Response to Office Action

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 1957 (Rev 10/2011)

OMB No. 0651-0050 (Exp 09/20/2020)

---

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 1957 (Rev 10/2011)

OMB No. 0651-0050 (Exp 09/20/2020)

Response to Office Action

To the Commissioner for Trademarks:

Application serial no. 88353556 GOOD MORNING(Standard Characters, see http://uspto.report/TM/88353556/mark.png) has been amended as follows:

ARGUMENT(S)
In response to the substantive refusal(s), please note the following:

The Examining Attorney has refused registration of Applicant’s Mark on the grounds of likelihood of confusion with Registration No. 5427033 for the mark GOOD MORNING PILLOW. The Examining Attorney cites In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973) in support of the refusal.

The goods covered by the cited registration are “pillows” in Class 20.

Applicant’s goods, as amended, are:

Class 20:

beds; adjustable beds; folding beds; waterbeds; wooden beds; sofa beds; bed bases; bed frames; adjustable bed frames; pillows; mattresses; mattresses for beds; mattress toppers; air mattresses not for medical purposes and spring mattresses

Class 24:

bed covers; bed spreads; duvets; comforters; fleece, bed, woollen blankets; silk bed blankets; contour, flat bed sheets; bed sheets; bed sheet sets and mattress covers

Class 35:

retail store services featuring beds, bed frames, bed bases, sofa beds, pillows, mattresses, mattress toppers, mattress covers, duvets, comforters, bed spreads and covers, blankets and sheets; online retail store services featuring beds, bed frames, bed bases, sofa beds, pillows, mattresses, mattress toppers, mattress covers, duvets, comforters, bed spreads and covers, blankets and sheets

Under du Pont, when testing for likelihood of confusion under § 2(d) the following factors would be considered the most relevant in the subject matter: (1) the similarity or dissimilarity of the marks in their entireties as to appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression; (2) the similarity or dissimilarity and nature of the goods or services as described in the application for registration or in connection with which a prior registered mark is in use; and (3) the number and nature of other similar marks.

Likelihood of confusion is determined on a case-by-case basis, with application of the various du Pont factors. While the first two factors are generally considered the most important, only those du Pont factors that are shown to be material or relevant in a particular case are properly considered in determining likelihood of confusion. No one factor is determinative of the issue of likelihood of confusion; rather, the Examining Attorney must look at the cumulative effect of all relevant factors. See Electronic Design & Sales, Inc. v. Electronic Data Sys. Corp., 954 F.2d 713, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (finding no likelihood of confusion between virtually identical marks because of differences in products, likely purchasers, channels of trade, strength of the marks, and sophistication of purchasers).

The Examining Attorney alleges that Applicant’s Mark and the cited mark are confusingly similar because both marks include the words GOOD MORNING and Applicant’s goods and services are “highly related” to the goods covered by the cited registration. However, Applicant respectfully submits that the cited mark is not just GOOD MORNING, but GOOD MORNING PILLOW, and the goods covered by the cited registration are, as the mark indicates, only pillows.  Applicant’s goods include various types of beds, sofa beds, mattresses, and bedding as well as services related to the same. 

The marks must be compared “in their entireties as to appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression.” See Palm Bay Imports Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 2005) “[S]imilarity is not a binary factor but is a matter of degree.” In re St. Helena Hosp., 113 USPQ2d 1082, 1085 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting In re Coors Brewing Co., 68 USPQ2d 1059 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). 

The distinctiveness of a trademark may be categorized along a continuum, ranging from marks that are arbitrary or fanciful marks, to suggestive marks, to descriptive marks, to generic terms.   The cited mark is suggestive rather than highly distinctive; i.e., the mark GOOD MORNING PILLOW suggests that users of Registrant’s pillows will wake up and have a “good morning” if they use the Registrant’s products.

