To:
`
`Subject:
`
`Sent:
`
`Sent As:
`
`Attachments:
`
`Freeman Formula, LLC (mswyers@thetrademarkcompany.com)
`
`U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 86448151 - PROJECT 42 - N/A
`
`9/14/2015 2:38:13 PM
`
`ECOM101@USPTO.GOV
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
`OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
`
`U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. (cid:160) 86448151
`
`(cid:160)M
`
`ARK: PROJECT 42
`
`CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS:
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160) (cid:160) (cid:160) MATTHEW H SWYERS ESQ.
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160) (cid:160) (cid:160) THE TRADEMARK COMPANY
`(cid:160) (cid:160) (cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) 344 MAPLE AVE W # 151
`(cid:160) (cid:160) (cid:160)(cid:160) (cid:160) (cid:160) VIENNA, VA 22180-5612
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`APPLICANT: Freeman Formula, LLC
`
`(cid:160) (cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160) (cid:160) (cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`*86448151*
`
`CLICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER:
`http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp
`
`VIEW YOUR APPLICATION FILE
`
`(cid:160) (cid:160)(cid:160)
`CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO :(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`CORRESPONDENT E-MAIL ADDRESS:(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) mswyers@thetrademarkcompany.com
`
`(cid:160) N/A
`
`STRICT DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER
`TO AVOID ABANDONMENT OF APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION, THE USPTO MUST RECEIVE APPLICANT’S
`COMPLETE RESPONSE TO THIS LETTER WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF THE ISSUE/MAILING DATE BELOW.
`
`OFFICE ACTION
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`SSUE/MAILING DATE: 9/14/2015
`
`TEAS PLUS OR TEAS REDUCED FEE (TEAS RF) APPLICANTS – TO MAINTAIN LOWER FEE, ADDITIONAL
`REQUIREMENTS MUST BE MET, INCLUDING SUBMITTING DOCUMENTS ONLINE:(cid:160) Applicants who filed their application
`online using the lower-fee TEAS Plus or TEAS RF application form must (1) file certain documents online using TEAS, including responses to
`Office actions (see TMEP §§819.02(b), 820.02(b) for a complete list of these documents); (2) maintain a valid e-mail correspondence address;
`and (3) agree to receive correspondence from the USPTO by e-mail throughout the prosecution of the application.(cid:160) See 37 C.F.R. §§2.22(b),
`2.23(b); TMEP §§819, 820.(cid:160) TEAS Plus or TEAS RF applicants who do not meet these requirements must submit an additional processing fee of
`$50 per international class of goods and/or services.(cid:160) 37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(1)(v), 2.22(c), 2.23(c); TMEP §§819.04, 820.04.(cid:160) However, in certain
`situations, TEAS Plus or TEAS RF applicants may respond to an Office action by authorizing an examiner’s amendment by telephone without
`
`incurring this additional fee.(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`This Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on August 27, 2015.
`
`Ownership Clarification Required
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`n the applicant’s response, the applicant stated the following: (cid:160) “Applicant by counsel respectfully submits the following argument in support of
`registration. The blocking mark, U.S. Registration Number, 3820912, PROJECT 42, is currently owned by the applicant.(cid:160) Applicant is submitting
`an assignment to transfer ownership of the word mark from the individuals name, Jeramy Freeman to the same owner as the design mark,
`
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`

