Notation to File

NOTE TO THE FILE

SERIAL NUMBER:            88139105

DATE:                                01/10/2020

NAME:                               jfickes

NOTE:         

Searched:                                                             
     Google                            
     Lexis/Nexis                       
     OneLook
     Wikipedia
     Acronym Finder                         Protest evidence reviewed
     Other:

Checked:                                                             
     Geographic significance          
     Surname                          
     Translation
     ID with ID/CLASS mailbox

     Checked list of approved Canadian attorneys and agents

Discussed file with
Attorney/Applicant via:
        phone                               Left message with
        email                               Attorney/Applicant

     Requested Law Library search           Issued Examiner’s Amendment
     for:                                   and entered changes in TRADEUPS

        PRINT        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:

 X   OTHER:

Dear Attorney Fickes,

 

Thank you for your email, please issue a formal office action so that we can make a Section 2(f) claim of acquired distinctiveness. 

 

Best Regards,

Jessica 

JESSICA TAM
for COBALT LLP

1912 Bonita Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94704
p. 510.841.9800
f. 510.295.2401
e. jessica@cobaltlaw.com 

cobaltlaw.com

 

Docket (internal use only)

Client:
Mark:
Action:
Date:

 

 

On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 6:32 AM Fickes, Jeri <Jeri.Fickes@uspto.gov> wrote:

Dear Mr. Manfredi,

 

I have received the response to the previous Office action and the substitute specimen is accepted.  The substitute specimen shows a “substantially exact” depiction of the mark as shown in the drawing. 

 

The requirement for correction of the disclaimer to disclaim only “TACO,” which applicant complied with, however, was incorrect.  My apologies for this error.  The language “DINELA” (in its correct form as “DINE LA”) does need to be disclaimed or a Section 2(f) claim of acquired distinctiveness as to “DINELA” needs to be asserted (as in the prior application Serial No. SN 87/680150, for the mark DINELA).  The first I can do by examiner’s amendment, the second will require issuance of a formal Office action.  Please let me know which course of action applicant prefers.

 

Again, my apologies for the misdirection.

 

Jeri Fickes

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 107

USPTO

571/272-9157