To:
`
`Subject:
`
`Sent:
`
`Sent As:
`
`Attachments:
`
`Kreditech Holding SSL GmbH (ruy@garcia-zamor.com)
`
`U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 86583725 - KREDITECH - PIM-TM004
`
`9/2/2016 6:17:45 PM
`
`ECOM113@USPTO.GOV
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
`OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
`
`*86583725*
`
`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. (cid:160) 86583725
`
`(cid:160)M
`
`ARK: KREDITECH
`
`CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS:
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160) (cid:160) (cid:160) Ruy Garcia-Zamor
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160) (cid:160) (cid:160) Garcia-Zamor Intellectual Property Law
`(cid:160) (cid:160) (cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) 12960 Linden Church Road
`(cid:160) (cid:160) (cid:160)(cid:160) (cid:160) (cid:160) Clarksville MD 21029
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`APPLICANT: Kreditech Holding SSL GmbH
`
`(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)
`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)
`
`(cid:160) PIM-TM004
`
`ruy@garcia-zamor.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: 9/2/2016
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`NTRODUCTION
`
`This Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on July 18, 2016, where applicant:
`
`Provided arguments against the Section 2(d) Refusal
`Amended the Identifications for Classes 9 and 35
`Provided a translation of the foreign registration
`Amended the foreign registration on which applicant is relying for Class 9
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he trademark examining attorney has thoroughly reviewed applicant’s response and has determined the following:
`
`Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive to overcome the Section 2(d) Refusal, and the refusal is continued and maintained
`Applicant’s amendment to the Class 9 identification includes indefinite wording and creates a new issue to which applicant must respond
`Applicant’s amendment to the identification in Class 35 is acceptable and made of record
`Applicant’s translation of the foreign registration is acceptable and made of record, and the requirement is satisfied
`Applicant’s substituted foreign registration for Class 9 is acceptable and made of record, and the requirement is satisfied
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he trademark examining attorney continues and maintains the Section 2(d) refusal and raises the following new issue concerning the specified
`goods in Class 9 in the summary of issues below. See 37 C.F.R. §2.64(a); TMEP §714.04. The trademark examining attorney’s arguments and
`evidence from the initial Office action are incorporated by reference.
`
`(cid:160)S
`
`UMMARY OF NEW ISSUES that applicant must address:
`
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`

`
`Identification of Goods Requirement – Specified Class 9 Goods Only
`Advisory – Preliminary Response to Applicant’s Arguments Against the Section 2(d) Refusal
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`DENTIFICATION OF GOODS REQUIREMENT – SPECIFIED CLASS 9 GOODS ONLY
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he wording “Computer software recorded on data media programs designed for use in construction and automated manufacturing” in
`International Class 9 is indefinite; applicant must specify the purpose or function of the software.(cid:160) See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP
`§1402.03(d).(cid:160) If the software is content- or field-specific, applicant must also specify its content or field of use.(cid:160) See TMEP §1402.03(d).
`Generally, an identification for software is acceptable when the purpose or function of the software is provided, and, if applicable, its content or
`field of use.(cid:160) Id.(cid:160) The USPTO requires such specificity in identifying computer programs or software in order for a trademark examining attorney
`to examine the application properly and make appropriate decisions concerning possible conflicts between the applicant’s mark and other
`marks.(cid:160) See In re N.A.D. Inc., 57 USPQ2d 1872, 1874 (TTAB 2000); TMEP §1402.03(d).
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`n this case, the wording specifies the field but not the function of the software. As a variety of types of software may be used in this field, further
`specificity is required to properly assess the nature of the goods.
`
`(cid:160)A
`
`pplicant may adopt the following identification in Class 9, if accurate: “Computer software recorded on data media programs designed for
`{specify function of software, e.g., financial data analysis, financial modeling, etc.} for use in construction and automated manufacturing;
`Computer software for use as a spreadsheet in producing financial reports regarding risk assessment on the direct and indirect provision of
`financial products to natural persons, behavioral information on the use of third party and proprietary lending platforms, and personal financial
`management solutions; Computer software for creating searchable databases of historical financial information, namely records relating to risk
`assessment on the direct and indirect provision of financial products to natural persons, behavioral information on the use of third party and
`proprietary lending platforms, and personal financial management solutions; Computer software for managing and processing financial
`transactions not including over-the-counter credit risk, credit risk transactions, and credit risk trading; Financial management software, namely
`computer software for facilitating day-to-day business operations not including facilitating, processing, and completing over-the-counter credit
`derivative transactions, credit risk transactions, and credit risk trading; Computer programs for tracking and editing financial records regarding
`risk assessment on the direct and indirect provision of financial products to natural persons, behavioral information on the use of third party and
`proprietary lending platforms, and personal financial management solutions”
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he identification of services in Classes 35, 36, and 42 are acceptable as written.
