| PTO Form (Rev 4/2000) |
| OMB No. 0651-.... (Exp. 08/31/2004) |
| Input Field |
Entered |
|---|---|
| SERIAL NUMBER | 77841401 |
| LAW OFFICE ASSIGNED | LAW OFFICE 112 |
| MARK SECTION (no change) | |
| ARGUMENT(S) | |
|
In an Office Action dated October 25, 2010, the Examining Attorney refused registration of Applicant's mark based on a likelihood of confusion with Reg. No. 2359404 for FIERCE in Class 25. Applicant is aware that Reg. No. 2359404 was cancelled on January 21, 2011, because Registrant did not file an acceptable declaration under Section 8. (See TARR print out attached hereto as Exhibit A.) As a result, Application argues that a question of likelihood of confusion no longer exists, and respectfully requests that the Examining Attorney withdraw the refusal and allow the application to pass to publication.
|
|
| EVIDENCE SECTION | |
| EVIDENCE FILE NAME(S) | |
| ORIGINAL PDF FILE | evi_65210129209-103034701_._FIERCE__Reg._No._2359404.pdf |
| CONVERTED PDF FILE(S) (3 pages) |
\\TICRS\EXPORT11\IMAGEOUT11\778\414\77841401\xml4\RFR0002.JPG |
| \\TICRS\EXPORT11\IMAGEOUT11\778\414\77841401\xml4\RFR0003.JPG | |
| \\TICRS\EXPORT11\IMAGEOUT11\778\414\77841401\xml4\RFR0004.JPG | |
| DESCRIPTION OF EVIDENCE FILE | Exhibit A |
| SIGNATURE SECTION | |
| RESPONSE SIGNATURE | /Jacob Kramer/ |
| SIGNATORY'S NAME | Jacob Kramer |
| SIGNATORY'S POSITION | Senior Legal Counsel |
| DATE SIGNED | 04/06/2011 |
| AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY | YES |
| CONCURRENT APPEAL NOTICE FILED | NO |
| FILING INFORMATION SECTION | |
| SUBMIT DATE | Wed Apr 06 11:24:15 EDT 2011 |
| TEAS STAMP | USPTO/RFR-XX.XXX.XXX.XXX- 20110406112415453521-7784 1401-480bb7114343ce7e2b5b 9c9194e88ab6761-N/A-N/A-2 0110406103034701738 |
| PTO Form (Rev 4/2000) |
| OMB No. 0651-.... (Exp. 08/31/2004) |
In an Office Action dated October 25, 2010, the Examining Attorney refused registration of Applicant's mark based on a likelihood of confusion with Reg. No. 2359404 for FIERCE in Class 25. Applicant is aware that Reg. No. 2359404 was cancelled on January 21, 2011, because Registrant did not file an acceptable declaration under Section 8. (See TARR print out attached hereto as Exhibit A.) As a result, Application argues that a question of likelihood of confusion no longer exists, and respectfully requests that the Examining Attorney withdraw the refusal and allow the application to pass to publication.
