To: | Norpexal Holding SA (docket@bachlap.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88272396 - MY WINE - 19-108T |
Sent: | July 09, 2019 04:28:16 PM |
Sent As: | ecom110@uspto.gov |
Attachments: |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88272396
Mark: MY WINE
|
|
Correspondence Address: |
|
Applicant: Norpexal Holding SA
|
|
Reference/Docket No. 19-108T
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
SUSPENSION NOTICE
No Response Required
The application is suspended for the reason(s) specified below. See 37 C.F.R. §2.67; TMEP §§716 et seq.
The pending application(s) below has an earlier filing date or effective filing date than applicant’s application. If the mark in the application(s) below registers, the USPTO may refuse registration of applicant’s mark under Section 2(d) because of a likelihood of confusion with the registered mark(s). 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see 37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §1208.02(c). Action on this application is suspended until the prior-filed application(s) below either registers or abandons. 37 C.F.R. §2.83(c). Information relevant to the application(s) below was sent previously.
- U.S. Application Serial No(s). 88272376
Refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) resolved and maintained and continued. The following refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) is/are satisfied:
• Disclaimer requirement
• Identification of goods and services requirement
See TMEP §713.02.
The following refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) is/are maintained and continued:
• Trademark Act Section 2(d) with regard to: U.S. Registration Nos. 5297606, 5297607, 5302646 and 5454167
See id. These refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) will be made final once this application is removed from suspension, unless a new issue arises. See TMEP §716.01.
Applicant argues that its mark should be allowed to register because the registrations and the prior pending application co-exist. However, the prior pending application is not registered. Also, two registrations in any given field containing the same or similar terms does not constitute dilution of terms. Further, prior decisions and actions of other trademark examining attorneys in registering other marks have little evidentiary value and are not binding upon the USPTO or the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. TMEP §1207.01(d)(vi); see In re USA Warriors Ice Hockey Program, Inc., 122 USPQ2d 1790, 1793 n.10 (TTAB 2017). Each case is decided on its own facts, and each mark stands on its own merits. In re USA Warriors Ice Hockey Program, Inc., 122 USPQ2d at 1793 n.10 (quoting In re Boulevard Entm’t, 334 F.3d 1336, 1343, 67 USPQ2d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).
Suspension process. The USPTO will periodically check this application to determine if it should remain suspended. See TMEP §716.04. As needed, the trademark examining attorney will issue a letter to applicant to inquire about the status of the reason for the suspension. TMEP §716.05.
No response required. Applicant may file a response, but is not required to do so.
/Caroline E. Wood/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 110
U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
571-272-9243
Caroline.Wood@uspto.gov