UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
|
U. S. APPLICATION SERIAL NUMBER: 86/151701
U. S. REGISTRATION NUMBER:
|
*86151701* |
|
CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS:
Mark F Wright, Esq. Wright Law Group, PLLC 1959 South Power Road, Suite 103-376 Mesa AZ 85206
|
RETURN ADDRESS:
Commissioner for Trademarks P.O. Box 1451 Alexandria, VA 22313-1451
|
|
MARK: MEITU
APPLICANT/REGISTRANT: Xiamen Meitu Technology Co., Ltd
|
ISSUE/MAILING DATE: December 31, 2014 |
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: MEITU
CORRESPONDENT’S EMAIL ADDRESS:
|
|
PETITION TO DIRECTOR GRANTED
Xiamen Meitu Technology Co., Ltd (petitioner) has petitioned to revive the above-referenced application under Trademark Rule 2.66 on the basis of unintentional delay. 37 C.F.R. §2.66; Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP) §1713.02. The records of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) show that the above-referenced application abandoned for incomplete response to an Office action. Petitions to revive applications abandoned for incomplete response are properly decided by the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (Director). See TMEP §718.03(b). The Director has the authority to review petitioner’s request. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.66 and 2.146(a)(3). The petition is granted.
FACTS
On December 23, 2013, petitioner filed an application for registration on the Principal Register based on an intent to use the mark in commerce under Trademark Act Section 1(b). 15 U.S.C. §1051(b). In the application, petitioner appointed attorney Yong Li to act on its behalf. In a nonfinal Office action dated March 6, 2014, the examining attorney required a translation of the mark and an additional $50 fee for failure to comply with the TEAS Plus requirement to submit a translation of all non-English wording in the mark in the original application.
On March 13, 2014, petitioner filed a response to the nonfinal Office action dated March 6, 2014. The response was signed by Wu Zeyuan as a Principal of petitioner. The examining attorney determined that petitioner’s response appeared to be signed by an improper party. Specifically, the response was improperly signed by petitioner rather than petitioner’s appointed attorney. See 37 C.F.R. §2.193(e)(2)(i). A notice of incomplete response issued on March 27, 2014, requiring petitioner to (1) submit a response properly signed by applicant’s attorney, (2) file a revocation of attorney signed by applicant and then resubmit a response properly signed by applicant, or (3) file a new power of attorney signed by applicant and then resubmit a response properly signed by applicant’s new attorney. Petitioner was provided thirty (30) days from the date the notice of incomplete response issued or the time remaining in the six-month period to respond to the previous Office action, whichever was longer.
No properly signed response or explanation was received on or before April 28, 2014. On October 24, 2014, the examining attorney held the application abandoned because petitioner failed to file a complete response to the March 6, 2014 nonfinal Office action.
On November 3, 2014, petitioner appointed a new attorney, Mark F. Wright, to act on its behalf. On November 13, 2014, petitioner’s newly appointed attorney filed this petition to revive the application. The petition includes a signed response comprising a translation statement and $50 fee. The petition also includes a declaration by petitioner’s attorney stating that “the failure to respond to the Office Action by the specified deadline was unintentional.” Petitioner supplemented the petition on December 29, 2014 with a statement of verified facts in support of the petition.
DISCUSSION
Response Must Be Signed by Proper Party
A response to an Office action must be personally signed by an individual applicant, someone with legal authority to bind a juristic applicant (e.g., a corporate officer or general partner), or an attorney qualified to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). 37 C.F.R. §2.62(b). If a response appears to be signed by an improper party, the examining attorney will treat the response as incomplete and send a notice granting the applicant additional time to perfect the response. TMEP §718.03. An applicant must file a response signed by a proper person or explain the signer’s legal authority to bind or represent the applicant within either the time remaining in the original response period or the additional time granted, whichever is longer. See TMEP §§712.03, 718.03(b). If a proper response or explanation is not timely received, the application will abandon. TMEP §712.03.
Revival of Application
The Director may exercise supervisory authority on petition in appropriate circumstances. 37 C.F.R. §2.146(a)(3). The facts in this case warrant the exercise of supervisory authority to reverse the decision of the examining attorney and reinstate the application. See 37 C.F.R. §2.146(a)(3); TMEP §1713.02.
When evidence submitted on petition establishes that the initial response was signed by an improper party, the Director will (1) find that the application should have been abandoned for failure to respond, (2) construe the petition as a petition to revive under Trademark Rule 2.66, (3) revive the application on the basis of unintentional delay, and (4) require petitioner to submit a properly signed response. 37 C.F.R. §2.66; TMEP §1713.02.
In the petition, petitioner’s attorney declares that petitioner unintentionally failed to file a properly signed response within the time provided. The petition includes a properly signed response to the March 6, 2014 Office action.
The USPTO records reflect that when the initial response was filed on March 13, 2014 and signed by Wu Zeyuan, attorney Yong Li was appointed to act on petitioner’s behalf. Because the evidence establishes that an improper party signed the response, the USPTO will construe the petition as a petition to revive the application under Rule 2.66.
DECISION
The petition is granted to the extent petitioner has complied with the requirements of Rule 2.66. The above-identified application is revived and the application will be forwarded to the examining attorney to examine the response submitted with the petition on November 13, 2014.
/Carrie Genovese/
Carrie Genovese
Attorney Advisor
Office of the Deputy Commissioner
for Trademark Examination Policy
(571) 272-8378
For general and other useful information about trademarks, you are encouraged to visit the USPTO web site at http://www.gov.uspto.report/main/trademarks.htm.