetLimit:&orderBy:&pageView:grid&minPrice:&maxPrice:&pageSize:&. Therefore, consumers are conditioned to view the terms as describing the goods.

 

Generally, if the individual components of a mark retain their descriptive meaning in relation to the goods and/or services, the combination results in a composite mark that is itself descriptive and not registrable.  In re Fat Boys Water Sports LLC, 118 USPQ2d 1511, 1516 (TTAB 2016) (citing In re Tower Tech, Inc., 64 USPQ2d 1314, 1317-18 (TTAB (2002)); TMEP §1209.03(d); see, e.g., Apollo Med. Extrusion Techs., Inc. v. Med. Extrusion Techs., Inc., 123 USPQ2d 1844, 1851 (TTAB 2017) (holding MEDICAL EXTRUSION TECHNOLOGIES merely descriptive of medical extrusion goods produced by employing medical extrusion technologies); In re Cannon Safe, Inc., 116 USPQ2d 1348, 1351 (TTAB 2015) (holding SMART SERIES merely descriptive of metal gun safes); In re King Koil Licensing Co., 79 USPQ2d 1048, 1052 (TTAB 2006) (holding THE BREATHABLE MATTRESS merely descriptive of beds, mattresses, box springs, and pillows). 

 

Only where the combination of descriptive terms creates a unitary mark with a unique, incongruous, or otherwise nondescriptive meaning in relation to the goods and/or services is the combined mark registrable.  See In re Colonial Stores, Inc., 394 F.2d 549, 551, 157 USPQ 382, 384 (C.C.P.A. 1968); In re Positec Grp. Ltd., 108 USPQ2d 1161, 1162-63 (TTAB 2013).

 

In this case, both the individual components and the composite result are descriptive of applicant’s goods and/or services and do not create a unique, incongruous, or nondescriptive meaning in relation to the goods and/or services.  Specifically, the composite results specifies the type of goods, namely, a container, and what the container is for, namely, water.  Therefore, the composite result is descriptive of applicant’s goods and do not create a unique, incongruous, or nondescriptive meaning in relation to the goods.

 

Ultimately, when purchasers encounter applicant’s goods using the mark AQUAPAQQ, they will immediately understand the mark as an indication of the feature of applicant’s goods that they are containers made to be carried on the body for water rather than as an indication that applicant is the source of the goods.  Therefore, the mark is merely descriptive and registration is refused pursuant to Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act. 

 

Response to Section 2(e)(1) – Mere Descriptiveness Refusal

 

The applied-for mark has been refused registration on the Principal Register.  Applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration and/or by amending the application to seek registration on the Supplemental Register.  See 15 U.S.C. §1091; 37 C.F.R. §§2.47, 2.75(a); TMEP §§801.02(b), 816.  Amending to the Supplemental Register does not preclude applicant from submitting evidence and arguments against the refusal(s).  TMEP §816.04.

 

If applicant responds to the refusals, applicant must also respond to the requirement set forth below.

 

SPECIMEN DOES NOT SHOW USE IN COMMERCE – NEW SPECIMEN OR AMENDMENT REQUIRED

 

Specimen is not an acceptable webpage display.  Registration is refused because the specimen in International Class 21 is not acceptable as a display associated with the goods and does not show the applied-for mark as actually used in commerce.  Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; 37 C.F.R. §2.56(a), (b)(1); see TMEP §§904, 904.03(g)-(i), 904.07(a).  An application based on Trademark Act Section 1(a) must include a specimen showing the applied-for mark as actually used in commerce for each international class of goods identified in the application or amendment to allege use.  15 U.S.C. §1051(a)(1); 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a). 

 

A webpage or catalog display specimen (1) must show use of the mark directly associated with the goods and (2) such use must be of a point-of-sale nature.  37 C.F.R. §2.56(b)(1).  This means that this type of display specimen must include the following:

 

(1)        A picture or sufficient textual description of the goods;

(2)        The mark associated with the goods; and

(3)        A means for ordering the goods such as a “shopping cart” button/link, an order form, or a telephone number for placing orders. 

