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 2194 (Rev 03/2012) |
OMB No. 0651-0054 (Exp 10/31/2017) |
Petition To Revive Abandoned Application - Failure To Respond Timely To Office Action
The table below presents the data as entered.
Input Field
|
Entered
|
SERIAL NUMBER |
86411528 |
LAW OFFICE ASSIGNED |
LAW OFFICE 108 |
PETITION |
PETITION STATEMENT |
Applicant has firsthand knowledge that the failure to respond to the Office Action by the specified deadline was unintentional, and
requests the USPTO to revive the abandoned application. |
RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION |
MARK SECTION |
MARK FILE NAME |
http://tmng-al.gov.uspto.report/resting2/api/img/86411528/large |
LITERAL ELEMENT |
YOUR PET IS YOUR BEST FRIEND BUDDY |
STANDARD CHARACTERS |
NO |
USPTO-GENERATED IMAGE |
NO |
COLOR(S) CLAIMED
(If applicable) |
Color is not claimed as a feature of the mark. |
DESCRIPTION OF THE MARK
(and Color Location, if applicable) |
The mark consists of A high-contrast illustration of a dog behind a cat inside a rounded rectangle with the words "Buddy" and "Pet supplies
for your best friend". |
ARGUMENT(S) |
To address the following issues: 1: Loss of Teas Plus Status because the word "Miscellaneous" was used initially: all of the other examiners
have allowed us to keep Teas Plus status because they did not view this as a modification, merely a clarification of goods and services. This is the first time we were denied Teas Plus Status, as we
have submitted dozens of trademark applications and the others were kept Teas Plus and allowed to clarify. 2. Our price point is very different from existing brands. We are mainly sold in dollar-type
stores with a much lower price point and we do not swim in the same channels. Our packaging is distinct with the same look that looks nothing like competitors'. There are already in existence many
other brands which have the word "Buddy" in it, and they are vastly different from ours. As they can all co-exist (one was approved after our initial application) ours is distinct enough to stand
apart. To address the many other brands referenced: Many of the examples provided are not even close to our brand (Pinkaholic, Earth Friendly, Full Service Gear, Nogopet, Soft Harness, W, Puppia,
Ipettie, Pet Shed, I Love My Mommy, Pico, Luxtrac, Safety Pups, Furry and Fabulous) in sound, appearance, or classification. They merely show the diversity of pet-related products, and in no way is
there any form of overlap. We are not quite sure why they were referenced, other than they are pet related. If anything, this shows the wide range of products on the market, and they have all been
trademarked. After we filed an application on October 1, 2014, another brand, Pet Buddies (Serial number 86453903), was filed on November 13, 2014 (after our filing). The examining attorney is Miah
Rosenberg in Law Office 117. She cleared them very easily, even though they are very similar to our registration, and in looking at the correspondence, her only issue was to add a disclaimer
regarding the word "pet". They sailed through easily, were approved for publication on March 6, 2015, and were published on May 3, 2015. We find this to be very similar to our brand name, and by the
same criteria that the above companies were referenced in #1, we feel that if this company was given their trademark, we are different enough from other registrants that we should be given ours. 3.
The Disclaimer is withdrawn |
GOODS AND/OR SERVICES SECTION (current) |
INTERNATIONAL CLASS |
018 |
DESCRIPTION |
Feed bags for animals; Pet collar accessories, namely, bells, silencers, safety lights and blinkers, pendants and charms; Pet
restraining devices consisting of posts and anchors |
FILING BASIS |
Section 1(a) |
FIRST USE ANYWHERE DATE |
At least as early as 02/02/2007 |
FIRST USE IN COMMERCE DATE |
At least as early as 02/02/2007 |
GOODS AND/OR SERVICES SECTION (proposed) |
INTERNATIONAL CLASS |
018 |
TRACKED TEXT DESCRIPTION |
Feed bags for animals; Pet restraining devices consisting of
tie out stakes and tie out chains for use in pet grooming or vet care.; Pet collar accessories, namely, bells, silencers, safety lights and blinkers, pendants
and charms; Pet restraining devices consisting of posts and anchors |
FINAL DESCRIPTION |
Pet restraining devices consisting of tie out stakes and tie out chains for use in pet grooming or vet care. |
FILING BASIS |
Section 1(a) |
FIRST USE ANYWHERE DATE |
At least as early as 02/02/2007 |
FIRST USE IN COMMERCE DATE |
At least as early as 02/02/2007 |
ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS SECTION |
MISCELLANEOUS STATEMENT |
Plese delete the disclaimer currently on record |
PAYMENT SECTION |
TOTAL AMOUNT |
100 |
TOTAL FEES DUE |
100 |
SIGNATURE SECTION |
PETITION SIGNATURE |
/S. Baheti/ |
SIGNATORY'S NAME |
S. Baheti |
SIGNATORY'S POSITION |
Secretary |
SIGNATORY'S PHONE NUMBER |
562 259-9992 |
DATE SIGNED |
12/11/2015 |
RESPONSE SIGNATURE |
/S. Baheti/ |
SIGNATORY'S NAME |
S. Baheti |
SIGNATORY'S POSITION |
Secretary |
SIGNATORY'S PHONE NUMBER |
562 259-9992 |
DATE SIGNED |
12/11/2015 |
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY |
YES |
FILING INFORMATION SECTION |
SUBMIT DATE |
Fri Dec 11 15:06:00 EST 2015 |
TEAS STAMP |
USPTO/POA-XXX.XX.XXX.XX-2
0151211150600780917-86411
528-55076ab8dabfc87fea4bd
fa565607227c5c4abd149e441
7f3c8c7fa6ee469dab2-CC-15
61-20151211142229906566 |
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 2194 (Rev 03/2012) |
OMB No. 0651-0054 (Exp 10/31/2017) |
Petition To Revive Abandoned Application - Failure To Respond Timely To Office Action
To the Commissioner for Trademarks:
Application serial no.
