To: | Johnson Investment Counsel, Inc. (mhurst@kmklaw.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88200741 - YOURWEALTH REVIEW - JO2585IP0001 - Request for Reconsideration Denied - No Appeal Filed |
Sent: | January 27, 2020 12:14:05 PM |
Sent As: | ecom109@uspto.gov |
Attachments: |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88200741
Mark: YOURWEALTH REVIEW
|
|
Correspondence Address: KEATING MUETHING & KLEKAMP PLL |
|
Applicant: Johnson Investment Counsel, Inc.
|
|
Reference/Docket No. JO2585IP0001
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
AFTER FINAL ACTION
DENIED
Issue date: January 27, 2020
Specifically, applicant argues that the highly similar wording in the marks should be given little weight because the applicant disclaimed the wording in the applied-for mark. The entry of a disclaimer will not overcome a refusal under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act. See In re MCI Commc’ns Corp., 21 USPQ2d 1534, 1538 (Comm’r Pats. 1991); TMEP §1213.01(c).
Applicant further argues that stylization in the applied-for mark distinguishes it from the registered mark. Applicant argues that the registered mark is a standard character mark and thus cannot be used with a design. Respectfully, applicant appears to conflate the mark in a registration (which cannot include a design element and be registered as a standard character mark) and the actual real-world use of that mark, which may include stylization and/or design. As explained in the previous actions, a mark in typed or standard characters only claims rights in the wording or other literal element and not in any particular display or rendition. See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1363, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1909 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 1348, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010); 37 C.F.R. §2.52(a); TMEP §1207.01(c)(iii). Regardless of the applicant’s design, the applied-for mark contains wording that is highly similar to the wording that the registrant claims a right to. That wording makes the marks confusingly similar and such similarity cannot be overcome by applicant’s design.
Accordingly, the following requirement(s) and/or refusal(s) made final in the Office action dated September 16, 2019, are maintained and continued:
• Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion
See TMEP §§715.03(a)(ii)(B), 715.04(a).
If applicant has already filed an appeal with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, the Board will be notified to resume the appeal. See TMEP §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).
/Robert Ratcliffe/
Examining Attorney
Law Office 109
Phone: (571) 272-5257
Fax: (571) 273-5562
robert.ratcliffe@uspto.gov