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 | 88388277 |
LAW OFFICE ASSIGNED | LAW OFFICE 114 |
MARK SECTION | |
MARK FILE NAME | http://uspto.report/TM/88388277/mark.png |
LITERAL ELEMENT | SEV |
STANDARD CHARACTERS | NO |
USPTO-GENERATED IMAGE | NO |
COLOR(S) CLAIMED (If applicable) |
Color is not claimed as a feature of the mark. |
DESCRIPTION OF THE MARK (and Color Location, if applicable) |
The mark consists of the stylized letters "SEV". |
ARGUMENT(S) | |
In the Official Action, the Examiner has initially refused registration on the Principal Register because of the alleged "merely descriptive" nature of Applicant's mark. Applicant respectfully contends that not only did the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office fail to meet its burden of showing by clear evidence that Applicant's mark is primarily merely descriptive, but that Applicant's mark is, in fact, not primarily merely descriptive. See In re Pennzoil Products Co., 20 USPQ2d 1753, 1758 (TTAB 1991). "There is a thin line between a suggestive and a merely descriptive designation, and where reasonable men may differ, it is the Board's practice to resolve the doubt in applicant's favor and publish the mark for opposition." In re Intelligent Medical Systems Inc., 5 USPQ2d 1674, 16765 (TTAB 1987); In re Aid Laboratories, Inc., 221 USPQ 1215, 1216 (TTAB 1983); In re Gourmet Bakers, Inc., 173 USPQ 565, 565 (TTAB 1972). In order to reject the subject application, the Examiner must submit "clear evidence" that Applicant's mark, as a whole, is descriptive in relation to the goods contained in the application. A mark is descriptive if it "forthwith conveys an immediate idea of the ingredients, qualities or characteristics of the goods [and/or services]." Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Hunting World, Inc., 537 F.2d 4, 189 USPQ 759, 765 (2d Cir. 1976) (emphasis added); see In re Abcor Development Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 200 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1978). In this case, Applicant's mark is incongruous, susceptible to multiple connotations, or requires imagination, cogitation or gathering of further information in order for the relevant public to perceive any significance of the mark as it relates to a significant aspect of the Applicant's goods. Furthermore, the Examiner has made no argument and has included no evidence as to how a consumer would perceive Applicant's mark, as a whole, as it is used on the goods in International Classes 29. Quite simply, the mark "SEV (Stylized)" does not describe the Applicant's goods, nor does it describe an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose or use of the relevant goods. See TMEP §1209.01(b). The relevant public could not possibly infer from the mark alone that the mark is for these goods. I. THE MARK IS NOT MERELY DESCRIPTIVE OF THE GOODS. Applicant first notes that the interpretation suggested by the Examiner for the term "SEV (Stylized)" is wholly unfounded. In the Official Action, the Examiner has suggested that the term "SEV" refers to "[a]n Indian snack consisting of long, thin strands of gram flour, deep-fried and spiced". The only citations made by the Examiner in the Office Action to support such a meaning are found on the "Lexico" and "Nuts.com" websites. See [Attachments to Official Action]. The Lexico and Nuts.com references are hardly authoritative sources on the meaning of the term. Instead, the dictionary would be a more appropriate source to find the English meaning of a term. The dictionary contains no such definition for the term "SEV". See [Exhibit A: Merrriam-Webster Dictionary definition of the term "SEV"]. