TEAS Request Reconsideration after FOA

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)

---

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. 87568257 CHEMISTRY(Standard Characters, see http://uspto.report/TM/87568257/mark.png) has been amended as follows:

EVIDENCE
Evidence in the nature of Similarity may be established yet confusion does not exist. The Applied for Mark is considered phonetically and visually similar to Registrant but there is no likelihood of confusion given that the respective goods of Registrant 1 and the Applied mark are not competitive with each other, nor are they purchased by the same people under circumstances that would give use to the mistake believe that one source was responsible for both products In re Unilever Limited 222 U.S.P.Q. 981 (T.T.A.B. 1984). Registration 1 is trademarked solely for medical herbs, building leasing services and leasing of agricultural equipment services. The Applied mark is for apparel goods. The goods do not directly compete and are sufficiently different that no one would buy one product seeking or expecting to get the other. There is absolutely no commercial similarity between apparel goods and medicinal herbs goods; building leasing services, and leasing of agricultural equipment services. The Applied Mark and Registrant 2 do have phonetical similarity however their similarity must be considered in light of the way the marks encountered in the marketplace and the circumstances surrounding their purchase. E. & J. GALLO WINERY v. Consorzio Del Gallo Nero, 782 F. Supp. 457 (N.D. Cal. 1991) Even if Registrant 2 creates a similar impression with the Applied Mark, these are still different enough to not create an association of the goods to the consumer due to the different spelling they present. The goods for the Applied for Mark are found in specialty stores throughout the US such as Forever 21, attached a screen shot of what is available online. The goods for Registrant 2 are not found in specialty retailers such as Forever 21, attached screen shot for online search. The goods for the Applied for Mark and Registrant 2 will not be side by side. Registrant 2 is not memorable enough for consumer to retain and therefore does not create any likelihood of confusion. The Applied for Mark is solely concentrated on apparel goods for young women and young men sizes for specialty retail establishments, specially directed towards a consumer that is seeking a goods that are following the fashion trend. This consumer is detailed oriented and can be considered a sophisticated consumer. This consumer will recognize the Applied for Mark and notice the immediate distinction in the name and the style of the goods with regards to any goods from Registrant 2. has been attached.
Original PDF file:
evi_158106218130-20181130180932402311_._Chemistry.F21.pdf
Converted PDF file(s) ( 1 page)
Evidence-1
Original PDF file:
evi_158106218130-20181130180932402311_._Kemistry.F21.pdf
Converted PDF file(s) ( 1 page)
Evidence-1

SIGNATURE(S)
Request for Reconsideration Signature
Signature: /lisamariel rodriguez/     Date: 11/30/2018
Signatory's Name: LISAMARIEL RODRIGUEZ
Signatory's Position: Corporate Counsel

Signatory's Phone Number: 2122940277

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 not filing a Notice of Appeal in conjunction with this Request for Reconsideration.

        
Serial Number: 87568257
Internet Transmission Date: Fri Nov 30 18:31:46 EST 2018
TEAS Stamp: USPTO/RFR-XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX-20181130183146
243988-87568257-6105a13c28d5a74fdeddc447
68da449b5676c4d55fda18347a10783f3091ef5a
-N/A-N/A-20181130180932402311