`
`(cid:160)A
`
`pplicant’s goods and/or services may be clarified or limited, but may not be expanded beyond those originally itemized in the application or as
`acceptably amended.(cid:160) See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06.(cid:160) Applicant may clarify or limit the identification by inserting qualifying
`language or deleting items to result in a more specific identification; however, applicant may not substitute different goods and/or services or
`add goods and/or services not found or encompassed by those in the original application or as acceptably amended.(cid:160) See TMEP §1402.06(a)-(b).(cid:160)
`The scope of the goods and/or services sets the outer limit for any changes to the identification and is generally determined by the ordinary
`meaning of the wording in the identification.(cid:160) TMEP §§1402.06(b), 1402.07(a)-(b).(cid:160) Any acceptable changes to the goods and/or services will
`further limit scope, and once goods and/or services are deleted, they are not permitted to be reinserted.(cid:160) TMEP §1402.07(e).
`
`(cid:160)F
`
`or assistance with identifying and classifying goods and services in trademark applications, please see the USPTO’s online searchable U.S.
`Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual.(cid:160) See TMEP §1402.04.
`
`(cid:160)P
`
`RELIMINARY RESPONSE TO APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS
`
`(cid:160)A
`
`pplicant has argued against the Section 2(d) refusal concerning Classes 9 and 35. Applicant’s arguments and evidence are unpersuasive for the
`reasons provided below. The trademark examining attorney may provide a further response to these arguments in a Final Office Action, if
`necessary.
`
`(cid:160)A
`
`s in its prior response, applicant argues that the differences in spelling an appearance obviate a likelihood of confusion. Although there are
`differences in the spelling of the marks, the similarities of the marks outweigh the differences. When comparing marks, the test is not whether
`the marks can be distinguished in a side-by-side comparison, but rather whether the marks are sufficiently similar in terms of their overall
`commercial impression that confusion as to the source of the goods and/or services offered under the respective marks is likely to result.(cid:160)
`Midwestern Pet Foods, Inc. v. Societe des Produits Nestle S.A., 685 F.3d 1046, 1053, 103 USPQ2d 1435, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Bay State
`Brewing Co., 117 USPQ2d 1958, 1960 (TTAB 2016) (quoting Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1368, 101 USPQ2d
`1713, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(b).(cid:160) The proper focus is on the recollection of the average purchaser, who retains a general rather
`than specific impression of trademarks.(cid:160) In re Bay State Brewing Co., 117 USPQ2d at 1960 ((citing Spoons Rests., Inc., v. Morrison, Inc., 23
`USPQ2d 1735, 1741 (TTAB 1991), aff’d per curiam , 972 F.2d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1992)); In re C.H. Hanson Co., 116 USPQ2d 1351, 1353 (TTAB
`2015) (citing Joel Gott Wines LLC v. Rehoboth Von Gott Inc., 107 USPQ2d 1424, 1430 (TTAB 2013)); TMEP §1207.01(b).
`
`(cid:160)A
`
`pplicant improperly analyzes the appearance of the mark as a side-by-side comparison. The overall impressions of the marks is a combination
`of the words “Credit” and “Tech”. The marks all suggest that the goods and services relate to the use of technology (such as computer software
`
`

`
`and as a means of analysis) relating to credit and finances. Therefore, all of the goods have the same connotation and meaning. Also, the marks
`are highly similar, if not identical, in sound. There is no correct pronunciation of a mark because it is impossible to predict how the public will
`pronounce a particular mark.(cid:160) See Embarcadero Techs., Inc. v. RStudio, Inc., 105 USPQ2d 1825, 1835 (TTAB 2013) (quoting In re Viterra Inc.,
`671 F.3d 1358, 1367, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1912 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re The Belgrade Shoe Co., 411 F.2d 1352, 1353, 162 USPQ 227, 227
`(C.C.P.A. 1969)); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iv).(cid:160) The marks in question could clearly be pronounced the same; such 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); see In re 1st
`USA Realty Prof’ls, Inc. , 84 USPQ2d 1581, 1586 (TTAB 2007); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iv).
`
`(cid:160)M
`
`oreover, “K” is commonly substituted for “C” in marks, and “tech” commonly misspelled in marks as “tek” or “tech.” Therefore,
`purchasers are unlikely to rely on these differences to distinguish between the marks. While academics may reach certain conclusions about the
`perceptions of wording in a psychological context, purchasers with a general recollection of marks are not likely to differentiate between highly
`similar marks for closely related goods and services based solely on minor visual differences. As the overall connotations of the marks are the
`same with respect to the goods and services, the marks are more similar than different and are therefore confusingly similar.
`
`(cid:160)A
`
`pplicant further argues that the amendments to its identifications make clear that the goods and services are separate and distinct. Applicant has
`not specified its own fields of use or trade channels with specificity; applicant has merely excluded the registrant’s specified uses from
`applicant’s identification. This exclusion is insufficient. The goods and services of the parties need not be identical or even competitive to find a
`likelihood of confusion.(cid:160) 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) (“[E]ven if the goods in question are different from, and thus not
`related to, one another in kind, the same goods can be related in the mind of the consuming public as to the origin of the goods.”); TMEP
`
`§1207.01(a)(i).(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`The respective goods and services need only be “related in some manner and/or if the circumstances surrounding their marketing [be] such that
`they could give rise to the mistaken belief that [the goods and services] emanate from the same source.” (cid:160) 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). Here, purchasers are unlikely to be aware of such exclusion that appear only on an application or registration certificate.
