To:
`
`Subject:
`
`Sent:
`
`Sent As:
`
`Attachments:
`
`Franklin, Jeremekia (jeremekiafranklin@gmail.com)
`
`U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 88008387 - SYMPLIFIT - N/A
`
`10/10/2018 8:00:53 AM
`
`ECOM123@USPTO.GOV
`
`Attachment - 1
`Attachment - 2
`Attachment - 3
`Attachment - 4
`Attachment - 5
`Attachment - 6
`Attachment - 7
`Attachment - 8
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
`OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
`
`*88008387*
`
`CLICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS
`LETTER:
`http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp
`
`VIEW YOUR APPLICATION FILE
`
`U.S. APPLICATION
`SERIAL NO.   88008387
`
`           
`
`MARK: SYMPLIFIT
`
`FRANKLIN,
`
`CORRESPONDENT
`ADDRESS:
`         
`JEREMEKIA
`          3712
`STREET
`         HOUSTON, TX 77098
`
`EASTSIDE
`
`              
`    
`
`   
`APPLICANT:
`Jeremekia
`
`Franklin,
`
`CORRESPONDENT’S
`REFERENCE/DOCKET
`
`  N/A
`CORRESPONDENT
`
`NO:       
`MAIL ADDRESS:       
`
`E-
`
`   
`
`jeremekiafranklin@gmail.com
`
`OFFICE ACTION
`
`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.
`  A RESPONSE
`TRANSMITTED THROUGH THE TRADEMARK ELECTRONIC APPLICATION SYSTEM (TEAS) MUST BE RECEIVED BEFORE
`MIDNIGHT EASTERN TIME OF THE LAST DAY OF THE RESPONSE PERIOD.
`
`ISSUE/MAILING DATE: 10/10/2018
`
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`  
`  
`

`

`INTRODUCTION
`
`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) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion
`·        Prior Filed Applications
`·        Failure to Function as a Trademark:  Ornamentation
`·        Mark Description Amendment Required
`
`SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
`
`Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 4449765 (SYMPLI). 
`Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registration.
`
`The Applicant’s mark is SYMPLIFIT (+design) for "Bottoms as clothing; Footwear; Hats; Headwear; T-shirts; Tops as clothing".
`
`The Registrant’s mark is SYMPLI (+styl.) for "Clothing, namely, shirts, tops, tunics, dresses, wraps, shawls, pants, leggings, tights, capris,
`skirts, jackets, coats, outerwear, namely, parkas, body suits, and slips; Clothing, namely, jeans".
`
`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 of the applicant and registrant.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).  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, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973) aid in this determination.  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)).  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.  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:  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.
`
`COMPARISON 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 Davia, 110 USPQ2d 1810, 1812 (TTAB
`2014) (citing In re 1st USA Realty Prof’ls, Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1581, 1586 (TTAB 2007)); In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB
`1988)); TMEP §1207.01(b).
`
`Applicant's mark is SYMPLIFIT (+design).
`
`Registrant's mark is SYMPLI (+styl.).
`
`In this case, both marks feature the wording "SYMPLI".  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).
`
`As the first or only term in each mark, the common wording "SYMPLI" is the dominant feature of each mark upon which consumers will focus.
`Consumers are generally more inclined to focus on the first word, prefix, or syllable in any trademark or service mark.  See Palm Bay Imps., Inc.
`
` 
` 
`  
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`

