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
The table below presents the data as entered.
Input Field
|
Entered
|
| SERIAL NUMBER |
88599047 |
| LAW OFFICE ASSIGNED |
LAW OFFICE 123 |
| MARK SECTION |
| MARK FILE NAME |
http://uspto.report/TM/88599047/mark.png |
| LITERAL ELEMENT |
AZI MD |
| STANDARD CHARACTERS |
NO |
| USPTO-GENERATED IMAGE |
NO |
COLOR(S) CLAIMED
(If applicable) |
The color(s) cyan is/are claimed as a feature of the mark. |
DESCRIPTION OF THE MARK
(and Color Location, if applicable) |
The mark consists of a stylized depiction of a profile of a woman's face and hair. The letters A, Z and I appear in a staggered format, to the
right of which are the letters "MD.". |
| ARGUMENT(S) |
| The following remarks are submitted in response to the Office Action dated December 10, 2019. There is no likelihood of confusion between
Applicant?s Mark and the Cited Mark for ?AZI? (Reg. No. 5388225). Applicant respectfully submits that its design mark for ?AZIMD? would not create a likelihood of confusion with the Cited Mark
because 1) the marks are dissimilar in appearance, sound, and overall commercial impression; and 2) the goods and trade channels for which the marks are used are distinct. Accordingly, Applicant
requests that the Examining Attorney withdraw the refusal. Legal Standard ? Likelihood of Confusion The Trademark Office recognizes that a mark should not be refused registration in view of all
similar registered marks, but only on the basis of those similar marks whose effect in the marketplace would be to create a likelihood of confusion or mistake on the part of the purchasing public.
T.M.E.P. ?1207.01. The controlling standard for determining likelihood of confusion is whether the relevant purchasing public would mistakenly assume that the Applicant?s goods originate with, are
sponsored by, or are in some way associated with the goods offered in connection with the cited registration. FBI v. Societe: ?M. Bril & Co.?, 172 U.S.P.Q. 310 (T.T.A.B. 1971). The factors to be
considered by the Examining Attorney include (1) the dissimilarity of the marks in their entireties as to appearance, sound, and commercial impression; (2) the dissimilarity and nature of the goods
in the subject application and registrations; and (3) the similarity of dissimilarity of the likely-to-continue trade channels. In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ
563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973) (called the ?du Pont factors?). All these factors, properly considered, weigh against a finding of likelihood of confusion in the present case. Legal Standard ? Standard of
Review The courts have held that ?[t]here is no likelihood of confusion where the potential for confusion is a mere possibility, not a probability.? Castle Oil Corp. v. Castle Energy Corp., 26
U.S.P.Q.2d 1481 (E.D. PA. 1992). The Federal Circuit and the CCPA have held: ?[w]e are not concerned with mere theoretical possibilities of confusion, deception, or mistake with de minimus situations
but with the practicalities of the commercial world, with which the trademark laws deal.? Electronic Data Sales Inc. Electronic Data Sys., 954 F.2d 713, at 717 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Likelihood of
confusion ?is synonymous with ?probable? confusion ? it is not sufficient if confusion is merely ?possible.?? J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition ?23:3 (4th ed. 2012).
Applicant respectfully submits that there is no probability that Applicant?s Mark will create a likelihood of confusion with the Cited Mark. Argument ? Applicant?s Mark is Sufficiently Different in
Overall Appearance, Sound, and Commercial Impression Applicant?s Mark and the Cited Mark are dissimilar in appearance, sound, and commercial impression such that no confusion is likely. It is a basic
principle that "likelihood of confusion cannot be predicated on dissection of a mark . . . the ultimate conclusion rests on consideration of the marks in their entireties." In re National Data Corp.,
224 U.S.P.Q. 749, 751 (Fed. Cir. 1985); TMEP ?1207.01(b)(iv). Extra and differing features contribute to the overall impression made by the mark on the relevant public. Johnson & Johnson v.
