| 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) |
| Input Field |
Entered |
|---|---|
| SERIAL NUMBER | 88366082 |
| LAW OFFICE ASSIGNED | LAW OFFICE 127 |
| MARK SECTION | |
| MARK | mark |
| LITERAL ELEMENT | CYBERSENSE |
| STANDARD CHARACTERS | YES |
| USPTO-GENERATED IMAGE | YES |
| MARK STATEMENT | The mark consists of standard characters, without claim to any particular font style, size or color. |
| ARGUMENT(S) | |
|
Office Action Response for Serial No. 88366082 Applicant, Index Engines Inc., (“Applicant”) is in receipt of the Office Action dated January 4, 2020, issued in connection with Applicant’s United States Trademark Application Serial No. 88366082 for the proposed trademark CYBERSENSE, (“Applicant’s Mark”). For the reasons set forth herein, Applicant respectfully requests the Trademark Examining Attorney Guarda (“Examiner”) reconsider and withdraw the Section 2(d) refusal. Examiner Teleconference Applicant thanks Examiner Guarda for the courtesies and cooperation extended to Applicant’s representatives during the telephonic interview held on June 24, 2020. Amendment to Identification of Goods Applicant hereby amends its identification of goods in International Class (IC) 009 to: “downloadable software for conducting real-time cyber security protection from ransomware attack by detecting data corruption, diagnosing attack vectors, and recovery by replacing corrupted data with a clean copy.” I. Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion Registration of Applicant’s Mark has been refused based on Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1052(d), on the grounds Applicant's Mark when used on or in connection with the specified goods, so resembles the mark in US Registration No. 4632428 (CYBERSENSE) (the “Cited Mark”), as to be likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive. In response, Applicant respectfully traverses the refusal. The fact that Applicant’s Mark and the Cited Mark are similar is not dispositive, in and of itself, in determining a likelihood of confusion. Rather, as the Examiner appreciates, there are a number of additional and important factors to consider. For example, in addition to comparing the goods and/or services to determine if they are related, or if the activities surrounding their marketing are such that confusion as to origin is likely or not, other factors, which must be considered when there is pertinent evidence on the record, include, but are not limited to:
See, e.g., du Pont, 476 F.2d at 1362-63, 177 USPQ at 568-69; In re Thor Tech, Inc., 113 USPQ2d 1546 (TTAB 2015); In re Davey Prods. Pty Ltd., 92 USPQ2d 1198, 1203-04 (TTAB 2009); In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d 1266, 1272-74 (TTAB 2009); Ass’n of the U.S. Army, 85 USPQ2d at 1271-73. Applicant contends no confusion exists for the reasons discussed herein. The Lanham Act supports refusal of registration based on confusion only where such confusion is likely. The fact that confusion may be possible will not support a finding of likelihood of confusion. In re Massey-Ferguson, Inc., 222 U.S.P.Q. 367, 368 (T.T.A.B. 1983), quoting Witco Chemical Co. v. Whiffield Chemical Co., 164 U.S.P.Q. 43 (C.C.P.A. 1969) (“[w]e are not concerned with mere theoretical possibilities of confusion, deception or mistake or with de minimus situations but with the practicalities of the commercial world, with which trademark laws deal”). Applicant submits careful analysis of these factors and as applied to the specific facts herein, which supports registration of Applicant’s Mark. Similarity of Applicant’s Goods and Cited Registration’s Services Applicant has amended its identification of goods to cover “downloadable software for conducting real-time cyber security protection from ransomware attack by detecting data corruption, diagnosing attack vectors, and recovery by replacing corrupted data with a clean copy.” The Cited Mark’s services cited by the Examiner are limited in scope to “Computer programming services; Computer services, namely, creating, maintaining, designing and implementing web sites for others; Web site design; Web site design consultancy.” The Cited Mark also includes additional “advertising and marketing” services in IC 035, which are not the basis for the Examiner’s 2(d) rejection. As evidenced by Exhibit A, obtained via the Cybersense Enterprises LLC (“CE”) website www.cybersense.com, the limitations of the Cited Mark are evident in CE’s company description of services set forth as follows: SERVICES Development
