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 issue(s) below.  15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(a), 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.

 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES:

• Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion
• Section 2(e)(1) Refusal - Merely Descriptive
• Advisory: Supplemental Register Presently Unavailable
• Requirement: Identification and Classification of Goods
• Multiple Class Application Requirements

 

SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

 

Applicant seeks to register SPANGLE  for “bathing suits, bathing trunks, beach coverups, beachwear, bikinis, blazers, blouses, bodysuits, boxer shorts, cardigans, coats, coveralls, coverups, dresses, gym shorts, halter tops, jackets, jeans, kaftans, knit shirts, lingerie, pajamas, panties, pants, pullovers, rainwear, sarongs, shirts, polo shirts, sport shirts, sweat shirts, undershirts, utility shirts, sheaths, shorts, skirts, slacks, socks, sweaters, swim trunks, swimwear, swimsuits, T-shirts, tank tops, tights, trousers, tunics, turtlenecks, vests, Clothing wraps; Hooded pullovers; Hooded sweat shirts; Hoods; Leggings; Sports jackets; Sweatpants; Tops as clothing; Yoga tops ; Women's athletic tops with built-in bras; Women's clothing, namely, shirts, dresses, skirts, blouses; Athletic pants; Athletic shirts; Athletic shorts; Athletic tights; Athletic skirts; Athletic tights; Athletic apparel, namely, shirts, pants, jackets, footwear, hats and caps, athletic uniforms;Sports caps and hats; Sport stockings; Sports pants; Sports bra; Footwear not for sports; Sports shirts with short sleeves;Sports shirts; Sports overuniforms; Sport coats; Sports shoes; Sports vests; Boots for sport; Sports jerseys and breeches for sports; Sports bras; Sports jerseys; Golf towels; Golf shorts; Golf shirts; Golf trousers; Golf caps; Golf shoes; Golf pants, shirts and skirts; Men's socks; Men's dress socks; Ankle socks; Socks and stockings; Sleeves worn separate and apart from blouses, shirts and other tops; Long-sleeved shirts; Knit face masks being headwear; Sleep masks; Ski masks; Fashion masks; Masks; Clothing, namely, face coverings and masks; Face masks of cloth or fabric” in Class 25.

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks SPANGLED in U.S. Registration Nos. 4611518 and 4611519.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registrations.

 

Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that is so similar to a registered mark that it is likely consumers would be confused, mistaken, or deceived as to the commercial source of the goods 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.  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).

 

When comparing marks, “[t]he proper test is not a side-by-side comparison of the marks, but instead whether the marks are sufficiently similar in terms of their commercial impression such that [consumers] who encounter the marks would be likely to assume a connection between the parties.”  Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., 901 F.3d 1367, 1373, 127 USPQ2d 1797, 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1368, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(b).  The proper focus is on the recollection of the average purchaser, who retains a general rather than specific impression of trademarks.  In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1746 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re St. Helena Hosp., 774 F.3d 747, 750-51, 113 USPQ2d 1082, 1085 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Geigy Chem. Corp. v. Atlas Chem. Indus., Inc., 438 F.2d 1005, 1007, 169 USPQ 39, 40 (C.C.P.A. 1971)), aff’d per curiam, 777 F. App’x 516, 2019 BL 343921 (Fed. Cir. 2019); TMEP §1207.01(b).

 

Applicant has applied for the standard character mark SPANGLE and the cited registrations are the standard character mark SPANGLED, and its co-owned stylized variant SPANGLED.  The marks are identical except applicant deletes the last letter D. This results in nearly identical marks in appearance, sound, and connotation, and these elements altogether lead to a very similar commercial impression.

 

Although the D minorly alters the sound, slight differences in the sound of similar marks will not avoid a likelihood of confusion.  In re Energy Telecomms. & Elec. Ass’n, 222 USPQ 350, 351 (TTAB 1983); see In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1367, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1912 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

 

Because the marks are similar in appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression, the marks are confusingly similar.

