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 1960 (Rev 10/2011) |
| OMB No. 0651-0050 (Exp 09/20/2020) |
Request for Reconsideration after Final Action
The table below presents the data as entered.
Input Field
|
Entered
|
| SERIAL NUMBER |
86799478 |
| LAW OFFICE ASSIGNED |
LAW OFFICE 101 |
| MARK SECTION |
| MARK |
http://uspto.report/TM/86799478/mark.png |
| LITERAL ELEMENT |
VERVE |
| STANDARD CHARACTERS |
YES |
| USPTO-GENERATED IMAGE |
YES |
| MARK STATEMENT |
The mark consists of standard characters, without claim to any particular font style, size or color. |
| ARGUMENT(S) |
| REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION FINAL ACTION DATED NOVEMBER 17, 2018 Application Ser. No. 86799478 Mark: VERVE Applicant requests reconsideration of
the Examining Attorney?s Final Refusal and submits herewith new Consent Agreements concerning each of the cited 2(d) registrations. In its Final Action, the Examining Attorney continued the refusal
to register the subject application citing the following registrations as 2(d) citations (i.e., four registrations owned by two different entities): 1a) Reg. No. 4588343 Mark: Services: Restaurant
and caf? services, namely, preparation of food and drink for consumption and supplying coffee to restaurant and caf? facilities. Owner: Verve, LLC, 104 Bronson St., Suite 19, Santa Cruz, CA 95062 1b)
Reg. No. 4959141 Mark: VERVE COFFEE ROASTERS Services: Restaurant and caf? services, namely, preparation of food and drink for consumption and supplying coffee to restaurant and caf? facilities.
Owner: Verve, LLC, 104 Bronson St., Suite 19, Santa Cruz, CA 95062 2a) Reg. No. 4695230 Mark: Services: Restaurant and take-out restaurant services. Owner: Verve, Inc., Mill Street, Orono Maine 04473
2b) Reg. No. 4695229 Mark: VERVE BURRITOS Services: Restaurant and take-out restaurant services. Owner: Verve, Inc., Mill Street, Orono Maine 04473 It is noted that the VERVE BURRITOS and VERVE
COFFEE ROASTERS registrations coexist and without concern by the USPTO. In Applicant?s last response to Office Action, Applicant submitted Consent Agreements concerning the cited
registrations/registrants. The Examining Attorney rejected the consent agreements referring to them as being ?naked consents? and advising: Factors to be considered in weighing a consent agreement
include the following: (1) Whether the consent shows an agreement between both parties; (2) Whether the agreement includes a clear indication that the services travel in separate trade channels; (3)
Whether the parties agree to restrict their fields of use; (4) Whether the parties will make efforts to prevent confusion, and cooperate and take steps to avoid any confusion that may arise in the
future; and (5) Whether the marks have been used for a period of time without evidence of actual confusion. See In re Four Seasons Hotels Ltd., 987 F.2d 1565, 1569, 26 USPQ2d 1071, 1073 (Fed. Cir.
1993); In re Mastic, 829 F.2d at 1117-18, 4 USPQ2d at 1295-96; cf. Bongrain Int?l (Am.) Corp. v. Delice de Fr., Inc., 811 F.2d 1479, 1485, 1 USPQ2d 1775, 1779 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Applicant has entered
into new consent agreements with the cited parties, which agreements account for and comply with the guidelines set forth above. Copies of the agreements are attached. In particular: A. The amended
VERVE COFFEE ROASTERS consent agreement sets forth the following: 1. Period of time without evidence of actual confusion. As indicated in paragraph 2 of the agreement, the parties have used their
respective marks for quite some time (i.e., Applicant for 20+ years and Registrant for 10+ years) without any known instance of actual confusion amongst consumers or wholesale suppliers. 2. Whether
the parties will make efforts to prevent confusion and cooperate and take steps to avoid any confusion that may arise in the future. As indicated in paragraph 13 of the agreement, the parties have
agreed that in the event that either party deems any use (including advertising, promotional or marketing activity) to create a likelihood of confusion they will bring the same to the attention of
the other party, provide a suggestion for aborting any such likelihood of confusion, and use their best efforts to resolve the matter. In the event the parties cannot resolve the matter, they have
agreed to arbitration or mediation. 3. Whether the parties agree to restrict their fields of use. As indicated in paragraph 7, Applicant has agreed to limit its recitation of services by adding ?with
coffee not being a prominently featured item.? This relates to the actual use by the parties of their respective marks. Coffee is merely incidental to Applicant?s white-tablecloth sit-down type
restaurant and bar that offers alcoholic drinks. See paragraph 6. On the other hand, coffee is primary to and the focus of Registrant?s ?casual style arrangement that does not serve alcohol and that
is mainly geared around coffee and pastries.? See paragraph 5. Applicant has further agreed not to register or use its VERVE mark on or in association with ?supplying coffee to restaurant and caf?