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary only suggests that the term "SEV" may be an abbreviated form of the word "SEVERAL". Id. The Examiner fails to recognize that the term "SEV" will likely be translated from Turkish into English as "love/like" and/or "to love/to like." Applicant is a Türk limited sirket (tls) of Turkey, and so it makes sense that consumers who encounter Applicant's mark will stop and translate the mark from Turkish into English. The term "SEVMEK" is a verb form of the word "SEV". And, as elucideated by the SesliSozluk Turkish to English translator, "SEV" means "love," "loved," and "loving." See [Exhibit B: http://www.seslisozluk.net/en/what-is-the-meaning-of-sev/]. The Dict.com online translator confirms this translation, illuminating that "SEV" has meanings of "like," "be fond of," "love," and "be in love with." See [Exhibit C: http://www.dict.com/turkish-english/sev]. With this background in mind, is unlikely that consumers would readily ascertain a descriptive meaning of "SEV (Stylized)" mark, the Applicant's meats, fish, pulses, olive-based foods, fruits and vegetables, nuts, hazelnut and peanut pastes, tahini, eggs, coffee, cocoa, chocolate based products, past, dumplings, noodles, bstarch, sugar, tea, confectionery, gum, ice cream, salts, and molasses related food products in Classes 29 and 30. Applicant is a Turkish entity, and Applicant's mark consists of a Turkish word that has translations and meanings pertaining to "liking" and "loving." As evidenced above, the mark will likely be translated from Turkish into English as "love/like" and/or "to love/to like." When used in association with Applicant's wide variety of food products in Classes 29 and 30, a prospective consumer could not possibly ascertain the goods sold under Applicant's mark simply by viewing the mark. Applicant's mark is simply not a common descriptive phrase used in today's lexicon and, as a whole, does not identify any type of feature or characteristic of Applicant's goods. See TMEP §1209.01(b); In re Disc Jockeys Inc., 23 USPQ2d 1715, 1716 (TTAB 1992), citing In re Uniroyal, Inc., 215 USPQ 716 (TTAB 1982). The evidence attached to the Official Action is not "clear evidence" that Applicant's mark is descriptive in relation to the goods contained in its application, descriptive in relation to the context in which the mark is intended to be used on such goods and services, and descriptive in relation to the impact, or significance, that the mark is likely to make on the average purchaser of such goods and services. See TMEP 1209.01(b). The evidence attached to the Official Action fails to show a relationship between the "SEV (Stylized)" mark and the goods identified in the application. Moreover, Applicant's mark is a suggestive mark that exists when the consumer's imagination, thought or perception is required and the mark does not merely describe the listed services. In re Atavio Inc., 25 USPQ2d 1361, 1362 (TTAB 1992) (explaining that a mark "which is only suggestive requires some imagination, thought or perception to determine its meaning in relation to the goods."); In re WSI Corporation, 1 U.S.P.Q.2d 1570, 1572 (TTAB 1986) ("Where such imagination or forethought is required to reach a conclusion as to the nature of a key characteristic of goods or services, a mark must be determined to be suggestive and not descriptive."); The Institut National Des Appellations D’Origine v. Vintners International Co. Inc., 22 USPQ 1190 (Fed Cir 1992). Other similar cases in which a mark was found to be suggestive rather than descriptive include: "RAPID-SHAVE" for shaving cream; Colgate-Palmolive Co. v. House for Men, Inc., 143 U.S.P.Q. 159 (TTAB 1964); "FRUIT SUNDAE" for yogurt; Johnston Foods, Inc. v. Carnation Co., 159 U.S.P.Q. 624 (TTAB 1968); "SUGAR & SPICE" for bakery products; In re Colonial Stores, Inc., 394 F.2d 549, 157 U.S.P.Q. 382 (CCPA 1968); "BIASTEEL" for steel belted bias tires; Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 186 U.S.P.Q. 557 (TTAB 