 

RELATEDNESS OF THE GOODS

 

The applicant identifies the following goods:

 

Class 25          bathing suits, bathing trunks, beach coverups, beachwear, bikinis, blazers, blouses, bodysuits, boxer shorts, cardigans, coats, coveralls, coverups, dresses, gym shorts, halter tops, jackets, jeans, kaftans, knit shirts, lingerie, pajamas, panties, pants, pullovers, rainwear, sarongs, shirts, polo shirts, sport shirts, sweat shirts, undershirts, utility shirts, sheaths, shorts, skirts, slacks, socks, sweaters, swim trunks, swimwear, swimsuits, T-shirts, tank tops, tights, trousers, tunics, turtlenecks, vests, Clothing wraps; Hooded pullovers; Hooded sweat shirts; Hoods; Leggings; Sports jackets; Sweatpants; Tops as clothing; Yoga tops ; Women's athletic tops with built-in bras; Women's clothing, namely, shirts, dresses, skirts, blouses; Athletic pants; Athletic shirts; Athletic shorts; Athletic tights; Athletic skirts; Athletic tights; Athletic apparel, namely, shirts, pants, jackets, footwear, hats and caps, athletic uniforms;Sports caps and hats; Sport stockings; Sports pants; Sports bra; Footwear not for sports; Sports shirts with short sleeves;Sports shirts; Sports overuniforms; Sport coats; Sports shoes; Sports vests; Boots for sport; Sports jerseys and breeches for sports; Sports bras; Sports jerseys; Golf towels; Golf shorts; Golf shirts; Golf trousers; Golf caps; Golf shoes; Golf pants, shirts and skirts; Men's socks; Men's dress socks; Ankle socks; Socks and stockings; Sleeves worn separate and apart from blouses, shirts and other tops; Long-sleeved shirts; Knit face masks being headwear; Sleep masks; Ski masks; Fashion masks; Masks; Clothing, namely, face coverings and masks; Face masks of cloth or fabric

 

Registrant identifies the following goods:

 

Class 25          Clothing and accessories, namely, shirts, blouses, tank tops, sweaters, jackets, pants, jeans, shorts, sweatpants, sweatshirts, dresses, skirts, scarves, gloves, shoes, hats, belts, socks

 

The compared goods need not be identical or even competitive to find a likelihood of confusion.  See On-line Careline Inc. v. Am. Online Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1086, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1475 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Recot, Inc. v. Becton, 214 F.3d 1322, 1329, 54 USPQ2d 1894, 1898 (Fed. Cir. 2000); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).  They need only be “related in some manner and/or if the circumstances surrounding their marketing are such that they could give rise to the mistaken belief that [the goods] emanate from the same source.”  Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting 7-Eleven Inc. v. Wechsler, 83 USPQ2d 1715, 1724 (TTAB 2007)); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).

 

Generally, the greater degree of similarity between the applied-for mark and the registered mark, the lesser the degree of similarity between the goods of the parties is required to support a finding of likelihood of confusion.  In re C.H. Hanson Co., 116 USPQ2d 1351, 1353 (TTAB 2015) (citing In re Opus One Inc., 60 USPQ2d 1812, 1815 (TTAB 2001)); In re Thor Tech, Inc., 90 USPQ2d 1634, 1636 (TTAB 2009).    Here, as discussed above, the marks are highly similar.

 

The attached Internet evidence consists of screenshots from third parties that produce applicant’s clothing goods, towels, and masks in addition to registrant’s clothing goods. The evidence establishes that the same entity commonly produces the relevant goods and markets the goods under the same mark, that 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, and that 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).

 

Because the marks are confusingly similar and the goods are related, there is a likelihood of confusion to relevant consumers, and therefore registration is refused.

 

Applicant should note the following additional ground for refusal.

