| 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) |
| Input Field |
Entered |
|---|---|
| SERIAL NUMBER | 88048176 |
| LAW OFFICE ASSIGNED | LAW OFFICE 110 |
| MARK SECTION | |
| MARK | http://uspto.report/TM/88048176/mark.png |
| LITERAL ELEMENT | ENSPRYNG |
| 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) | |
|
Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha., hereby responds to the Office Action, dated November 10, 2018, in which the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) refused registration of the mark ENSPRYNG (the “Applicant’s Mark”) on the Principal Register. The Examining Attorney argued that Applicant’s Mark and cited Application, Serial No. 87/418,607 are duplicate Applications. Applicant’s states that Applicant’s Mark, Serial No. 88/048,176 is ENSPRYNG filed in connection with pharmaceutical preparations for the treatment of neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder in Class 5, while cited Application, Serial No. 87/418,607 is VERITO filed in connection with computer services, namely, on-site management of information technology (IT) systems of others; Planning, design and management of information technology systems; Information technology (IT) consulting services; outsource service provider in the field of information technology consulting in Class 42. Applicant submits that Applicant’s mark is not a duplicated of cited Application. Further, Applicant states that Applicant’s mark and cited Application are not confusingly similar in light of the different commercial impression between ENSPRYNG and VERITO and the difference in the nature of the products and services that both marks identify. In light of the above, Applicant submits that Applicant’s Mark and cited Application are not duplicated Applications, and that the marks are distinguishable. Applicant therefore requests that the refusal to register Applicant’s Mark be withdrawn. |
|
| EVIDENCE SECTION | |
| EVIDENCE FILE NAME(S) | |
| ORIGINAL PDF FILE | evi_19911617472-20190510121510262729_._Cited_Application_Serial_No._87418607.pdf |
| CONVERTED PDF FILE(S) (2 pages) |
\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\880\481\88048176\xml4\ROA0002.JPG |
| \\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\880\481\88048176\xml4\ROA0003.JPG | |
| DESCRIPTION OF EVIDENCE FILE | copy of cited Application from the Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS) |
| SIGNATURE SECTION | |
| RESPONSE SIGNATURE | /Bassam N Ibrahim/ /s/ |
| SIGNATORY'S NAME | Bassam N. Ibrahim |
| SIGNATORY'S POSITION | Attorney of Record, VA Bar Member |
| SIGNATORY'S PHONE NUMBER | 703.836.6620 |
| DATE SIGNED | 05/10/2019 |
| AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY | YES |
| FILING INFORMATION SECTION | |
| SUBMIT DATE | Fri May 10 12:34:52 EDT 2019 |
| TEAS STAMP | USPTO/ROA-XXX.XXX.XXX.XX- 20190510123452571140-8804 8176-6207368cb845f7aad823 6e340cdc56c3610abcadaed23 d8dc433f3ea0ce5a9d6d9-N/A -N/A-20190510121510262729 |
| 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) |
Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha., hereby responds to the Office Action, dated November 10, 2018, in which the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) refused registration of the mark ENSPRYNG (the “Applicant’s Mark”) on the Principal Register. The Examining Attorney argued that Applicant’s Mark and cited Application, Serial No. 87/418,607 are duplicate Applications.
Applicant’s states that Applicant’s Mark, Serial No. 88/048,176 is ENSPRYNG filed in connection with pharmaceutical preparations for the treatment of neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder in Class 5, while cited Application, Serial No. 87/418,607 is VERITO filed in connection with computer services, namely, on-site management of information technology (IT) systems of others; Planning, design and management of information technology systems; Information technology (IT) consulting services; outsource service provider in the field of information technology consulting in Class 42.
Applicant submits that Applicant’s mark is not a duplicated of cited Application. Further, Applicant states that Applicant’s mark and cited Application are not confusingly similar in light of the different commercial impression between ENSPRYNG and VERITO and the difference in the nature of the products and services that both marks identify.
In light of the above, Applicant submits that Applicant’s Mark and cited Application are not duplicated Applications, and that the marks are distinguishable.
Applicant therefore requests that the refusal to register Applicant’s Mark be withdrawn.