1975), aff'd, 189 USPQ 348 (CCPA. 1976); and "ACTION SLACKS" for pants; Levi Strauss & Co. v. R. Josephs Sportswear, 28 U.S.P.Q.2d 1464 (TTAB 1993). For these reasons, Applicant respectfully requests that the present mark is passed to publication at an early date. II. CONCLUSION The mark "SEV (Stylized)" could convey to the ordinary consumer a variety of meanings, because it is suggestive as applied to the goods in the application. For this reason, Applicant respectfully contends that the present mark should not be refused because of "mere descriptiveness." Applicant notes that the Examining Attorney has searched the Office records and has found no similar registered or pending mark which would bar registration under the Trademark Act. As such, Applicant respectfully requests that the present mark be passed to publication at an early date. |
|
EVIDENCE SECTION | |
EVIDENCE FILE NAME(S) | |
ORIGINAL PDF FILE | evi_5078217165-20191112153609203278_._4162-5_OA_Response_Exhibits.pdf |
CONVERTED PDF FILE(S) (6 pages) |
\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\883\882\88388277\xml3\ROA0002.JPG |
\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\883\882\88388277\xml3\ROA0003.JPG | |
\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\883\882\88388277\xml3\ROA0004.JPG | |
\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\883\882\88388277\xml3\ROA0005.JPG | |
\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\883\882\88388277\xml3\ROA0006.JPG | |
\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\883\882\88388277\xml3\ROA0007.JPG | |
DESCRIPTION OF EVIDENCE FILE | Exhibit A: Merrriam-Webster Dictionary definition of the term "SEV"; Exhibit B: http://www.seslisozluk.net/en/what-is-the-meaning-of-sev/; Exhibit C: http://www.dict.com/turkish-english/sev |
GOODS AND/OR SERVICES SECTION (029)(current) | |
INTERNATIONAL CLASS | 029 |
DESCRIPTION | |
Meat, fish, poultry and game; processed foodstuff based on meat, dried pulses, soups, bouillon, processed olives, olive paste, milk and milk products, butter, edible oils; dried, crisped, preserved, frozen, cooked, smoked or salted fruits and vegetables; pollen prepared as foodstuff, prepared nuts and dried fruits as snacks, hazelnut and peanut paste, tahini (sesame seed paste), eggs and powdered eggs | |
FILING BASIS | Section 1(b) |
GOODS AND/OR SERVICES SECTION (029)(proposed) | |
INTERNATIONAL CLASS | 029 |
TRACKED TEXT DESCRIPTION | |
FINAL DESCRIPTION | |
Meat, fish, poultry and game, not live; pre-packaged processed meals consisting primarily of meat, dried pulses, and/or soups, and also containing bouillon, processed olives, olive paste, milk and milk products excluding ice cream, ice milk, and frozen yogurt, butter, edible oils; dried, crisped, preserved, frozen, cooked, smoked or salted fruits and vegetables; pollen prepared as foodstuff, prepared nuts and dried fruits as snacks, hazelnut and peanut paste, tahini (sesame seed paste), eggs and powdered eggs | |
FILING BASIS | Section 1(b) |
GOODS AND/OR SERVICES SECTION (030)(current) | |
INTERNATIONAL CLASS | 030 |
DESCRIPTION | |
Coffee, cocoa; coffee or cocoa based beverages, chocolate based beverages, pasta, stuffed dumplings, noodles, pastries and bakery products based on flour, desserts based on flour and chocolate, honey, bee glue for human consumption, propolis for food purposes, spices and condiments for foodstuff, yeast, baking powder, flour, semolina, starch for food, sugar, cube sugar, powdered sugar, tea, ice tea, confectionery, chocolate, biscuits, crackers, wafers, chewing gums, ice-cream, edible ices, salt, cereals and cereal-based foodstuff, molasses for food | |
FILING BASIS | Section 1(b) |
GOODS AND/OR SERVICES SECTION (030)(proposed) | |
INTERNATIONAL CLASS | 030 |
TRACKED TEXT DESCRIPTION | |
Coffee, cocoa; |
|
FINAL DESCRIPTION | |
