To:
`
`Subject:
`
`Sent:
`
`Sent As:
`
`Attachments:
`
`Bayou Pumps & Products Inc (denny@bayoupumps.com)
`
`U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 88057994 - TESLA DISK PUMPS - N/A
`
`11/28/2018 8:31:21 PM
`
`ECOM103@USPTO.GOV
`
`Attachment - 1
`Attachment - 2
`Attachment - 3
`Attachment - 4
`Attachment - 5
`Attachment - 6
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
`
`OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
`
`*88057994*
`
`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.   88057994
`
`           
`
`MARK: TESLA DISK
`PUMPS
`
`CORRESPONDENT
`ADDRESS:
`  
`       BAYOU PUMPS &
`PRODUCTS INC
`
`       BAYOU PUMPS &
`  
`PRODUCTS INC
`
`         188 PINEWOODS
`ROAD
`
`           FARMERVILLE, LA
`71241
`
`    
`
`   
`
`APPLICANT: Bayou
`Pumps & Products Inc
`
`    
`
`CORRESPONDENT’S
`REFERENCE/DOCKET
`
`   
`
`NO:       
`MAIL ADDRESS:       
`
`  N/A
`
`CORRESPONDENT E-
`
`denny@bayoupumps.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: 11/28/2018
`
`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.
`
`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. 4152161.  Trademark
`Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the enclosed registration.
`
`Determination Of Likelihood Of Confusion
`
`The Court in In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973), listed the principal factors to be considered
`in determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d).  Any one of the factors listed may be dominant in any given case,
`depending upon the evidence of record.  In re Dixie Restaurants, Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533 (Fed. Cir. 1997).  In this case, the
`following factors are the most relevant:  similarity of the marks, similarity of the goods and/or services, and similarity of trade channels of the
`goods and/or services.  See In re Opus One, Inc., 60 USPQ2d 1812 (TTAB 2001); In re Dakin’s Miniatures Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593 (TTAB
`1999); In re Azteca Restaurant Enterprises, Inc., 50 USPQ2d 1209 (TTAB 1999); In re L.C. Licensing Inc., 49 USPQ2d 1379 (TTAB 1998);
`TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.
`
`Taking into account the relevant Du Pont factors, a likelihood of confusion determination in this case involves a two-part analysis.  First, the
`marks are compared for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression.  In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476
`F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973).  Second, the goods or services are compared to determine whether they are similar or related or
`whether the activities surrounding their marketing are such that confusion as to origin is likely.  In re National Novice Hockey League, Inc., 222
`USPQ 638 (TTAB 1984); In re August Storck KG, 218 USPQ 823 (TTAB 1983); In re Int’l Tel. and Tel. Corp. , 197 USPQ 910 (TTAB 1978);
`Guardian Prods. Co., v. Scott Paper Co., 200 USPQ 738 (TTAB 1978); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.
`
`Two-Part Analysis
`
`Part One: Comparison of the marks for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression.
`
`The marks are compared in their entireties under a Section 2(d) analysis.  Nevertheless, one feature of a mark may be recognized as more
`significant in creating a commercial impression.  Greater weight is given to that dominant feature in determining whether there is a likelihood of
`confusion.  In re National Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 224 USPQ 749 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Tektronix, Inc. v. Daktronics, Inc., 534 F.2d 915, 189
`USPQ 693 (C.C.P.A. 1976). In re J.M. Originals Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1393 (TTAB 1987); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii).
`
`Furthermore, marks may be confusingly similar in appearance where there are similar terms or phrases or similar parts of terms or phrases
`appearing in both applicant’s and registrant’s mark.
`  See Crocker Nat’l Bank v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce , 228 USPQ 689 (TTAB
`1986), aff’d sub nom. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n , 811 F.2d 1490, 1 USPQ2d 1813 (Fed. Cir.
`1987) (COMMCASH and COMMUNICASH).
`
`The marks are similar in appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression because they share dominant wording.
`
`Applicant’s mark is TESLA DISK PUMPS in STANDARD CHARACTER MARK form.
`
`  
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`