Consulting
Creative
Marketing
See Exhibit A. CE further highlights: Since 1997, CyberSense has helped companies grow their business and improve operations through our unique approach to ecommerce, custom development, and digital marketing. We have also helped companies improve their branding, messaging, and visual identity with the help of our sister branding and marketing firm, DesignWorks. At CyberSense, we think about web design and development a little differently than most. We don’t walk in with a solution in our pocket. Instead, our collaborative process begins with thorough analysis of all aspects of your business – from workflows to audience deep-dives. And in partnership with our sister company, DesignWorks, we can include a full marketing and branding assessment as well. Once we have a thorough understanding of your audience, current systems and processes, and short- and long-term goals we provide detailed recommendations for the technologies, integrations and omnichannel brand and marketing solutions that will transform your business and position it for exponential growth. See Exhibit A. In short, Applicant’s goods comprise cybersecurity software, which is clearly distinct from the related services of the Cited Mark. Applicant respectfully contends Applicant’s Mark and associated goods, in comparison to those services of the Cited Mark, are highly specialized having different uses and methods of applicability so to avoid a likelihood of confusion. Channels of Trade While the Examiner opines the respective channels of trade are analogous, as Applicant submits above, the goods sold under Applicant’s Mark are entirely different from the services associated with the Cited Mark. As such, there would be no likelihood of confusion between the sources of goods of Applicant’s Mark and the services related to the Cited Mark. Simply because the goods in question involve computer software does not per se require a finding of a likelihood of confusion. In re Quadram Corp., 228 U.S.P.Q. 863 (TTAB 1985); Information Resources v. X*Press Information, 6 U.S.P.Q. 2d 937 (TTAB 1983). A comparison of Applicant’s Mark’s goods and the Cited Mark’s services clearly point to two distinct channels of trade. While the Cited Mark’s services are directed to the general public, Applicant’s Mark’s goods are related to enterprise-type software and the clientele or consumer is best described as sophisticated business to business (“B to B”) partners, and, as such, notably distinct. More specifically as noted on Applicant’s website: Index Engines clients range from small data environments that manage terabytes of content to global firms that support complex data environments measured in petabytes. Deployments include everything from data minimization, legacy backup catalog and data consolidation, to governance readiness, Index Engines provides the foundation for finding, reporting and managing the disposition of user-generated content. Other tools may claim to do some of what Index Engines can do, but only Index Engines was purpose built and designed to support large complex data centers. At Index Engines we know that architecture matters, and our clients have seen the benefits of this when we are asked to solve challenges others could not. See Exhibit B. Based upon the aforementioned factors and Applicant’s Mark’s goods as amended, there is no conflict between the respective channels of trade so as to cause a likelihood of confusion. Class of Purchasers Applicant also contends where the relevant class of purchasers is composed of professional or commercial purchasers, it is reasonable to assume such buyers are capable of a higher degree of discrimination when faced with similar marks. McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 23:101 (4th ed.); Checkpoint Sys., Inc. v. Check Point Software Technologies, Inc., 269 F.3d 270, 283 (3d Cir. 2001); Sunbeam Lighting Co. v. Sunbeam Corp., 183 F.2d 969, 972 (9th Cir. 1950), cert. denied, 340 U.S. 920 (1951). In other words, the purchase of Applicant’s goods are by sophisticated purchasers, e.g., information management managers, who exercise extra care with regards to purchasing such goods. In re N.A.D. Inc., 224 U.S.P.Q. 969, 971 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Ship, 