To:
`
`Subject:
`
`Sent:
`
`Sent As:
`
`Attachments:
`
`EXPRESS COMMUNICATIONS (ExpressCommunications@RocketMail.com)
`
`U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 85480792 - EXPRESS - N/A
`
`12/12/2013 2:59:09 PM
`
`ECOM111@USPTO.GOV
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
`OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS:
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160) (cid:160)(cid:160) JEFF VOLK
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160) (cid:160)(cid:160) JEFF VOLK
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160) (cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) PO BOX 828
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160) (cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) PISMO BEACH CA 93448-0828
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`*85480792*
`
`CLICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER:
`http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp
`
`(cid:160) (cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 85480792
`(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) MARK: EXPRESS
`(cid:160)(cid:160) (cid:160)(cid:160) (cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) APPLICANT: EXPRESS COMMUNICATIONS
`(cid:160) (cid:160)(cid:160)(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)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`(cid:160) (cid:160) N/A
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) CORRESPONDENT E-MAIL ADDRESS:(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`(cid:160) (cid:160) ExpressCommunications@RocketMail.com
`
`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
`
`SSUE/MAILING DATE: 12/12/2013
`
`THIS IS A FINAL ACTION.
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`his action addresses the applicant’s 09/21/12 response to the 03/17/12 office action. (cid:160) The office action included several 2d likelihood of
`confusion refusals, a prior pending mark, and a requirement to amend the identification of goods.(cid:160) The applicant has provided an acceptable
`amended identification and the prior pending mark has since abandoned.(cid:160) (cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`While, the applicant has provided a preliminary response, many
`of the issues of likelihood of confusion have not been vetted or discussed.(cid:160) Additionally, while the applicant has filed letters of protests for two
`mark, which were granted, the marks subsequently have been approved for registration.(cid:160) Upon careful review of the applicant’s response, the
`
`undersigned finds the arguments unpersuasive.(cid:160) As a result, the 2d refusal is maintained and is now made FINAL.(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSIONS- FINAL
`
`(cid:160)R
`
`egistration of the applied-for mark- “Express” for “Devices capable of storing/producing/computing, transmitting, receiving, data/signals
`including sound, images/video, and text, namely: transceivers, personal computers, lap-tops, tablet computers, tablet mobile phones, telephones,
`cellular/mobile telephones, sold as integrated components and separate components. Accessories for the aforementioned goods, namely, internal
`and external components, namely, antennas, battery chargers, batteries, hands-free headsets, vehicle mountings, housings/face plates, carrying
`
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`