facilities? or providing ?caf? coffee supply services,? namely services that are recited in Registrant?s recitation of services. See paragraph 4. 4. Tied in with the proposed limitation to
Applicant?s recitation of services and with the use by the parties of their respective marks is the obvious differing commercial impression created by the parties? respective marks. Registrant?s
VERVE COFFEE ROASTERS immediately and directly conveys the meaning and commercial impression that the services are primarily associated with coffee and coffee roasting. Applicant?s mark has no such
meaning or commercial impression. See paragraph 3. In determining similarity of the marks, marks must be considered in their entirety. 5. Applicant has further agreed never to use the term ?COFFEE
ROASTERS? as a trademark. See paragraph 12. 6. The consent shows an agreement between the parties. The parties are both ?business persons well-acquainted with the hospitality industry, namely the
restaurant business.? See paragraph 2. The parties ?believe that their respective marks are not likely to be confused and that the marks create substantially different commercial impressions based
upon, inter alia, the nature of the parties? respective services, the variations of the parties? respective marks, and the manner of use of the marks by each respective party.? See paragraph D. The
parties have unequivocally agreed that the parties? respective marks used on their respective services (as limited by the consent agreement) are not likely to be confused. See paragraphs 8 and 9. 7.
The consent agreement is binding on the parties and their respective ?assigns, successors in interest and subsidiaries, direct or indirect.? See paragraph 16. B. The amended VERVE BURRITOS consent
agreement sets forth the following: 1. Period of time without evidence of actual confusion. As indicated in paragraph 2 of the agreement, the parties have used their respective marks for quite some
time (i.e., Applicant for 20+ years and Registrant for 12+ years) without any known instance of actual confusion amongst consumers or wholesale suppliers. 2. Whether the parties will make efforts to
prevent confusion and cooperate and take steps to avoid any confusion that may arise in the future. As indicated in paragraph 12 of the agreement, the parties have agreed that in the event that
either party deems any use (including advertising, promotional or marketing activity) to create a likelihood of confusion they will bring the same to the attention of the other party, provide a
suggestion for aborting any such likelihood of confusion, and use their best efforts to resolve the matter. In the event the parties cannot resolve the matter, they have agreed to arbitration or
mediation. 3. Whether the parties agree to restrict their fields of use. As indicated in paragraph 6, Applicant has agreed to limit its recitation of services by (1) deleting ?take-out restaurant
services? and (2) by adding the following restriction and limitation to its recitation of services: ?excluding the service of burritos?. This, in fact, relates to the actual use by the parties of
their respective marks. Applicant has never served burritos, and Mexican or South American cuisine has never been the focus or theme of Applicant?s services or the food is serves. Applicant is a
sophisticated, white-tablecloth sit-down type dinner restaurant and cocktail bar. See paragraph 5. On the other hand, the registrant deals in a fast-food or takeaway style arrangement that is mainly
geared around burritos and features Mexican cuisine. See paragraph 4. 4. Tied in with the proposed limitation to Applicant?s recitation of services and with the use by the parties of their respective
marks is the obvious differing commercial impression created by the parties? respective marks. Registrant?s VERVE BURRITOS immediately and directly conveys the meaning and commercial impression that
the services are primarily associated with ?burritos? and with Mexican cuisine. Applicant?s mark has no such meaning or commercial impression. See paragraph 3. In determining similarity of the marks,
marks must be considered in their entirety. 5. Applicant has further agreed not to use the word ?burritos? as, or as part of, a trademark in association with ?VERVE.? See paragraph 11. 6. The consent
shows an agreement between the parties. The parties are both ?business persons well-acquainted with the hospitality industry, namely the restaurant business.? See paragraph 2. The parties ?believe
that their respective marks are not likely to be confused and that the marks create substantially different commercial impressions based upon, inter alia, the nature of the parties? respective
services, the variations of the parties? respective marks, and the manner of use of the marks by each respective party.? See paragraph D. The parties have unequivocally agreed that the parties?
