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:  July 26, 2021

 

 

INTRODUCTION

 

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:

• Prior-filed Pending Application Advisory
• Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion
• Amended Identification of Goods Required
• Multiple-Class Application Requirements
• Request for Information Regarding the Goods

 

PRIOR-FILED PENDING APPLICATION

 

The filing date of pending U.S. Application Serial No. 90046539 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. 4042990, 4486835, 4654762, and 5551609.  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 NUANCE for “Cannabis oil for cosmetic uses, all of the foregoing derived from hemp having a THC concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis; hemp seed oil for cosmetic purposes; cannabis oil derived from hemp having a THC concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis, for use as an additive in cosmetics;” “Hemp seed oil for use as a food additive; edible oils for use as a food additive containing hemp solely with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol THC concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis, and also containing only trace amounts of naturally occurring CBD;”

“Hemp seed oil for use as a beverage additive; edible oils for use as a beverage additive containing hemp solely with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol THC concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis, and also containing only trace amounts of naturally occurring CBD;” and “Cannabis oil for inhaling; smokeable cannabis extracts; cannabis oil for electronic cigarettes; cannabis oil for oral vaporizers for smoking; all of the foregoing derived from hemp having a THC concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis; cartridges sold filled with propylene glycol for electronic cigarettes; cartridges for electronic cigarettes; electronic cigarette liquid (e-liquid).”

 

Registrants’ marks are:

 

NUONCE for “Dietary and nutritional supplements” in Registration No. 4042990;

 

NUANCE for “Retail store services featuring soaps, perfumery, essential oils, cosmetics, hair lotions, vitamin preparations, dietetic substances, foods, alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages, waters, tobacco, tobacco products and accessories thereof, smokers' articles, matches; retail store services featuring all of the aforementioned goods in shops and duty free shops at airports, in transit areas, in stations, on airplanes, on boats, on trains, as well as retail store services featuring the aforementioned goods in duty free shops for diplomats; online retail store services featuring the aforementioned goods” in Registration No. 4486835;

 

DUTY FREE STORE BY NUANCE for, in relevant part, “Retail store services featuring cleaning preparations, soaps, perfumery, essential oils, cosmetics, hair lotions, dentifrices, pharmaceutical and veterinary preparations, vitamin preparations, dietetic substances, foods, foodstuffs and animal foodstuffs, alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages, waters, tobacco, tobacco products and accessories thereof, smokers' articles, matches; retail shops and duty free shops at airports, in transit areas, in stations, on airplanes, on boats, on trains, and for diplomats, all featuring foods; Online retail store services featuring foods” in Registration No. 4654762; and

 

NUANCE for “Cosmetics” in Registration No. 5551609.

 

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).

 

Applicant’s mark is NUANCE in standard characters. Registrants’ marks are NUONCE in standard characters, QUATRE NUANCES in standard characters, and DUTY FREE STORE BY NUANCE and NUANCE, each with a design.

 

The compared marks are highly similar in sound, appearance, meaning and commercial impression as they all contain, or are comprised of, variations of the term NUANCE.  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).

 

Applicant’s NUANCE is identical in part to registrant’s NUONCE, as the marks are phonetic equivalents and sound the same. Similarity in sound alone may be sufficient to support a finding that the marks are confusingly similar.  In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB 1988); see In re 1st USA Realty Prof’ls, Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1581, 1586 (TTAB 2007); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iv). Further, the compared marks are highly similar in appearance, meaning, and commercial impression. The registrant’s intentional misspelling of the term “nuance” as “nuonce” does not obviate a likelihood of confusion because “nuonce” is not a word and consumers would understand the mark to be a cute spelling of NUANCE. See the attached dictionary evidence.

 

Applicant’s NUANCE is highly similar to registrant’s QUATRE NUANCES. Registrant’s use of the plural of “nuance,” “nuances,” does not obviate a likelihood of confusion. An applied-for mark that is the singular or plural form of a registered mark is essentially identical in sound, appearance, meaning, and commercial impression, and thus the marks are confusingly similar.  Swiss Grill Ltd., v. Wolf Steel Ltd., 115 USPQ2d 2001, 2011 n.17 (TTAB 2015) (holding “it is obvious that the virtually identical marks [the singular and plural of SWISS GRILL] are confusingly similar”); Weider Publ’ns, LLC v. D & D Beauty Care Co., 109 USPQ2d 1347, 1355 (TTAB 2014) (finding the singular and plural forms of SHAPE to be essentially the same mark) (citing Wilson v. Delaunay, 245 F.2d 877, 878, 114 USPQ 339, 341 (C.C.P.A. 1957) (finding no material difference between the singular and plural forms of ZOMBIE such that the marks were considered the same mark).

