To: | INTERNATIONAL DATA GROUP, INC. (trademark_docket@idg.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88230245 - IDC - IDG 18-13 - Request for Reconsideration Denied - No Appeal Filed |
Sent: | April 24, 2020 02:06:36 PM |
Sent As: | ecom122@uspto.gov |
Attachments: |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88230245
Mark: IDC
|
|
Correspondence Address: |
|
Applicant: INTERNATIONAL DATA GROUP, INC.
|
|
Reference/Docket No. IDG 18-13
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
AFTER FINAL ACTION
DENIED
Issue date: April 24, 2020
Specifically, Applicant has not raised a new issue, nor provided new evidence, or a new argument that resolves the outstanding issues. For example, Applicant has argued that it has been using the mark since the early 2000s, but Applicant’s claim of priority of use is not relevant to this ex parte proceeding. See In re Calgon Corp., 435 F.2d 596, 168 USPQ 278 (C.C.P.A. 1971). Trademark Act Section 7(b), 15 U.S.C. §1057(b), provides that a certificate of registration on the Principal Register is prima facie evidence of the validity of the registration, of the registrant’s ownership of the mark, and of the registrant’s exclusive right to use the mark in commerce on or in connection with the goods and/or services specified in the certificate. During ex parte prosecution, the trademark examining attorney has no authority to review or to decide on matters that constitute a collateral attack on the cited registration. TMEP §1207.01(d)(iv).
Applicant also argues that one of the marks is not for a bank (it is not clear which IDC applicant is referring), but determining likelihood of confusion is based on the description of the goods and/or services stated in the application and registration at issue, not on extrinsic evidence of actual use. See In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1307, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1052 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1325, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1749 (Fed. Cir. 2017)). Here, neither the application nor registration have restrictions on the channels of trade limiting it to, or excluding, banks or other trade channels. The evidence attached to the prior Office actions amply demonstrates that the kind of services provided by Applicant are the kind also provided by, or at least sufficiently related to, those provided by registrant. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive, and do not present any new evidence or issues, and do not resolve the issues that have been raised.
Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the Request for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED.
Accordingly, the following refusal made final in the Office action dated October 10, 2019 is maintained and continued:
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 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).
Roth, Benjamin
/Benjamin H. Roth/
Examining Attorney
Law Office 122
(571) 272 -5266
benjamin.roth@uspto.gov