4 U.S.P.Q.2d 1174, 1176 (TTAB 1987). Since Applicant’s goods are only purchased by sophisticated purchasers, the purchaser will take great care before making its purchase. The high degree of attention connected to this type of purchase by a consumer of this caliber, evidences an additional reason against the finding of a likelihood of confusion. As such, Applicant requests the Examiner reconsider and withdraw the Section 2(d) refusal. II. Specimen Refusal Registration has been refused on the contention the specimen in IC 009 has failed to show the applied for mark in use in commerce for that international class. In accordance with the Examiner’s request and in conjunction with T.M.E.P. 904.03(j), Applicant submits an excerpt from the Index Engines User Guide showing the CYBERSENSE trademark in association with the noted goods. Applicant requests the Examiner reconsider and withdraw the Specimen refusal. III. Conclusion Based on the afore noted factors, Applicant respectfully contends it has responded to all outstanding issues set forth in the subject Office Action of January 4, 2020. As such, Applicant requests the Examiner reconsider and withdraw the rejections therein allowing the within application to proceed to publication. |
|
| EVIDENCE SECTION | |
| EVIDENCE FILE NAME(S) |
\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\883\660\88366082\xml2 \ ROA0002.JPG |
| \\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\883\660\88366082\xml2 \ ROA0003.JPG | |
| \\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\883\660\88366082\xml2 \ ROA0004.JPG | |
| DESCRIPTION OF EVIDENCE FILE | Exhibit A are excerpts of Cybersense Enterprises LLC's website www.cybersense.com; Exhibit B are excerpts of Applicants website www.indexengines.com. |
| GOODS AND/OR SERVICES SECTION (current) | |
| INTERNATIONAL CLASS | 009 |
| DESCRIPTION | |
| Downloadable software for conducting real-time cyber security protection by detecting data corruption, diagnosing attack vectors, and recovery by replacing corrupted data with a clean copy | |
| FILING BASIS | Section 1(a) |
| FIRST USE ANYWHERE DATE | At least as early as 04/20/2018 |
| FIRST USE IN COMMERCE DATE | At least as early as 04/20/2018 |
| GOODS AND/OR SERVICES SECTION (proposed) | |
| INTERNATIONAL CLASS | 009 |
| TRACKED TEXT DESCRIPTION | |
| FINAL DESCRIPTION | |
| Downloadable software for conducting real-time cyber security protection from ransomware attack by detecting data corruption, diagnosing attack vectors, and recovery by replacing corrupted data with a clean copy | |
| FILING BASIS | Section 1(a) |
| FIRST USE ANYWHERE DATE | At least as early as 04/20/2018 |
| FIRST USE IN COMMERCE DATE | At least as early as 04/20/2018 |
| STATEMENT TYPE | "The substitute (or new, or originally submitted, if appropriate) specimen(s) was/were in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application"[for an application based on Section 1(a), Use in Commerce] OR "The substitute (or new, or originally submitted, if appropriate) specimen(s) was/were in use in commerce prior either to the filing of the Amendment to Allege Use or expiration of the filing deadline for filing a Statement of Use" [for an application based on Section 1(b) Intent-to-Use]. OR "The attached specimen is a true copy of the specimen that was originally submitted with the application, amendment to allege use, or statement of use" [for an illegible specimen]. |
| SPECIMEN FILE NAME(S) | |
| ORIGINAL PDF FILE | SPU0-38122245210-20200701 112123843292_._IE002_Spec imen.pdf |
| CONVERTED PDF FILE(S) (3 pages) |
\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\883\660\88366082\xml2\ ROA0005.JPG |
| \\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\883\660\88366082\xml2\ ROA0006.JPG | |
| \\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\883\660\88366082\xml2\ ROA0007.JPG | |
| SPECIMEN DESCRIPTION | Excerpt from Applicant's User Guide showing Applicant's mark CYBERSENSE and associated goods. |
| CORRESPONDENCE INFORMATION (current) | |
| NAME | John Maldjian |
| PRIMARY EMAIL ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE | jmaldjian@mlgiplaw.com |
| SECONDARY EMAIL ADDRESS(ES) (COURTESY COPIES) | lbianco@mlgiplaw.com; mlgdocketing@mlgiplaw.com |
| DOCKET/REFERENCE NUMBER | IE002 |
| CORRESPONDENCE INFORMATION (proposed) | |
| NAME | John Maldjian |