 

Further, registrant’s addition of the term QUATRE does not obviate a likelihood of confusion because the meaning and commercial impression of the registered mark is highly similar to the meaning and commercial impression of the applied-for mark. The record shows that QUATRE means “four” so the registered mark means “four nuances” versus the applied-for marks singular nuance.

 

Applicant’s NUANCE is identical to the literal element in registrant’s NUANCE. 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).  Further, they are highly similar in appearance. Additionally, because they are nearly identical, these marks are likely to engender the same connotation and overall commercial impression when considered in connection with applicant’s and registrant’s respective goods and services.  Id.

 

Applicant’s NUANCE is identical in part to the literal portion of registrant’s DUTY FREE STORE BY NUANCE, as they each use the term NUANCE. The additional wording in registrant’s marks does not obviate a likelihood of confusion because the term “NUANCE” is the dominant feature of the registered mark, as the term “DUTY FREE STORE” has been disclaimed as descriptive of the goods. Although marks are compared in their entireties, one feature of a mark may be more significant or dominant in creating a commercial impression.  See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 1058, 224 USPQ 749, 751 (Fed. Cir. 1985); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii).  Disclaimed matter that is descriptive of or generic for a party’s goods and/or services is typically less significant or less dominant when comparing marks.  In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1305, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re Dixie Rests., Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 1407, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533-34 (Fed. Cir. 1997)); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii).

 

The design elements in registrant’s marks do not obviate a likelihood of confusion. 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)).

 

Thus, due to the similarity in sound, appearance, meaning, and commercial impression, the marks are confusingly similar.

 

Relatedness of the Goods and Services

 

The goods and/or services 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).

 

Applicant’s goods are “Cannabis oil for cosmetic uses, all of the foregoing derived from hemp having a THC concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis; hemp seed oil for cosmetic purposes; cannabis oil derived from hemp having a THC concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis, for use as an additive in cosmetics;” “Hemp seed oil for use as a food additive; edible oils for use as a food additive containing hemp solely with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol THC concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis, and also containing only trace amounts of naturally occurring CBD;”

“Hemp seed oil for use as a beverage additive; edible oils for use as a beverage additive containing hemp solely with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol THC concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis, and also containing only trace amounts of naturally occurring CBD;” and “Cannabis oil for inhaling; smokeable cannabis extracts; cannabis oil for electronic cigarettes; cannabis oil for oral vaporizers for smoking; all of the foregoing derived from hemp having a THC concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis; cartridges sold filled with propylene glycol for electronic cigarettes; cartridges for electronic cigarettes; electronic cigarette liquid (e-liquid).”

 

Registrants’ goods are: “Dietary and nutritional supplements;” “Retail store services featuring soaps, perfumery, essential oils, cosmetics, hair lotions, vitamin preparations, dietetic substances, foods, alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages, waters, tobacco, tobacco products and accessories thereof, smokers' articles, matches; retail store services featuring all of the aforementioned goods in shops and duty free shops at airports, in transit areas, in stations, on airplanes, on boats, on trains, as well as retail store services featuring the aforementioned goods in duty free shops for diplomats; online retail store services featuring the aforementioned goods;”  “Retail store services featuring cleaning preparations, soaps, perfumery, essential oils, cosmetics, hair lotions, dentifrices, pharmaceutical and veterinary preparations, vitamin preparations, dietetic substances, foods, foodstuffs and animal foodstuffs, alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages, waters, tobacco, tobacco products and accessories thereof, smokers' articles, matches; retail shops and duty free shops at airports, in transit areas, in stations, on airplanes, on boats, on trains, and for diplomats, all featuring foods; Online retail store services featuring foods;” and “Cosmetics.”

 

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

 

The attached Internet evidence from CBD American Shaman, Elf, Manitoba Harvest, The Remedy, Sky Organics, CBD Hemp Direct, 1percent, Ignite, and Koi, a representative sampling of health, beauty and cannabis companies shows that (i) the same entity commonly provides the compared goods and services and markets the goods and services under the same mark, and (ii) the relevant goods and services are sold or provided through the same trade channels and used by the same classes of consumers in the same fields of use. Further, this evidence shows that hemp oil is used as a supplement, cosmetic, food, and beverage additive, meaning the compared goods describe the same items. Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods and/or services 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).