`

`Freeman Formula, LLC.
`However, there is no assignment in the Office records. (cid:160)(cid:160) The applicant could respond by filing an assignment.(cid:160) Otherwise, the applicant owns the
`registration, the applicant must explain in detail how it owns the registration, as no assignments have been recorded. (For example, the applicant
`could submit a copy of a signed assignment agreement, etc.)
`
`(cid:160)S
`
`ection 2(d) Refusal- Continued & Maintained
`
`Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 3820912.(cid:160) Trademark
`Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.(cid:160) See the enclosed registration.
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he applicant could overcome this refusal by submitting or filing a proper assignment.
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he proposed mark, owned by Freeman Formula, LLC, is PROJECT 42 & design for physical fitness instruction.
`
`The registered mark, owned by Jeramy Freeman, is PROJECT 42 for physical fitness instruction; physical fitness conditioning classes; providing
`assistance, personal training and physical fitness consultation to individuals to help them make physical fitness, strength, conditioning, and
`exercise improvement in their daily living.
`
`Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that so resembles a registered mark that it is likely a potential consumer
`would be confused, mistaken, or deceived as to the source of the goods and/or services of the applicant and registrant.(cid:160) See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).(cid:160)
`A determination of likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d) is made on a case-by case basis and the factors set forth in In re E. I. du Pont de
`Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973) aid in this determination.(cid:160) Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp., Inc., 637
`F.3d 1344, 1349, 98 USPQ2d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing On-Line Careline, Inc. v. Am. Online, Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1085, 56 USPQ2d
`1471, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2000)).(cid:160) Not all the du Pont factors, however, are necessarily relevant or of equal weight, and any one of the factors may
`control in a given case, depending upon the evidence of record.(cid:160) Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp., Inc., 637 F.3d at 1355, 98 USPQ2d at
`1260; In re Majestic Distilling Co., 315 F.3d 1311, 1315, 65 USPQ2d 1201, 1204 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.,
`476 F.2d at 1361-62, 177 USPQ at 567.
`
`In this case, the following factors are the most relevant:(cid:160) similarity of the marks, similarity and nature of the goods and/or services, and similarity
`of the trade channels of the goods and/or services.(cid:160) 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.
`
`Comparison of Marks
`
`Marks are compared in their entireties for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression.(cid:160) 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).(cid:160)
`“Similarity in any one of these elements may be sufficient to find the marks confusingly similar.” (cid:160) In re Davia, 110 USPQ2d 1810, 1812 (TTAB
`2014) (citing In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB 1988); In re 1st USA Realty Prof’ls, Inc ., 84 USPQ2d 1581, 1586 (TTAB
`2007)); TMEP §1207.01(b).
`
`Although marks must be compared in their entireties, the word portion generally may be the dominant and most significant feature of a mark
`because consumers will request the goods and/or services using the wording.(cid:160) See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 1366, 101 USPQ2d
`1905, 1908, 1911 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Davia, 110 USPQ2d 1810, 1813 (TTAB 2014).(cid:160) For this reason, greater weight is often given to the
`word portion of marks when determining whether marks are confusingly similar.(cid:160) Joel Gott Wines, LLC v. Rehoboth Von Gott, Inc., 107 USPQ2d
`1424, 1431 (TTAB 2013) (citing In re Dakin’s Miniatures, Inc ., 59 USPQ2d 1593, 1596 (TTAB 1999)); TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii).(cid:160) The word
`portion of the proposed and registered marks are identical: PROJECT 42.(cid:160) Likewise, the marks also have the same sound.(cid:160) Similarity in sound
`alone may be sufficient to support a finding that the marks are confusingly similar.(cid:160) In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB 1988);
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`