`

`v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1372, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1692 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“VEUVE . . . remains a
`‘prominent feature’ as the first word in the mark and the first word to appear on the label”); In re Integrated Embedded, 120 USPQ2d 1504,
`1513 (TTAB 2016) (“[T]he dominance of BARR in [a]pplicant’s mark BARR GROUP is reinforced by its location as the first word in the
`mark.”); Presto Prods., Inc. v. Nice-Pak Prods., Inc., 9 USPQ2d 1895, 1897 (TTAB 1988) (“it is often the first part of a mark which is most
`likely to be impressed upon the mind of a purchaser and remembered” when making purchasing decisions).
`
`The mere fact that the applied-for mark contains additional wording will not obviate a likelihood of confusion here.  Adding a term to a registered
`mark generally does not obviate the similarity between the compared marks, as in the present case, nor does it overcome a likelihood of
`confusion under Section 2(d).  See Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Jos. E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 526 F.2d 556, 557, 188 USPQ 105, 106 (C.C.P.A.
`1975) (finding BENGAL and BENGAL LANCER and design confusingly similar); In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d 1266, 1269
`(TTAB 2009) (finding TITAN and VANTAGE TITAN confusingly similar); In re El Torito Rests., Inc., 9 USPQ2d 2002, 2004 (TTAB 1988)
`(finding MACHO and MACHO COMBOS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iii).  In the present case, the marks are identical in part.
`
`Moreover, the fact that Applicant's mark contains a design element will also not avoid a likelihood of confusion.  When evaluating a composite
`mark containing both words and designs, the word portion is more likely to indicate the origin of the goods because it is that portion of the mark
`that consumers use when referring to or requesting the goods.  Bond v. Taylor, 119 USPQ2d 1049, 1055 (TTAB 2016) (citing In re Viterra Inc.,
`671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908, 1911 (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)).  
`
`Furthermore, where the goods of an applicant and registrant are “similar in kind and/or closely related,” the degree of similarity between the
`marks required to support a finding of likelihood of confusion is not as great as in the case of diverse goods.  In re J.M. Originals Inc., 6 USPQ2d
`1393, 1394 (TTAB 1987); see Shen Mfg. Co. v. Ritz Hotel Ltd., 393 F.3d 1238, 1242, 73 USPQ2d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2004); TMEP
`§1207.01(b).
`
`COMPARISON OF THE GOODS
`
`The goods 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).  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).
`
`In this case, the relevant goods are a variety of clothing goods.  Moreover, neither the application nor the registration contains any limitations
`regarding trade channels for the goods and therefore it is assumed that registrant’s and applicant’s goods are sold everywhere that is normal for
`such items, i.e., clothing and department stores.  Thus, it can also be assumed that the same classes of purchasers shop for these items and that
`consumers are accustomed to seeing them sold under the same or similar marks.  See Kangol Ltd. v. KangaROOS U.S.A., Inc., 974 F.2d 161, 23
`USPQ2d 1945 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Smith & Mehaffey, 31 USPQ2d 1531 (TTAB 1994); TMEP §1207.01(a)(iii).  Furthermore, decisions
`regarding likelihood of confusion in the clothing field have found many different types of apparel to be related goods.  Cambridge Rubber Co. v.
`Cluett, Peabody & Co., 286 F.2d 623, 624, 128 USPQ 549, 550 (C.C.P.A. 1961) (women’s boots related to men’s and boys’ underwear);
`Jockey Int’l, Inc. v. Mallory & Church Corp., 25 USPQ2d 1233, 1236 (TTAB 1992) (underwear related to neckties); In re Melville Corp., 18
`USPQ2d 1386, 1388 (TTAB 1991) (women’s pants, blouses, shorts and jackets related to women’s shoes); In re Pix of Am., Inc., 225 USPQ
`691, 691-92 (TTAB 1985) (women’s shoes related to outer shirts); In re Mercedes Slacks, Ltd., 213 USPQ 397, 398-99 (TTAB 1982) (hosiery
`related to trousers); In re Cook United, Inc., 185 USPQ 444, 445 (TTAB 1975) (men’s suits, coats, and trousers related to ladies’ pantyhose and
`hosiery); Esquire Sportswear Mfg. Co. v. Genesco Inc., 141 USPQ 400, 404 (TTAB 1964) (brassieres and girdles related to slacks for men and
`young men).
`
`The overriding concern is not only to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods, but to protect the registrant from adverse commercial
`impact due to use of a similar mark by a newcomer.  See In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1208, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1690 (Fed. Cir. 1993). 
`Therefore, any doubt regarding a likelihood of confusion determination is resolved in favor of the registrant.  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).
`
`In light of the similarities between the marks and the relatedness of the goods, it is likely that consumers who encounter the parties' goods will
`falsely conclude that they originate from the same source.
`
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`

