NOTE TO THE FILE
SERIAL NUMBER: 79237600
DATE: 02/27/2020
NAME: llavache2
NOTE:
Searched:
Lexis/Nexis
OneLook
Wikipedia
Acronym Finder Protest evidence reviewed
Other:Checked:
Geographic significance
Surname
Translation
ID with ID/CLASS mailboxChecked list of approved Canadian attorneys and agents
Discussed file with
Attorney via:
phone Left message with
X email Attorney/ApplicantRequested Law Library search X Issued Examiner’s Amendment
for: and entered changes in TRADEUPSPRINT DO NOT PRINT Added design code in TRADEUPS
Description of the mark
Translation statement Re-imaged standard character
drawing
Negative translation statement
Consent of living individual Contacted TM MADRID ID/CLASS
about misclassified definite ID
Changed TRADEUPS to:X OTHER: email correspondence:
From: Lavache, Linda <Linda.Lavache@USPTO.GOV>
Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2020 2:12 PM
To: Jonathan Richards <jrichards@wnlaw.com>
Subject: RE: U.S. Trademark Application Ser. No. 79237600 (KNAUF in stylized form)
Wonderful. I will issue an examiner’s amendment this afternoon.
Thank you for your assistance.
Best regards,
Linda
Linda M. Lavache
United States Patent & Trademark Office
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 106
571.272.7187
From: Jonathan Richards <jrichards@wnlaw.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2020 2:09 PM
To: Lavache, Linda <Linda.Lavache@USPTO.GOV>
Cc: docketing@wnlaw.com; mstringham@wnlaw.com
Subject: Re: U.S. Trademark Application Ser. No. 79237600 (KNAUF in stylized form)
Yes, sorry, I meant to address that. Please proceed with an Examiner’s Amendment as you have suggested. Thank you! Jon
/jwrichards_29843/
Attorney for Applicant, Utah Bar Member
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 26, 2020, at 6:59 PM, Lavache, Linda <linda.lavache@uspto.gov> wrote:
Dear Mr. Richards,
The application referenced above has been reassigned to me. There is just one issue that requires resolution.
It appears that the response to Office action filed on February 13, 2020 intended to address the requirement to clarify applicant’s entity type, but it does not set forth an amended entity type. Presumably, the applicant intended to clarify that its entity type is a “limited partnership,” consistent with an amendment made in its co-pending application, Ser. No. 79237599.
Please let me know whether you would like me to enter an examiner’s amendment to enter the applicant’s entity type as “limited partnership.” Thank you for your assistance.
Best regards,
Linda
Linda M. Lavache
United States Patent & Trademark Office
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 106
571.272.7187