Coffee, cocoa; coffee or cocoa based beverages, chocolate based beverages, pasta, stuffed dumplings, noodles, pastries and bakery products based on flour, bakery desserts based on flour and chocolate, honey, bee glue for human consumption, propolis for food purposes, spices for foodstuff; condiments for foodstuff, namely, pepper sauce; yeast, baking powder, flour, processed semolina, starch for food, sugar, cube sugar, powdered sugar, tea, ice tea; confectionery, namely, confectionery made of sugar; chocolate, biscuits, crackers, wafers, chewing gums, ice-cream, edible ices, salt; processed cereals and cereal-based foodstuff in the nature of cereal-based snack foods; molasses for food | |
FILING BASIS | Section 1(b) |
ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS SECTION | |
TRANSLATION | The English translation of "SEV" in the mark is "love", "like", "to love", "to like". |
ATTORNEY SECTION (current) | |
NAME | John S. Egbert |
ATTORNEY BAR MEMBERSHIP NUMBER | NOT SPECIFIED |
YEAR OF ADMISSION | NOT SPECIFIED |
U.S. STATE/ COMMONWEALTH/ TERRITORY | NOT SPECIFIED |
FIRM NAME | EGBERT, MCDANIEL & SWARTZ, PLLC |
STREET | 1001 TEXAS AVE., SUITE 1250 |
CITY | HOUSTON |
STATE | Texas |
POSTAL CODE | 77002 |
COUNTRY | US |
PHONE | 713-224-8080 |
FAX | 713-223-4873 |
mail@emsip.com | |
AUTHORIZED TO COMMUNICATE VIA EMAIL | Yes |
DOCKET/REFERENCE NUMBER | 4162-5 |
ATTORNEY SECTION (proposed) | |
NAME | John S. Egbert |
ATTORNEY BAR MEMBERSHIP NUMBER | XXX |
YEAR OF ADMISSION | XXXX |
U.S. STATE/ COMMONWEALTH/ TERRITORY | XX |
FIRM NAME | EGBERT, MCDANIEL & SWARTZ, PLLC |
STREET | 1001 TEXAS AVE., SUITE 1250 |
CITY | HOUSTON |
STATE | Texas |
POSTAL CODE | 77002 |
COUNTRY | United States |
PHONE | 713-224-8080 |
FAX | 713-223-4873 |
mail@emsip.com | |
AUTHORIZED TO COMMUNICATE VIA EMAIL | Yes |
DOCKET/REFERENCE NUMBER | 4162-5 |
OTHER APPOINTED ATTORNEY | Michael F. Swartz, Kevin S. Wilson |
CORRESPONDENCE SECTION (current) | |
NAME | JOHN S. EGBERT |
FIRM NAME | EGBERT, MCDANIEL & SWARTZ, PLLC |
STREET | 1001 TEXAS AVE., SUITE 1250 |
CITY | HOUSTON |
STATE | Texas |
POSTAL CODE | 77002 |
COUNTRY | US |
PHONE | 713-224-8080 |
FAX | 713-223-4873 |
mail@emsip.com; USPTO@dockettrak.com | |
AUTHORIZED TO COMMUNICATE VIA EMAIL | Yes |
DOCKET/REFERENCE NUMBER | 4162-5 |
CORRESPONDENCE SECTION (proposed) | |
NAME | John S. Egbert |
FIRM NAME | EGBERT, MCDANIEL & SWARTZ, PLLC |
STREET | 1001 TEXAS AVE., SUITE 1250 |
CITY | HOUSTON |
STATE | Texas |
POSTAL CODE | 77002 |
COUNTRY | United States |
PHONE | 713-224-8080 |
FAX | 713-223-4873 |
mail@emsip.com | |
AUTHORIZED TO COMMUNICATE VIA EMAIL | Yes |
DOCKET/REFERENCE NUMBER | 4162-5 |
PAYMENT SECTION | |
NUMBER OF CLASSES | 1 |
APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION PER CLASS | 275 |
TOTAL FEES DUE | 275 |
SIGNATURE SECTION | |
DECLARATION SIGNATURE | /4162-5/ |
SIGNATORY'S NAME | Michael F. Swartz |
SIGNATORY'S POSITION | Attorney of record, Texas bar member |
SIGNATORY'S PHONE NUMBER | 713-224-8080 |
DATE SIGNED | 11/12/2019 |
RESPONSE SIGNATURE | /4162-5/ |
SIGNATORY'S NAME | Michael F. Swartz |
SIGNATORY'S POSITION | Attorney of record, Texas bar member |
SIGNATORY'S PHONE NUMBER | 713-224-8080 |
DATE SIGNED | 11/12/2019 |
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY | YES |
FILING INFORMATION SECTION | |
SUBMIT DATE | Tue Nov 12 15:43:26 EST 2019 |
TEAS STAMP | USPTO/ROA-XX.XX.XXX.XXX-2 0191112154326606557-88388 277-7007247b736d6f95ea8a6 410663076fa62e52be16acc4d 6b2b657bb32b53426df-CC-43 240145-201911121536092032 78 |
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) |