 

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

 

Applicant has applied for the mark SPANGLE for “bathing suits, bathing trunks, beach coverups, beachwear, bikinis, blazers, blouses, bodysuits, boxer shorts, cardigans, coats, coveralls, coverups, dresses, gym shorts, halter tops, jackets, jeans, kaftans, knit shirts, lingerie, pajamas, panties, pants, pullovers, rainwear, sarongs, shirts, polo shirts, sport shirts, sweat shirts, undershirts, utility shirts, sheaths, shorts, skirts, slacks, socks, sweaters, swim trunks, swimwear, swimsuits, T-shirts, tank tops, tights, trousers, tunics, turtlenecks, vests, Clothing wraps; Hooded pullovers; Hooded sweat shirts; Hoods; Leggings; Sports jackets; Sweatpants; Tops as clothing; Yoga tops ; Women's athletic tops with built-in bras; Women's clothing, namely, shirts, dresses, skirts, blouses; Athletic pants; Athletic shirts; Athletic shorts; Athletic tights; Athletic skirts; Athletic tights; Athletic apparel, namely, shirts, pants, jackets, footwear, hats and caps, athletic uniforms;Sports caps and hats; Sport stockings; Sports pants; Sports bra; Footwear not for sports; Sports shirts with short sleeves;Sports shirts; Sports overuniforms; Sport coats; Sports shoes; Sports vests; Boots for sport; Sports jerseys and breeches for sports; Sports bras; Sports jerseys; Golf towels; Golf shorts; Golf shirts; Golf trousers; Golf caps; Golf shoes; Golf pants, shirts and skirts; Men's socks; Men's dress socks; Ankle socks; Socks and stockings; Sleeves worn separate and apart from blouses, shirts and other tops; Long-sleeved shirts; Knit face masks being headwear; Sleep masks; Ski masks; Fashion masks; Masks; Clothing, namely, face coverings and masks; Face masks of cloth or fabric”.

 

Registration is refused because the applied-for mark merely describes a feature or characteristic 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.

 

A mark is merely descriptive if it describes an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose, or use of an applicant’s goods.  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)). 

 

The determination of whether a mark is merely descriptive is made in relation to an applicant’s goods, not in the abstract.  DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1254, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re The Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 1300, 102 USPQ2d 1217, 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2012); TMEP §1209.01(b).  “Whether consumers could guess what the product [or service] is from consideration of the mark alone is not the test.”  In re Am. Greetings Corp., 226 USPQ 365, 366 (TTAB 1985).

 

SPANGLE is defined in the attached Merriam Webster dictionary as “a small plate of shining metal or plastic used for ornamentation especially on clothing”.  This shows the term SPANGLE describes the goods because they can feature spangles.  The attached internet evidence shows that the term SPANGLE is used by third parties to describe clothing decorated or made with spangles.

 

http://www.ambromanufacturing.com/spangled-clothing/

http://www.etsy.com/listing/884915280/spangled-vintage-1950s-dress-ball-gown

http://fashion-history.lovetoknow.com/clothing-closures-embellishments/spangles

http://www.thelineup.com/spangles

 

For purposes of evaluating a trademark, material obtained from the Internet is generally accepted as competent evidence.  See In re Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, 488 F.3d 960, 966, 82 USPQ2d 1828, 1833 (Fed. Cir. 2007); In re Reed Elsevier Props., Inc., 482 F.3d 1376, 1380, 82 USPQ2d 1378, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2007); TBMP §1208.03; TMEP §710.01(b).

 

For the reasons stated above, applicant’s mark is merely descriptive of the applied-for goods and registration is refused.

 

ADVISORY: SUPPLEMENTAL REGISTER PRESENTLY UNAVAILABLE

 

Although an amendment to the Supplemental Register would normally be an appropriate response to this 2(e)(1) 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(s) by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.  However, if applicant responds to the refusal(s), applicant must also respond to the requirement(s) set forth below.