Colgate-Palmolive Co., 175 U.S.P.Q. 287, 291 (D.N.J. 1972) (dissecting marks is ?not the manner in which potential purchasers shop.?) Further, courts have consistently held that ?the commercial
impression of a trademark is derived from it as a whole, not from its elements separated and considered in detail.? Juice Generation, Inc. v. GS Enterprises LLC, 794 F.3d 1334, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
As the Federal Circuit recently clarified, although individual components of a mark can be considered, ?the message of a whole phrase may well not be adequately captured by a dissection and
recombination.? Id. at 1340-1341. A proper comparison of the marks in their entirety reveals that Applicant?s Mark is sufficiently differently in appearance, sound, and commercial impression from the
Cited Mark to avoid confusion. Applicant?s Mark is ?AZIMD? with a design in cyan color, and the Cited Mark is ?AZI.? The mere fact that each of the marks contains the word ?AZI? does not support a
finding of likelihood of confusion. See Gen. Mills, Inc. v. Kellogg Co., 3 USPQ.2d 1442, 1445 (8th Cir. 1987) (?The use of identical, even dominant, words in common does not automatically mean that
two marks are similar.?); Kellogg Co. v. Pack ?em Enters., Inc., 951 F.2d 330 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (FROOTEE ICE for flavored ice bars not likely to cause confusion with FROOT LOOPS for breakfast cereal);
Keebler Co. Murray Bakery Prods. Inc., 866 F.2d 1386 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (PECAN SHORTIES not likely to cause confusion with PECAN SANIES for cookies). In the present case, the prominent additional
elements of the Applicant?s Mark distinguish it from the Cited Mark. Applicant?s Mark includes the following additional, distinguishing elements: (1) a stylized depiction of a profile of a woman's
face and hair in the color cyan, (2) the letters ?A?, ?Z? and ?I? appear in a pronounced, staggered format in the color cyan; and (3) the letters ?MD? in the color cyan appear to the right of ?AZI.?
The presence of these additional prominent design elements, color and letters provides a lengthier, and more complex & distinctive visual appearance than that of the Cited Mark, which merely
consists of 3 letters. Applicant respectfully submits that these distinguishing elements provide the viewer with a distinct and readily distinguishable visual impression. A viewer would have to
ignore all these substantial aspects of Applicant?s Mark before finding that Applicant?s Mark and the Cited Mark are visually equivalent. It is unlikely that the relevant purchasing public, viewing
these distinguishing elements, would assume an association with the Cited Mark. In addition, the additional element ?MD? in Applicant?s Mark contributes to a difference in sound. Applicant?s Mark and
the Cited Mark have significantly different commercial impressions as well. The inclusion of the word ?MD? in Applicant?s Mark alters its meaning by giving a different commercial impression, e.g.
that of a medical grade product or one that is designed by a medical professional. In view of the differences in commercial impression created by the two marks, Applicant maintains that there is no
likelihood of confusion between them. Thus, when the marks are compared in their entireties, they are significantly different in visual and aural impression, in meaning, and in overall commercial
