UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
|
U. S. APPLICATION SERIAL NUMBER: 86/151701
U. S. REGISTRATION NUMBER:
|
*86151701* |
|
CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS:
Mark F Wright 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 22, 2014 |
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: MEITU
CORRESPONDENT’S EMAIL ADDRESS:
|
|
PETITION TO DIRECTOR
This acknowledges receipt on November 13, 2014 of your petition to revive the above-identified application.
Granting of Petition Rescinded – Application Remains Abandoned
This petition was filed pursuant to Trademark Rule 2.66 on the basis of unintentional delay. 37 C.F.R. §2.66; Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP) §1713.02. It was automatically granted on November 13, 2014 and a notice of revival was sent out on the same day. Unfortunately, the revival notice was automatically generated in error.
The records of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) reflect that the application abandoned for incomplete response to an Office action. The unintentional delay standard of Trademark Rule 2.66 applies only to the “failure” to respond to an examining attorney’s Office action or a notice of allowance. See 15 U.S.C. §§1051(d)(4) and 1062(b); TMEP §1714.01(f). It does not apply to an application that is abandoned for filing an incomplete response to an examining attorney’s Office action. TMEP §1714.01(f)(ii)(A). Petitions to revive applications abandoned for incomplete response are properly decided by the Director of the USPTO (Director). See TMEP §718.03(b). Therefore, the automatic granting of the petition is rescinded and the application remains in abandoned status. The petition will be reviewed as a petition to the Director under Trademark Rule 2.146(a)(3). 37 C.F.R. 2.146(a)(3).
Petition to Director is Incomplete
The petition to the Director is incomplete because Xiamen Meitu Technology Co., Ltd. (petitioner) submitted unverified facts in support of the petition and did not include evidence to support reinstatement of the application in the form of a verified statement regarding the improper party who filed the response. See 37 C.F.R. §2.146(c); TMEP §1705.03. A petition to the Director must include a statement of the facts relevant to the petition, verified by an affidavit or declaration under Trademark Rule 2.20. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.20, 2.146(c); TMEP §1705.03.
In addition, when evidence submitted on petition establishes that the initial response was signed by an improper party, the Director will exercise supervisory authority to reinstate the application. See 37 C.F.R. §2.66; TMEP §1713.02. In order for the Director to grant the petition to reinstate the application, petitioner must submit evidence in the form of a verified statement that the party who filed the March 13, 2014 response was neither a corporate officer of petitioner nor a U.S. attorney. See TMEP §1713.02.
Therefore, petitioner must submit the following:
(1) a statement of the relevant facts in support of the petition, verified with an affidavit or signed declaration under Rule 2.20
and
(2) a statement that the party who signed the March 13, 2014 response was neither a corporate officer of petitioner nor a U.S. attorney, verified with an affidavit or signed declaration under Rule 2.20
within thirty (30) days from the mailing date of this letter.
The following is a properly worded declaration under Rule 2.20 and should be inserted at the end of the statement of facts supporting the petition. This declaration must be personally signed by a person with firsthand knowledge of the facts being set forth and dated, with the printed or typed name of the signatory appearing immediately below. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.146(c), 2.193(d); TMEP §1705.03.
The signatory being warned that willful false statements and the like are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under 18 U.S.C. §1001, and that such willful false statements and the like may jeopardize the validity of the application or submission or any registration resulting therefrom, declares that the facts set forth above are true, all statements made of his or her own knowledge are true, and all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true.
_______________________________
(Signature)
_______________________________
(Print or Type Name and Position)
_______________________________
(Date)
If the USPTO does not receive the above-identified statements and accompanying declaration within thirty (30) days, the petition will be denied without consideration on the merits and the application will remain abandoned. See TMEP §1705.03. The petitioner will not have met the requirements for filing a petition to the Director. See id.
To respond to this letter, please use the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) “Response to Petition to Director Inquiry Letter,” form number twelve (12), located under Petition Forms at http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/petition_forms.jsp.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
/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.