| PTO Form 1957 (Rev 9/2005) |
| OMB No. 0651-0050 (Exp. 04/2009) |
| Input Field |
Entered |
| SERIAL NUMBER | 78922461 |
| LAW OFFICE ASSIGNED | LAW OFFICE 114 |
| MARK SECTION (no change) | |
| ARGUMENT(S) | |
|
Registration of the subject mark has been refused over the InView registration No. 2,930,856 under §2(d). In addition, the Examiner has referred to the InView application S/N 78/375,386 as a potential basis for a further 2(d) refusal should the application mature into a registration. Since the InView registration and application are for the same mark and are owned by the same entity, they will be discussed together. The prior application and registration are owned by Vision Correction Group, Inc. The registration recites "medical services, namely, measuring and correcting vision through surgery, and eye examinations." These are ophthalmic services, performed by highly trained and skilled individuals. The surgeries, such as LASIK and cataract surgeries, are expensive. The application recites eyeglass lenses. These are generally prescribed by highly trained and skilled individuals as well. Consumers for such services and goods exercise a high degree of care in selecting the surgeon or doctor with whom they consult or select to perform surgeries. The goods of the subject application are newsletters in the filed of eye care. While there may be some overlap in the subject matter of the newsletters and in the subject matter of the goods and services provided by Vision Correction Group, this overlap is not sufficient to give rise to a likelihood of confusion. The newsletters of Applicant are for distribution to applicant’s customers. Applicant does not provide surgical services and its customers are thus different from those of registrant. The degree of care in selecting applicant’s newsletters versus selecting Registrant’s services could not be greater owing to the relative risks and costs of each. Reconsideration of the refusal to register the mark or a "provisional" refusal to register the mark over the InView registration and application of Vision Correction Group, Inc. is respectfully requested. |
|
| SIGNATURE SECTION | |
| RESPONSE SIGNATURE | /leljr/ |
| SIGNATORY'S NAME | Lawrence E. Laubscher, Jr. |
| SIGNATORY'S POSITION | Attorney |
| DATE SIGNED | 04/18/2007 |
| AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY | YES |
| FILING INFORMATION SECTION | |
| SUBMIT DATE | Wed Apr 18 11:14:34 EDT 2007 |
| TEAS STAMP | USPTO/ROA-XX.XX.XXX.XX-20 070418111434932195-789224 61-37073b3c97aa2a79f62c45 f577b21bff7-N/A-N/A-20070 418111151845752 |
| PTO Form 1957 (Rev 9/2005) |
| OMB No. 0651-0050 (Exp. 04/2009) |
Registration of the subject mark has been refused over the InView registration No. 2,930,856 under §2(d). In addition, the Examiner has referred to the InView application S/N 78/375,386 as a potential basis for a further 2(d) refusal should the application mature into a registration. Since the InView registration and application are for the same mark and are owned by the same entity, they will be discussed together.
The prior application and registration are owned by Vision Correction Group, Inc. The registration recites "medical services, namely, measuring and correcting vision through surgery, and eye examinations." These are ophthalmic services, performed by highly trained and skilled individuals. The surgeries, such as LASIK and cataract surgeries, are expensive. The application recites eyeglass lenses. These are generally prescribed by highly trained and skilled individuals as well. Consumers for such services and goods exercise a high degree of care in selecting the surgeon or doctor with whom they consult or select to perform surgeries.
The goods of the subject application are newsletters in the filed of eye care. While there may be some overlap in the subject matter of the newsletters and in the subject matter of the goods and services provided by Vision Correction Group, this overlap is not sufficient to give rise to a likelihood of confusion. The newsletters of Applicant are for distribution to applicant’s customers. Applicant does not provide surgical services and its customers are thus different from those of registrant. The degree of care in selecting applicant’s newsletters versus selecting Registrant’s services could not be greater owing to the relative risks and costs of each.
Reconsideration of the refusal to register the mark or a "provisional" refusal to register the mark over the InView registration and application of Vision Correction Group, Inc. is respectfully requested.