`
`(cid:160)F
`
`inally, applicant has submitted printed or electronic copies of third-party registrations for marks containing the wording “KREDIT” or “TEK”
`as parts of marks along with different wording, and “CREDIT” and “TECH” or “TECHNOLOGIES” together to support the argument that this
`wording is weak, diluted, or so widely used that it should not be afforded a broad scope of protection.(cid:160) These registrations appear to be for goods
`
`or services that are only marginally related to those identified in applicant’s application.(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`The weakness or dilution of a particular mark is generally determined in the context of the number and nature of similar marks in use in the
`marketplace in connection with similar goods and services.(cid:160) See Nat’l Cable Tel. Ass’n, Inc. v. Am. Cinema Editors, Inc.
`, 937 F.2d 1572,
`1579-80, 19 USPQ2d 1424, 1430 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A.
`1973).(cid:160) Evidence of widespread third-party use of similar marks with similar goods and services “is relevant to show that a mark is relatively
`weak and entitled to only a narrow scope of protection” in that industry or field.(cid:160) Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison
`Fondee en 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1373-74, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1693 (Fed. Cir. 2005); see In re Coors Brewing Co., 343 F.3d 1340, 1345, 68
`
`USPQ2d 1059, 1062-63 (Fed. Cir. 2003).(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`However, evidence comprising only a small number of third-party registrations for similar marks with similar goods and services, as in the
`present case, is generally entitled to little weight in determining the strength of a mark.(cid:160) See AMF Inc. v. Am. Leisure Products, Inc., 474 F.2d
`1403, 1406, 177 USPQ 268, 269 (C.C.P.A. 1973); Richardson-Vicks Inc. v. Franklin Mint Corp., 216 USPQ 989, 992 (TTAB 1982).(cid:160) These few
`registrations are “not evidence of what happens in the market place or that customers are familiar with them.”(cid:160) AMF Inc. v. Am. Leisure Prods.,
`Inc., 474 F.2d at 1406, 177 USPQ at 269; see Richardson-Vicks Inc. v. Franklin Mint Corp., 216 USPQ at 992.(cid:160)Specifically, applicant has
`provided four registrations that include both components of the applied-for mark, but in those registrations, the components are reversed or
`distinguishable based on the unabbreviated term “technologies”. Although the mark CREDITEX is identical to one of the cited registrations, it is
`in a different class and has not been cited. Thus, the few similar third-party registrations submitted by applicant are insufficient to establish that
`
`the combined wording KREDITECH is weak or diluted.(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`Further, evidence comprising third-party registrations for similar marks with different or unrelated goods and services, as in the present case, is of
`limited probative value in determining the strength of a mark.(cid:160) See Kay Chems., Inc. v. Kelite Chems. Corp., 464 F.2d 1040, 1042, 175 USPQ 99,
`101 (C.C.P.A. 1972); In re Thor Tech, Inc., 90 USPQ2d 1634, 1639 (TTAB 2009).(cid:160)Here, the relevant registration applicant has provided feature
`services in Class 36. Only Classes 9 and 35 have been refused pursuant to Section 2(d) in this application. Thus, these third-party registrations
`
`submitted by applicant are insufficient to establish that the wording is weak or diluted.(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`RESPONSE GUIDELINES
`
`For this application to proceed further, 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
`
`(cid:160)
`

`
`requirements and certain refusal response options, applicant should set forth in writing the required changes or statements.(cid:160) 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.
`
`(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 and the trademark will fail to register.(cid:160) See 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.65(a), 2.68(a); TMEP
`§§718.01, 718.02.(cid:160) Additionally, the USPTO will not refund the application filing fee, which is a required processing fee.(cid:160) See 37 C.F.R.
`§§2.6(a)(1)(i)-(iv), 2.209(a); TMEP §405.04.
`
`(cid:160)W
`
`here 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)I
`
`f applicant has questions regarding this Office action, please telephone or e-mail the assigned trademark examining attorney.(cid:160) 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. §§2.62(c), 2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 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.
`
`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)
`
`/Marynelle W. Wilson/
`Examining Attorney
`Law Office 113
`Phone: 571-272-7978
`Email: marynelle.wilson@uspto.gov
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`TO 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)
`

`
`To:
`
`Subject:
`
`Sent:
`
`Sent As:
`
`Attachments:
`
`Kreditech Holding SSL GmbH (ruy@garcia-zamor.com)
`
`U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 86583725 - KREDITECH - PIM-TM004
`
`9/2/2016 6:17:48 PM
`
`ECOM113@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 9/2/2016 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 86583725
`
`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 9/2/2016 (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)