A review of the Trademark Register reveals numerous marks that are similar to “GOOD MORNING” and coexist for goods and services similar to those recited under Applicant’s Mark and/or the cited mark, including:

Mark/ Owner	Reg. No./ Appl No.	Relevant Goods/Services
THE GOOD NIGHT SLEEPER BY BROYHILL   CONSOLIDATED PROPERTY HOLDINGS, INC.	1456548	SOFA SLEEPERS (Cl 20)
GOOD NIGHT BASICS   5287989	5287989	Bedsheets; Comforters; Duvets; Fitted bed sheets; Flat bed sheets; Mattress pads; Pillow cases (Cl 24)
GOODNITE   ABEDDERBED LLC	4053782	mattresses, mattress foundations; box springs (Cl 20)
GOOD NIGHTS & GREAT VALUE   Artemis Marketing Corp.	88259000 (allowed)	Furniture; Mattresses (Cl 20); Retail furniture stores (Cl 35)
GOOD NIGHTS...GREAT MORNINGS   Ther-A-Pedic Associates, Inc.	4887841	mattresses; box springs; pillows (Cl 20)
GOOD BED GOOD NIGHT   Foshan Shumier Sleep Systems Manufacture Co., Ltd.	5818722	Armchairs; Bed frames; Beds; Bedsteads of wood; Chairs; Chests of drawers; Coat hangers; Coat racks; Coatstands; Couches; Display stands; Divans; Dressers; Furniture; Furniture chests; Hospital beds; Massage tables; Mattresses; Pillows; Sofas; Storage racks; Tables of metal; Tea tables; Wardrobes; Deck chairs; Head-rests; Lounge chairs; Metal furniture; Office furniture; School furniture; Screens; Seats; Shelves for storage; Tables; Television stands (Cl 20)
WE PUT THE GOOD IN GOOD NIGHT   Slumberland, Inc.	3906515	Retail store and on-line retail store services featuring mattresses and furniture (Cl 35)

A number of third party marks that include the term MORNING also coexist on the Trademark Register for the relevant goods and services, including:

 

Mark/ Owner	Reg. No./ Appl No.	Relevant Goods/Services
PERFECT MORNING   Serta, Inc.	3588498	Mattresses, mattress foundations and pillows (Cl 20)
MOON MORNING & Design   MUNSOO LEE DBA MOON MORNING	4435931	Pillows (Cl 20)
SUNDAY MORNING   Sunday Morning Home Inc.	87742282	towels, bed sheets, quilts, blankets, namely, bed blankets; textile tablecloths, table napkins of textile, throws (Cl 24)
GOOD NIGHTS...GREAT MORNINGS   Ther-A-Pedic Associates, Inc.	4887841	mattresses; box springs; pillows (Cl 20)
BETTER SLEEP. BETTER MORNINGS.   Method Digital Ltd.	88437503	Bed blankets; Bed covers; Bed linen; Bed pads; Bed sheets; Bed spreads; Bed throws; Fitted bed sheets; Flat bed sheets (Cl 24)
MAKERS OF THE BEST MORNINGS EVER   Shleep Pty Ltd	5456006	Mattresses; pillows; beds; mattress toppers; beds for household pets (Cl 20);   Bedding, namely, bed linen, bed covers, quilts, bed underlays, bed pads, pillow cases, sleeping bags and liners for babies; sleep sacks; bed sheets; bed blankets; travel rugs and lap rugs; wool fabrics for textile use; mattress covers (Cl 24)
BRIGHT MORNINGS   Otis Bed Manufacturing Company, Inc.	3923725	Mattresses (Cl 20)
LATEMORNINGS   NOVA HOUSE ONLINE SRL	88573031	Bed spreads; Bed sheets; Bed linen; Flat bed sheets; Fitted bed sheets; Sheet sets; Pillow covers; Pillow cases; Pillow shams; Duvet covers; Duvets; Quilts (Cl 24)

Printouts of data for these marks from the USPTO TESS database are attached.

Each of the marks noted above and in the attached exhibits (1) is or was registered or pending, and/or in use in commerce in the U.S.; (2) includes the term MORNING or a term similar to GOOD MORNING, and (3) coexists with the cited mark with no apparent issue. Thus, it appears clear that consumers and potential consumers have become accustomed to discerning among various MORNING marks and marks similar to GOOD MORNING for various types of bedding-related goods.  Given the number of other similar marks, consumers would not be likely to confuse Applicant's Mark with the cited mark, and the Examining Attorney should not assign an undue scope of protection to the cited mark such that the same would preclude registration of Applicant’s Mark. 

