Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. PTO Form No Form Number (Rev 01/2012) |
OMB No. 0651-0054 (Exp 12/31/2020) |
Input Field |
Entered |
---|---|
SERIAL NUMBER | 85261912 |
REGISTRATION NUMBER | 4082605 |
MARK SECTION | |
MARK FILE NAME | http://uspto.report/TM/85261912/mark.png |
LITERAL ELEMENT | SEBA |
FORM TEXT | |
Dear Examiner,
Please re-issue the Office Action in this case.
We entered our firm as attorney of record when we filed a response to the first office action on August 15, 2018.
The USPTO sent the 2nd office action to the previous attorney in error. I did not know about the 2nd office action till today. The client has signed the change of address and of attorney today. I have filed it today with the USPTO. The USPTO should have sent the OA to us, because we were the attorneys of record at the time of filing of the first response to the first office action. The previous attorney is not the attorney of records – one does not have to be after the registration. The previous attorney apparently got the office action in his email, but he never told us. Today was the first time I have learned of the office action. It is an unintended error. Please reinstate the case and re-issue the office action. It would be extremely harsh and unfair to cancel this registration, especially when neither the undersigned counsel nor the new owner as per the assignment never received the previous office action; where the previous attorney of record never forwarded the office action to the owner, nor to the undersigned. The registration is still alive. We have learned of the office action only today. It is too late to file a response to the Office Action. There are outstanding issues in the registrations: namely, specimens for some of the goods need to be submitted still. It is improper to delete the whole registration - especially after the USPTO has accepted specimens for some of the goods in the registration. At the very least the Registration must proceed with the goods that have already been accepted, and if anything were to be deleted from the registration - those would be the goods for which the owner has not submitted proof of use, but NOT the ENTIRE registration. Best regards, Sergei Orel
|
|
PAYMENT SECTION | |
NUMBER OF CLASSES | 1 |
PETITION FEE | 100 |
TOTAL FEES DUE | 100 |
SIGNATURE SECTION | |
DECLARATION SIGNATURE | /Sergei Orel/ |
SIGNATORY'S NAME | Sergei Orel |
SIGNATORY'S POSITION | Attorney of Record, NJ Bar Member |
SIGNATORY'S PHONE NUMBER | 9087225640 |
DATE SIGNED | 03/13/2019 |
SUBMISSION SIGNATURE | /Sergei Orel/ |
SIGNATORY'S NAME | Sergei Orel |
SIGNATORY'S POSITION | Attorney of Record, NJ Bar Member |
SIGNATORY'S PHONE NUMBER | 9087225640 |
DATE SIGNED | 03/13/2019 |
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY | YES |
FILING INFORMATION SECTION | |
SUBMIT DATE | Wed Mar 13 14:53:38 EDT 2019 |
TEAS STAMP | USPTO/PDR-XX.XXX.XXX.XX-2 0190313145338599407-40826 05-20190313144300966114-C C-1248-201903131443009661 14 |
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. PTO Form No Form Number (Rev 01/2012) |
OMB No. 0651-0054 (Exp 12/31/2020) |
The USPTO sent the 2nd office action to the previous attorney in error.
I did not know about the 2nd office action till today.
The client has signed the change of address and of attorney today. I have filed it today with the USPTO.
The USPTO should have sent the OA to us, because we were the attorneys of record at the time of filing of the first response to the first office action. The previous attorney is not the attorney of records – one does not have to be after the registration.
The previous attorney apparently got the office action in his email, but he never told us.
Today was the first time I have learned of the office action.
It is an unintended error.
Please reinstate the case and re-issue the office action.
It would be extremely harsh and unfair to cancel this registration, especially when neither the undersigned counsel nor the new owner as per the assignment never received the previous office action; where the previous attorney of record never forwarded the office action to the owner, nor to the undersigned. The registration is still alive. We have learned of the office action only today. It is too late to file a response to the Office Action.
There are outstanding issues in the registrations: namely, specimens for some of the goods need to be submitted still.
It is improper to delete the whole registration - especially after the USPTO has accepted specimens for some of the goods in the registration.
At the very least the Registration must proceed with the goods that have already been accepted, and if anything were to be deleted from the registration - those would be the goods for which the owner has not submitted proof of use, but NOT the ENTIRE registration.
Best regards,