`

`cases/pouches/holsters
`is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration Nos. 3922364 “Channel Express” for “transceivers”[owned
`by Ranger Electronic Communications], 3950050 “ExpressMaps” for the relevant goods, computers [owned by Spot Image], 3916159
`“Xpressradio” for the relevant goods, namely mobile telephones and accessories for mobile telephones, namely batteries, battery chargers,
`headsets [owned by Nokia], 79048130 “Rittal Express” plus a design for the relevant goods, namely “adapted housings for the accommodation
`of electrical installations, in the fields of computers for [putting] up electrical installations[owned by Rittal GmbH], 3524420 “Nasuba Express”
`and design for the relevant goods, namely “computer terminals, laptops, telephone terminals[owned by LCS Media], 2931609 “Express Fast
`Charger” and 3430696 “Express” for battery chargers and batteries [owned by ESRMCO Corp.], 3681466 “Think Express” and 3681462
`“Express” for the relevant goods, namely “computers and computer accessories”[both owned by International Business Machines], 3476179
`“Express Gate” for the relevant goods, namely “personal computers and notebook computers” [owned by Asustek Computer Inc.], 2496915
`“Neax Express” for the relevant goods “computers” [owned by NEC Infrontia Corp], 2289968 “Micro Express” for the relevant goods
`“computers” [owned by ASA Engineering], 1529489 “Bowler Express” with a design for the relevant goods, namely computers [Computer
`Sports Systems, Inc.], 1606164 “Callxpress” for the relevant goods, computers [Applied Voice & Speech]. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15
`U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the enclosed registrations.
`
`Comparison of Marks
`The goods and/or services of the parties need not be identical or directly competitive to find a likelihood of confusion. See Safety-Kleen Corp. v.
`Dresser Indus., Inc., 518 F.2d 1399, 1404, 186 USPQ 476, 480 (C.C.P.A. 1975); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i). Rather, it is sufficient to show that
`because of the conditions surrounding their marketing, or because they are otherwise related in some manner, the goods and/or services would be
`encountered by the same consumers under circumstances such that offering the goods and/or services under confusingly similar marks would
`lead to the mistaken belief that they come from, or are in some way associated with, the same source. In re Iolo Techs., LLC, 95 USPQ2d 1498,
`1499 (TTAB 2010); see In re Martin’s Famous Pastry Shoppe, Inc. , 748 F.2d 1565, 1566-68, 223 USPQ 1289, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 1984); TMEP
`§1207.01(a)(i).
`
`(cid:160)H
`
`ere, the proposed mark is “Express” and the registrants’ marks are “Express”, “Channel Express”,“ExpressMaps”, “Xpressradio”, “Rittal
`Express” plus a design, “Nasuba Express” and design,“Express Fast Charger”, “Express”, “Think Express”,” Express”, “Express Gate”,
`“Neax Express”, “Micro Express”, “Bowler Express”, “Callxpress”. The marks share the wording “Express”.
`The mere addition of a term to
`a registered mark generally does not obviate the similarity between the marks nor does it overcome a likelihood of confusion under Trademark
`Act Section 2(d). See In re Chatam Int’l Inc. , 380 F.3d 1340, 71 USPQ2d 1944 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (GASPAR’S ALE and JOSE GASPAR
`GOLD); Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Jos. E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 526 F.2d 556, 188 USPQ 105 (C.C.P.A. 1975) (BENGAL and BENGAL
`LANCER); Lilly Pulitzer, Inc. v. Lilli Ann Corp., 376 F.2d 324, 153 USPQ 406 (C.C.P.A. 1967) (THE LILLY and LILLI ANN); In re Toshiba
`Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d 1266 (TTAB 2009) (TITAN and VANTAGE TITAN); In re El Torito Rests., Inc., 9 USPQ2d 2002 (TTAB 1988)
`(MACHO and MACHO COMBOS); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65 (TTAB 1985) (CONFIRM and CONFIRMCELLS); In re U.S.
`Shoe Corp., 229 USPQ 707 (TTAB 1985) (CAREER IMAGE and CREST CAREER IMAGES); In re Riddle, 225 USPQ 630 (TTAB 1985)
`(ACCUTUNE and RICHARD PETTY’S ACCU TUNE); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iii).
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`n addition, some of the registrant’s marks include the phonetic equivalent for the wording “express.” The marks are essentially phonetic
`equivalents and thus sound similar. 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).
`
`(cid:160)F
`
`inally, as to the addition of the design for some of the registrant’s marks, For a composite mark containing both words and a design, the word
`portion may be more likely to be impressed upon a purchaser’s memory and to be used when requesting the goods and/or services. (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); see In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908, 1911 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing CBS
`Inc. v. Morrow, 708 F. 2d 1579, 1581-82, 218 USPQ 198, 200 (Fed. Cir 1983)).(cid:160) Thus, although such 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.(cid:160) In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d at 1366, 101 USPQ2d at 1911 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing Giant
`
`Food, Inc. v. Nation’s Foodservice, Inc. , 710 F.2d 1565, 1570-71, 218 USPQ2d 390, 395 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`not recalled as readily as word elements, such as the wording “express.” (cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`The applicant argues that certain elements “stand out” more than the wording “Express”, but as indicated above design elements routinely are
`
`Comparison of Goods
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he goods and/or services of the parties need not be identical or directly competitive to find a likelihood of confusion. See Safety-Kleen Corp. v.
`Dresser Indus., Inc., 518 F.2d 1399, 1404, 186 USPQ 476, 480 (C.C.P.A. 1975); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i). Rather, it is sufficient to show that
`because of the conditions surrounding their marketing, or because they are otherwise related in some manner, the goods and/or services would be
`encountered by the same consumers under circumstances such that offering the goods and/or services under confusingly similar marks would
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`