`

`Although Applicant’s mark has been refused registration, Applicant may respond to the refusals by submitting evidence and arguments in
`support of registration.  If Applicant responds to the refusals, Applicant must also respond to the requirement set forth below.
`
`PRIOR FILED APPLICATIONS
`
`The filing dates of pending U.S. Application Serial Nos. 88104056 (SIMPLY FIT ATHLETICS) and 87959367 (SIMPLY) 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 mark(s).  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.
`
`FAILURE TO FUNCTION AS A TRADEMARK:  ORNAMENTATION
`
`Registration is refused because the applied-for mark as used on the specimen of record is merely a decorative or ornamental feature of
`applicant’s clothing and, thus, does not function as a trademark to indicate the source of applicant’s clothing and to identify and distinguish
`applicant’s clothing from others.  Trademark Act Sections 1, 2, and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051-1052, 1127; see In re Lululemon Athletica Can. Inc.,
`105 USPQ2d 1684, 1689 (TTAB 2013); In re Pro-Line Corp., 28 USPQ2d 1141, 1142 (TTAB 1993); TMEP §§904.07(b), 1202.03 et seq.
`
`When evaluating a mark that appears to be ornamental, the size, location, dominance, and significance of the alleged mark as applied to the goods
`are all relevant factors in determining the commercial impression of the applied-for mark.  See, e.g., In re Lululemon Athletica Can. Inc., 105
`USPQ2d at 1687 (quoting In re Right-On Co., 87 USPQ2d 1152, 1156 (TTAB 2008)); In re Dimitri’s Inc., 9 USPQ2d 1666, 1667 (TTAB 1988);
`TMEP §1202.03(a).
`
`With respect to clothing, consumers may recognize small designs or discrete wording as trademarks, rather than as merely ornamental features,
`when located, for example, on the pocket or breast area of a shirt.  See TMEP §1202.03(a).  Consumers may not, however, perceive larger
`designs or slogans as trademarks when such matter is prominently displayed across the front of a t-shirt.  See In re Pro-Line Corp., 28 USPQ2d at
`1142 (holding BLACKER THE COLLEGE SWEETER THE KNOWLEDGE centered in large letters across most of the upper half of a shirt, to
`be a primarily ornamental slogan that was not likely to be perceived as a source indicator); In re Dimitri’s Inc., 9 USPQ2d at 1667-68 (holding
`SUMO used in connection with stylized depictions of sumo wrestlers and displayed in large lettering across the top-center portion of t-shirts and
`caps, to be an ornamental feature of the goods that did not function as a trademark); TMEP §1202.03(a), (b), (f)(i), (f)(ii).
`
`In this case, the submitted specimen shows the applied-for mark, SYMPLIFIT (+design), located directly on the upper-center area of the front of
`the shirt, where ornamental elements often appear.  See TMEP §1202.03(a), (b).  Furthermore, the mark is displayed in a relatively large size on
`the clothing such that it dominates the overall appearance of the goods.  Lastly, the applied-for mark appears to be a slogan that is merely
`decorative and has little or no particular source-identifying significance.
`
`Therefore, consumers would view the applied-for mark as a decorative or ornamental feature of the goods, rather than as a trademark to indicate
`the source of applicant’s goods and to distinguish them from others.
`
`In appropriate circumstances, applicant may overcome this refusal by satisfying one of the following options:
`
`(1)      
`
`(2)      
`
`(3)      
`
`Submit a different specimen (a verified “substitute” specimen) that 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 that shows proper trademark use for the identified
`goods in International Class 25.  Examples of acceptable specimens that show non-ornamental use on clothing include hang tags
`and labels used inside a garment.
`
`Amend to the Supplemental Register, which is a second trademark register for marks not yet eligible for registration on the
`Principal Register, but which may become capable over time of functioning as source indicators.   Applicant should note that
`amending the application to the Supplemental Register will not overcome any Section 2(d) refusals.
`
`Claim acquired distinctiveness under Trademark Act Section 2(f) by submitting evidence that the applied-for mark has become
`distinctive of applicant’s goods; that is, proof that applicant’s extensive use and promotion of the mark allowed consumers now
`directly to associate the mark with applicant as the source of the goods. Applicant should note that amending the application to
`claim acquired distinctiveness under Section 2(f) will not overcome any Section 2(d) refusals.
`
`  
` 
` 
`  
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`