respective marks used on their respective services (as limited by the consent agreement) are not likely to be confused. See paragraphs 7 and 8. 7. The consent agreement is binding on the parties and
their respective ?assigns, successors in interest and subsidiaries, direct or indirect.? See paragraph 15. It is respectfully submitted that the new Consent Agreements comply with the guidelines set
forth by the Examining Attorney, set forth valid reasons why the parties believe there is no likelihood of confusion, and describe the arrangements undertaken by the parties to avoid confusing the
public. See, In re Mastic, 829 F.2d 1114, 1117-18, 4 USPQ2d 1292, 1295-96 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Reconsideration is believed to be in order. Respectfully submitted, John M. Rannells Baker and Rannells PA
Attorneys for Applicant 92 East Main St., Suite 302 Somerville, N.J. 08876 908-722-5640 jmr@br-tmlaw.com |
| EVIDENCE SECTION |
| EVIDENCE FILE NAME(S) |
| ORIGINAL PDF FILE |
evi_6911890159-20180517174643849157_._Consent_Verve_Coffee_Roasters.pdf |
CONVERTED PDF FILE(S)
(5 pages) |
\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\867\994\86799478\xml8\RFR0002.JPG |
| |
\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\867\994\86799478\xml8\RFR0003.JPG |
| |
\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\867\994\86799478\xml8\RFR0004.JPG |
| |
\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\867\994\86799478\xml8\RFR0005.JPG |
| |
\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\867\994\86799478\xml8\RFR0006.JPG |
| ORIGINAL PDF FILE |
evi_6911890159-20180517174643849157_._Consent_Verve_Burritos.pdf |
CONVERTED PDF FILE(S)
(5 pages) |
\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\867\994\86799478\xml8\RFR0007.JPG |
| |
\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\867\994\86799478\xml8\RFR0008.JPG |
| |
\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\867\994\86799478\xml8\RFR0009.JPG |
| |
\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\867\994\86799478\xml8\RFR0010.JPG |
| |
\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\867\994\86799478\xml8\RFR0011.JPG |
| DESCRIPTION OF EVIDENCE FILE |
A Consent Agreement between Applicant and the owner of the VERVE COFFEE ROASTERS registrations fully executed and a Consent Agreement between
Applicant and the owner of the VERVE BURRITOS registrations as agreed to by the parties |
| GOODS AND/OR SERVICES SECTION (current) |
| INTERNATIONAL CLASS |
043 |
| DESCRIPTION |
| Bar and cocktail lounge services; Bar and restaurant services |
| FILING BASIS |
Section 1(a) |
| FIRST USE ANYWHERE DATE |
At least as early as 00/00/1996 |
| FIRST USE IN COMMERCE DATE |
At least as early as 00/00/1996 |
| GOODS AND/OR SERVICES SECTION (proposed) |
| INTERNATIONAL CLASS |
043 |
| TRACKED TEXT DESCRIPTION |
Bar and cocktail lounge services; Bar and restaurant services;
Bar and restaurant services, excluding the service of "burritos" and excluding "take-out restaurant services, and all such services with coffee not being a prominently
featured item. |
| FINAL DESCRIPTION |
| Bar and cocktail lounge services; Bar and restaurant services, excluding the service of "burritos" and excluding "take-out restaurant
services, and all such services with coffee not being a prominently featured item. |
| FILING BASIS |
Section 1(a) |
| FIRST USE ANYWHERE DATE |
At least as early as 00/00/1996 |
| FIRST USE IN COMMERCE DATE |
At least as early as 00/00/1996 |
| SIGNATURE SECTION |
| RESPONSE SIGNATURE |
/John M. Rannells/ |
| SIGNATORY'S NAME |
John M. Rannells |
| SIGNATORY'S POSITION |
Attorney of record, New Jersey bar member |
| SIGNATORY'S PHONE NUMBER |
908-722-5640 |
| DATE SIGNED |
05/17/2018 |
| AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY |
YES |
| CONCURRENT APPEAL NOTICE FILED |
YES |
| FILING INFORMATION SECTION |
| SUBMIT DATE |
Thu May 17 18:08:11 EDT 2018 |
| TEAS STAMP |
USPTO/RFR-XX.XXX.XX.XXX-2
0180517180811184559-86799
478-61023c305292d77a391e8
26f5cb960b7cd79ccad43ea94
116fd5732fb7d0cc1f9f-N/A-
N/A-20180517174643849157 |
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 1960 (Rev 10/2011) |
| OMB No. 0651-0050 (Exp 09/20/2020) |
Request for Reconsideration after Final Action
To the Commissioner for Trademarks:
Application serial no.
