NOTE TO THE FILE
SERIAL NUMBER: 86117063
DATE: 03/05/2014
NAME: dfathy
NOTE:
X OTHER:
From: Fathy, Dominic
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 11:19 AM
To: 'Lillian Lin'
Cc: 'mike@importla.com'; 'billy@importla.com'; 'wen@importla.com'
Subject: RE: U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 86117063 - HEMI LOCK - N/A
Hi Lillian,
I just had the opportunity to review your response for HEMI LOCK. There are a few quick things I need to run by you.
1) It appears the trademark is actually “HEMI-LOCK” and not “HEMI LOCK”. I need to amend the drawing to indicate the use of a dash.
2) Since the mark is a unitary mark and not two separate terms, we no longer need the disclaimer of “LOCK”. I need to withdraw it.
3) It doesn’t appear the goods are actually furniture, but a feature of furniture. Since the ID must be accurate, would an amendment to the following ID be acceptable: “locking height adjustment support post frame sold as an integral component of finished furniture”?
With the authorization from Michael Chen, Billy Chen or Wen Wei of the amendments, I can enter the changes and have the application approved for publication. Please let me know if the amendments are acceptable. If so, I will send you an examiner’s amendment for your records and the application will be approved.
Thank you,
Dominic
_____________________________________________
Dominic Fathy
Trademark Examining Attorney
United States Patent and Trademark Office
571-272-8801
dominic.fathy@uspto.gov
From: Lillian Lin [mailto:lillian.l.importla@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 2:40 PM
To: Fathy, Dominic
Subject: Re: U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 86117063 - HEMI LOCK - N/A
Hi Dominic,
I actually have another question regarding the Request for Information. For the last question regarding meaning in the relevant industry - there is no meaning in in the industry that we know of. But we did decide to use HEMI specifically to describe the locking mechanism of our product. Please advise if its sufficient for us to state that HEMI has no meaning in the relevant industry.
Thank you,
Lillian
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 1:48 PM, Lillian Lin <lillian.l.importla@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Dominic,
Thanks for confirming. We do have a specimen that shows the item sold on our website. The "hemi-lock" term is in the content of the product description. I will respond accordingly.Regards,
Lillian
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 9:27 AM, Fathy, Dominic <Dominic.Fathy@uspto.gov> wrote:
Hi Lillian,
Sorry about that. You are correct. I think I used the write-ups from your other applications (“APEX” and The Dagger Design) and mistakenly skipped over the Class designations. Let me know if you want me to resend the action with the proper Class 20 designation.
The thing we are looking for with regards to a specimen is an image of the goods and something showing the mark HEMI LOCK. If the goods bear the mark, it would be great if you could take a photo of the mark on the goods. Otherwise, we would take a hang tag or even a picture of the goods on a website where the goods can be purchased.
If you have not used the mark with the goods yet, you can amend the application to an “Intent to Use” application and later submit the appropriate specimen when you have one.
Best Regards,
Dominic
_____________________________________________
Dominic Fathy
Trademark Examining Attorney
United States Patent and Trademark Office
571-272-8801
dominic.fathy@uspto.gov
From: Lillian Lin [mailto:lillian.l.importla@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2014 6:06 PM
To: Fathy, Dominic
Subject: U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 86117063 - HEMI LOCK - N/A
Dear Mr. Fathy:
I'm contacting in regards to the office action issued for the above referenced trademark application. I would like to clarify with you if, under the issue of "Specimen of Use for International Class 35 Unacceptable-Specimen Does Not Show Mark", this issue was intended to reference international class 20 as that is the only class we submitted in our original application. The office action references class 08 and 35.
Thank you,
Lillian
213-986-2218