The Examining Attorney contends that Applicant’s goods and services and the cited registrant’s goods are highly related, and that “the same entity commonly provides the relevant goods and services, markets the goods and services, the relevant goods and services are sold or provided through the same trade channels, and used by the same classes of consumers.”  

Consumers are accustomed to distinguishing among similar marks for arguably related goods, and the relevant consumers would not likely be confused as to source or origin.  The Board has held that the mere fact that services/goods may fall within a similar general category is not sufficient to find that a likelihood of confusion arises—even when the marks are similar or identical. Hi-Country Foods Corp. v. Hi Country Beef Jerky, 4 USPQ2d 1169, 1171 (TTAB 1987) (TTAB determined that the goods would be sold in different sections of food stores and that no likelihood of confusion thus existed despite the fact that the trademarks were identical) (emphasis added).  In In re British Bulldog, Ltd., 224 U.SPQ 854 (TTAB 1984), the Board found that there was no likelihood of confusion between PLAYERS for shoes and PLAYERS for men's underwear simply because the goods could both be categorized as "clothing." The Board explained that these are distinct items that are recognized by consumers as, most often, coming from different sources. See also In re Shoe Works, Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1890 (TTAB 1988) (no likelihood of confusion between PALM BAY for women's shoes and PALM BAY for shorts and pants).  

As the U. S. Court of Appeals found in Juice Generation, Inc. v. GS Enterprises LLC, 115 USPQ2d 1671 (Fed. Cir. 2015) [precedential]: “[S]ufficient evidence of third-party use of similar marks can “show that customers ‘have been educated to distinguish between different marks on the basis of minute distinctions.’ “2 McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 11:88 (4th ed.2015) (quoting Standard Brands, Inc. v. RJR Foods, Inc., 192 U.S.P.Q. 383 (TTAB 1976)).”  In Juice Generation, the CAFC concluded that the Board's treatment of evidence of use of third-party marks did not sufficiently appreciate the force of that evidence. The CAFC found that, even without specific evidence as to extent and impact of use, the evidence of third-party us was "nonetheless powerful on its face." The evidence showed that a considerable number of third parties used similar marks. Third party registrations, the court observed, are relevant to show that some segment of a mark has a "normally understood and well-recognized descriptive or suggestive meaning, leading to the conclusion that the segment is relatively weak."  The cited mark GOOD MORNING PILLOW has a clearly suggestive meaning and is thus clearly relatively weak.  Weak marks merit less protection under Section 2(d). It is well-settled that the weaker an earlier mark is, the closer a second-comer’s mark can come without creating a likelihood of confusion.  In the instant case, the evidence of similar third party marks for related goods likewise cannot be treated dismissively.

The CAFC wanted to ensure that it issued a strong message that third party users of similar marks should not be discredited.  Therefore, in Jack Wolfskin Ausrustung Fur Draussen GmbH & Co. KGAA v. NewMillennium Sports, S.L.U, 797 F.3d 1363, 116 USPQ2d 1129 (Fed. Cir. 2015) the CAFC disagreed with the Board’s dismissal of Wolfskin’s evidence of third party paw print registrations and uses in commerce, and concluded that “[t]he evidence…demonstrated that consumers are not as likely confused by different, albeit similar looking, paw prints.”  The CAFC found that the evidence demonstrated “ubiquitous use of paw prints on clothing as source identifiers” and that given the widespread use of similar designs, consumers would know to look for differences between the various marks and additional indicia of origin to determine the source of a given product.  Once again, the CAFC is directing the PTO to properly consider the fact that third party users of similar marks necessarily ensure that the earlier registrations are fairly weak and not entitled to a broad scope of protection.  In the instant matter, it appears that the Examining Attorney is attributing a broader scope of protection to the cited mark than the evidence supports. 