In the Official Action, the Examiner has initially refused registration on the Principal Register because of the alleged "merely descriptive" nature of Applicant's mark. Applicant respectfully contends that not only did the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office fail to meet its burden of showing by clear evidence that Applicant's mark is primarily merely descriptive, but that Applicant's mark is, in fact, not primarily merely descriptive. See In re Pennzoil Products Co., 20 USPQ2d 1753, 1758 (TTAB 1991). "There is a thin line between a suggestive and a merely descriptive designation, and where reasonable men may differ, it is the Board's practice to resolve the doubt in applicant's favor and publish the mark for opposition." In re Intelligent Medical Systems Inc., 5 USPQ2d 1674, 16765 (TTAB 1987); In re Aid Laboratories, Inc., 221 USPQ 1215, 1216 (TTAB 1983); In re Gourmet Bakers, Inc., 173 USPQ 565, 565 (TTAB 1972).
In order to reject the subject application, the Examiner must submit "clear evidence" that Applicant's mark, as a whole, is descriptive in relation to the goods contained in the application. A mark is descriptive if it "forthwith conveys an immediate idea of the ingredients, qualities or characteristics of the goods [and/or services]." Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Hunting World, Inc., 537 F.2d 4, 189 USPQ 759, 765 (2d Cir. 1976) (emphasis added); see In re Abcor Development Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 200 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1978). In this case, Applicant's mark is incongruous, susceptible to multiple connotations, or requires imagination, cogitation or gathering of further information in order for the relevant public to perceive any significance of the mark as it relates to a significant aspect of the Applicant's goods. Furthermore, the Examiner has made no argument and has included no evidence as to how a consumer would perceive Applicant's mark, as a whole, as it is used on the goods in International Classes 29. Quite simply, the mark "SEV (Stylized)" does not describe the Applicant's goods, nor does it describe an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose or use of the relevant goods. See TMEP §1209.01(b). The relevant public could not possibly infer from the mark alone that the mark is for these goods.
I. THE MARK IS NOT MERELY DESCRIPTIVE OF THE GOODS.
Applicant first notes that the interpretation suggested by the Examiner for the term "SEV (Stylized)" is wholly unfounded. In the Official Action, the Examiner has suggested that the term "SEV" refers to "[a]n Indian snack consisting of long, thin strands of gram flour, deep-fried and spiced". The only citations made by the Examiner in the Office Action to support such a meaning are found on the "Lexico" and "Nuts.com" websites. See [Attachments to Official Action]. The Lexico and Nuts.com references are hardly authoritative sources on the meaning of the term. Instead, the dictionary would be a more appropriate source to find the English meaning of a term. The dictionary contains no such definition for the term "SEV". See [Exhibit A: Merrriam-Webster Dictionary definition of the term "SEV"]. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary only suggests that the term "SEV" may be an abbreviated form of the word "SEVERAL". Id.
The Examiner fails to recognize that the term "SEV" will likely be translated from Turkish into English as "love/like" and/or "to love/to like." Applicant is a Türk limited sirket (tls) of Turkey, and so it makes sense that consumers who encounter Applicant's mark will stop and translate the mark from Turkish into English. The term "SEVMEK" is a verb form of the word "SEV". And, as elucideated by the SesliSozluk Turkish to English translator, "SEV" means "love," "loved," and "loving." See [Exhibit B: http://www.seslisozluk.net/en/what-is-the-meaning-of-sev/]. The Dict.com online translator confirms this translation, illuminating that "SEV" has meanings of "like," "be fond of," "love," and "be in love with." See [Exhibit C: http://www.dict.com/turkish-english/sev].