`

`lead to the mistaken belief that they come from, or are in some way associated with, the same source. In re Iolo Techs., LLC, 95 USPQ2d 1498,
`1499 (TTAB 2010); see In re Martin’s Famous Pastry Shoppe, Inc. , 748 F.2d 1565, 1566-68, 223 USPQ 1289, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 1984); TMEP
`§1207.01(a)(i).
`
`(cid:160)H
`
`ere, the proposed mark is “Express” for “Devices capable of storing/producing/computing, transmitting, receiving, data/signals including
`sound, images/video, and text, namely: transceivers, personal computers, lap-tops, tablet computers, tablet mobile phones, telephones,
`cellular/mobile telephones, sold as integrated components and separate components. Accessories for the aforementioned goods, namely, internal
`and external components, namely, antennas, battery chargers, batteries, hands-free headsets, vehicle mountings, housings/face plates, carrying
`cases/pouches/holsters.
`
`(cid:160)R
`
`elated To Transceivers
`
`(cid:160)U
`
`.S. Registration No. 3922364 “Channel Express” for “transceivers”[owned by Ranger Electronic Communications],
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`n a likelihood of confusion analysis, the comparison of the parties’ goods and/or services is based on the goods and/or services as they are
`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); see Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1267-68, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1004-05 (Fed.
`Cir. 2002); In re Thor Tech, Inc., 90 USPQ2d 1634, 1638-39 (TTAB 2009); TMEP §1207.01(a)(iii).
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`n the present case, applicant’s goods and/or services are transceivers and registrant’s goods and/or services are transceivers. Thus, the goods
`and/or services are identical, and it is presumed that they move in all normal channels of trade and are available to all potential customers. See
`Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp., Inc., 637 F.3d 1344, 1356, 98 USPQ2d 1253, 1261 (Fed. Cir. 2011); In re La Peregrina Ltd., 86
`USPQ2d 1645, 1646 (TTAB 2008); TMEP §1207.01(a)(iii).
`While the letter of protest was accepted, the examining attorney in the respective application ultimately approved the mark for publication and
`the application has since registered.(cid:160)
`Accordingly, the goods and/or services are considered related for purposes of the likelihood of confusion analysis.
`
`Related To Computers
`
`(cid:160)U
`
`.S. Registration No. 3950050 “ExpressMaps” for the relevant goods, computers [owned by Spot Image],
`The application argues that the goods are for a satellite maps, however, the relevant goods at issue are computers.(cid:160)
`U.S. Registration No. 3524420 “Nasuba Express” and design for the relevant goods, namely “computer terminals, laptops, telephone
`terminals[owned by LCS Media],
`U.S. Registration No. 3681462 “Express” for the relevant goods, namely “computers and computer accessories”[both owned by International
`Business Machines],
`The applicant does not argue that the goods are not related.
`U.S. Registration No. 2496915 “Neax Express” for the relevant goods “computers” [owned by NEC Infrontia Corp] (cid:160) This mark has since
`cancelled and is no longer a bar to registration.(cid:160)
`U.S. Registration No. 3476179 “Express Gate” for the relevant goods, namely “personal computers and notebook computers” [owned by
`Asustek Computer Inc.],
`U.S. Registration No. 3681466 “Think Express” for the relevant goods, namely “computers and computer accessories”
`U.S. Registration No. 2289968 “Micro Express” for the relevant goods “computers” [owned by ASA Engineering],
`U.S. Registration No. 1529489 “Bowler Express” with a design for the relevant goods, namely “computers” [Computer Sports Systems, Inc.],
`The applicant argues that the mark is for bowling alley systems and not the goods listed here, however, this is incorrect.(cid:160)
`U.S. Registration No. 1606164 “Callxpress” for the relevant goods, “computers” [Applied Voice & Speech].
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`n a likelihood of confusion analysis, the comparison of the parties’ goods and/or services is based on the goods and/or services as they are
`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); see Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1267-68, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1004-05 (Fed.
`Cir. 2002); In re Thor Tech, Inc., 90 USPQ2d 1634, 1638-39 (TTAB 2009); TMEP §1207.01(a)(iii).
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`n the present case, applicant’s goods and/or services are personal computers. Thus, the goods and/or services are identical, and it is presumed
`that they move in all normal channels of trade and are available to all potential customers. See Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp., Inc., 637
`F.3d 1344, 1356, 98 USPQ2d 1253, 1261 (Fed. Cir. 2011); In re La Peregrina Ltd., 86 USPQ2d 1645, 1646 (TTAB 2008); TMEP
`§1207.01(a)(iii).
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`n a likelihood of confusion analysis, the comparison of the parties’ goods and/or services is based on the goods and/or services as they are
`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); see Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1267-68, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1004-05 (Fed.
`Cir. 2002); In re Thor Tech, Inc., 90 USPQ2d 1634, 1638-39 (TTAB 2009); TMEP §1207.01(a)(iii). In the instant case, the applicant’s relevant
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`