The terms GOOD MORNING and GOOD NIGHT are highly suggestive in connection with the relevant goods (mattresses, beds and bedding).   In a trademark for goods or services related to mattresses, beds or bedding, the term GOOD MORNING or GOOD NIGHT suggests that users of the goods or services will have a good night or wake up to a good morning.  Applicant’s Mark GOOD MORNING and the cited mark GOOD MORNING PILLOW can coexist for similar goods and services without confusion, just as the above-noted GOOD NIGHT marks coexist without confusion for the same types of goods/services.  The additional (often descriptive) wording in each of the noted GOOD NIGHT marks (i.e., THE GOOD NIGHT SLEEPER BY BROYHILL; GOOD NIGHT BASICS; GOOD NIGHTS...GREAT MORNINGS; GOOD NIGHTS & GREAT VALUE; GOODNITE; GOOD BED GOOD NIGHT; and WE PUT THE GOOD IN GOOD NIGHT) distinguishes these GOOD NIGHT marks from each other,  just as the term PILLOW in the cited mark distinguishes it from Applicant’s Mark.

Additions or deletions to marks may be sufficient to avoid a likelihood of confusion if: (1) the marks in their entireties convey significantly different commercial impressions; or (2) the matter common to the marks is not likely to be perceived by purchasers as distinguishing source because it is merely descriptive or diluted. See, e.g., Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Group, Inc., 637 F.3d 1344, 1356, 98 USPQ2d 1253, 1261 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (affirming TTAB’s holding that contemporaneous use of applicant’s CAPITAL CITY BANK marks for banking and financial services, and opposer’s CITIBANK marks for banking and financial services, is not likely cause confusion, based, in part, on findings that the phrase "City Bank" is frequently used in the banking industry and that "CAPITAL" is the dominant element of applicant’s marks, which gives the marks a geographic connotation as well as a look and sound distinct from opposer’s marks); Shen Mfg. Co. v. Ritz Hotel Ltd., 393 F.3d 1238, 1245, 73 USPQ2d 1350, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (reversing TTAB’s holding that contemporaneous use of THE RITZ KIDS for clothing items (including gloves) and RITZ for various kitchen textiles (including barbeque mitts) is likely to cause confusion, because, inter alia, THE RITZ KIDS creates a different commercial impression); Safer, Inc. v. OMS Invs., Inc., 94 USPQ2d 1031, 1044-45 (TTAB 2010) (holding DEER-B-GON for animal repellant used to repel deer, other ruminant animals, and rabbits, and DEER AWAY and DEER AWAY PROFESSIONAL for repellant for repelling deer, other big game, and rabbits, not likely to cause confusion, noting that "DEER" is descriptive as applied to the relevant goods and thus has no source-indicating significance); Bass Pro Trademarks, L.L.C. v. Sportsman’s Warehouse, Inc., 89 USPQ2d 1844, 1857-58 (TTAB 2008) (finding that, although cancellation petitioner’s and respondent’s marks were similar by virtue of the shared descriptive wording "SPORTSMAN’S WAREHOUSE," this similarity was outweighed by differences in terms of sound, appearance, connotation, and commercial impression created by other matter and stylization in the respective marks); In re Farm Fresh Catfish Co., 231 USPQ 495, 495-96 (TTAB 1986) (holding CATFISH BOBBERS (with "CATFISH" disclaimed) for fish, and BOBBER for restaurant services, not likely to cause confusion, because the word "BOBBER" has different connotation when used in connection with the respective goods and services); In re Shawnee Milling Co., 225 USPQ 747, 749 (TTAB 1985) (holding GOLDEN CRUST for flour, and ADOLPH’S GOLD’N CRUST and design (with "GOLD’N CRUST" disclaimed) for coating and seasoning for food items, not likely to cause confusion, noting that, because "GOLDEN CRUST" and "GOLD’N CRUST" are highly suggestive as applied to the respective goods, the addition of "ADOLPH’S" is sufficient to distinguish the marks); In re S.D. Fabrics, Inc., 223 USPQ 54, 55-56 (TTAB 1984) (holding DESIGNERS/FABRIC (stylized) for retail fabric store services, and DAN RIVER DESIGNER FABRICS and design for textile fabrics, not likely to cause confusion, noting that, because of the descriptive nature of "DESIGNERS/FABRIC" and "DESIGNER FABRICS," the addition of "DAN RIVER" is sufficient to avoid a likelihood of confusion)

Simply, the fact that there are a number of other marks for related goods/services owned by various parties that use the term MORNING, or are similar to GOOD MORNING, including those put forth above, means that the mark cited by the Examining Attorney is not a strong mark capable of a broad scope of protection. See National Biscuit Co. v. Princeton Mining Co., 137 USPQ 250 (TTAB 1963) aff’d 338 F.2d 1022 (CCPA 1964). Rather, the number and nature of other similar marks is indicative that the term MORNING is diluted for the relevant goods and services, and consumers have become accustomed to discerning among various marks that are similar to GOOD MORNING. The weakness of the cited mark clearly operates to obviate any possible likelihood of confusion between the cited mark and Applicant’s Mark.