impression. Argument ? Differences in Goods and Trade Channels Applicant?s description of goods, as amended, are as follows: Non-medicated topical skin care serums, creams, lotions, powders and masks
for anti- aging (in Class 3); and Medicated topical skin care serums, creams, lotions, powders and masks for anti-aging (in Class 5) are distinct from that of the Cited Mark for: Castor oil for
cosmetic purposes; Eye cream; Facial masks; Body scrub; Non-medicated beard care preparations, namely, oils; Non-medicated facial and eye serum containing antioxidants (in Class 3). First, the Cited
Mark is not registered in Class 5, and does recite or include medicated skin care products. Medicated skin care products are more specialized and relate to a more sophisticated and educated segment
of the consuming public. Further, medicated products are generally offered at a different price point, and are presented in dedicated stores (or sections thereof), such that the consuming public is
further aware of the distinction. Second, the Cited Mark?s description of goods does not recite or include anti-aging skin care products in Class 3. Anti- aging skin care products address a very
specific application/need that the consuming public specifically shops for. In other words, the consuming public readily distinguishes between anti-aging skin care products and other types of skin
care products. Accordingly, it is unlikely the consuming public would believe they emanate from the same source. Conclusion In sum, given the differences in appearance, sound, and overall commercial
impression between the marks and the differences in the underlying goods and trade channels, there is no likelihood of confusion between Applicant?s Mark and the Cited Mark. Applicant submits that is
has responded to all outstanding issues raised in the Office Action and respectfully requests that the Examining Attorney withdraw the refusal related to the Cited Mark. Should the Examining Attorney
have any questions or require any additional information, the Examining Attorney is encouraged to contact the undersigned. |
| GOODS AND/OR SERVICES SECTION (003)(current) |
| INTERNATIONAL CLASS |
003 |
| DESCRIPTION |
Non-medicated skin care preparations |
| FILING BASIS |
Section 1(a) |
| FIRST USE ANYWHERE DATE |
At least as early as 12/01/2017 |
| FIRST USE IN COMMERCE DATE |
At least as early as 12/01/2017 |
| GOODS AND/OR SERVICES SECTION (003)(proposed) |
| INTERNATIONAL CLASS |
003 |
| TRACKED TEXT DESCRIPTION |
Non-medicated skin care preparations; Non-medicated topical skin
care serums, creams, lotions, powders and masks for anti-aging |
| FINAL DESCRIPTION |
| Non-medicated topical skin care serums, creams, lotions, powders and masks for anti-aging |
| FILING BASIS |
Section 1(a) |
| FIRST USE ANYWHERE DATE |
At least as early as 12/01/2017 |
| FIRST USE IN COMMERCE DATE |
At least as early as 12/01/2017 |
| GOODS AND/OR SERVICES SECTION (005)(current) |
| INTERNATIONAL CLASS |
005 |
| DESCRIPTION |
Medicated skin care preparations |
| FILING BASIS |
Section 1(a) |
| FIRST USE ANYWHERE DATE |
At least as early as 12/01/2017 |
| FIRST USE IN COMMERCE DATE |
At least as early as 12/01/2017 |
| GOODS AND/OR SERVICES SECTION (005)(proposed) |
| INTERNATIONAL CLASS |
005 |
| TRACKED TEXT DESCRIPTION |
Medicated skin care preparations; Medicated topical skin care
serums, creams, lotions, powders and masks for anti-aging |
| FINAL DESCRIPTION |
