Response to Office Action

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 1957 (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 1957 (Rev 10/2011)

OMB No. 0651-0050 (Exp 09/20/2020)

Response to Office Action

To the Commissioner for Trademarks:

Application serial no. 87663275 PEGASUS(Standard Characters, see http://uspto.report/TM/87663275/mark.png) has been amended as follows:

ARGUMENT(S)
In response to the substantive refusal(s), please note the following:

This Response is submitted in reply to the Office Action issued November 22, 2017.

 

The Examining Attorney initially has refused registration of Applicant’s mark under Section 2(d) on the ground that there allegedly is a likelihood of confusion with prior registration No. 3,303,469 for the mark PEGASUS FOOTWEAR and Design.  Additionally, the Examining Attorney has cited the following pending applications as potential bars to registration under Section 2(d), if they mature into registrations:  Application No. 87/261,054 for the mark PEGASUS; Application No. 87/464,269 for the mark QUEEN PEGASUS; and Application No. 87/464,251 for the mark THE QUEEN PEGASUS.  Three of the four cited marks are owned by different entities. 

 

Because the USPTO’s decision on the registrability of the marks in the three pending applications may have an impact on Applicant’s  response to any or all of the marks identified in the office action, Applicant submits that it may be more efficient to submit its arguments and evidence after the disposition of the pending applications.  Applicant therefore requests permission to defer submitting substantive arguments and evidence relating to the cited registration until such time.. 

 

For the reasons outlined above, Applicant respectfully requests that its application be suspended.       

 

If the Examining Attorney has any questions regarding this response or finds that any of the requirements for responding to the office action have not been met, Applicant respectfully requests that the Examining Attorney contact the undersigned counsel and the concerns will be addressed promptly. 

 

SIGNATURE(S)
Response Signature
Signature: /Michael Maoz/     Date: 05/22/2018
Signatory's Name: Michael Maoz
Signatory's Position: Assistant General Counsel, New York Bar Member

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.

        
Serial Number: 87663275
Internet Transmission Date: Tue May 22 13:43:21 EDT 2018
TEAS Stamp: USPTO/ROA-X.XX.XX.XXX-201805221343212293
53-87663275-6106abb6a1ee185785e992a3cb71
a4a4371918ff182adeb93259037866f10ff2044-
N/A-N/A-20180521213834640781