Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. PTO Form 1960 (Rev 10/2011) |
OMB No. 0651-0050 (Exp 09/20/2020) |
Input Field |
Entered |
---|---|
SERIAL NUMBER | 88328950 |
LAW OFFICE ASSIGNED | LAW OFFICE 125 |
MARK SECTION | |
MARK FILE NAME | http://uspto.report/TM/88328950/mark.png |
LITERAL ELEMENT | YH |
STANDARD CHARACTERS | NO |
USPTO-GENERATED IMAGE | NO |
OWNER SECTION (current) | |
NAME | Torrance R.M. Green |
MAILING ADDRESS | 580 Pear Orchard Rd. #722 |
CITY | Ridgeland |
STATE | Mississippi |
ZIP/POSTAL CODE | 39157 |
COUNTRY/REGION/JURISDICTION/U.S. TERRITORY | United States |
PHONE | 662-255-8834 |
OWNER SECTION (proposed) | |
NAME | Torrance R.M. Green |
MAILING ADDRESS | 580 Pear Orchard Rd. #722 |
CITY | Ridgeland |
STATE | Mississippi |
ZIP/POSTAL CODE | 39157 |
COUNTRY/REGION/JURISDICTION/U.S. TERRITORY | United States |
PHONE | 662-255-8834 |
XXXX | |
ARGUMENT(S) | |
The factor of sophistication of the purchasers also weighs in favor of registration of the Applicant’s Mark. Where the relevant buyer class is composed solely of professional or commercial purchasers, it is reasonable to set a higher standard of care than exists for consumers. Checkpoint Sys. v. Check Point Software Tech, 268 F.3d 270, 285 (3rd Cir. 2001). The Applicant’s Mark, the First Registered Mark, and the Second Registered Mark are related to computer products indicating an educated and professional consumer base that carefully examines the products and services that they will purchase. Indeed, courts have determined that consumers are more careful than usual have found no likelihood of confusion even where the names of the institutions share some of the same terms. To buttress this argument, Applicant notes that over twenty (20) registered marks include the word “YH” Clearly, the registration of these marks also implies that the USPTO believes that consumers are capable of making the necessary distinctions so as to register all of these mark in relation to services. Because of the nature of the products at issue, therefore, this factor also weighs in favor of registrability of the Applicant’s Mark. |
|
CORRESPONDENCE INFORMATION (current) | |
NAME | Casey Williams |
PRIMARY EMAIL ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE | mcwilliams213@gmail.com |
SECONDARY EMAIL ADDRESS(ES) (COURTESY COPIES) | MWILLIA88@YAHOO.COM |
DOCKET/REFERENCE NUMBER | yh |
CORRESPONDENCE INFORMATION (proposed) | |
NAME | Casey Williams |
PRIMARY EMAIL ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE | mcwilliams213@gmail.com |
SECONDARY EMAIL ADDRESS(ES) (COURTESY COPIES) | MWILLIA88@YAHOO.COM |
DOCKET/REFERENCE NUMBER | yh |
SIGNATURE SECTION | |
RESPONSE SIGNATURE | /Michael Williams/ |
SIGNATORY'S NAME | Michael Williams |
SIGNATORY'S POSITION | Attorney |
DATE SIGNED | 06/06/2020 |
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY | YES |
CONCURRENT APPEAL NOTICE FILED | NO |
FILING INFORMATION SECTION | |
SUBMIT DATE | Sat Jun 06 22:36:25 ET 2020 |
TEAS STAMP | USPTO/RFR-XX.XX.XXX.XXX-2 0200606223625238765-88328 950-710b6dacd83fd74971111 36245c1926f2eb2eb23ded8e5 d093a52f7665a775b-N/A-N/A -20200606221908773322 |
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. PTO Form 1960 (Rev 10/2011) |
OMB No. 0651-0050 (Exp 09/20/2020) |
The factor of sophistication of the purchasers also weighs in favor of registration of the Applicant’s Mark. Where the relevant buyer class is composed solely of professional or commercial purchasers, it is reasonable to set a higher standard of care than exists for consumers. Checkpoint Sys. v. Check Point Software Tech, 268 F.3d 270, 285 (3rd Cir. 2001). The Applicant’s Mark, the First Registered Mark, and the Second Registered Mark are related to computer products indicating an educated and professional consumer base that carefully examines the products and services that they will purchase. Indeed, courts have determined that consumers are more careful than usual have found no likelihood of confusion even where the names of the institutions share some of the same terms. To buttress this argument, Applicant notes that over twenty (20) registered marks include the word “YH”
Clearly, the registration of these marks also implies that the USPTO believes that consumers are capable of making the necessary distinctions so as to register all of these mark in relation to services. Because of the nature of the products at issue, therefore, this factor also weighs in favor of registrability of the Applicant’s Mark.