| Medicated topical skin care serums, creams, lotions, powders and masks for anti-aging |
| FILING BASIS |
Section 1(a) |
| FIRST USE ANYWHERE DATE |
At least as early as 12/01/2017 |
| FIRST USE IN COMMERCE DATE |
At least as early as 12/01/2017 |
| ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS SECTION |
| DISCLAIMER |
No claim is made to the exclusive right to use MD apart from the mark as shown. |
DESCRIPTION OF THE MARK
(and Color Location, if applicable) |
The mark consists of a stylized depiction of a profile of a woman's face and hair in the color cyan. The letters "A", "Z" and "I" appear in a
staggered format, to the right of which are the letters "MD" all in cyan. |
| NAME(S), PORTRAITS(S), SIGNATURE(S) OF INDIVIDUAL(S) |
The name(s), portrait(s), and/or signature(s) shown in the mark identifies Azadeh Shirazi, MD, whose consent(s) to register is made of
record. |
| CONSENT FILE NAME(S) |
| ORIGINAL PDF FILE |
consent-260088023100973f4eb83d9765028be-002543749_._Signed_Consent_for_Nickname_Use.pdf |
CONVERTED PDF FILE(S)
(1 page) |
\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\885\990\88599047\xml6\ROA0002.JPG |
| ATTORNEY SECTION (new) |
| NAME |
Ali Shalchi |
| ATTORNEY BAR MEMBERSHIP NUMBER |
XXX |
| YEAR OF ADMISSION |
XXXX |
| U.S. STATE/ COMMONWEALTH/ TERRITORY |
XX |
| FIRM NAME |
Shalchi Burch LLP |
| INTERNAL ADDRESS |
4340 Von Karman Ave, Suite 380 |
| STREET |
4340 Von Karman Ave, Suite 380 |
| CITY |
Newport Beach |
| STATE |
California |
| POSTAL CODE |
92660 |
| COUNTRY |
United States |
| PHONE |
9493575068 |
| EMAIL |
as@shalchiburchllp.com |
| AUTHORIZED TO COMMUNICATE VIA EMAIL |
Yes |
| OTHER APPOINTED ATTORNEY |
Shalchi Burch LLP |
| CORRESPONDENCE SECTION (current) |
| NAME |
AZADEH SHIRAZI MD |
| STREET |
7301 GIRARD AVE. SUITE 202 |
| CITY |
LA JOLLA |
| STATE |
California |
| POSTAL CODE |
92037 |
| COUNTRY |
US |
| PHONE |
858-456-3992 |
| FAX |
858-456-5060 |
| EMAIL |
derm.md1@gmail.com; ali360x@gmail.com |
| AUTHORIZED TO COMMUNICATE VIA EMAIL |
Yes |
| CORRESPONDENCE SECTION (proposed) |
| NAME |
Ali Shalchi |
| FIRM NAME |
Shalchi Burch LLP |
| INTERNAL ADDRESS |
4340 Von Karman Ave, Suite 380 |
| STREET |
4340 Von Karman Ave, Suite 380 |
| CITY |
Newport Beach |
| STATE |
California |
| POSTAL CODE |
92660 |
| COUNTRY |
United States |
| PHONE |
9493575068 |
| EMAIL |
as@shalchiburchllp.com; ali360x@gmail.com |
| AUTHORIZED TO COMMUNICATE VIA EMAIL |
Yes |
| SIGNATURE SECTION |
| RESPONSE SIGNATURE |
/ali shalchi/ |
| SIGNATORY'S NAME |
Ali Shalchi |
| SIGNATORY'S POSITION |
Attorney of Record |
| SIGNATORY'S PHONE NUMBER |
9493590334 |
| DATE SIGNED |
12/17/2019 |
| AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY |
YES |
| FILING INFORMATION SECTION |
| SUBMIT DATE |
Wed Dec 18 00:55:49 EST 2019 |
| TEAS STAMP |
USPTO/ROA-XXXX:XXXX:XXXX:
XXX:XXXX:XXXX:XXXX:XXXX-2
0191218005549440648-88599
047-700b22376b2f205ec1c2a
1f47b3fb43f7335881e59bf3c
442c2fb1216f1b3821-N/A-N/
A-20191218002543749109 |
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.
88599047 AZI MD (Stylized and/or with Design, see http://uspto.report/TM/88599047/mark.png) has been amended as follows:
ARGUMENT(S)
In response to the substantive refusal(s), please note the following:
The following remarks are submitted in response to the Office Action dated December 10, 2019. There is no likelihood of confusion between Applicant?s Mark and the Cited Mark for ?AZI? (Reg. No.