`

`Registrant’s mark is TESLA in DESIGN PLUS WORDS, LETTERS, AND/OR NUMBERS form.
`
`Here, applicant and registrant share the dominant wording TESLA.  Applicant’s mere deletion of registrant’s design element does not
`sufficiently distinguish the commercial impression of applicant's mark from the registered mark.   The mere deletion of wording from a registered
`mark may not be sufficient to overcome a likelihood of confusion.  See In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 94 USPQ2d 1257 (Fed. Cir.
`2010); In re Optica Int'l, 196 USPQ 775, 778 (TTAB 1977); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii).  Applicant's mark does not create a distinct commercial
`impression because it contains the same common wording as the registered mark, and there is no other wording to distinguish it from the
`registered mark.  Thus, part one of the two-part test is satisfied.
`
`Part Two: Comparison of the goods/services to determine whether they are similar or related.
`
`The goods and/or services of the parties need not be identical or directly competitive to find a likelihood of confusion.  Instead, they need only be
`related in some manner, or the conditions surrounding their marketing are such that they would be encountered by the same purchasers under
`circumstances that would give rise to the mistaken belief that the goods and/or services come from a common source.  On-line Careline Inc. v.
`America Online Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 56 USPQ2d 1471 (Fed. Cir. 2000); In re Martin’s Famous Pastry Shoppe , Inc., 748 F.2d 1565, 223 USPQ
`1289 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Melville Corp., 18 USPQ2d 1386, 1388 (TTAB 1991); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65 (TTAB 1985); In
`re Rexel Inc., 223 USPQ 830 (TTAB 1984); Guardian Prods. Co., Inc. v. Scott Paper Co., 200 USPQ 738 (TTAB 1978); In re Int’l Tel. & Tel.
`Corp., 197 USPQ 910 (TTAB 1978); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).
`
`Furthermore, if the goods and/or services of the respective parties 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 would be required with diverse goods and/or services.  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).
`
`The goods are related.
`
`Applicant seeks registration for the goods:
`
`IC 007. US 013 019 021 023 031 034 035. G & S: Pumps for machines. FIRST USE: 20120101. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE:
`20120101
`
`Registrant maintains registration for the goods:
`
`IC 007. US 013 019 021 023 031 034 035. G & S: Electric motors for submersible pumps, electric motors for machines used in borehole
`applications, electric submersible motors for use with machines other than land vehicles, electric motors for pumps, [ electric motors for
`machines, ] sump pumps, aquarium pumps, electric pumps for swimming pools, [ rotary pumps, namely, wet rotor pumps, ] electric
`pumps in the nature of electro pump machines, [ shafts for pumps, bearings being parts of machines, ] stators and rotors being parts of
`pumps, [ electric circulating pumps for heating plants, ] electric pumps for machines, [ electric pumps for heating installations, ] water
`pumps for irrigation, water pumps for water supply
`
`IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: [ Electric switch plates, pump control valves, ] electronic controls for pumps, mechanical
`remote controls for pumps [ water filter controllers ]
`
`Here, applicant’s and registrant’s goods are related because they are both pump goods.  Therefore, they are of a kind that may emanate from a
`
`single source and/or are marketed in similar channels of trade.  See identification of goods above.  
`
`Please note that a determination of whether there is a likelihood of confusion is made solely on the basis of the goods and/or services identified in
`the application and registration, without limitations or restrictions that are not reflected therein.  In re Dakin’s Miniatures Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593,
`1595 (TTAB 1999).  If the cited registration describes the goods and/or services broadly and there are no limitations as to their nature, type,
`channels of trade or classes of purchasers, then it is presumed that the registration encompasses all goods and/or services of the type described,
`that they move in all normal channels of trade, and that they are available to all potential customers.  In re Linkvest S.A., 24 USPQ2d 1716
`(TTAB 1992); In re Elbaum, 211 USPQ 639 (TTAB 1981); TMEP §1207.01(a)(iii).
`
`Therefore, for the above stated reasons, the goods are related and the conditions surrounding their marketing are such that they would be
`
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`