| PRIMARY EMAIL ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE | jmaldjian@mlgiplaw.com |
| SECONDARY EMAIL ADDRESS(ES) (COURTESY COPIES) | lbianco@mlgiplaw.com; mlgdocketing@mlgiplaw.com |
| DOCKET/REFERENCE NUMBER | IE002 |
| SIGNATURE SECTION | |
| DECLARATION SIGNATURE | /John Maldjian/ |
| SIGNATORY'S NAME | John Maldjian |
| SIGNATORY'S POSITION | Attorney of record, New Jersey Bar member |
| SIGNATORY'S PHONE NUMBER | 7328891311 |
| DATE SIGNED | 07/01/2020 |
| RESPONSE SIGNATURE | /John Maldjian/ |
| SIGNATORY'S NAME | John Maldjian |
| SIGNATORY'S POSITION | Attorney of record, New Jersey Bar member |
| SIGNATORY'S PHONE NUMBER | 7328891311 |
| DATE SIGNED | 07/01/2020 |
| AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY | YES |
| FILING INFORMATION SECTION | |
| SUBMIT DATE | Wed Jul 01 11:41:12 ET 2020 |
| TEAS STAMP | USPTO/ROA-XX.XXX.XXX.XXX- 20200701114112094570-8836 6082-710acb6a6f7efadc2463 fe9c8ed8876a86e5de56d92bd 1c67a7fb6c084b9565daa-N/A -N/A-20200701112123843292 |
| 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) |
Office Action Response for Serial No. 88366082
Applicant, Index Engines Inc., (“Applicant”) is in receipt of the Office Action dated January 4, 2020, issued in connection with Applicant’s United States Trademark Application Serial No. 88366082 for the proposed trademark CYBERSENSE, (“Applicant’s Mark”). For the reasons set forth herein, Applicant respectfully requests the Trademark Examining Attorney Guarda (“Examiner”) reconsider and withdraw the Section 2(d) refusal.
Examiner Teleconference
Applicant thanks Examiner Guarda for the courtesies and cooperation extended to Applicant’s representatives during the telephonic interview held on June 24, 2020.
Amendment to Identification of Goods
Applicant hereby amends its identification of goods in International Class (IC) 009 to:
“downloadable software for conducting real-time cyber security protection from ransomware attack by detecting data corruption, diagnosing attack vectors, and recovery by replacing corrupted data with a clean copy.”
I. Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion
Registration of Applicant’s Mark has been refused based on Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1052(d), on the grounds Applicant's Mark when used on or in connection with the specified goods, so resembles the mark in US Registration No. 4632428 (CYBERSENSE) (the “Cited Mark”), as to be likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive. In response, Applicant respectfully traverses the refusal.
The fact that Applicant’s Mark and the Cited Mark are similar is not dispositive, in and of itself, in determining a likelihood of confusion. Rather, as the Examiner appreciates, there are a number of additional and important factors to consider. For example, in addition to comparing the goods and/or services to determine if they are related, or if the activities surrounding their marketing are such that confusion as to origin is likely or not, other factors, which must be considered when there is pertinent evidence on the record, include, but are not limited to:
The similarity or dissimilarity of established, likely-to-continue trade channels; and
The conditions under which, and buyers to whom, sales are made, i.e., "impulse" vs. careful, sophisticated purchasing.
See, e.g., du Pont, 476 F.2d at 1362-63, 177 USPQ at 568-69; In re Thor Tech, Inc., 113 USPQ2d 1546 (TTAB 2015); In re Davey Prods. Pty Ltd., 92 USPQ2d 1198, 1203-04 (TTAB 2009); In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d 1266, 1272-74 (TTAB 2009); Ass’n of the U.S. Army, 85 USPQ2d at 1271-73. Applicant contends no confusion exists for the reasons discussed herein.
The Lanham Act supports refusal of registration based on confusion only where such confusion is likely. The fact that confusion may be possible will not support a finding of likelihood of confusion. In re Massey-Ferguson, Inc., 222 U.S.P.Q. 367, 368 (T.T.A.B. 1983), quoting Witco Chemical Co. v. Whiffield Chemical Co., 164 U.S.P.Q. 43 (C.C.P.A. 1969) (“[w]e are not concerned with mere theoretical possibilities of confusion, deception or mistake or with de minimus situations but with the practicalities of the commercial world, with which trademark laws deal”). Applicant submits careful analysis of these factors and as applied to the specific facts herein, which supports registration of Applicant’s Mark.