In sum, the differences between Applicant's Mark and the cited mark, the relative weakness of the cited mark, and the number and nature of similar marks, all preclude a finding of likelihood of confusion between Applicant's Mark and the cited registration.

Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the Examining Attorney withdraw the objection to registration and allow this application to proceed to publication.  In the event that the Examining Attorney does not accept that Applicant has overcome the refusal in full, it is incumbent upon the Examining Attorney to identify, with specificity, the remaining objections and to which specific goods/services of Applicant those refusals apply.

EVIDENCE
Evidence in the nature of printouts from USPTO TESS database has been attached.
Original PDF file:
evi_692474962-20190823163031898672_._GOOD_MORNING_evidence.pdf
Converted PDF file(s) ( 19 pages)
Evidence-1
Evidence-2
Evidence-3
Evidence-4
Evidence-5
Evidence-6
Evidence-7
Evidence-8
Evidence-9
Evidence-10
Evidence-11
Evidence-12
Evidence-13
Evidence-14
Evidence-15
Evidence-16
Evidence-17
Evidence-18
Evidence-19

CLASSIFICATION AND LISTING OF GOODS/SERVICES

Applicant proposes to amend the following class of goods/services in the application:
Current: Class 020 for beds; adjustable beds; folding beds; water beds; wooden beds; sofa beds; bed bases; bed frames; adjustable bed frames; mattresses; bed mattresses; mattress toppers; air mattresses and spring mattresses
Original Filing Basis:
Filing Basis: Section 1(b), Intent to Use: For a trademark or service mark application: As of the application filing date, the applicant had a bona fide intention, and was entitled, to use the mark in commerce on or in connection with the identified goods/services in the application. For a collective trademark, collective service mark, or collective membership mark application: As of the application filing date, the applicant had a bona fide intention, and was entitled, to exercise legitimate control over the use of the mark in commerce by members on or in connection with the identified goods/services/collective membership organization. For a certification mark application: As of the application filing date, the applicant had a bona fide intention, and was entitled, to exercise legitimate control over the use of the mark in commerce by authorized users in connection with the identified goods/services, and the applicant will not engage in the production or marketing of the goods/services to which the mark is applied, except to advertise or promote recognition of the certification program or of the goods/services that meet the certification standards of the applicant.

Proposed:
Tracked Text Description: beds; adjustable beds; folding beds; water beds; waterbeds; wooden beds; sofa beds; bed bases; bed frames; adjustable bed frames; pillows; bed mattresses; mattresses; mattresses for beds; air mattresses and spring mattresses; mattress toppers; air mattresses not for medical purposes and spring mattressesClass 020 for beds; adjustable beds; folding beds; waterbeds; wooden beds; sofa beds; bed bases; bed frames; adjustable bed frames; pillows; mattresses; mattresses for beds; mattress toppers; air mattresses not for medical purposes and spring mattresses
Filing Basis: Section 1(b), Intent to Use: For a trademark or service mark application: As of the application filing date, the applicant had a bona fide intention, and was entitled, to use the mark in commerce on or in connection with the identified goods/services in the application. For a collective trademark, collective service mark, or collective membership mark application: As of the application filing date, the applicant had a bona fide intention, and was entitled, to exercise legitimate control over the use of the mark in commerce by members on or in connection with the identified goods/services/collective membership organization. For a certification mark application: As of the application filing date, the applicant had a bona fide intention, and was entitled, to exercise legitimate control over the use of the mark in commerce by authorized users in connection with the identified goods/services, and the applicant will not engage in the production or marketing of the goods/services to which the mark is applied, except to advertise or promote recognition of the certification program or of the goods/services that meet the certification standards of the applicant.