`

`(4)      
`
`Submit evidence that the applied-for mark is an indicator of secondary source; that is, proof that the mark is already recognized as
`
`a source indicator for other goods or services that applicant sells/offers.     
`
`(5)      
`
`Amend the filing basis to intent to use under Section 1(b).  This option will later necessitate additional fee(s) and filing
`requirements.
`
`For an overview of all response options referenced above and instructions on how to satisfy each option online using the Trademark Electronic
`Application System (TEAS) form, please go to http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/law/ornamental.jsp.
`
`MARK DESCRIPTION AMENDMENT REQUIRED
`
`The description of the mark is accurate but incomplete because it does not describe all the significant aspects of the applied-for mark. 
`Applications for marks not in standard characters must include an accurate and concise description of the entire mark that identifies literal
`
`elements as well as any design elements.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.37; TMEP §§808 et seq.  
`
`Therefore, applicant must provide a more complete description of the applied-for mark.  The following is suggested:
`
`The mark consists of the stylized wording "SYMPLIFIT" with a lightning bolt design underneath, all slanted upwards and to the
`right.
`
`Applicant Encouraged to Seek Trademark Counsel
`
`Because of the legal technicalities and strict deadlines involved in the USPTO application process, applicant may wish to hire a private attorney
`specializing in trademark matters to represent applicant in this process and provide legal advice.  Although the undersigned trademark examining
`attorney is permitted to help an applicant understand the contents of an Office action as well as the application process in general, no USPTO
`
`attorney or staff is permitted to give an applicant legal advice or statements about an applicant’s legal rights.   TMEP §§705.02, 709.06.  
`
`For attorney referral information, applicant may consult the American Bar Association’s Consumers’ Guide to Legal Help; an online directory
`of legal professionals, such as FindLaw®; or a local telephone directory.  The USPTO, however, may not assist an applicant in the selection of a
`private attorney.  37 C.F.R. §2.11.
`
`Response Guidelines
`
`For this application to proceed further, applicant must explicitly address each refusal and/or requirement raised in this Office action.  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. 
`Applicant may also have other options specified in this Office action for responding to a refusal and should consider those options carefully.  To
`respond to requirements and certain refusal response options, applicant should set forth in writing the required changes or statements.  For more
`information and general tips on responding to USPTO Office actions, response options, and how to file a response online, see “ Responding to
`Office Actions” on the USPTO’s website.
`
`If 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 and the trademark will fail to register.  See 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.65(a), 2.68(a); TMEP
`§§718.01, 718.02.  Additionally, the USPTO will not refund the application filing fee, which is a required processing fee.  See 37 C.F.R.
`§§2.6(a)(1)(i)-(iv), 2.209(a); TMEP §405.04.
`
`When an application has abandoned for failure to respond to an Office action, an applicant may timely file a petition to revive the application,
`which, if granted, would allow the application to return to active status.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.66; TMEP §1714.  The petition must be filed within
`two months of the date of issuance of the notice of abandonment and may be filed online via the Trademark Electronic Application System
`(TEAS) with a $100 fee.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(15)(ii), 2.66(a)(1), (b)(1).
`
`If the applicant has any questions or requires assistance in responding to this Office Action, please contact the examining attorney at the contact
`information provided below.  All relevant e-mail communications will be placed in the official application record; however, an e-mail
`communication will not be accepted as a response to this Office action and will not extend the deadline for filing a proper response.  See 37
`C.F.R. §§2.62(c), 2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05.  Further, although the trademark examining attorney may provide additional
`
` 
` 
`  
` 
` 
`  
` 
`  
` 
` 
` 
`  
`