`

`goods are as follows: personal computers, lap-tops, tablet computers and registrant’s goods and/or services are computers and computer
`peripherals and the registrant’s goods are computers.
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`n this case, the identification set forth in the cited registration uses broad wording to describe registrant’s goods and/or services and does not
`contain any limitations as to nature, type, channels of trade or classes of purchasers. Therefore, it is presumed that the registration encompasses
`all goods and/or services of the type described, including those in applicant’s more specific identification, that the goods and/or services move in
`all normal channels of trade, and that they are available to all potential customers. See Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp., Inc., ___ F.3d
`___, 98 USPQ2d 1253, 1261 (Fed. Cir. 2011); In re Jump Designs LLC, 80 USPQ2d 1370, 1374 (TTAB 2006); In re Elbaum, 211 USPQ 639,
`640 (TTAB 1981); TMEP §1207.01(a)(iii).
`
`(cid:160)A
`
`ccordingly, the goods and/or services are considered related for purposes of the likelihood of confusion analysis.
`
`(cid:160)M
`
`obile telephones, batteries, battery chargers, and headsets for related purposes
`
`(cid:160)U
`
`.S. Registration No. 3916159 “Xpressradio” for the relevant goods, namely mobile telephones and accessories for mobile telephones, namely
`batteries, battery chargers, headsets [owned by Nokia],
`While the letter of protest was accepted, the examining attorney in the respective application ultimately approved the mark for publication and
`
`the application has since registered.(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`U.S. Registration No. 2931609 “Express Fast Charger” and U.S. Registration No. 3430696 “Express” for battery chargers and batteries [owned
`by ESRMCO Corp.],
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`n a likelihood of confusion analysis, the comparison of the parties’ goods and/or services is based on the goods and/or services as they are
`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); see Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1267-68, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1004-05 (Fed.
`Cir. 2002); In re Thor Tech, Inc., 90 USPQ2d 1634, 1638-39 (TTAB 2009); TMEP §1207.01(a)(iii).
`In the present case, applicant’s goods and/or services are mobile telephones, batteries, battery chargers, and headsets and registrant’s goods
`and/or services are mobile telephones, batteries, battery charger, and headsets. Thus, the goods and/or services are identical, and it is presumed
`that they move in all normal channels of trade and are available to all potential customers. See Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp., Inc., 637
`F.3d 1344, 1356, 98 USPQ2d 1253, 1261 (Fed. Cir. 2011); In re La Peregrina Ltd., 86 USPQ2d 1645, 1646 (TTAB 2008); TMEP
`§1207.01(a)(iii).
`Accordingly, the goods and/or services are considered related for purposes of the likelihood of confusion analysis.
`
`Housings for related purposes
`
`U.S. Registration No. 79048130 “Rittal Express” plus a design for the relevant goods, namely “adapted housings for the accommodation of
`electrical installations, in the fields of computers for [putting] up electrical installations[owned by Rittal GmbH],
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`n a likelihood of confusion analysis, the comparison of the parties’ goods and/or services is based on the goods and/or services as they are
`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); see Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1267-68, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1004-05 (Fed.
`Cir. 2002); In re Thor Tech, Inc., 90 USPQ2d 1634, 1638-39 (TTAB 2009); TMEP §1207.01(a)(iii).
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`n this case, applicant’s goods and/or services are identified broadly. Therefore, it is presumed that the application encompasses all goods and/or
`services of the type described, including those in the registrant’s more specific identification, that the goods and/or services move in all normal
`channels of trade, and that they are available to all potential customers. Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp., Inc., ___ F.3d ___, 98 USPQ2d
`1253, 1261 (Fed. Cir. 2011); In re La Peregrina Ltd., 86 USPQ2d 1645, 1646 (TTAB 2008); In re Jump Designs LLC, 80 USPQ2d 1370, 1374
`(TTAB 2006); TMEP §1207.01(a)(iii).
`
`Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal(s) by submitting evidence and arguments in
`support of registration.
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`Proper Response
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`f applicant does not respond within six months of the mailing date of this final Office action, the application will be abandoned.(cid:160) 15 U.S.C.
`
`§1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §2.65(a).(cid:160) Applicant may respond to this final Office action by:(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`