 

See In re Sones, 590 F.3d 1282, 1286-89, 93 USPQ2d 1118, 1122-24 (Fed. Cir. 2009); In re Azteca Sys., Inc., 102 USPQ2d 1955, 1957-58 (TTAB 2012); In re Dell Inc., 71 USPQ2d 1725, 1727 (TTAB 2004); Lands’ End v. Manbeck, 797 F. Supp. 511, 514, 24 USPQ2d 1314, 1316 (E.D. Va. 1992); TMEP §904.03(h), (i)-.03(i)(D). 

 

In this case, the specimen does not show sufficient means for ordering the goods.  Specifically, the specimen shows a “SHOP NOW” button but does not show a button or link for ordering the goods or a shopping cart feature.  Therefore, the specimen is not acceptable. 

 

Accordingly, such material is mere advertising, which is not acceptable as a specimen for goods.  See In re Yarnell Ice Cream, LLC, 2019 USPQ2d 265039, at *15-16 (TTAB 2019) (quoting In re Siny Corp., 920 F.3d 1331, 1336, 2019 USPQ2d 127099, at *2-3 (Fed. Cir. 2019)); see also Avakoff v. S. Pac. Co., 765 F.2d 1097, 1098, 226 USPQ 435, 436 (Fed. Cir. 1985); TMEP §904.04(b), (c). 

Webpage specimen does not include required date printed/accessed.  Registration is refused because the specimen is not acceptable as a webpage specimen; it lacks the required date printed/accessed.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.56(c); TMEP §§904.03(i), 1301.04(a).  Thus, it is unclear whether the specimen shows the applied-for mark in actual use in commerce.  See Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); TMEP §§904, 904.03(g), 904.07(a).  An application based on Trademark Act Section 1(a) must include a specimen showing the applied-for mark as actually used in commerce for each international class of goods and services identified in the application or amendment to allege use.  15 U.S.C. §1051(a)(1); 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a).

Any webpage printout or screenshot submitted as a specimen must include the webpage’s URL and the date it was accessed or printed on the specimen itself, within the TEAS form that submits the specimen, or in a verified statement under 37 C.F.R. §2.20 or 28 U.S.C. §1746 in a later-filed response.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.56(c); TMEP §§904.03(i), 1301.04(a).  Because the webpage specimen lacks the associated URL and/or access or print date on it, within the TEAS form used to submit the specimen, or in a verified statement in a later-filed response, it is unacceptable to show use of the mark in commerce.  TMEP §§904.03(i), 1301.04(a).

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).  As specified above, 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 on the specimen itself, within the TEAS form that submits the specimen, or in a verified statement under 37 C.F.R. §2.20 or 28 U.S.C. §1746 in a later-filed response.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.56(c); TMEP §§904.03(i), 1301.04(a).

 

Response options.  Applicant may respond to this refusal by satisfying one of the following for each applicable international class:

 

(1)        Submit a different specimen (a verified “substitute” specimen) that (a) was in actual use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application or prior to the filing of an amendment to allege use and (b) shows the mark in actual use in commerce for the goods identified in the application or amendment to allege use.  A “verified substitute specimen” is a specimen that is accompanied by the following statement made in a signed affidavit or supported by a declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20:  “The substitute (or new, or originally submitted, if appropriate) specimen(s) was/were in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application or prior to the filing of the amendment to allege use.”  The substitute specimen cannot be accepted without this statement.

 

(2)        Amend the filing basis to intent to use under Section 1(b) (which includes withdrawing an amendment to allege use, if one was filed), as no specimen is required before publication.  This option will later necessitate additional fee(s) and filing requirements, including a specimen.

 

For an overview of the response options referenced above and instructions on how to satisfy these options using the online Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, see the Specimen webpage.  

 

RESPONSE TO THIS OFFICE ACTION

 

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.    

 

 

/Emma Sirignano/

Examining Attorney, Law Office 113

United States Patent and Trademark Office

(571) 272-7031

emma.sirignano@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 January 28, 2021 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 90175004

 

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. 

 

 

/Emma Sirignano/

Examining Attorney, Law Office 113

United States Patent and Trademark Office

(571) 272-7031

emma.sirignano@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 January 28, 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.”