5388225). Applicant respectfully submits that its design mark for ?AZIMD? would not create a likelihood of confusion with the Cited Mark because 1) the marks are dissimilar in appearance, sound, and
overall commercial impression; and 2) the goods and trade channels for which the marks are used are distinct. Accordingly, Applicant requests that the Examining Attorney withdraw the refusal. Legal
Standard ? Likelihood of Confusion The Trademark Office recognizes that a mark should not be refused registration in view of all similar registered marks, but only on the basis of those similar marks
whose effect in the marketplace would be to create a likelihood of confusion or mistake on the part of the purchasing public. T.M.E.P. ?1207.01. The controlling standard for determining likelihood of
confusion is whether the relevant purchasing public would mistakenly assume that the Applicant?s goods originate with, are sponsored by, or are in some way associated with the goods offered in
connection with the cited registration. FBI v. Societe: ?M. Bril & Co.?, 172 U.S.P.Q. 310 (T.T.A.B. 1971). The factors to be considered by the Examining Attorney include (1) the dissimilarity of
the marks in their entireties as to appearance, sound, and commercial impression; (2) the dissimilarity and nature of the goods in the subject application and registrations; and (3) the similarity of
dissimilarity of the likely-to-continue trade channels. In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973) (called the ?du Pont factors?). All these
factors, properly considered, weigh against a finding of likelihood of confusion in the present case. Legal Standard ? Standard of Review The courts have held that ?[t]here is no likelihood of
confusion where the potential for confusion is a mere possibility, not a probability.? Castle Oil Corp. v. Castle Energy Corp., 26 U.S.P.Q.2d 1481 (E.D. PA. 1992). The Federal Circuit and the CCPA
have held: ?[w]e are not concerned with mere theoretical possibilities of confusion, deception, or mistake with de minimus situations but with the practicalities of the commercial world, with which
the trademark laws deal.? Electronic Data Sales Inc. Electronic Data Sys., 954 F.2d 713, at 717 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Likelihood of confusion ?is synonymous with ?probable? confusion ? it is not
sufficient if confusion is merely ?possible.?? J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition ?23:3 (4th ed. 2012). Applicant respectfully submits that there is no probability that
Applicant?s Mark will create a likelihood of confusion with the Cited Mark. Argument ? Applicant?s Mark is Sufficiently Different in Overall Appearance, Sound, and Commercial Impression Applicant?s
Mark and the Cited Mark are dissimilar in appearance, sound, and commercial impression such that no confusion is likely. It is a basic principle that "likelihood of confusion cannot be predicated on
dissection of a mark . . . the ultimate conclusion rests on consideration of the marks in their entireties." In re National Data Corp., 224 U.S.P.Q. 749, 751 (Fed. Cir. 1985); TMEP ?1207.01(b)(iv).
Extra and differing features contribute to the overall impression made by the mark on the relevant public. Johnson & Johnson v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 175 U.S.P.Q. 287, 291 (D.N.J. 1972)
(dissecting marks is ?not the manner in which potential purchasers shop.?) Further, courts have consistently held that ?the commercial impression of a trademark is derived from it as a whole, not
from its elements separated and considered in detail.? Juice Generation, Inc. v. GS Enterprises LLC, 794 F.3d 1334, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2015). As the Federal Circuit recently clarified, although
individual components of a mark can be considered, ?the message of a whole phrase may well not be adequately captured by a dissection and recombination.? Id. at 1340-1341. A proper comparison of the
marks in their entirety reveals that Applicant?s Mark is sufficiently differently in appearance, sound, and commercial impression from the Cited Mark to avoid confusion. Applicant?s Mark is ?AZIMD?
with a design in cyan color, and the Cited Mark is ?AZI.? The mere fact that each of the marks contains the word ?AZI? does not support a finding of likelihood of confusion. See Gen. Mills, Inc. v.
Kellogg Co., 3 USPQ.2d 1442, 1445 (8th Cir. 1987) (?The use of identical, even dominant, words in common does not automatically mean that two marks are similar.?); Kellogg Co. v. Pack ?em Enters.,
Inc., 951 F.2d 330 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (FROOTEE ICE for flavored ice bars not likely to cause confusion with FROOT LOOPS for breakfast cereal); Keebler Co. Murray Bakery Prods. Inc., 866 F.2d 1386 (Fed.
