NOTE TO THE FILE
SERIAL NUMBER: 88123480
DATE: 01/18/2019
NAME: gulrich
NOTE:
Searched:
Lexis/Nexis
OneLook
Wikipedia
Acronym Finder Protest evidence reviewed
Other:Checked:
Geographic significance
Surname
Translation
ID with ID/CLASS mailboxChecked list of approved Canadian attorneys and agents
Discussed file with
Attorney/Applicant via:
phone Left message with
X email Attorney/ApplicantRequested Law Library search Issued Examiner’s Amendment
for: and entered changes in TRADEUPSPRINT DO NOT PRINT Added design code in TRADEUPS
Description of the mark
Translation statement Re-imaged standard character
drawing
Negative translation statement
Consent of living individual Contacted TM MADRID ID/CLASS
about misclassified definite ID
Changed TRADEUPS to:
Dear Mr. Neale,
Thank you for your voicemail. If you have not yet accessed the issued Office action, please access the issued Office action at http://tsdr.gov.uspto.report/, by entering the U.S. application serial number, clicking on “Documents,” and clicking on the link entitled “Offc Action Outgoing.”
Your application has been refused registration because your applied-for mark EXS is confusingly similar to previously registered marks for similar goods. In this case, your applied-for goods are “dietary supplements” and the registration has identical goods associated with it. The cited registrations are noted in the refusal in the Office action issued on 1/7/2019. Additionally, a confusingly similar mark, while not yet registered, was filed before yours and has also been cited as a bar to registration. Further information about this refusal, the Section 2(d) likelihood of confusion refusal, is located on our website, http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademark/additional-guidance-and-resources/possible-grounds-refusal-mark.
Unfortunately, there are no amendments to the identification of goods that I can offer that would overcome this refusal. Therefore, at this point you are welcome to formally submit arguments against the refusal and in favor of registration. If you wish to have any arguments against a substantive refusal considered, they must be filed via a formal response. See, TMEP §709.05. You may file them here, http://teas.gov.uspto.report/office/roa/.
In the future, please note that “[i]nformal communications may not be used to request advisory opinions as to the likelihood of overcoming a substantive refusal” such as the Section 2(d) refusal issues in this application. TMEP §709.05.. Further, please note that “USPTO employees cannot give advice on trademark law. It is inappropriate for USPTO personnel to give legal advice, to act as a counselor for individuals, or to recommend a qualified practitioner” and that no USPTO attorney or staff is permitted to give an applicant legal advice or statements about an applicant’s legal rights. TMEP §§705.02, 709.06. You are, of course, permitted to hire a private attorney specializing in trademark matters to represent you in this process and provide legal advice.
N. Gretchen Ulrich
Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 113
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
T: 571.272.1951 | gretchen.ulrich@uspto.gov
Please consider the environment before printing this email.