86799478 VERVE(Standard Characters, see http://uspto.report/TM/86799478/mark.png) has been amended as follows:
ARGUMENT(S)
In response to the substantive refusal(s), please note the following:
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION FINAL ACTION DATED NOVEMBER 17, 2018 Application Ser. No. 86799478 Mark: VERVE Applicant requests reconsideration of the Examining Attorney?s Final Refusal and submits
herewith new Consent Agreements concerning each of the cited 2(d) registrations. In its Final Action, the Examining Attorney continued the refusal to register the subject application citing the
following registrations as 2(d) citations (i.e., four registrations owned by two different entities): 1a) Reg. No. 4588343 Mark: Services: Restaurant and caf? services, namely, preparation of food
and drink for consumption and supplying coffee to restaurant and caf? facilities. Owner: Verve, LLC, 104 Bronson St., Suite 19, Santa Cruz, CA 95062 1b) Reg. No. 4959141 Mark: VERVE COFFEE ROASTERS
Services: Restaurant and caf? services, namely, preparation of food and drink for consumption and supplying coffee to restaurant and caf? facilities. Owner: Verve, LLC, 104 Bronson St., Suite 19,
Santa Cruz, CA 95062 2a) Reg. No. 4695230 Mark: Services: Restaurant and take-out restaurant services. Owner: Verve, Inc., Mill Street, Orono Maine 04473 2b) Reg. No. 4695229 Mark: VERVE BURRITOS
Services: Restaurant and take-out restaurant services. Owner: Verve, Inc., Mill Street, Orono Maine 04473 It is noted that the VERVE BURRITOS and VERVE COFFEE ROASTERS registrations coexist and
without concern by the USPTO. In Applicant?s last response to Office Action, Applicant submitted Consent Agreements concerning the cited registrations/registrants. The Examining Attorney rejected the
consent agreements referring to them as being ?naked consents? and advising: Factors to be considered in weighing a consent agreement include the following: (1) Whether the consent shows an agreement
between both parties; (2) Whether the agreement includes a clear indication that the services travel in separate trade channels; (3) Whether the parties agree to restrict their fields of use; (4)
Whether the parties will make efforts to prevent confusion, and cooperate and take steps to avoid any confusion that may arise in the future; and (5) Whether the marks have been used for a period of
time without evidence of actual confusion. See In re Four Seasons Hotels Ltd., 987 F.2d 1565, 1569, 26 USPQ2d 1071, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Mastic, 829 F.2d at 1117-18, 4 USPQ2d at 1295-96; cf.