86411528 YOUR PET IS YOUR BEST FRIEND BUDDY (Stylized and/or with Design, see http://tmng-al.gov.uspto.report/resting2/api/img/86411528/large) has been amended as follows:
PETITION Petition Statement
Applicant has firsthand knowledge that the failure to respond to the Office Action by the specified deadline was unintentional, and requests the USPTO to revive the abandoned application.
RESPONSE
TO OFFICE ACTION
ARGUMENT(S)
In response to the substantive refusal(s), please note the following:
To address the following issues: 1: Loss of Teas Plus Status because the word "Miscellaneous" was used initially: all of the other examiners have allowed us to keep Teas Plus status because they did
not view this as a modification, merely a clarification of goods and services. This is the first time we were denied Teas Plus Status, as we have submitted dozens of trademark applications and the
others were kept Teas Plus and allowed to clarify. 2. Our price point is very different from existing brands. We are mainly sold in dollar-type stores with a much lower price point and we do not swim
in the same channels. Our packaging is distinct with the same look that looks nothing like competitors'. There are already in existence many other brands which have the word "Buddy" in it, and they
are vastly different from ours. As they can all co-exist (one was approved after our initial application) ours is distinct enough to stand apart. To address the many other brands referenced: Many of
the examples provided are not even close to our brand (Pinkaholic, Earth Friendly, Full Service Gear, Nogopet, Soft Harness, W, Puppia, Ipettie, Pet Shed, I Love My Mommy, Pico, Luxtrac, Safety Pups,
Furry and Fabulous) in sound, appearance, or classification. They merely show the diversity of pet-related products, and in no way is there any form of overlap. We are not quite sure why they were
referenced, other than they are pet related. If anything, this shows the wide range of products on the market, and they have all been trademarked. After we filed an application on October 1, 2014,
another brand, Pet Buddies (Serial number 86453903), was filed on November 13, 2014 (after our filing). The examining attorney is Miah Rosenberg in Law Office 117. She cleared them very easily, even
though they are very similar to our registration, and in looking at the correspondence, her only issue was to add a disclaimer regarding the word "pet". They sailed through easily, were approved for
publication on March 6, 2015, and were published on May 3, 2015. We find this to be very similar to our brand name, and by the same criteria that the above companies were referenced in #1, we feel
that if this company was given their trademark, we are different enough from other registrants that we should be given ours. 3. The Disclaimer is withdrawn
CLASSIFICATION AND LISTING OF GOODS/SERVICES
Applicant proposes to amend the following class of goods/services in the application:
Current: Class 018 for Feed bags for animals; Pet collar accessories, namely, bells, silencers, safety lights and blinkers, pendants and charms; Pet restraining devices consisting of posts and
anchors
Original Filing Basis:
Filing Basis: Section 1(a), Use in Commerce: The applicant is using the mark in commerce, or the applicant's related company or licensee is using the mark in commerce, on or in connection with
the identified goods and/or services. 15 U.S.C. Section 1051(a), as amended. The mark was first used at least as early as 02/02/2007 and first used in commerce at least as early as 02/02/2007 , and
is now in use in such commerce.
Proposed:
Tracked Text Description: Feed bags for animals;
Pet restraining devices consisting of tie out stakes and tie out chains for
use in pet grooming or vet care.;
Pet collar accessories, namely, bells, silencers, safety lights and blinkers, pendants and charms;
Pet restraining devices consisting of posts and anchorsClass 018 for Pet restraining devices consisting of tie out stakes and tie out chains for use in pet grooming or vet
care.
Filing Basis: Section 1(a), Use in Commerce: The applicant is using the mark in commerce, or the applicant's related company or licensee is using the mark in commerce, on or in connection with
the identified goods and/or services. 15 U.S.C. Section 1051(a), as amended. The mark was first used at least as early as 02/02/2007 and first used in commerce at least as early as 02/02/2007 , and
is now in use in such commerce.
ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS
Miscellaneous Statement
Plese delete the disclaimer currently on record
FEE(S)
Fee(s) in the amount of $100 is being submitted.
SIGNATURE(S)
Signature: /S. Baheti/ Date: 12/11/2015
Signatory's Name: S. Baheti
Signatory's Position: Secretary
Signatory's Phone Number: 562 259-9992
Response Signature
Signature: /S. Baheti/ Date: 12/11/2015
Signatory's Name: S. Baheti
Signatory's Position: Secretary
Signatory's Phone Number: 562 259-9992
The signatory has confirmed that he/she is not represented by either an authorized attorney or Canadian attorney/agent, and that he/she is either (1) the owner/holder or (2) a person(s) with legal
authority to bind the owner/holder; and if an authorized U.S. attorney or Canadian attorney/agent previously represented him/her in this matter, either he/she has filed a signed revocation of power
of attorney with the USPTO or the USPTO has granted the request of his/her prior representative to withdraw.
RAM Sale Number: 86411528
RAM Accounting Date: 12/14/2015
Serial Number: 86411528
Internet Transmission Date: Fri Dec 11 15:06:00 EST 2015
TEAS Stamp: USPTO/POA-XXX.XX.XXX.XX-2015121115060078
0917-86411528-55076ab8dabfc87fea4bdfa565
607227c5c4abd149e4417f3c8c7fa6ee469dab2-
CC-1561-20151211142229906566