`

`see In re 1st USA Realty Prof’ls, Inc ., 84 USPQ2d 1581, 1586 (TTAB 2007); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iv).
`
`(cid:160)C
`
`omparison of Services
`
`Consumers are likely to be confused by the use of similar marks on or in connection with goods and with services featuring or related to those
`goods.(cid:160) TMEP §1207.01(a)(ii); see In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 6 USPQ2d 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (holding BIGG’S for retail
`grocery and general merchandise store services likely to be confused with BIGGS for furniture); In re United Serv. Distribs., Inc., 229 USPQ 237
`(TTAB 1986) (holding design for distributorship services in the field of health and beauty aids likely to be confused with design for skin cream);
`In re Phillips-Van Heusen Corp., 228 USPQ 949 (TTAB 1986) (holding 21 CLUB for various items of men’s, boys’, girls’ and women’s
`clothing likely to be confused with THE “21” CLUB (stylized) for restaurant services and towels); In re U.S. Shoe Corp., 229 USPQ 707 (TTAB
`1985) (holding CAREER IMAGE (stylized) for retail women’s clothing store services and clothing likely to be confused with CREST CAREER
`IMAGES (stylized) for uniforms); Steelcase Inc. v. Steelcare Inc., 219 USPQ 433 (TTAB 1983) (holding STEELCARE INC. for refinishing of
`furniture, office furniture, and machinery likely to be confused with STEELCASE for office furniture and accessories); Mack Trucks, Inc. v.
`Huskie Freightways, Inc., 177 USPQ 32 (TTAB 1972) (holding similar marks for trucking services and on motor trucks and buses likely to cause
`confusion).
`
`Both parties provide physical fitness instruction services.(cid:160) When analyzing an applicant’s and registrant’s goods and/or services for similarity
`and relatedness, that determination is based on the description of the goods and/or services stated in the application and registration at issue, not
`on extrinsic evidence of actual use.(cid:160) See Octocom Sys. Inc. v. Hous. Computers Servs. Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 942, 16 USPQ2d 1783, 1787 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1990); see also Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1267, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1004 (Fed. Cir. 2002).(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`Absent restrictions in an application and/or registration, the identified goods and/or services are presumed to travel in the same channels of trade
`to the same class of purchasers.(cid:160) Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp., Inc., 637 F.3d 1344, 1356, 98 USPQ2d 1253, 1261 (Fed. Cir. 2011);
`Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press Inc., 281 F.3d at 1268, 62 USPQ2d at 1005.(cid:160) Additionally, unrestricted and broad identifications are
`presumed to encompass all goods and/or services of the type described.(cid:160) See In re Jump Designs, 80 USPQ2d 1370, 1374 (TTAB 2006); In re
`
`Linkvest S.A., 24 USPQ2d 1716, 1716 (TTAB 1992).(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`In this case, the identifications set forth in the application and registration(s) are identical and have no restrictions as to nature, type, channels of
`trade, or classes of purchasers.(cid:160) Therefore, it is presumed that these goods and/or services travel in all normal channels of trade, and are available
`to the same class of purchasers.(cid:160) See Midwestern Pet Foods, Inc. v. Societe des Produits Nestle S.A., 685 F.3d 1046, 1053, 103 USPQ2d 1435,
`1440 (Fed. Cir. 2012).(cid:160) Accordingly, the goods and/or services of applicant and the registrant(s) are considered related for purposes of the
`likelihood of confusion analysis.
`
`(cid:160)F
`
`inally, the overriding concern is not only to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods and/or services, but to protect the registrant
`from adverse commercial impact due to use of a similar mark by a newcomer.(cid:160) See In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1208, 26 USPQ2d 1687,
`1690 (Fed. Cir. 1993).(cid:160) Therefore, any doubt regarding a likelihood of confusion determination is resolved in favor of the registrant.(cid:160) TMEP
`§1207.01(d)(i); see Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1265, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2002); In re Hyper
`Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 464-65, 6 USPQ2d 1025, 1026 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
`
`Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal(s) by submitting evidence and arguments in
`support of registration.
`
`Mark Differs in Drawing & Specimen- Continued & Maintained
`
`Registration is refused because the specimen does not show the applied-for mark in the drawing in use in commerce in International Class(es)
`41.(cid:160) 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, 904.07(a), 1301.04(g)(i).(cid:160)
`Specifically, the specimen displays the mark as PROJECT 42 without any stylized font and/or any stippling and PROJECT and 42 are side by
`side; however, the drawing displays the mark as the term PROJECT above the number 42 in a stylized font and with stippling on top of the word
`
`and number.(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`The drawing shows the mark sought to be registered, and must be a substantially exact representation of the mark as used on or in connection
`with the goods and/or services, as shown by the specimen.(cid:160) 37 C.F.R. §2.51(a); TMEP §807.12(a).(cid:160) Because the mark in the drawing is not a
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`

