| PTO Form 1957 (Rev 5/2006) |
| OMB No. 0651-0050 (Exp. 04/2009) |
| Input Field |
Entered |
| SERIAL NUMBER | 76356924 |
| LAW OFFICE ASSIGNED | LAW OFFICE 114 |
| MARK SECTION (no change) | |
| ARGUMENT(S) | |
|
RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION This communication is in response to an Office Action mailed from the Examining Attorney dated March 7, 2006 (the “Office Action”). Applicant responds as follows: REMARKS Applicant would like to thank the Examining Attorney for taking time to discuss the Office Action with Applicant’s attorney on March 30, 2006. Likelihood of Confusion (Section 2(d)) Applicant’s mark, SILVERPLUS, U.S. Ser. No. 76/356,924 stands subject to a Final Rejection rejected based on Section 2(d) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d), on the asserted ground that Applicant's Mark, as used in connection with "electrodes for plasma arc torches" is likely to be confused with the mark "GOLDPLUS" (U.S. Reg. 2,944,136) (the "Cited Mark"), as used in connection with "welding electrodes, especially of tungsten and tungsten alloys for inert gas welding." In response to the Final Rejection, Applicant has hereby amended the description of goods covered by Applicant’s mark to cover the following goods, with additional text underlined: “electrodes for plasma arc cutting torches” Reconsideration and registration is respectfully requested in light of the amended description of goods and in light of the remarks of record as previously submitted in the Office Action Response dated January 31, 2006. Applicant respectfully submits that no likelihood of confusion exists between Applicant's Mark and the Cited Mark, and therefore, Applicant's Mark should be registrable. Applicant submits that the present application, as amended, is in condition for publication and registration, and such actions are hereby requested. The Examining Attorney is respectfully requested to contact the undersigned attorney by phone to discuss this Response or if such a call would expedite registration of Applicant’s Mark. |
|
| GOODS AND/OR SERVICES SECTION (current) | |
| INTERNATIONAL CLASS | 009 |
| DESCRIPTION | Electrodes for plasma arc torches |
| FILING BASIS | Section 1(b) |
| GOODS AND/OR SERVICES SECTION (proposed) | |
| INTERNATIONAL CLASS | 009 |
| DESCRIPTION | Electrodes for plasma arc cutting torches |
| FILING BASIS | Section 1(b) |
| SIGNATURE SECTION | |
| RESPONSE SIGNATURE | /John W. Pint/ |
| SIGNATORY NAME | John W. Pint |
| SIGNATORY POSITION | Attorney |
| SIGNATURE DATE | 04/20/2006 |
| FILING INFORMATION SECTION | |
| SUBMIT DATE | Thu Apr 20 17:17:07 EDT 2006 |
| TEAS STAMP | USPTO/ROA-XX.XXX.XX.XXX-2 0060420171707842843-76356 924-32089dbfb3332203317e8 bac399d33d8e8-N/A-N/A-200 60420170924652365 |
| PTO Form 1957 (Rev 5/2006) |
| OMB No. 0651-0050 (Exp. 04/2009) |
RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION
This communication is in response to an Office Action mailed from the Examining Attorney dated March 7, 2006 (the “Office Action”). Applicant responds as follows:
REMARKS
Applicant would like to thank the Examining Attorney for taking time to discuss the Office Action with Applicant’s attorney on March 30, 2006.
Likelihood of Confusion (Section 2(d))
Applicant’s mark, SILVERPLUS, U.S. Ser. No. 76/356,924 stands subject to a Final Rejection rejected based on Section 2(d) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d), on the asserted ground that Applicant's Mark, as used in connection with "electrodes for plasma arc torches" is likely to be confused with the mark "GOLDPLUS" (U.S. Reg. 2,944,136) (the "Cited Mark"), as used in connection with "welding electrodes, especially of tungsten and tungsten alloys for inert gas welding."
In response to the Final Rejection, Applicant has hereby amended the description of goods covered by Applicant’s mark to cover the following goods, with additional text underlined:
“electrodes for plasma arc cutting torches”
Reconsideration and registration is respectfully requested in light of the amended description of goods and in light of the remarks of record as previously submitted in the Office Action Response dated January 31, 2006. Applicant respectfully submits that no likelihood of confusion exists between Applicant's Mark and the Cited Mark, and therefore, Applicant's Mark should be registrable. Applicant submits that the present application, as amended, is in condition for publication and registration, and such actions are hereby requested. The Examining Attorney is respectfully requested to contact the undersigned attorney by phone to discuss this Response or if such a call would expedite registration of Applicant’s Mark.