Applicant proposes to amend the following class of goods/services in the application:
Current: Class 024 for bed covers; bed spreads; duvets; comforters; blankets; silk bed blankets; sheets; bed sheets; bed sheet sets and mattress covers
Original Filing Basis:
Filing Basis: Section 1(b), Intent to Use: For a trademark or service mark application: As of the application filing date, the applicant had a bona fide intention, and was entitled, to use the mark in commerce on or in connection with the identified goods/services in the application. For a collective trademark, collective service mark, or collective membership mark application: As of the application filing date, the applicant had a bona fide intention, and was entitled, to exercise legitimate control over the use of the mark in commerce by members on or in connection with the identified goods/services/collective membership organization. For a certification mark application: As of the application filing date, the applicant had a bona fide intention, and was entitled, to exercise legitimate control over the use of the mark in commerce by authorized users in connection with the identified goods/services, and the applicant will not engage in the production or marketing of the goods/services to which the mark is applied, except to advertise or promote recognition of the certification program or of the goods/services that meet the certification standards of the applicant.

Proposed:
Tracked Text Description: bed covers; bed spreads; duvets; comforters; blankets; fleece, bed, woolen blankets; silk bed blankets; sheets; contour, flat bed sheets; bed sheets; bed sheet sets and mattress coversClass 024 for bed covers; bed spreads; duvets; comforters; fleece, bed, woolen blankets; silk bed blankets; contour, flat bed sheets; bed sheets; bed sheet sets and mattress covers
Filing Basis: Section 1(b), Intent to Use: For a trademark or service mark application: As of the application filing date, the applicant had a bona fide intention, and was entitled, to use the mark in commerce on or in connection with the identified goods/services in the application. For a collective trademark, collective service mark, or collective membership mark application: As of the application filing date, the applicant had a bona fide intention, and was entitled, to exercise legitimate control over the use of the mark in commerce by members on or in connection with the identified goods/services/collective membership organization. For a certification mark application: As of the application filing date, the applicant had a bona fide intention, and was entitled, to exercise legitimate control over the use of the mark in commerce by authorized users in connection with the identified goods/services, and the applicant will not engage in the production or marketing of the goods/services to which the mark is applied, except to advertise or promote recognition of the certification program or of the goods/services that meet the certification standards of the applicant.

Applicant proposes to amend the following class of goods/services in the application:
Current: Class 035 for retail store services featuring beds, bed frames, bed bases, sofa beds, mattresses, mattress toppers, mattress covers, duvets, comforters, bed spreads and covers, blankets and sheets; online retail store services featuring beds, bed frames, bed bases, sofa beds, mattresses, mattress toppers, mattress covers, duvets, comforters, bed spreads and covers, blankets and sheets
Original Filing Basis:
Filing Basis: Section 1(b), Intent to Use: For a trademark or service mark application: As of the application filing date, the applicant had a bona fide intention, and was entitled, to use the mark in commerce on or in connection with the identified goods/services in the application. For a collective trademark, collective service mark, or collective membership mark application: As of the application filing date, the applicant had a bona fide intention, and was entitled, to exercise legitimate control over the use of the mark in commerce by members on or in connection with the identified goods/services/collective membership organization. For a certification mark application: As of the application filing date, the applicant had a bona fide intention, and was entitled, to exercise legitimate control over the use of the mark in commerce by authorized users in connection with the identified goods/services, and the applicant will not engage in the production or marketing of the goods/services to which the mark is applied, except to advertise or promote recognition of the certification program or of the goods/services that meet the certification standards of the applicant.

