To: | Netset AB (dcdocketing@hdp.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 87982566 - NETSET - 17242-200009 - Request for Reconsideration Denied - Return to TTAB |
Sent: | August 21, 2020 10:50:03 AM |
Sent As: | ecom116@uspto.gov |
Attachments: |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 87982566
Mark: NETSET
|
|
Correspondence Address: |
|
Applicant: Netset AB
|
|
Reference/Docket No. 17242-200009
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
AFTER FINAL ACTION
DENIED
Issue date: August 21, 2020
Applicant argues in the request for reconsideration that evidence of record does not support the conclusion that the goods and services in the application and registrations are closely related. Contrary to applicant’s arguments and for the reasons set forth in the final office action, the website pages evidence of record establishes that the general types of goods and services are closely related because they are offered by the same entities under the same mark.
Applicant argues that this application should be allowed to register because Registration Nos. 4924938 and Registration No. 4568049 coexist on the register. This argument is not persuasive because the goods and services in these registrations are different from the goods and services at issue in the present application. Prior decisions and actions of other trademark examining attorneys in registering other marks have little evidentiary value and are not binding upon the USPTO or the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. TMEP §1207.01(d)(vi); see In re USA Warriors Ice Hockey Program, Inc., 122 USPQ2d 1790, 1793 n.10 (TTAB 2017). Each case is decided on its own facts, and each mark stands on its own merits. In re USA Warriors Ice Hockey Program, Inc., 122 USPQ2d at 1793 n.10 (quoting In re Boulevard Entm’t, 334 F.3d 1336, 1343, 67 USPQ2d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).
Accordingly, the following refusal made final in the Office action dated February 5, 2020, is maintained and continued:
• Likelihood of Confusion Refusal under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act with respect to Registration Nos. 5202163, 5319164, 5494833, 5494834 and 5586411
See TMEP §§715.03(a)(ii)(B), 715.04(a).
If applicant has not filed an appeal and time remains in the six-month response period, applicant has the remainder of that time to (1) file another request for reconsideration that complies with and/or overcomes any outstanding final requirement(s) and/or refusal(s), and/or (2) file a notice of appeal to the Board. TMEP §715.03(a)(ii)(B). Filing a request for reconsideration does not stay or extend the time for filing an appeal. 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b)(3); see TMEP §715.03(c).
/Khanh M. Le/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 116
U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
Khanh.Le@USPTO.gov
(571) 272-9435