Cir. 1989) (PECAN SHORTIES not likely to cause confusion with PECAN SANIES for cookies). In the present case, the prominent additional elements of the Applicant?s Mark distinguish it from the Cited
Mark. Applicant?s Mark includes the following additional, distinguishing elements: (1) a stylized depiction of a profile of a woman's face and hair in the color cyan, (2) the letters ?A?, ?Z? and ?I?
appear in a pronounced, staggered format in the color cyan; and (3) the letters ?MD? in the color cyan appear to the right of ?AZI.? The presence of these additional prominent design elements, color
and letters provides a lengthier, and more complex & distinctive visual appearance than that of the Cited Mark, which merely consists of 3 letters. Applicant respectfully submits that these
distinguishing elements provide the viewer with a distinct and readily distinguishable visual impression. A viewer would have to ignore all these substantial aspects of Applicant?s Mark before
finding that Applicant?s Mark and the Cited Mark are visually equivalent. It is unlikely that the relevant purchasing public, viewing these distinguishing elements, would assume an association with
the Cited Mark. In addition, the additional element ?MD? in Applicant?s Mark contributes to a difference in sound. Applicant?s Mark and the Cited Mark have significantly different commercial
impressions as well. The inclusion of the word ?MD? in Applicant?s Mark alters its meaning by giving a different commercial impression, e.g. that of a medical grade product or one that is designed by
a medical professional. In view of the differences in commercial impression created by the two marks, Applicant maintains that there is no likelihood of confusion between them. Thus, when the marks
are compared in their entireties, they are significantly different in visual and aural impression, in meaning, and in overall commercial impression. Argument ? Differences in Goods and Trade Channels
Applicant?s description of goods, as amended, are as follows: Non-medicated topical skin care serums, creams, lotions, powders and masks for anti- aging (in Class 3); and Medicated topical skin care
serums, creams, lotions, powders and masks for anti-aging (in Class 5) are distinct from that of the Cited Mark for: Castor oil for cosmetic purposes; Eye cream; Facial masks; Body scrub;
Non-medicated beard care preparations, namely, oils; Non-medicated facial and eye serum containing antioxidants (in Class 3). First, the Cited Mark is not registered in Class 5, and does recite or
include medicated skin care products. Medicated skin care products are more specialized and relate to a more sophisticated and educated segment of the consuming public. Further, medicated products
are generally offered at a different price point, and are presented in dedicated stores (or sections thereof), such that the consuming public is further aware of the distinction. Second, the Cited
Mark?s description of goods does not recite or include anti-aging skin care products in Class 3. Anti- aging skin care products address a very specific application/need that the consuming public
specifically shops for. In other words, the consuming public readily distinguishes between anti-aging skin care products and other types of skin care products. Accordingly, it is unlikely the
consuming public would believe they emanate from the same source. Conclusion In sum, given the differences in appearance, sound, and overall commercial impression between the marks and the
differences in the underlying goods and trade channels, there is no likelihood of confusion between Applicant?s Mark and the Cited Mark. Applicant submits that is has responded to all outstanding
issues raised in the Office Action and respectfully requests that the Examining Attorney withdraw the refusal related to the Cited Mark. Should the Examining Attorney have any questions or require
any additional information, the Examining Attorney is encouraged to contact the undersigned.
CLASSIFICATION AND LISTING OF GOODS/SERVICES
Applicant proposes to amend the following class of goods/services in the application:
Current: Class 003 for Non-medicated skin care preparations
Original Filing Basis:
Filing Basis: Section 1(a), Use in Commerce: The applicant is using the mark in commerce, or the applicant's related company or licensee is using the mark in commerce, on or in connection with
the identified goods and/or services. 15 U.S.C. Section 1051(a), as amended. The mark was first used at least as early as 12/01/2017 and first used in commerce at least as early as 12/01/2017 , and
is now in use in such commerce.
Proposed:
Tracked Text Description: Non-medicated skin care preparations;
Non-medicated topical skin care serums, creams, lotions,
powders and masks for anti-agingClass 003 for Non-medicated topical skin care serums, creams, lotions, powders and masks for anti-aging
Filing Basis: Section 1(a), Use in Commerce: The applicant is using the mark in commerce, or the applicant's related company or licensee is using the mark in commerce, on or in connection with
the identified goods and/or services. 15 U.S.C. Section 1051(a), as amended. The mark was first used at least as early as 12/01/2017 and first used in commerce at least as early as 12/01/2017 , and
is now in use in such commerce.