Similarity of Applicant’s Goods and Cited Registration’s Services
Applicant has amended its identification of goods to cover “downloadable software for conducting real-time cyber security protection from ransomware attack by detecting data corruption, diagnosing attack vectors, and recovery by replacing corrupted data with a clean copy.” The Cited Mark’s services cited by the Examiner are limited in scope to “Computer programming services; Computer services, namely, creating, maintaining, designing and implementing web sites for others; Web site design; Web site design consultancy.” The Cited Mark also includes additional “advertising and marketing” services in IC 035, which are not the basis for the Examiner’s 2(d) rejection.
As evidenced by Exhibit A, obtained via the Cybersense Enterprises LLC (“CE”) website www.cybersense.com, the limitations of the Cited Mark are evident in CE’s company description of services set forth as follows:
SERVICES
Development
Consulting
Creative
Marketing
See Exhibit A.
CE further highlights:
Since 1997, CyberSense has helped companies grow their business and improve operations through our unique approach to ecommerce, custom development, and digital marketing. We have also helped companies improve their branding, messaging, and visual identity with the help of our sister branding and marketing firm, DesignWorks.
At CyberSense, we think about web design and development a little differently than most. We don’t walk in with a solution in our pocket. Instead, our collaborative process begins with thorough analysis of all aspects of your business – from workflows to audience deep-dives. And in partnership with our sister company, DesignWorks, we can include a full marketing and branding assessment as well.
Once we have a thorough understanding of your audience, current systems and processes, and short- and long-term goals we provide detailed recommendations for the technologies, integrations and omnichannel brand and marketing solutions that will transform your business and position it for exponential growth.
See Exhibit A.
In short, Applicant’s goods comprise cybersecurity software, which is clearly distinct from the related services of the Cited Mark. Applicant respectfully contends Applicant’s Mark and associated goods, in comparison to those services of the Cited Mark, are highly specialized having different uses and methods of applicability so to avoid a likelihood of confusion.
Channels of Trade
While the Examiner opines the respective channels of trade are analogous, as Applicant submits above, the goods sold under Applicant’s Mark are entirely different from the services associated with the Cited Mark. As such, there would be no likelihood of confusion between the sources of goods of Applicant’s Mark and the services related to the Cited Mark. Simply because the goods in question involve computer software does not per se require a finding of a likelihood of confusion. In re Quadram Corp., 228 U.S.P.Q. 863 (TTAB 1985); Information Resources v. X*Press Information, 6 U.S.P.Q. 2d 937 (TTAB 1983). A comparison of Applicant’s Mark’s goods and the Cited Mark’s services clearly point to two distinct channels of trade. While the Cited Mark’s services are directed to the general public, Applicant’s Mark’s goods are related to enterprise-type software and the clientele or consumer is best described as sophisticated business to business (“B to B”) partners, and, as such, notably distinct. More specifically as noted on Applicant’s website:
Index Engines clients range from small data environments that manage terabytes of content to global firms that support complex data environments measured in petabytes. Deployments include everything from data minimization, legacy backup catalog and data consolidation, to governance readiness, Index Engines provides the foundation for finding, reporting and managing the disposition of user-generated content.
Other tools may claim to do some of what Index Engines can do, but only Index Engines was purpose built and designed to support large complex data centers. At Index Engines we know that architecture matters, and our clients have seen the benefits of this when we are asked to solve challenges others could not.
See Exhibit B.
Based upon the aforementioned factors and Applicant’s Mark’s goods as amended, there is no conflict between the respective channels of trade so as to cause a likelihood of confusion.
