| 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 | 88497881 |
| LAW OFFICE ASSIGNED | LAW OFFICE 103 |
| MARK SECTION | |
| MARK | http://uspto.report/TM/88497881/mark.png |
| LITERAL ELEMENT | AUTOMATED FLIGHT RULES |
| 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. |
| OWNER SECTION (current) | |
| NAME | Leidos Innovations Technology, Inc. |
| STREET | 700 North Frederick Avenue |
| CITY | Gaithersburg |
| STATE | Maryland |
| ZIP/POSTAL CODE | 20879 |
| COUNTRY/REGION/JURISDICTION/U.S. TERRITORY | United States |
| OWNER SECTION (proposed) | |
| NAME | Leidos Innovations Technology, Inc. |
| STREET | 700 North Frederick Avenue |
| CITY | Gaithersburg |
| STATE | Maryland |
| ZIP/POSTAL CODE | 20879 |
| COUNTRY/REGION/JURISDICTION/U.S. TERRITORY | United States |
| ipmail@dykema.com | |
| ARGUMENT(S) | |
|
Responsive to the Office Action, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the Examining Attorney’s refusal under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act. The Examining Attorney is advised Applicant coined the mark and there is no evidence in the record of other industry use of all of the exact wording in the mark in the order presented in the mark. Accordingly, the mark as a whole cannot be said to be merely descriptive. To try to support the refusal, the Office Action encloses articles that use some of the words in the mark or examples that show the wording spatially separated by another term. The Office Action does not include any dictionary definitions or articles showing all of the wording, in order, used together descriptively. This absence of descriptive use of the entire mark further illustrates the mark as a whole is not descriptive. Accordingly, the evidence of record does not indicate that the entire phrase is merely descriptive. In addition to the above, any doubt regarding the alleged descriptiveness of the mark should be resolved in Applicant’s favor so that the mark is published for opposition. In re Intelligent Medical Systems, Inc., 5 USPQ2d 1674 (TTAB 1987). Applicant has reviewed the proposed revisions to the description of services and Applicant submits the proposed wording is sufficiently definite for purposes of registration. For example, the current wording already clarifies the nature of the consultation and software services. In view of the foregoing, it is respectfully submitted the application is in condition for publication. Prompt notification of the same is respectfully requested. Please telephone the undersigned if anything additional is required. |
|
| ATTORNEY INFORMATION (current) | |
| NAME | Jennifer Fraser |
| ATTORNEY BAR MEMBERSHIP NUMBER | NOT SPECIFIED |
| YEAR OF ADMISSION | NOT SPECIFIED |
| U.S. STATE/ COMMONWEALTH/ TERRITORY | NOT SPECIFIED |
| FIRM NAME | DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC |
| INTERNAL ADDRESS | SUITE 1100 WEST |
| STREET | 1301 K STREET, NW |
| CITY | WASHINGTON |
| STATE | District of Columbia |
| POSTAL CODE | 20005 |
| COUNTRY/REGION/JURISDICTION/U.S. TERRITORY | United States |
| PHONE | 202-906-8712 |
| tm@dykema.com | |
| DOCKET/REFERENCE NUMBER | 067283-0124 |
| ATTORNEY INFORMATION (proposed) | |
| NAME | Jennifer Fraser |
| ATTORNEY BAR MEMBERSHIP NUMBER | XXX |
| YEAR OF ADMISSION | XXXX |
| U.S. STATE/ COMMONWEALTH/ TERRITORY | XX |
| FIRM NAME | DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC |
| INTERNAL ADDRESS | SUITE 1100 WEST |
| STREET | 1301 K STREET, NW |
| CITY | WASHINGTON |
| STATE | District of Columbia |
| POSTAL CODE | 20005 |
| COUNTRY/REGION/JURISDICTION/U.S. TERRITORY | United States |
| PHONE | 202-906-8712 |
| FAX | 855-255-4358 |
| Dykema-TM@dykema.com | |
| DOCKET/REFERENCE NUMBER | 067283-0124 |
| CORRESPONDENCE INFORMATION (current) | |
| NAME | JENNIFER FRASER |
| PRIMARY EMAIL ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE | tm@dykema.com |
| SECONDARY EMAIL ADDRESS(ES) (COURTESY COPIES) | jfraser@dykema.com; mkulprasertrat@dykema.com |
| DOCKET/REFERENCE NUMBER | 067283-0124 |
| CORRESPONDENCE INFORMATION (proposed) | |
| NAME | Jennifer Fraser |
| PRIMARY EMAIL ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE | Dykema-TM@dykema.com |
| SECONDARY EMAIL ADDRESS(ES) (COURTESY COPIES) | jfraser@dykema.com; mkulprasertrat@dykema.com |
| DOCKET/REFERENCE NUMBER | 067283-0124 |
| SIGNATURE SECTION | |
| RESPONSE SIGNATURE | /jf/ |
| SIGNATORY'S NAME | Jennifer Fraser |
| SIGNATORY'S POSITION | Attorney of record, District of Columbia Bar member |
| DATE SIGNED | 03/24/2020 |
| AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY | YES |
| FILING INFORMATION SECTION | |
| SUBMIT DATE | Tue Mar 24 11:41:19 ET 2020 |
| TEAS STAMP | USPTO/ROA-XX.XXX.XXX.XXX- 20200324114119673930-8849 7881-710fd0da6463bffe4398 86956feb9f5309e9cf231d52f 12dd1ade813267316-N/A-N/A -20200324110456253126 |
| 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) |
Responsive to the Office Action, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the Examining Attorney’s refusal under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act. The Examining Attorney is advised Applicant coined the mark and there is no evidence in the record of other industry use of all of the exact wording in the mark in the order presented in the mark. Accordingly, the mark as a whole cannot be said to be merely descriptive.
To try to support the refusal, the Office Action encloses articles that use some of the words in the mark or examples that show the wording spatially separated by another term. The Office Action does not include any dictionary definitions or articles showing all of the wording, in order, used together descriptively. This absence of descriptive use of the entire mark further illustrates the mark as a whole is not descriptive. Accordingly, the evidence of record does not indicate that the entire phrase is merely descriptive.
In addition to the above, any doubt regarding the alleged descriptiveness of the mark should be resolved in Applicant’s favor so that the mark is published for opposition. In re Intelligent Medical Systems, Inc., 5 USPQ2d 1674 (TTAB 1987).
Applicant has reviewed the proposed revisions to the description of services and Applicant submits the proposed wording is sufficiently definite for purposes of registration. For example, the current wording already clarifies the nature of the consultation and software services.
In view of the foregoing, it is respectfully submitted the application is in condition for publication. Prompt notification of the same is respectfully requested.
Please telephone the undersigned if anything additional is required.