Applicant proposes to amend the following class of goods/services in the application:
Current: Class 005 for Medicated skin care preparations
Original Filing Basis:
Filing Basis: Section 1(a), Use in Commerce: The applicant is using the mark in commerce, or the applicant's related company or licensee is using the mark in commerce, on or in connection with
the identified goods and/or services. 15 U.S.C. Section 1051(a), as amended. The mark was first used at least as early as 12/01/2017 and first used in commerce at least as early as 12/01/2017 , and
is now in use in such commerce.
Proposed:
Tracked Text Description: Medicated skin care preparations;
Medicated topical skin care serums, creams, lotions, powders and
masks for anti-agingClass 005 for Medicated topical skin care serums, creams, lotions, powders and masks for anti-aging
Filing Basis: Section 1(a), Use in Commerce: The applicant is using the mark in commerce, or the applicant's related company or licensee is using the mark in commerce, on or in connection with
the identified goods and/or services. 15 U.S.C. Section 1051(a), as amended. The mark was first used at least as early as 12/01/2017 and first used in commerce at least as early as 12/01/2017 , and
is now in use in such commerce.
The applicant hereby appoints Ali Shalchi. Other appointed attorneys are Shalchi Burch LLP. Ali Shalchi of Shalchi Burch LLP, is a member of the XX bar, admitted to the bar in XXXX, bar
membership no. XXX, and the attorney(s) is located at
4340 Von Karman Ave, Suite 380
4340 Von Karman Ave, Suite 380
Newport Beach, California 92660
United States
to submit this Response to Office Action Form on behalf of the applicant.
The phone number is 9493575068.
The email address is as@shalchiburchllp.com
Ali Shalchi 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: AZADEH SHIRAZI MD. AZADEH SHIRAZI MD, is located at
7301 GIRARD AVE. SUITE 202
LA JOLLA, California 92037
US
The phone number is 858-456-3992.
The fax number is 858-456-5060.
The email address is derm.md1@gmail.com; ali360x@gmail.com
The applicants proposed correspondence information: Ali Shalchi. Ali Shalchi of Shalchi Burch LLP, is located at
4340 Von Karman Ave, Suite 380
4340 Von Karman Ave, Suite 380
Newport Beach, California 92660
United States
The phone number is 9493575068.
The email address is as@shalchiburchllp.com; ali360x@gmail.com
ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS
Disclaimer
No claim is made to the exclusive right to use MD apart from the mark as shown.
Description of mark
The mark consists of a stylized depiction of a profile of a woman's face and hair in the color cyan. The letters "A", "Z" and "I" appear in a staggered format, to the right of which are the letters
"MD" all in cyan.
Name(s), Portrait(s), Signature(s) of individual(s)
The name(s), portrait(s), and/or signature(s) shown in the mark identifies Azadeh Shirazi, MD, whose consent(s) to register is made of record.
Original PDF file:
consent-260088023100973f4eb83d9765028be-002543749_._Signed_Consent_for_Nickname_Use.pdf
Converted PDF file(s) ( 1 page)
Consent File1
SIGNATURE(S)
Response Signature
Signature: /ali shalchi/ Date: 12/17/2019
Signatory's Name: Ali Shalchi
Signatory's Position: Attorney of Record
Signatory's Phone Number: 9493590334
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: AZADEH SHIRAZI MD
7301 GIRARD AVE. SUITE 202
LA JOLLA, California 92037
Mailing Address: Ali Shalchi
Shalchi Burch LLP
4340 Von Karman Ave, Suite 380
4340 Von Karman Ave, Suite 380
Newport Beach, California 92660
Serial Number: 88599047
Internet Transmission Date: Wed Dec 18 00:55:49 EST 2019
TEAS Stamp: USPTO/ROA-XXXX:XXXX:XXXX:XXX:XXXX:XXXX:X
XXX:XXXX-20191218005549440648-88599047-7
00b22376b2f205ec1c2a1f47b3fb43f7335881e5
9bf3c442c2fb1216f1b3821-N/A-N/A-20191218
002543749109