Class of Purchasers
Applicant also contends where the relevant class of purchasers is composed of professional or commercial purchasers, it is reasonable to assume such buyers are capable of a higher degree of discrimination when faced with similar marks. McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 23:101 (4th ed.); Checkpoint Sys., Inc. v. Check Point Software Technologies, Inc., 269 F.3d 270, 283 (3d Cir. 2001); Sunbeam Lighting Co. v. Sunbeam Corp., 183 F.2d 969, 972 (9th Cir. 1950), cert. denied, 340 U.S. 920 (1951). In other words, the purchase of Applicant’s goods are by sophisticated purchasers, e.g., information management managers, who exercise extra care with regards to purchasing such goods. In re N.A.D. Inc., 224 U.S.P.Q. 969, 971 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Ship, 4 U.S.P.Q.2d 1174, 1176 (TTAB 1987). Since Applicant’s goods are only purchased by sophisticated purchasers, the purchaser will take great care before making its purchase. The high degree of attention connected to this type of purchase by a consumer of this caliber, evidences an additional reason against the finding of a likelihood of confusion. As such, Applicant requests the Examiner reconsider and withdraw the Section 2(d) refusal.
II. Specimen Refusal
Registration has been refused on the contention the specimen in IC 009 has failed to show the applied for mark in use in commerce for that international class. In accordance with the Examiner’s request and in conjunction with T.M.E.P. 904.03(j), Applicant submits an excerpt from the Index Engines User Guide showing the CYBERSENSE trademark in association with the noted goods. Applicant requests the Examiner reconsider and withdraw the Specimen refusal.
III. Conclusion
Based on the afore noted factors, Applicant respectfully contends it has responded to all outstanding issues set forth in the subject Office Action of January 4, 2020. As such, Applicant requests the Examiner reconsider and withdraw the rejections therein allowing the within application to proceed to publication.
DECLARATION: The signatory being warned that willful false statements and the like are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, and that such willful false statements and the like may jeopardize the validity of the application or submission or any registration resulting therefrom, declares that, if the applicant submitted the application or allegation of use (AOU) unsigned, all statements in the application or AOU and this submission based on the signatory's own knowledge are true, and all statements in the application or AOU and this submission made on information and belief are believed to be true.
STATEMENTS FOR UNSIGNED SECTION 1(a) APPLICATION/AOU: If the applicant filed an unsigned application under 15 U.S.C. §1051(a) or AOU under 15 U.S.C. §1051(c), the signatory additionally believes that: the applicant is the owner of the mark sought to be registered; the mark is in use in commerce and was in use in commerce as of the filing date of the application or AOU on or in connection with the goods/services/collective membership organization in the application or AOU; the original specimen(s), if applicable, shows the mark in use in commerce as of the filing date of the application or AOU on or in connection with the goods/services/collective membership organization in the application or AOU; for a collective trademark, collective service mark, collective membership mark application, or certification mark application, the applicant is exercising legitimate control over the use of the mark in commerce and was exercising legitimate control over the use of the mark in commerce as of the filing date of the application or AOU; for a certification mark application, the applicant is not engaged 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. To the best of the signatory's knowledge and belief, no other persons, except, if applicable, authorized users, members, and/or concurrent users, have the right to use the mark in commerce, either in the identical form or in such near resemblance as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods/services/collective membership organization of such other persons, to cause confusion or mistake, or to deceive.
STATEMENTS FOR UNSIGNED SECTION 1(b)/SECTION 44 APPLICATION AND FOR SECTION 66(a) COLLECTIVE/CERTIFICATION MARK APPLICATION: If the applicant filed an unsigned application under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051(b), 1126(d), and/or 1126(e), or filed a collective/certification mark application under 15 U.S.C. §1141f(a), the signatory additionally believes that: for a trademark or service mark application, the applicant is entitled to use the mark in commerce on or in connection with the goods/services specified in the application; the applicant has a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce and had a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce as of the application filing date; for a collective trademark, collective service mark, collective membership mark, or certification mark application, the applicant has a bona fide intention, and is entitled, to exercise legitimate control over the use of the mark in commerce and had a bona fide intention, and was entitled, to exercise legitimate control over the use of the mark in commerce as of the application filing date; the signatory is properly authorized to execute the declaration on behalf of the applicant; for a certification mark application, 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. To the best of the signatory's knowledge and belief, no other persons, except, if applicable, authorized users, members, and/or concurrent users, have the right to use the mark in commerce, either in the identical form or in such near resemblance as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods/services/collective membership organization of such other persons, to cause confusion or mistake, or to deceive.