With this background in mind, is unlikely that consumers would readily ascertain a descriptive meaning of "SEV (Stylized)" mark, the Applicant's meats, fish, pulses, olive-based foods, fruits and vegetables, nuts, hazelnut and peanut pastes, tahini, eggs, coffee, cocoa, chocolate based products, past, dumplings, noodles, bstarch, sugar, tea, confectionery, gum, ice cream, salts, and molasses related food products in Classes 29 and 30.
Applicant is a Turkish entity, and Applicant's mark consists of a Turkish word that has translations and meanings pertaining to "liking" and "loving." As evidenced above, the mark will likely be translated from Turkish into English as "love/like" and/or "to love/to like." When used in association with Applicant's wide variety of food products in Classes 29 and 30, a prospective consumer could not possibly ascertain the goods sold under Applicant's mark simply by viewing the mark. Applicant's mark is simply not a common descriptive phrase used in today's lexicon and, as a whole, does not identify any type of feature or characteristic of Applicant's goods. See TMEP §1209.01(b); In re Disc Jockeys Inc., 23 USPQ2d 1715, 1716 (TTAB 1992), citing In re Uniroyal, Inc., 215 USPQ 716 (TTAB 1982). The evidence attached to the Official Action is not "clear evidence" that Applicant's mark is descriptive in relation to the goods contained in its application, descriptive in relation to the context in which the mark is intended to be used on such goods and services, and descriptive in relation to the impact, or significance, that the mark is likely to make on the average purchaser of such goods and services. See TMEP 1209.01(b). The evidence attached to the Official Action fails to show a relationship between the "SEV (Stylized)" mark and the goods identified in the application. Moreover, Applicant's mark is a suggestive mark that exists when the consumer's imagination, thought or perception is required and the mark does not merely describe the listed services. In re Atavio Inc., 25 USPQ2d 1361, 1362 (TTAB 1992) (explaining that a mark "which is only suggestive requires some imagination, thought or perception to determine its meaning in relation to the goods."); In re WSI Corporation, 1 U.S.P.Q.2d 1570, 1572 (TTAB 1986) ("Where such imagination or forethought is required to reach a conclusion as to the nature of a key characteristic of goods or services, a mark must be determined to be suggestive and not descriptive."); The Institut National Des Appellations D’Origine v. Vintners International Co. Inc., 22 USPQ 1190 (Fed Cir 1992). Other similar cases in which a mark was found to be suggestive rather than descriptive include:
"RAPID-SHAVE" for shaving cream; Colgate-Palmolive Co. v. House for Men, Inc., 143 U.S.P.Q. 159 (TTAB 1964);
"FRUIT SUNDAE" for yogurt; Johnston Foods, Inc. v. Carnation Co., 159 U.S.P.Q. 624 (TTAB 1968);
"SUGAR & SPICE" for bakery products; In re Colonial Stores, Inc., 394 F.2d 549, 157 U.S.P.Q. 382 (CCPA 1968);
"BIASTEEL" for steel belted bias tires; Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 186 U.S.P.Q. 557 (TTAB 1975), aff'd, 189 USPQ 348 (CCPA. 1976); and
"ACTION SLACKS" for pants; Levi Strauss & Co. v. R. Josephs Sportswear, 28 U.S.P.Q.2d 1464 (TTAB 1993).
For these reasons, Applicant respectfully requests that the present mark is passed to publication at an early date.
II. CONCLUSION
The mark "SEV (Stylized)" could convey to the ordinary consumer a variety of meanings, because it is suggestive as applied to the goods in the application. For this reason, Applicant respectfully contends that the present mark should not be refused because of "mere descriptiveness." Applicant notes that the Examining Attorney has searched the Office records and has found no similar registered or pending mark which would bar registration under the Trademark Act. As such, Applicant respectfully requests that the present mark be passed to publication at an early date.
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.