Bongrain Int?l (Am.) Corp. v. Delice de Fr., Inc., 811 F.2d 1479, 1485, 1 USPQ2d 1775, 1779 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Applicant has entered into new consent agreements with the cited parties, which
agreements account for and comply with the guidelines set forth above. Copies of the agreements are attached. In particular: A. The amended VERVE COFFEE ROASTERS consent agreement sets forth the
following: 1. Period of time without evidence of actual confusion. As indicated in paragraph 2 of the agreement, the parties have used their respective marks for quite some time (i.e., Applicant for
20+ years and Registrant for 10+ years) without any known instance of actual confusion amongst consumers or wholesale suppliers. 2. Whether the parties will make efforts to prevent confusion and
cooperate and take steps to avoid any confusion that may arise in the future. As indicated in paragraph 13 of the agreement, the parties have agreed that in the event that either party deems any use
(including advertising, promotional or marketing activity) to create a likelihood of confusion they will bring the same to the attention of the other party, provide a suggestion for aborting any such
likelihood of confusion, and use their best efforts to resolve the matter. In the event the parties cannot resolve the matter, they have agreed to arbitration or mediation. 3. Whether the parties
agree to restrict their fields of use. As indicated in paragraph 7, Applicant has agreed to limit its recitation of services by adding ?with coffee not being a prominently featured item.? This
relates to the actual use by the parties of their respective marks. Coffee is merely incidental to Applicant?s white-tablecloth sit-down type restaurant and bar that offers alcoholic drinks. See
paragraph 6. On the other hand, coffee is primary to and the focus of Registrant?s ?casual style arrangement that does not serve alcohol and that is mainly geared around coffee and pastries.? See
paragraph 5. Applicant has further agreed not to register or use its VERVE mark on or in association with ?supplying coffee to restaurant and caf? facilities? or providing ?caf? coffee supply
services,? namely services that are recited in Registrant?s recitation of services. See paragraph 4. 4. Tied in with the proposed limitation to Applicant?s recitation of services and with the use by
the parties of their respective marks is the obvious differing commercial impression created by the parties? respective marks. Registrant?s VERVE COFFEE ROASTERS immediately and directly conveys the
meaning and commercial impression that the services are primarily associated with coffee and coffee roasting. Applicant?s mark has no such meaning or commercial impression. See paragraph 3. In
determining similarity of the marks, marks must be considered in their entirety. 5. Applicant has further agreed never to use the term ?COFFEE ROASTERS? as a trademark. See paragraph 12. 6. The
consent shows an agreement between the parties. The parties are both ?business persons well-acquainted with the hospitality industry, namely the restaurant business.? See paragraph 2. The parties
?believe that their respective marks are not likely to be confused and that the marks create substantially different commercial impressions based upon, inter alia, the nature of the parties?
respective services, the variations of the parties? respective marks, and the manner of use of the marks by each respective party.? See paragraph D. The parties have unequivocally agreed that the
parties? respective marks used on their respective services (as limited by the consent agreement) are not likely to be confused. See paragraphs 8 and 9. 7. The consent agreement is binding on the
parties and their respective ?assigns, successors in interest and subsidiaries, direct or indirect.? See paragraph 16. B. The amended VERVE BURRITOS consent agreement sets forth the following: 1.
Period of time without evidence of actual confusion. As indicated in paragraph 2 of the agreement, the parties have used their respective marks for quite some time (i.e., Applicant for 20+ years and
Registrant for 12+ years) without any known instance of actual confusion amongst consumers or wholesale suppliers. 2. Whether the parties will make efforts to prevent confusion and cooperate and take
steps to avoid any confusion that may arise in the future. As indicated in paragraph 12 of the agreement, the parties have agreed that in the event that either party deems any use (including
advertising, promotional or marketing activity) to create a likelihood of confusion they will bring the same to the attention of the other party, provide a suggestion for aborting any such likelihood
of confusion, and use their best efforts to resolve the matter. In the event the parties cannot resolve the matter, they have agreed to arbitration or mediation. 3. Whether the parties agree to
restrict their fields of use. As indicated in paragraph 6, Applicant has agreed to limit its recitation of services by (1) deleting ?take-out restaurant services? and (2) by adding the following
restriction and limitation to its recitation of services: ?excluding the service of burritos?. This, in fact, relates to the actual use by the parties of their respective marks. Applicant has never
served burritos, and Mexican or South American cuisine has never been the focus or theme of Applicant?s services or the food is serves. Applicant is a sophisticated, white-tablecloth sit-down type
dinner restaurant and cocktail bar. See paragraph 5. On the other hand, the registrant deals in a fast-food or takeaway style arrangement that is mainly geared around burritos and features Mexican