`

`encountered by the same purchasers under circumstances that would give rise to the mistaken belief that the goods come from a common source. 
`Thus, part two of the two-part test is satisfied.
`
`Conclusion
`
`Since the marks are similar and the goods are related, registration of the proposed mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the
`mark in U.S. Registration No. 4152161.
`
`Although the trademark examining attorney has refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal to register by submitting evidence and
`arguments in support of registration.
`
`PRIOR PENDING APPLICATION
`
`Information regarding pending Application Serial No. 79178383 is enclosed.  The filing date of the referenced application precedes applicant’s
`filing date.  There may be a likelihood of confusion between the two marks under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).  If the
`referenced application registers, registration may be refused in this case under Section 2(d).  37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §§1208 et seq.  Therefore,
`upon entry of a response to this Office action, action on this case may be suspended pending final disposition of the earlier-filed application.
`
`If applicant believes there is no potential conflict between this application and the earlier-filed application, then applicant may present arguments
`relevant to the issue in a response to this Office action.  The election not to submit arguments at this time in no way limits applicant’s right to
`address this issue at a later point.
`
`If applicant chooses to respond, applicant must respond to the following requirements.
`
`DISCLAIMER REQUIREMENT
`
`The applicant must insert a disclaimer of "DISK PUMPS" in the application because DISK PUMPS merely describes the subject matter and field
`
`of applicant's goods.  See 15 U.S.C. §1056(a); TMEP §§1213, 1213.03(a).  Please see the identification of goods and the specimen of record.  
`
`The Office can require an applicant to disclaim an unregistrable part of a mark consisting of particular wording, symbols, numbers, design
`elements or combinations thereof.  15 U.S.C. §1056(a).  Under Section 2(e) of the Trademark Act, the Office can refuse registration of an entire
`mark if the entire mark is merely descriptive, deceptively misdescriptive, or primarily geographically descriptive of the goods.  15 U.S.C.
`§1052(e).  Thus, the Office may require an applicant to disclaim a portion of a mark that, when used in connection with the goods or services, is
`merely descriptive, deceptively misdescriptive, primarily geographically descriptive, or otherwise unregistrable (e.g., generic).  TMEP
`§1213.03(a).
`
`A "disclaimer" is a statement that applicant does not claim exclusive rights to an unregistrable component of a mark.  TMEP §1213.  A
`disclaimer does not affect the appearance of the applied-for mark.  See TMEP §1213.10.
`
`A disclaimer does not physically remove the disclaimed matter from the mark, but rather is a written statement that applicant does not claim
`exclusive rights to the disclaimed wording and/or design separate and apart from the mark as shown in the drawing.  TMEP §§1213, 1213.10.
`
`The following cases further explain the disclaimer requirement:  Dena Corp. v. Belvedere Int’l Inc ., 950 F.2d 1555, 21 USPQ2d 1047 (Fed. Cir.
`1991); In re Brown-Forman Corp., 81 USPQ2d 1284 (TTAB 2006); In re Kraft, Inc., 218 USPQ 571 (TTAB 1983).
`
` 
` 
` 
` 
`  
`   
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`

`

`Applicant may submit the following standardized format for a disclaimer:
`
`No claim is made to the exclusive right to use "DISK PUMPS" apart from the mark as shown.
`
`TMEP §1213.08(a)(i); see In re Owatonna Tool Co., 231 USPQ 493 (Comm'r Pats. 1983).
`
`PRINT/WEB ADVERTISING FOR GOODS – USE
`
`Registration is refused because the specimen in International Class(es) 007 appears to be mere advertising material and thus the specimen fails to
`show the applied-for mark in use in commerce.  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).  
`
`Advertising materials are generally not acceptable as specimens to show use in commerce for goods.  See In re Kohr Bros., 121 USPQ2d 1793,
`1794 (TTAB 2017) (quoting In re Quantum Foods, Inc., 94 USPQ2d 1375, 1379 (TTAB 2010)); TMEP §904.04(b), (c).  Advertising materials
`may consist of the following:  online advertising banners appearing on search engine result pages and in social media; advertising circulars and
`
`brochures; price lists; listings in trade directories; and business cards.  See TMEP §904.04(b).  
`
`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 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).  
`
`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.  See TMEP §§904.03 et seq.  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.  TMEP
`
`§904.03(i).  
`
`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), for which no specimen is required.  This option will later necessitate
`additional fee(s) and filing requirements such as providing a specimen.
`
`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 the Specimen webpage.   
`
`RESPONSE
`
`Please call or email the assigned trademark examining attorney with questions about this Office action.  Although the trademark examining
`attorney cannot provide legal advice or statements about applicant’s rights, the trademark examining attorney can provide applicant with
`additional explanation about the refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) in this Office action.  See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06.  Although the USPTO does
`not accept emails as responses to Office actions, emails can be used for informal communications and will be included in the application record. 
`
`See 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(c), 2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05.  
`
`           
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`

