UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
|
SERIAL NO: 76/381630
APPLICANT: EUROPCAR INTERNATIONAL
|
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: LAWRENCE E. ABELMAN ABELMAN, FRAYNE & SCHWAB 150 EAST 42ND STREET NEW YORK, NY 10017-5612
|
RETURN ADDRESS: Commissioner for Trademarks 2900 Crystal Drive Arlington, VA 22202-3513 ecom114@uspto.gov
If no fees are enclosed, the address should include the words "Box Responses - No Fee." |
|
MARK: EUROPCAR
|
|
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: 867994
CORRESPONDENT EMAIL ADDRESS:
|
Please provide in all correspondence:
1. Filing date, serial number, mark and applicant's name. 2. Date of this Office Action. 3. Examining Attorney's name and Law Office number. 4. Your telephone number and e-mail address.
|
Serial Number 76/381630
Applicant is requesting reconsideration of a final refusal dated January 29, 2003.
After careful consideration of the law and facts of the case, the examining attorney must deny the request for reconsideration and adhere to the final action as written since no new facts or reasons have been presented that are significant and compelling with regard to the point at issue.
Applicant has argues that the specimens are acceptable for the goods in class 12 and services in class 42. The examining attorney disagrees with the applicant’s arguments. Applicant argues that the mark is acceptable because it shows on the license plate as seen on the specimen. The usage in applicant’s specimen clearly support applicant’s car rental services not the actual automobiles. In support, applicant’s specimen does not refer to the vehicles as Europcars, but rather as Volkswagen Lupos, Volkswagen Polo, Mercedes E Class or Audi TT’s. It is these marks that support the actual automobiles, not applicant’s mark.
Applicant has also argued that the online brochure from applicant’s website supports its computer programming services. Applicant argues that the specimen supports online reservation as well as loyalty programs. Applicant is advised that just because these services are offered online, that in itself, does not makes these computer programming services. Applicant providing its services online is not equivalent to computer programming services. Computer programming services is for the actual service of creating software for others such that companies such as the applicant may be able to provide its services online. Applicant is clearly not providing computer programming services, just merely offer its services online. Hence applicant’s specimen does not support the services in class 42.
Accordingly, applicant’s request for reconsideration is denied. The time for appeal runs from the date the final action was mailed. 37 C.F.R. Section 2.64(b); TMEP Section 715.03(c).
/Won T. Oh/
Law Office 114
(703) 308 - 9114 x-176
ecom114@uspto.gov