| PTO Form 1957 (Rev 5/2006) |
| OMB No. 0651-0050 (Exp. 04/2009) |
| Input Field |
Entered |
| SERIAL NUMBER | 78499156 |
| LAW OFFICE ASSIGNED | LAW OFFICE 114 |
| MARK SECTION (no change) | |
| ARGUMENT(S) | |
|
AMENDMENT TO IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS The Examiner has objected to the identification of the goods, in that the word ?accessories? is overbroad. Applicant has amended the identification of goods to remove the words ?and accessories? to clarify the goods and services, and to further differentiate Applicant?s mark over the prior registration 2,197,149 (see below).
REFUSAL BASED ON LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION The Examiner states that there is a likelihood of confusion between the Applicant?s mark and the 2,197,149 registration. Applicant disagrees.
Applicant?s goods sold under the mark are signature lines of wedding and bridal dresses, which are certainly different from normal apparel. Applicant does not sell directly to the public, but only through independent bridal salons and through ?trunk shows?. Applicants goods are not sold or distributed through regular clothing retailers, discount outlets, or online. For more description of the sales channels, please see http://www.jordanfashions.com/customer_care.asp. These are different trade channels, and consumers will not be confused about the source of the goods.
Further, the consumers for Applicant?s goods are very sophisticated and take great care in purchasing. These are not impulse purchases. Buying a wedding gown is a once in a lifetime (OK, well maybe a couple of times) event, and a consumer is not going to confuse a regular line of women?s clothes and exercise clothing with the purchase of a top of the line wedding gown from a signature collection. The same is true for bridal dresses, these are special purchases for a special event, clearly separate from a general line of clothing.
Accordingly, Applicant asserts that because of the nature of the goods, the channels of distribution, and the sophistication of the consumers, there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks. If the Examiner has any suggestions for how to amend the identification of goods so as to make such distinction clear, Applicant would appreciate the Examiner?s help in amending the identification of goods. |
|
| GOODS AND/OR SERVICES SECTION (current) | |
| INTERNATIONAL CLASS | 025 |
| DESCRIPTION | |
| Wedding apparel, namely, wedding and bridesmaids dresses and accessories | |
| FILING BASIS | Section 1(a) |
| FIRST USE ANYWHERE DATE | At least as early as 01/01/1967 |
| FIRST USE IN COMMERCE DATE | At least as early as 01/01/1967 |
| GOODS AND/OR SERVICES SECTION (proposed) | |
| INTERNATIONAL CLASS | 025 |
| DESCRIPTION | Wedding apparel, namely, wedding and bridesmaids dresses |
| FILING BASIS | Section 1(a) |
| FIRST USE ANYWHERE DATE | At least as early as 01/01/1967 |
| FIRST USE IN COMMERCE DATE | At least as early as 01/01/1967 |
| SIGNATURE SECTION | |
| RESPONSE SIGNATURE | /ddl david lowry/ |
| SIGNATORY NAME | David Lowry, Esq |
| SIGNATORY POSITION | Attorney for Applicant |
| SIGNATURE DATE | 11/16/2005 |
| FILING INFORMATION SECTION | |
| SUBMIT DATE | Wed Nov 16 18:00:54 EST 2005 |
| TEAS STAMP | USPTO/ROA-XX.XX.XXX.XX-20 051116180054372481-784991 56-3205f63e2ace31f50abfd3 0adb21b6c46cf-N/A-N/A-200 51116175247243581 |
| PTO Form 1957 (Rev 5/2006) |
| OMB No. 0651-0050 (Exp. 04/2009) |
AMENDMENT TO IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS
The Examiner has objected to the identification of the goods, in that the word ?accessories? is overbroad. Applicant has amended the identification of goods to remove the words ?and accessories? to clarify the goods and services, and to further differentiate Applicant?s mark over the prior registration 2,197,149 (see below).
REFUSAL BASED ON LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
The Examiner states that there is a likelihood of confusion between the Applicant?s mark and the 2,197,149 registration. Applicant disagrees.
Applicant?s goods sold under the mark are signature lines of wedding and bridal dresses, which are certainly different from normal apparel. Applicant does not sell directly to the public, but only through independent bridal salons and through ?trunk shows?. Applicants goods are not sold or distributed through regular clothing retailers, discount outlets, or online. For more description of the sales channels, please see http://www.jordanfashions.com/customer_care.asp. These are different trade channels, and consumers will not be confused about the source of the goods.
Further, the consumers for Applicant?s goods are very sophisticated and take great care in purchasing. These are not impulse purchases. Buying a wedding gown is a once in a lifetime (OK, well maybe a couple of times) event, and a consumer is not going to confuse a regular line of women?s clothes and exercise clothing with the purchase of a top of the line wedding gown from a signature collection. The same is true for bridal dresses, these are special purchases for a special event, clearly separate from a general line of clothing.
Accordingly, Applicant asserts that because of the nature of the goods, the channels of distribution, and the sophistication of the consumers, there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks. If the Examiner has any suggestions for how to amend the identification of goods so as to make such distinction clear, Applicant would appreciate the Examiner?s help in amending the identification of goods.