`

`explanation pertaining to the refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) in this Office action, the trademark examining attorney may not provide legal
`advice or statements about applicant’s rights.   See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06.
`
`Yi, Crystal
`/Crystal H. Yi/
`Examining Attorney
`Law Office 123
`571.270.0763
`crystal.yi@uspto.gov
`
`  
`
`TEAS PLUS OR TEAS REDUCED FEE (TEAS RF) APPLICANTS – TO MAINTAIN LOWER FEE, ADDITIONAL
`REQUIREMENTS MUST BE MET, INCLUDING SUBMITTING DOCUMENTS ONLINE:  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.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.22(b), 2.23(b);
`TMEP §§819, 820.  TEAS Plus or TEAS RF applicants who do not meet these requirements must submit an additional processing fee of $125
`per class of goods and/or services.  37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(1)(v), 2.22(c), 2.23(c); TMEP §§819.04, 820.04.  However, in certain situations, TEAS
`Plus or TEAS RF applicants may respond to an Office action by authorizing an examiner’s amendment by telephone or e-mail without incurring
`
`this additional fee.   
`
`TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER:   Go to http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp.   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.  For technical
`assistance with online forms, e-mail TEAS@uspto.gov.  For questions about the Office action itself, please contact the assigned trademark
`examining attorney.  E-mail communications will not be accepted as responses to Office actions; therefore, do not respond to this Office
`action by e-mail.
`
`All informal e-mail communications relevant to this application will be placed in the official application record.
`
`WHO MUST SIGN THE RESPONSE:  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).  If an applicant is represented by an attorney, the attorney must sign the
`
`response.  
`
`PERIODICALLY CHECK THE STATUS OF THE APPLICATION:   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/.   Please keep a copy of the TSDR status screen.   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.   For more information on checking
`status, see http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/process/status/.
`
`TO UPDATE CORRESPONDENCE/E-MAIL ADDRESS:  Use the TEAS form at http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/correspondence.jsp.
`
`  
` 
` 
` 
`  
`

`

`Pfint:0mfl1fl,2fl1fl
`
`35808313
`
`DESIGN MARK
`
`serial Number
`85608318
`
`Status
`REGISTERED
`
`Word Mark
`SYMPLI
`
`Standard Character Mark
`No
`
`Registration Number
`4443165
`
`Date Registered
`2013x12x11
`
`Type of Mark
`TRADEMARK
`
`Register
`PRINCIPAL
`
`Mark Drawing Code
`[5] WORDS, LETTERS, ANDxOR NUMBERS IN STYLIZED EORM
`
`Owner
`White House Design Company Inc. CORPORATION CANADA 3955 Myrtle Street
`Burnaby, BC CANADA VSC4G3
`
`GoodsfServioes
`[Based on
`G & S:
`022 039.
`US
`IC 025.
`Class Status -- ACTIVE.
`44[e]]
`[Based on Use in Commerce] Clothing, namely, shirts,
`tops,
`tunios, dresses, wraps, shawls, pants,
`leggings, tights, oapris,
`skirts,
`jackets, coats, outerwear, namely, parkae, body suits, and
`slips:
`[Based on 44[eJJ Clothing, namely,
`jeans. First Use:
`2002H02/15. First Use In Commerce: 2002f02f15.
`
`Foreign lCountryr Name
`CANADA
`
`Foreign Priority
`FOREIGN PRIORITY CLAIMED
`
`Foreign Application Number
`1,513,336
`
`Foreign Filing Date
`
`

`

`Print: Oct 10, 2013
`
`35808313
`
`2012f04f16
`
`Foreign Registration Number
`was 5 6 , o 7 2
`
`Foreign Registration Date
`2013x07x23
`
`Foreign Expiration Date
`ZOEBHOTHZB
`
`Description of Mark
`The mark consists of the word "SYMPLI"
`
`in a fanciful font.
`
`Colors Claimed
`Color is not claimed as a feature of the mark.
`
`Filing Date
`2012j04j25
`
`Examining Attorney
`STRINGER, DANIEL
`
`Attorneyr of Record
`Tanya M. Reitzel
`
`

`

`

`

`Print: Oct 10, 2013
`
`3795936?
`
`Issue: Nov 6, 2D1E
`
`DESIGN MARK
`
`serial Number
`8T95936T
`
`Status
`PUELICAT ICw I a SUE REVIEW CCMPLETE
`
`Word Mark
`s IMPLY
`
`Standard Character Mark
`Yes
`
`T‘ype at Mark
`TRADEMARK
`
`Register
`PRINCIPAL
`
`Mark Drawing Code
`[4]
`STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
`
`Owner
`Occasion BrandsIr LLC LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY DELAWHRE 105 Sleepy
`Hollow Drive Middletown DELAWRRE 19109
`
`IC 025.
`
`US
`
`022 039.
`
`G & S: Dresses;
`
`Goodsmervices
`Class Status -- ACTIVE.
`Jumpsuits: Rompers.
`
`Filing Date
`2018/06H12
`
`Examining .I’attnrnle'yr
`ALEIERI , PMY
`
`Attorney of Record
`Rita H Lin
`
`