`

`(1)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) Submitting a response that fully satisfies all outstanding requirements, if feasible; and/or
`
`(2)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) Filing an appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, with an appeal fee of $100 per class.
`
`37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(18), 2.64(a); TBMP ch. 1200; TMEP §714.04.
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`n certain rare circumstances, a petition to the Director may be filed pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b)(2) to review a final Office action that is
`limited to procedural issues.(cid:160) 37 C.F.R. §2.64(a); TMEP §714.04; see 37 C.F.R. §2.146(b); TBMP §1201.05; TMEP §1704 (explaining
`petitionable matters).(cid:160) The petition fee is $100.(cid:160) 37 C.F.R. §2.6(a)(15).
`
`If applicant has questions regarding this Office action, please telephone the assigned trademark examining attorney.(cid:160) If the applicant chooses to
`e-mail, please note that 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.(cid:160) See 37 C.F.R. §2.191;
`TMEP §§709.04-.05.(cid:160) 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. (cid:160) See
`TMEP §§705.02, 709.06.
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`/Nakia D. Henry/
`Trademark Attorney (Law Office 111)
`Phone:(cid:160) (571) 272-7208
`Fax:(cid:160) (571) 273-7208
`E-mail:(cid:160) nakia.henry@uspto.gov
`
`(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)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`

`

`To:
`
`Subject:
`
`Sent:
`
`Sent As:
`
`Attachments:
`
`EXPRESS COMMUNICATIONS (ExpressCommunications@RocketMail.com)
`
`U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 85480792 - EXPRESS - N/A
`
`12/12/2013 2:59:10 PM
`
`ECOM111@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 12/12/2013 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 85480792
`
`Your trademark application has been reviewed.(cid:160) The trademark examining attorney assigned by the USPTO to your application has written an
`official letter to which you must respond.(cid:160) Please follow these steps:
`
`(cid:160)(
`
`1)(cid:160) 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.”
`
`(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)(cid:160)
`(2)(cid:160) RESPOND WITHIN 6 MONTHS (or sooner if specified in the Office action), calculated from 12/12/2013, using the Trademark Electronic
`Application System (TEAS) response form located at http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp.(cid:160)(cid:160)
`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.(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(3)(cid:160) QUESTIONS about the contents of the Office action itself should be directed to the trademark examining attorney who reviewed your
`application, identified below.(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`/Nakia D. Henry/
`Trademark Attorney (Law Office 111)
`Phone:(cid:160) (571) 272-7208
`Fax:(cid:160) (571) 273-7208
`E-mail:(cid:160) nakia.henry@uspto.gov
`
`WARNING
`
`Failure 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.(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`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)
`