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:  March 12, 2021

 

 

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:

• Section 2(d) – Likelihood of Confusion Partial Refusal
• Prior Pending Applications – Potential Likelihood of Confusion Refusal
• Specimen Does Not Show Use in Commerce – Amendment Required
• Identification of Goods Overbroad, Indefinite, and Misclassified – Amendment Required
• Clarification of the Number of Classes for Which Registration Is Sought Required

 

SECTION 2(D) – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION PARTIAL REFUSAL

 

Registration of the applied-for mark is PARTIALLY REFUSED for only “sterilization devices including UV-C ultraviolet lamps, namely, sterilization docks for receiving and directing UV-C light onto articles such as cell phones, personal computing devices, keys, and articles of clothing; and portable sterilization pens for directing UV-C light and atomized isopropanol onto such articles” in Class 10 because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration No. 4703403.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registration.

 

Applicant has applied to register the mark LEAF for use in connection with, in relevant part “sterilization devices including UV-C ultraviolet lamps, namely, sterilization docks for receiving and directing UV-C light onto articles such as cell phones, personal computing devices, keys, and articles of clothing; and portable sterilization pens for directing UV-C light and atomized isopropanol onto such articles” in Class 10.

 

Registration No. 4703403 is for the mark LEAF (standard character form) for use in connection with “Electronic air purifiers for home use” in Class 11.

 

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 and differences in the marks.”); TMEP §1207.01. 

 

In this case, the following factors are the most relevant: similarity of the marks, similarity and nature of the goods, and similarity of the trade channels of the goods. See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1361-62, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Dakin's Miniatures Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593, 1595-96 (TTAB 1999); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.

 

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, LEAF, is confusingly similar to the registered mark, LEAF. 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.  Id. Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar. 

 

Ultimately, when purchasers call for the goods of applicant and registrant using LEAF, 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] 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).

 

Here, applicant’s, “sterilization devices including UV-C ultraviolet lamps, namely, sterilization docks for receiving and directing UV-C light onto articles such as cell phones, personal computing devices, keys, and articles of clothing; and portable sterilization pens for directing UV-C light and atomized isopropanol onto such articles” are closely related to registrant’s “Electronic air purifiers for home use.”

 

As explained below, applicant’s “sterilization devices” and “sterilization pens” are indefinite and overbroad, and their language does not clearly define the particular items for which the sterilization devices are used. As such, this overbroad and indefinite language could encompass air purifiers or sterilizers of the kind offered by registrant.

 

This is particularly so given that consumers are accustomed to encountering air purifiers and sterilization  devices that use UV light. See attached Air Oasis, Germ Guardian, and Pocket-Lint (listing various UV air purifiers/sanitizers) website evidence. Given that applicant has identified sterilization devices that use UV light, this further connects these goods.

 

Given these factors, applicant’s sterilization devices could encompass registrant’s air purifiers. 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). Accordingly, as applicant’s sterilization devices encompass could encompass applicant’s air purifiers, the parties’ 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.

 

Finally, where the marks of the respective parties are identical or virtually identical, as in this case, the degree of similarity or relatedness between the goods needed to support a finding of likelihood of confusion declines.  See In re Country Oven, Inc., 2019 USPQ2d 443903, at *5 (TTAB 2019) (citing In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 116 USPQ2d 1406, 1411 (TTAB 2015), aff’d, 866 F.3d 1315, 123 USPQ2d 1744 (Fed. Cir. 2017)); TMEP §1207.01(a); see also In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1207, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Put simply, given the identical nature of the parties’ marks, consumers are more likely to associate their goods to the same source, particularly when both goods are for sanitation purposes.

 

When purchasers encounter the goods of 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.

 

            Conclusion

 

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 PARTIALLY REFUSED for only “sterilization devices including UV-C ultraviolet lamps, namely, sterilization docks for receiving and directing UV-C light onto articles such as cell phones, personal computing devices, keys, and articles of clothing; and portable sterilization pens for directing UV-C light and atomized isopropanol onto such articles” in Class 10 pursuant to Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.

 

Response to Section 2(d) – Likelihood of Confusion Refusal

 

The stated refusal refers to specific sterilization devices only and does not bar registration of the other goods. Applicant may respond to the stated refusal by submitting evidence and arguments against the refusal.  In addition, applicant may respond by doing one of the following:

 

1.      Deleting the goods to which the refusal pertains;

 

2.      Filing a Request to Divide Application form (form #3) to divide out the goods that have not been refused registration. See 37 C.F.R. §2.87.  See generally TMEP §§1110 et seq. (regarding the requirements for filing a request to divide).  If applicant files a request to divide, then to avoid abandonment, applicant must also file a timely response to all outstanding issues in this Office action, including the refusal.  37 C.F.R. §2.87(e).

 

Should applicant respond to this refusal, applicant must still respond to the requirements included in this Office action. See Requirements sections, infra.

 

PRIOR PENDING APPLICATIONS – POTENTIAL LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

 

The filing dates of pending U.S. Application Serial Nos. 88866317, 88910540, and 90129165  precede applicant’s filing date.  See attached referenced applications.  If one or more of the marks in the referenced applications register, applicant’s mark may be refused registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d) because of a likelihood of confusion with the registered 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 applications.

 

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 marks in the referenced applications.  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.

 

While applicant is not required to respond to the issue of the pending application, applicant must respond to the refusal above and requirements below within six months of the mailing date of this Office action to avoid abandonment.