`

`substantially exact representation of the mark on the specimen, applicant has failed to provide the required evidence of use of the applied-for
`
`mark in commerce on or in connection with applicant’s goods and/or services. (cid:160) See TMEP §807.12(a).(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`An application based on Trademark Act Section 1(a) must include a specimen showing the applied-for mark in use in commerce for each
`international class of goods and/or services identified in the application or amendment to allege use.(cid:160) 15 U.S.C. §1051(a)(1); 37 C.F.R.
`
`§§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a).(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`Examples of specimens for goods include tags, labels, instruction manuals, containers, photographs that show the mark on the actual goods or
`packaging, and displays associated with the actual goods at their point of sale.(cid:160) See TMEP §§904.03 et seq.(cid:160) Webpages may also be specimens
`for goods when they include a picture or textual description of the goods associated with the mark and the means to order the goods.(cid:160) TMEP
`§904.03(i).(cid:160) Examples of specimens for services include advertising and marketing materials, brochures, photographs of business signage and
`billboards, and webpages that show the mark used in the actual sale, rendering, or advertising of the services.(cid:160) See TMEP §1301.04(a), (h)(iv)(C).
`
`Applicant may respond to this refusal by satisfying one of the following for each applicable international class:
`
`(1)(cid:160) Submit a new drawing of the mark that agrees with the mark on the specimen and, if appropriate, an amendment to the color claim and/or
`
`mark description that conforms to the new drawing.(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`(2)(cid:160) 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 or a substantially exact representation of the mark in
`the drawing in actual use in commerce for the goods and/or services identified in the application.
`
`For an overview of both response options referenced above and instructions on how to satisfy either option online using the Trademark
`Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, please go to http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/law/J3.jsp.
`
`Response to Office Action
`
`(cid:160)F
`
`or this application to proceed toward registration, applicant must explicitly address each refusal and/or requirement raised in this Office action.(cid:160)
`If the action includes a refusal, applicant may provide arguments and/or evidence as to why the refusal should be withdrawn and the mark should
`register.(cid:160) Applicant may also have other options for responding to a refusal and should consider such options carefully.(cid:160) To respond to
`requirements and certain refusal response options, applicant should set forth in writing the required changes or statements.
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`f applicant does not respond to this Office action within six months of the issue/mailing date, or responds by expressly abandoning the
`application, the application process will end, the trademark will fail to register, and the application fee will not be refunded.(cid:160) See 15 U.S.C.
`§1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.65(a), 2.68(a), 2.209(a); TMEP §§405.04, 718.01, 718.02.(cid:160) Where the application has been abandoned for failure to
`respond to an Office action, applicant’s only option would be to file a timely petition to revive the application, which, if granted, would allow
`the application to return to active status.(cid:160) See 37 C.F.R. §2.66; TMEP §1714.(cid:160) There is a $100 fee for such petitions.(cid:160) See 37 C.F.R. §§2.6,
`2.66(b)(1).
`
`(cid:160)A
`
`n applicant may check the status of or view documents filed in his or her trademark and/or service mark application or registration 24 hours a
`day, 7 days a week using the Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) database on the USPTO website at http://tsdr.uspto.gov/.(cid:160) To
`obtain this status or view these documents, enter the application serial number or registration number and click on “Status” or “Documents.”
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he applicant may also call the Trademark Assistance Center with general questions at (571) 272-9250.
`
`/Laurie Mayes/
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`