`

`  
`
`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.     
`
`/Paul A. Moreno/
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`Attorney
`
`Law Office 103
`
`571-272-2651
`
`paul.moreno@uspto.gov
`
`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:NOV2fl,2fl1B
`
`79025196
`
`DESIGN MARK
`
`serial Number
`T9025196
`
`Status
`SECTION 71 & 15—ACCEPTED AND ACKNOWLEDGED
`
`Word Mark
`TE SLA
`
`Standard Character Mark
`No
`
`Registration Number
`4152161
`
`Date Registered
`2012xOSxO5
`
`Type Of Mark
`TRADEMARK
`
`Register
`PRINCIPAL
`
`Mark Drawing Code
`[3] DESIGN PLUS WORDS, LETTERS ANDXOR NUMBERS
`
`Owner
`DAD PUMPS S.P.A.
`
`JOINT STOCK COMPANY ITALir Via Marco Polo 14 Mestrino
`
`[Padova]
`
`ITHLY 35035
`
`GoodsfServiees
`Class Status -- ACTIVE.
`
`10 00?.
`
`US
`
`013 019 021 023 031 034 035.
`
`G
`
`a 8: Electric motors for submersible pumps, electric motors for
`machines used in borehole applications, electric submersible motors
`for use with machines other than land vehicles, electric motors for
`pumps,
`[ electric motors for machines,
`]
`sump pumps, aquarium pumps,
`electric pumps for swimming pools,
`[ rotary pumps, namely, wet rotor
`pumps,
`] electric pumps in the nature of electro pump machines,
`[
`shafts for pumps, bearings being parts of machines,
`] stators and
`rotors being parts of pumps,
`[ electric circulating pumps for heating
`plants,
`] electric pumps for machines,
`[ electric pumps for heating
`installations,
`] water pumps for irrigation, water pumps for water
`supply.
`
`GoodsIServiees
`[
`G & S:
`021 023 026 036 038.
`US
`IC 009.
`Class Status —— ACTIVE.
`Electric switch plates, pump control valves,
`] electronic controls for
`pumps, mechanical remote controls for pumps
`[ water filter controllers
`
`.1.
`
`

`

`Print: NOV 28, 2018
`
`79025196
`
`].
`
`Priority Date
`ZOOSHOBHZB
`
`Colors Claimed
`Color is not claimed as a feature of the mark.
`
`Filing Date
`2005x12x13
`
`Examining Attorney
`MARTIN,
`JENNIFER
`
`Attorney of Record
`Jamie E. Sternberg
`
`

`

`Teslalll
`
`

`

`Pfini:N0v2fl,2fl1B
`
`79178383
`
`DESIGN MARK
`
`serial Number
`TSITBBBB
`
`Status
`REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK — CASE STILL SUSPENDED
`
`Word Mark
`TE SLA
`
`Standard Character Mark
`Yes
`
`Type of Mark
`TRADEMARK
`
`Register
`PRINCIPAL
`
`Mark Drawing Code
`[4]
`STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
`
`Owner
`Baumer Innotec AG Aktiengesellschaft SWITZERLAND Hummelstrasse 1?
`CH-8501 Frauenfeld SWITZERLAND
`
`GoodSIServices
`Class Status -- ACTIVE.
`
`IC 007.
`
`US
`
`013 019 021 023 031 034 035.
`
`G
`
`& S: Valves being parts Of machines: Valves being parts of machines,
`namely metering valves; Valves being parts of machines, namely
`electric and electro—pneumatic adhesive applicator valves; Pumps as
`parts of machines, namely adhesive dispensing pumps; machines and
`mechanical equipment for applying composite materials to surfaces,
`namely, power—operated spray equipment for applying composite
`materials to surfaces, electromagnetic glue application heads;
`machines and mechanical equipment for application of materials in
`liquid and paste form to surfaces, namely, power—operated spray
`equipment for applying materials in liquid and paste form to surfaces,
`electromagnetic glue application heads.
`
`
`
`GoodsiServices
`Class Status —— ACTIVE.
`
`IC 009.
`
`US
`
`021 023 026 036 038.
`
`G & S:
`
`
`lectronic instruments for control of industrial operations, namely
`
`electronic control systems for machines, electronic controllers for
`
`use in industrial glue Operations; apparatus and instruments for
`control of adhesive applicators and installations consisting thereof,
`namely electronic glue monitoring apparatus for monitoring the
`position and quantity of glue.
`
`
`
`Priorityr Date
`
`

`

`Print: Nov 28, 201B
`
`T9178383
`
`ZOlSHOBHSO
`
`Filing Date
`ZOlSHOBHBO
`
`Examining Attorney
`O‘BRIEN,
`JENNIFER L
`
`Attorney,»r of Record
`Cecelia M. Perry
`
`

`

`TESLA
`
`

`

`To:
`
`Subject:
`
`Sent:
`
`Sent As:
`
`Attachments:
`
`Bayou Pumps & Products Inc (denny@bayoupumps.com)
`
`U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 88057994 - TESLA DISK PUMPS - N/A
`
`11/28/2018 8:31:23 PM
`
`ECOM103@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 11/28/2018 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 88057994
`
`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 11/28/2018, 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.  
`
`/Paul A. Moreno/
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`Attorney
`
`Law Office 103
`
`571-272-2651
`
`paul.moreno@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.
`
` 
`  
`