 

REQUIREMENTS

 

If applicant chooses to respond to the refusal to register, then applicant must also respond to the following requirements:

 

SPECIMEN DOES NOT SHOW USE IN COMMERCE – AMENDMENT REQUIRED

 

Specimen is not an acceptable webpage display.  Registration is refused because the specimen in International Class 10 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 provide a picture or sufficient textual description of the goods. Applicant’s specimen consists of what appears to be the home page of its website. An image of a woman wearing a hoodie, earbuds, necklace, and a facemask appears on the home page, with a cart image in the upper right hand corner and a “join the waiting list” button. This page in no way clarifies what applicant is selling – there is no description of the goods or a specific image of the goods themselves. A consumer encountering this webpage would have no idea precisely what is being sold. While a mask is visible in the image on the home page, so are other goods. Such an image is insufficient, on its lonesome, to provide sufficient information to a consumer regarding the nature of the goods being purchased. Moreover, there is no indication that applicant could actually purchase any item from the homepage itself.

 

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). 

 

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.  

 

IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS OVERBROAD, INDEFINITE, AND MISCLASSIFIED – AMENDMENT REQUIRED

 

The wording “respirator masks” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified because it is too broad and could include goods in other international classes.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03.  Specifically, respirator masks could refer to protective non-medical respirators in Class 09 or they could refer to medical items in Class 10. Even if limited to Class 10, this language is overbroad because it could include respiratory masks for artificial respiration, oxygen masks for medical purposes, etc. Applicant must clarify the nature and type of mask it offers.

 

The wording “sterilization devices including UV-C ultraviolet lamps, namely, sterilization docks for receiving and directing UV-C light onto articles such as cell phones, personal computing devices, keys, and articles of clothing” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified because it appears to be misclassified.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6-7), 2.85; TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03, 1403. First, sterilization devices are Classified in Class 11, not Class 10. Second, applicant’s sterilization device is not clearly defined, as it is referred to as a sterilization dock (it is unclear what a dock is). Also, applicant says the device “receives and directs UV-C light,” but it is unclear how a device receives the light (if the light is generated by the device, it is clearly not “received”).

 

Further, the wording “articles such as cell phones, personal computing devices, keys, and articles of clothing” is overbroad and unacceptable. An identification must be specific and all-inclusive.  Open-ended terms (e.g., “including,” “such as”) are not acceptable because it fails to identify specific goods.  See TMEP §1402.03(a). It is particularly unclear here, as the wording “articles” could refer to almost anything, including even water, air, or other items. Applicant must clarify the nature and type of item it offers, and applicant must properly clarify this device.

 

The wording “and portable sterilization pens for directing UV-C light and atomized isopropanol onto such articles” in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified because it is too broad and could include goods in other international classes.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03. As above, the wording “such articles” is unclear, because it does not identify particular goods. It also appears to refer to the indefinite “articles” identified in the previous clause.

 

Moreover, it is unclear to what a “sterilization pen” refers. This item appears to potentially function as some kind of sterilization apparatus, but it also appears to be a device that sprays sanitizing preparations onto items. Sanitizing preparations (and items filled with such sanitizing preparations) are Class 05 goods (e.g., a spray disinfectant). Applicant must clarify the primary purpose, nature, and type of sterilization item it offers.

 

Upon reviewing the application and applicant’s website, the trademark examining attorney is limiting his suggestions as follows. Should applicant intend to identify other goods, applicant should amend the identification accordingly and comply with the scope and multiple-class advisories below.

 

Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate (suggested amended language in bold):

 

Class 10:   respiratory masks, namely, {specify type of respiratory mask here, e.g. oxygen masks for medical use, respiratory masks for artificial respiration, etc.}

 

Class 11:   Sterilization docks including UV-C ultraviolet lamps, namely, sanitizing sterilization apparatus using ultraviolet light for sterilizing cell phones, personal computing devices, keys, and articles of clothing; portable sterilization devices in the form of pens, namely, hand-held sterilization units for medical purposes using Ultraviolet UV-C light and atomized isopropanol for sterilizing {specify items sterilized, e.g., clothing, cell phones, handheld electronics, keys, etc.}

 

TMEP §1402.01.

 

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.

 

CLARIFICATION OF THE NUMBER OF CLASSES FOR WHICH REGISTRATION IS SOUGHT REQUIRED

 

The application identifies goods that could be classified in at least 4 classes; however, applicant submitted fees sufficient for 1 class ONLY.  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.

 

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.

 

ADVISORY – MULTIPLE CLASS APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR APPLICATIONS BASED ON SECTION 1(a)

 

The application references goods based on use in commerce in more than one international class; therefore, applicant must satisfy all the requirements below for each international class:

 

(1)        List the goods and/or services 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(s) 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 not acceptable for any international class.  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 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).

 

(5)        Submit a verified statement that “The specimen was in use in commerce on or in connection with the goods and/or services 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.

 

RESPONSE GUIDELINES

 

For this application to proceed, applicant must explicitly address each refusal and requirement in this Office action.  For a refusal, applicant may provide written arguments and evidence against the refusal, and may have other response options if specified above.  For a requirement, applicant should set forth the changes or statements.  Please see “Responding to Office Actions” and the informational video “Response to Office Action” for more information and tips on responding.

 

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 refusals and requirements 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.    

 

 

/Hunter Bayliss/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 113

571-272-6526

Hunter.Bayliss@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 March 12, 2021 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 90251552

 

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. 

 

 

/Hunter Bayliss/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 113

571-272-6526

Hunter.Bayliss@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 March 12, 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.”