Proposed:
Tracked Text Description: retail store services featuring beds, bed frames, bed bases, sofa beds, mattresses, mattress toppers, mattress covers, duvets, comforters, bed spreads and covers, blankets and sheets; retail store services featuring beds, bed frames, bed bases, sofa beds, pillows, mattresses, mattress toppers, mattress covers, duvets, comforters, bed spreads and covers, blankets and sheets; online retail store services featuring beds, bed frames, bed bases, sofa beds, mattresses, mattress toppers, mattress covers, duvets, comforters, bed spreads and covers, blankets and sheets; online retail store services featuring beds, bed frames, bed bases, sofa beds, pillows, mattresses, mattress toppers, mattress covers, duvets, comforters, bed spreads and covers, blankets and sheetsClass 035 for retail store services featuring beds, bed frames, bed bases, sofa beds, pillows, mattresses, mattress toppers, mattress covers, duvets, comforters, bed spreads and covers, blankets and sheets; online retail store services featuring beds, bed frames, bed bases, sofa beds, pillows, mattresses, mattress toppers, mattress covers, duvets, comforters, bed spreads and covers, blankets and sheets
Filing Basis: Section 1(b), Intent to Use: For a trademark or service mark application: As of the application filing date, the applicant had a bona fide intention, and was entitled, to use the mark in commerce on or in connection with the identified goods/services in the application. For a collective trademark, collective service mark, or collective membership mark application: As of the application filing date, the applicant had a bona fide intention, and was entitled, to exercise legitimate control over the use of the mark in commerce by members on or in connection with the identified goods/services/collective membership organization. For a certification mark application: As of the application filing date, the applicant had a bona fide intention, and was entitled, to exercise legitimate control over the use of the mark in commerce by authorized users in connection with the identified goods/services, and the applicant will not engage in the production or marketing of the goods/services to which the mark is applied, except to advertise or promote recognition of the certification program or of the goods/services that meet the certification standards of the applicant.

The applicant's current attorney information: Janice Housey. Janice Housey of SYMBUS LAW GROUP, LLC, is located at

      PO BOX 777
      BERRYVILLE, Virginia 22611
      US

The email address is jhousey@symbus.com

The applicants proposed attorney information: Janice Housey. Janice Housey of SYMBUS LAW GROUP, LLC, is a member of the XX bar, admitted to the bar in XXXX, bar membership no. XXX, is located at

      PO BOX 777
      BERRYVILLE, Virginia 22611
      United States

The email address is jhousey@symbus.com

Janice Housey submitted the following statement: The attorney of record is an active member in good standing of the bar of the highest court of a U.S. state, the District of Columbia, or any U.S. Commonwealth or territory.
The applicant's current correspondence information: JANICE HOUSEY. JANICE HOUSEY of SYMBUS LAW GROUP, LLC, is located at

      PO BOX 777
      BERRYVILLE, Virginia 22611
      US

The email address is jhousey@symbus.com

The applicants proposed correspondence information: Janice Housey. Janice Housey of SYMBUS LAW GROUP, LLC, is located at

      PO BOX 777
      BERRYVILLE, Virginia 22611
      United States

The email address is jhousey@symbus.com

SIGNATURE(S)
Response Signature
Signature: /Janice Housey/     Date: 08/23/2019
Signatory's Name: Janice Housey
Signatory's Position: Attorney of Record, VA State Bar Member

The signatory has confirmed that he/she is a U.S.-licensed attorney who is an active member in good standing of the bar of the highest court of a U.S. state (including the District of Columbia and any U.S. Commonwealth or territory); and he/she is currently the owner's/holder's attorney or an associate thereof; and to the best of his/her knowledge, if prior to his/her appointment another U.S.-licensed attorney not currently associated with his/her company/firm previously represented the owner/holder in this matter: the owner/holder has revoked their power of attorney by a signed revocation or substitute power of attorney with the USPTO; the USPTO has granted that attorney's withdrawal request; the owner/holder has filed a power of attorney appointing him/her in this matter; or the owner's/holder's appointed U.S.-licensed attorney has filed a power of attorney appointing him/her as an associate attorney in this matter.

Mailing Address:    JANICE HOUSEY
   SYMBUS LAW GROUP, LLC
   
   PO BOX 777
   BERRYVILLE, Virginia 22611
Mailing Address:    Janice Housey
   SYMBUS LAW GROUP, LLC
   PO BOX 777
   BERRYVILLE, Virginia 22611
        
Serial Number: 88353556
Internet Transmission Date: Fri Aug 23 17:50:25 EDT 2019
TEAS Stamp: USPTO/ROA-XX.XXX.XX.XX-20190823175025643
319-88353556-61034a65c91ec3c152d42ef576d
2d2a1075e425adb6e02f477b90656d3bc85d82-N
/A-N/A-20190823163031898672