`

`Examining Attorney, LO 101
`(571) 272-5874; FAX (571) 273-9101
`laurie.mayes@uspto.gov (NOT for responses)
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`O RESPOND TO THIS LETTER: (cid:160) Go to http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp. (cid:160) Please wait 48-72 hours from the
`issue/mailing date before using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), to allow for necessary system updates of the application.(cid:160)
`For technical assistance with online forms, e-mail TEAS@uspto.gov.(cid:160) For questions about the Office action itself, please contact the assigned
`trademark examining attorney.(cid:160) E-mail communications will not be accepted as responses to Office actions; therefore, do not respond to
`this Office action by e-mail.
`
`(cid:160)A
`
`ll informal e-mail communications relevant to this application will be placed in the official application record.
`
`(cid:160)W
`
`HO MUST SIGN THE RESPONSE:(cid:160) It must be personally signed by an individual applicant or someone with legal authority to bind an
`applicant (i.e., a corporate officer, a general partner, all joint applicants).(cid:160) If an applicant is represented by an attorney, the attorney must sign the
`
`response.(cid:160)(cid:160)
`PERIODICALLY CHECK THE STATUS OF THE APPLICATION: (cid:160) To ensure that applicant does not miss crucial deadlines or official
`notices, check the status of the application every three to four months using the Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) system at
`http://tsdr.uspto.gov/. (cid:160) Please keep a copy of the TSDR status screen. (cid:160) If the status shows no change for more than six months, contact the
`Trademark Assistance Center by e-mail at TrademarkAssistanceCenter@uspto.gov or call 1-800-786-9199. (cid:160) For more information on checking
`status, see http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/process/status/.
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`O UPDATE CORRESPONDENCE/E-MAIL ADDRESS:(cid:160) Use the TEAS form at http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/correspondence.jsp.
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`

`

`To:
`
`Subject:
`
`Sent:
`
`Sent As:
`
`Attachments:
`
`Freeman Formula, LLC (mswyers@thetrademarkcompany.com)
`
`U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 86448151 - PROJECT 42 - N/A
`
`9/14/2015 2:38:14 PM
`
`ECOM101@USPTO.GOV
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
`
`IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING YOUR
`U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION
`
`USPTO OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) HAS ISSUED
`ON 9/14/2015 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 86448151
`
`Please follow the instructions below:
`
`(cid:160)(
`
`1)(cid:160) TO READ THE LETTER:(cid:160) Click on this link or go to http://tsdr.uspto.gov, enter the U.S. application serial number, and click on
`“Documents.”
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he Office action may not be immediately viewable, to allow for necessary system updates of the application, but will be available within 24
`hours of this e-mail notification.
`
`(cid:160)(
`
`2)(cid:160) TIMELY RESPONSE IS REQUIRED:(cid:160) Please carefully review the Office action to determine (1) how to respond, and (2) the applicable
`response time period.(cid:160) Your response deadline will be calculated from 9/14/2015 (or sooner if specified in the Office action).(cid:160) For information
`regarding response time periods, see http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/process/status/responsetime.jsp.
`
`(cid:160)D
`
`o NOT hit “Reply” to this e-mail notification, or otherwise e-mail your response because the USPTO does NOT accept e-mails as
`responses to Office actions.(cid:160)
`Instead, the USPTO recommends that you respond online using the Trademark Electronic Application System
`(TEAS) response form located at http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp.
`
`(cid:160)(
`
`3)(cid:160) QUESTIONS:(cid:160) For questions about the contents of the Office action itself, please contact the assigned trademark examining attorney.(cid:160) For
`technical assistance in accessing or viewing the Office action in the Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) system, please e-mail
`TSDR@uspto.gov.
`
`WARNING
`
`(cid:160)F
`
`ailure to file the required response by the applicable response deadline will result in the ABANDONMENT of your application.(cid:160) For
`more information regarding abandonment, see http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics/abandon.jsp.
`
`PRIVATE COMPANY SOLICITATIONS REGARDING YOUR APPLICATION:(cid:160) Private companies not associated with the USPTO are
`using information provided in trademark applications to mail or e-mail trademark-related solicitations.(cid:160) These companies often use names that
`closely resemble the USPTO and their solicitations may look like an official government document.(cid:160) Many solicitations require that you pay
`
`“fees.” (cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`Please carefully review all correspondence you receive regarding this application to make sure that you are responding to an official document
`from the USPTO rather than a private company solicitation.(cid:160) All official USPTO correspondence will be mailed only from the “United States
`Patent and Trademark Office” in Alexandria, VA; or sent by e-mail from the domain “@uspto.gov.” (cid:160) For more information on how to handle
`private company solicitations, see http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/solicitation_warnings.jsp.
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`