`

`Simply
`
`

`

`Pfint:0mfl1fl,201fl
`
`88104056
`
`DESIGN MARK
`
`serial Number
`88104056
`
`Status
`NEW APPLICATION — RECCRD INITIALIZED NCT ASSIGNED To EXAMINER
`
`Word Mark
`SIMPLY EIT ATHLETICS
`
`Standard Character Mark
`Yes
`
`Type of Mark
`TRADEMARK; SERVICE MARK
`
`Register
`PRINCIPAL
`
`Mark Drawing Code
`[4]
`STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
`
`Owner
`limited company [ltd.] CANADA 824 41st Ayenue
`INA International Ltd.
`NE Calgary, Alberta CANADA T2E3R3
`
`Goodsmervioes
`Class Status -- ACTIVE.
`
`IC 018.
`
`US
`
`001 002 003 022 041.
`
`G & 8:
`
`bags, namely, sports bags sold empty.
`
`Goodsfiewioes
`Class Status -- ACTIVE.
`
`IC 025.
`
`US
`
`022 039.
`
`G & S: athletic
`
`footwear, namely, athletic shoes, casual
`clothing, casual clothing;
`shoes; headwear, namely, hats, caps, headbands and toques.
`
`GoodsIServioes
`G & S: online
`100 101 102.
`US
`IC 035.
`Class Status -- ACTIVE.
`retail and retail store services in the field of athletic and casual
`
`clothing, athletic and casual footwear, and sports bags.
`
`Foreign Countryr Name
`CANADA
`
`Foreign Priority
`ECREIGN PRIORITY CLAIMED
`
`Foreign Application Number
`1886111
`
`Foreign Filing Date
`
`

`

`Print: Oct 10, 201B
`
`88104-056
`
`ZOlBg’OBHUE
`
`Filing Date
`2018f09f04
`
`Examining Attorney
`UNKNOWN
`
`Attorney,»r of Record
`David A. W. Wong
`
`

`

`SIMPLY FIT ATHLETICS
`
`

`

`To:
`
`Subject:
`
`Sent:
`
`Sent As:
`
`Attachments:
`
`Franklin, Jeremekia (jeremekiafranklin@gmail.com)
`
`U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 88008387 - SYMPLIFIT - N/A
`
`10/10/2018 8:00:54 AM
`
`ECOM123@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 10/10/2018 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 88008387
`
`Your trademark application has been reviewed.  The trademark examining attorney assigned by the USPTO to your application has written an
`official letter to which you must respond.  Please follow these steps:
`
`(1)  READ THE LETTER by clicking on this link or going to http://tsdr.uspto.gov/, entering your U.S. application serial number, and clicking
`on “Documents.”
`
`The 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.  
`
`(2)  RESPOND WITHIN 6 MONTHS (or sooner if specified in the Office action), calculated from 10/10/2018, using the Trademark Electronic
`Application System (TEAS) response form located at http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp.  A response transmitted through
`TEAS must be received before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period.
`
`Do 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.  
`
`(3)  QUESTIONS about the contents of the Office action itself should be directed to the trademark examining attorney who reviewed your
`
`application, identified below.  
`
`Yi, Crystal
`/Crystal H. Yi/
`Examining Attorney
`Law Office 123
`571.270.0763
`crystal.yi@uspto.gov
`
`WARNING
`
`Failure to file the required response by the applicable response deadline will result in the ABANDONMENT of your application.  For
`
`more information regarding abandonment, see http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics/abandon.jsp.  
`
`PRIVATE COMPANY SOLICITATIONS REGARDING YOUR APPLICATION:  Private companies not associated with the USPTO are
`using information provided in trademark applications to mail or e-mail trademark-related solicitations.  These companies often use names that
`closely resemble the USPTO and their solicitations may look like an official government document.  Many solicitations require that you pay
`
`“fees.”   
`
` 
`  
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`

`

`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.  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.”   For more information on how to handle
`private company solicitations, see http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/solicitation_warnings.jsp.
`
`  
`