 

Conclusion

 

Due to the similarity of the marks and the relatedness of the goods and services, there is a likelihood of confusion between the applied-for mark and registered marks. Accordingly, 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.  However, if applicant responds to the refusal, applicant must also respond to the requirements set forth below.

 

AMENDED IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS REQUIRED

 

Applicant must clarify the wording “cannabis oil derived from hemp having a THC concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis, for use as an additive in cosmetics” in the identification of goods in International Class 3 because it is overbroad and describes goods in multiple classes.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03.  Cannabis oil sold as an integral component of cosmetics are in Class 3 and Cannabis oil for use as a raw ingredient in the manufacture of cosmetics is in Class 4.

 

“Cannabis oil for inhaling; smokeable cannabis extracts; cannabis oil for electronic cigarettes; cannabis oil for oral vaporizers for smoking; electronic cigarette liquid (e-liquid)” is overbroad, as it is unclear if these goods are essential oils in Class 3, or oils that are not essential oils in Class 34.

 

“Cartridges for electronic cigarettes” is indefinite , as it is unclear whether they are soled filled or sold empty.

Additionally, because applicant’s “Cannabis oil for cosmetic uses, all of the foregoing derived from hemp having a THC concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis; hemp seed oil for cosmetic purposes; cannabis oil derived from hemp having a THC concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis, for use as an additive in cosmetics” and “Cannabis oil for inhaling; smokeable cannabis extracts; cannabis oil for electronic cigarettes; cannabis oil for oral vaporizers for smoking; all of the foregoing derived from hemp having a THC concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis; cartridges sold filled with propylene glycol for electronic cigarettes; cartridges for electronic cigarettes; electronic cigarette liquid (e-liquid)” does not indicate that the THC concentration is of delta-9 THC and because it is unclear if applicant’s smoking paraphernalia is for use with cannabis with more than 0.3% delta-9 THC, this wording must be amended to show the goods are lawful and comply with the Farm Bill.

 

Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate (suggestions in bold): 

 

CLASS 3:        Cannabis oil for cosmetic uses derived from hemp with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis; hemp seed oil for cosmetic purposes; cannabis oil derived from hemp with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) percent on a dry weight basis, sold as an integral component of non-medicated cosmetics;       Electronic cigarette liquid (e-liquid) comprised of essential oils containing ingredients solely derived from hemp with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis;

 

CLASS 4:        cannabis oil derived from hemp with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) percent on a dry weight basis, for use as a raw ingredient in the manufacture of non-medicated cosmetics;

 

CLASS 29:      Hemp seed oil for use as a food additive; edible oils for use as a food additive containing hemp solely with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis, and also containing only trace amounts of naturally occurring CBD;

 

CLASS 32:      Hemp seed oil for use as a beverage additive; edible oils for use as a beverage additive containing hemp solely with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis, and also containing only trace amounts of naturally occurring CBD

 

CLASS 34:      Smokeable cannabis extracts in the nature of electronic cigarette liquid; electronic cigarette liquid comprised of cannabis oil for electronic cigarettes and oral vaproizers; none of the foregoing being essential oils; cartridges sold filled with propylene glycol for electronic cigarettes; electronic cigarette liquid (e-liquid) comprised of flavorings in liquid form, other than essential oils, used to refill electronic cigarette cartridges; all of the foregoing being solely derived, or containing ingredients solely derived, from hemp with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis; Cartridges for electronic cigarettes sold empty, not for use with hemp with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentration of more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.

 

Applicant may amend the identification to clarify or limit the goods and/or services, but not to broaden or expand the goods and/or services 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 and/or services 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.

 

MULTIPLE-CLASS APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS

 

The application identifies goods and/or services 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 and/or services 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 fees already paid (view the USPTO’s current fee schedule).  The application identifies goods and/or services that are classified in at least 5 classes; however, applicant submitted fees sufficient for only 4 classes.  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.

 

RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION

 

Response guidelines.  For this application to proceed, applicant must explicitly address each refusal and/or 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.

 

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.    

 

 

/Jillian Michaud-King/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 122

571.272.5153

jillian.michaud-king@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 July 26, 2021 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 90284753

 

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. 

 

 

/Jillian Michaud-King/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 122

571.272.5153

jillian.michaud-king@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 July 26, 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.”