 

REQUIREMENT: IDENTIFICATION AND CLASSIFICATION OF GOODS

 

Applicant must clarify the wording “sheaths” and “Fashion masks; Masks; Clothing, namely, face coverings and masks; Face masks of cloth or fabric” in the identification of goods in International Class 25 because they are all indefinite and too broad.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03.  This wording is indefinite because it does not make clear what the goods are.  Further, this wording could identify goods in more than one international class.  For example, knife sheaths are in Class 8, fashion masks being sanitary masks for protection against viral infection and face coverings being sanitary masks for protection against viral infection are in Class 10, and ski masks are in Class 25.

 

In addition, Golf towels are definite but are specifically classified in Class 24.      

 

Finally, applicant is advised to delete or modify the duplicate entry in the identification of goods in International Class 25 for “athletic tights.”  See generally TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.01(a).  If applicant does not respond to this issue, be advised that the USPTO will remove duplicate entries from the identification prior to registration.

 

If modifying one of the duplicate entries, applicant may amend it 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.  Also, generally, any deleted goods may not later be reinserted.  TMEP §1402.07(e).

 

Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate (additions are shown in bold):

 

Class 8            Knife sheaths

 

Class 10          Fashion masks being sanitary masks for protection against viral infection; face coverings being sanitary masks for protection against viral infection

 

Class 24          Golf towels

 

Class 25          bathing suits, bathing trunks, beach coverups, beachwear, bikinis, blazers, blouses, bodysuits, boxer shorts, cardigans, coats, coveralls, coverups, dresses, gym shorts, halter tops, jackets, jeans, kaftans, knit shirts, lingerie, pajamas, panties, pants, pullovers, rainwear, sarongs, shirts, polo shirts, sport shirts, sweat shirts, undershirts, utility shirts, shorts, skirts, slacks, socks, sweaters, swim trunks, swimwear, swimsuits, T-shirts, tank tops, tights, trousers, tunics, turtlenecks, vests, Clothing wraps; Hooded pullovers; Hooded sweat shirts; Hoods; Leggings; Sports jackets; Sweatpants; Tops as clothing; Yoga tops ; Women's athletic tops with built-in bras; Women's clothing, namely, shirts, dresses, skirts, blouses; Athletic pants; Athletic shirts; Athletic shorts; Athletic tights; Athletic skirts; Athletic apparel, namely, shirts, pants, jackets, footwear, hats and caps, athletic uniforms; Sports caps and hats; Sport stockings; Sports pants; Sports bra; Footwear not for sports; Sports shirts with short sleeves; Sports shirts; Sports overuniforms; Sport coats; Sports shoes; Sports vests; Boots for sport; Sports jerseys and breeches for sports; Sports bras; Sports jerseys; Golf shorts; Golf shirts; Golf trousers; Golf caps; Golf shoes; Golf pants, shirts and skirts; Men's socks; Men's dress socks; Ankle socks; Socks and stockings; Sleeves worn separate and apart from blouses, shirts and other tops; Long-sleeved shirts; Knit face masks being headwear; Sleep masks; Ski masks

 

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 in trademark applications, please see the USPTO’s online searchable U.S. Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual.  See TMEP §1402.04.

 

MULTIPLE-CLASS APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS

 

The application identifies goods in more than one international class; therefore, applicant must satisfy all the requirements below for each international class based on Trademark Act Section 1(b):

 

(1)        List the goods by their international class number in consecutive numerical order, starting with the lowest numbered class.

 

(2)        Submit a filing fee for each international class not covered by the fee already paid (view the USPTO’s current fee schedule).  The application identifies goods that are classified in at least 3 classes; however, applicant submitted a fee sufficient for only 1 class.  Applicant must either submit the filing fees for the classes not covered by the submitted fees or restrict the application to the number of classes covered by the fees already paid.

 

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

 

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

 

ASSISTANCE

 

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.    

 

 

/benjaminrosen/

Benjamin Rosen

Examining Attorney

Law Office 120

(571) 272-8425

benjamin.rosen@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. 90175507

 

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. 

 

 

/benjaminrosen/

Benjamin Rosen

Examining Attorney

Law Office 120

(571) 272-8425

benjamin.rosen@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.”