cuisine. See paragraph 4. 4. Tied in with the proposed limitation to Applicant?s recitation of services and with the use by the parties of their respective marks is the obvious differing commercial
impression created by the parties? respective marks. Registrant?s VERVE BURRITOS immediately and directly conveys the meaning and commercial impression that the services are primarily associated with
?burritos? and with Mexican cuisine. Applicant?s mark has no such meaning or commercial impression. See paragraph 3. In determining similarity of the marks, marks must be considered in their
entirety. 5. Applicant has further agreed not to use the word ?burritos? as, or as part of, a trademark in association with ?VERVE.? See paragraph 11. 6. The consent shows an agreement between the
parties. The parties are both ?business persons well-acquainted with the hospitality industry, namely the restaurant business.? See paragraph 2. The parties ?believe that their respective marks are
not likely to be confused and that the marks create substantially different commercial impressions based upon, inter alia, the nature of the parties? respective services, the variations of the
parties? respective marks, and the manner of use of the marks by each respective party.? See paragraph D. The parties have unequivocally agreed that the parties? respective marks used on their
respective services (as limited by the consent agreement) are not likely to be confused. See paragraphs 7 and 8. 7. The consent agreement is binding on the parties and their respective ?assigns,
successors in interest and subsidiaries, direct or indirect.? See paragraph 15. It is respectfully submitted that the new Consent Agreements comply with the guidelines set forth by the Examining
Attorney, set forth valid reasons why the parties believe there is no likelihood of confusion, and describe the arrangements undertaken by the parties to avoid confusing the public. See, In re
Mastic, 829 F.2d 1114, 1117-18, 4 USPQ2d 1292, 1295-96 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Reconsideration is believed to be in order. Respectfully submitted, John M. Rannells Baker and Rannells PA Attorneys for
Applicant 92 East Main St., Suite 302 Somerville, N.J. 08876 908-722-5640 jmr@br-tmlaw.com
EVIDENCE
Evidence in the nature of A Consent Agreement between Applicant and the owner of the VERVE COFFEE ROASTERS registrations fully executed and a Consent Agreement between Applicant and the owner of the
VERVE BURRITOS registrations as agreed to by the parties has been attached.
Original PDF file:
evi_6911890159-20180517174643849157_._Consent_Verve_Coffee_Roasters.pdf
Converted PDF file(s) ( 5 pages)
Evidence-1
Evidence-2
Evidence-3
Evidence-4
Evidence-5
Original PDF file:
evi_6911890159-20180517174643849157_._Consent_Verve_Burritos.pdf
Converted PDF file(s) ( 5 pages)
Evidence-1
Evidence-2
Evidence-3
Evidence-4
Evidence-5
CLASSIFICATION AND LISTING OF GOODS/SERVICES
Applicant proposes to amend the following class of goods/services in the application:
Current: Class 043 for Bar and cocktail lounge services; Bar and restaurant services
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 00/00/1996 and first used in commerce at least as early as 00/00/1996 , and
is now in use in such commerce.
Proposed:
Tracked Text Description: Bar and cocktail lounge services;
Bar and restaurant services;
Bar and
restaurant services, excluding the service of "burritos" and excluding "take-out restaurant services, and all such services with coffee not being a prominently featured item.Class 043 for Bar
and cocktail lounge services; Bar and restaurant services, excluding the service of "burritos" and excluding "take-out restaurant services, and all such services with coffee not being a prominently
featured item.
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 00/00/1996 and first used in commerce at least as early as 00/00/1996 , and
is now in use in such commerce.
SIGNATURE(S)
Request for Reconsideration Signature
Signature: /John M. Rannells/ Date: 05/17/2018
Signatory's Name: John M. Rannells
Signatory's Position: Attorney of record, New Jersey bar member
Signatory's Phone Number: 908-722-5640
The signatory has confirmed that he/she is an attorney who is a member in good standing of the bar of the highest court of a U.S. state, which includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and
other federal territories and possessions; and he/she is currently the owner's/holder's attorney or an associate thereof; and to the best of his/her knowledge, if prior to his/her appointment another
U.S. attorney or a Canadian attorney/agent not currently associated with his/her company/firm previously represented the owner/holder in this matter: (1) the owner/holder has filed or is concurrently
filing a signed revocation of or substitute power of attorney with the USPTO; (2) the USPTO has granted the request of the prior representative to withdraw; (3) the owner/holder has filed a power of
attorney appointing him/her in this matter; or (4) the owner's/holder's appointed U.S. attorney or Canadian attorney/agent has filed a power of attorney appointing him/her as an associate attorney in
this matter.
The applicant is filing a Notice of Appeal in conjunction with this Request for Reconsideration.
Serial Number: 86799478
Internet Transmission Date: Thu May 17 18:08:11 EDT 2018
TEAS Stamp: USPTO/RFR-XX.XXX.XX.XXX-2018051718081118
4559-86799478-61023c305292d77a391e826f5c
b960b7cd79ccad43ea94116fd5732fb7d0cc1f9f
-N/A-N/A-20180517174643849157
