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. 88003707 REVENGE(Standard Characters, see http://uspto.report/TM/88003707/mark.png) has been amended as follows:

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

The Examiner has rejected the pending mark REVENGE for Fragrances in Class 3, based upon two prior cited registrations, REVENGE, U.S. Reg. No. 4682577 for Dress, t-shirts, sweatshirts, hoodies, scarves, skirts, pants, shorts, sweaters, tank tops in Class 25; and REVENGE AND DESIGN, U.S. Reg. No. 5010427 for Hair nourishers, Hair oils, Hair shampoos and conditioners in Class 3. The Examiner's argument with respect to the cited registrations is that evidence suggests that a same source sells both Class 25 and Class 3 goods. Applicant argues against this position by raising two points: 1) If this argument were sound, then the 577 Registration, filed after the 427 Registration, would have been refused for the same reason the Examiner gives now, namely, that the different goods can emanate from the same source. Since the 577 Registration was not refused, the Examiner appears to apply a heightened and arbitrary standard of registrability to the Applicant; and, 2) if the Examiner's evidence were sound, then, in the presence of global internet sources like Amazon, Walmart, Whole Foods, and Alibaba, a single source sells all classes of goods. In this regard, the Examiner's logic would dictate that all goods, being sourced from a single seller, would be related and subject to a Section 2(d) refusal. Such an examination procedure, however, is both unsound and not supported by the TMEP. At a minimum, the Applicant respectfully requests the Examiner withdraw the refusal as to the 577 Registration relating to clothing goods.

SIGNATURE(S)
Response Signature
Signature: /RICHARD S. ROSS, ESQ./     Date: 02/17/2019
Signatory's Name: RICHARD S. ROSS, ESQ.
Signatory's Position: ATTORNEY OF RECORD, FLORIDA BAR MEMBER

Signatory's Phone Number: 9542529110

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: 88003707
Internet Transmission Date: Sun Feb 17 07:28:41 EST 2019
TEAS Stamp: USPTO/ROA-XX.XX.XXX.XX-20190217072841759
464-88003707-62081b4566264aa3c498894fe9d
0d831bb976cdc97c7bce288c42388e6b931ff8-N
/A-N/A-20190217070830734419