TEAS Request Reconsideration after FOA

PTO- 1960

Approved for use through 11/30/2023. OMB 0651-0050

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it contains a valid OMB control number

---

PTO- 1960

Approved for use through 11/30/2023. OMB 0651-0050

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it contains a valid OMB control number

Request for Reconsideration after Final Action

To the Commissioner for Trademarks:

Application serial no. 88634701 MIKO (Stylized and/or with Design, see http://tmng-al.uspto.gov /resting2/api/img/8863470 1/large) has been amended as follows:

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

Dear Trademark Examining Attorney Capshaw, The subject mark was rejected based on a likelihood of confusion with Reg. No. 4698480. Applicant has entered into a consent agreement with the owner of the cited mark, Magic Miko. The executed consent agreement is attached herewith for the Examining Attorney's consideration. The Trademark Commissioners stated in In re SGS Tool Company, Serial No. 73/821,797 (August 18, 1992) "It is well established that one of the factors to be considered in a determination of likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d) is whether the owner of the prior registration has consented to the registration of the applicant's mark. In re Mastic Inc., 829 F.2d 1114, 4 USPQ2d 1292 (Fed.Cir.1987); In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours, 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973). The importance of this factor has been reiterated in case after case: It can be safely taken as fundamental that reputable businessmenusers of valuable trademarks have no interest in causing public confusion.... Thus when those most familiar with use in the marketplace and most interested in precluding confusion enter agreements designed to avoid it, the scales of evidence are clearly tilted. It is at least difficult to maintain a subjective view that confusion will occur when those directly concerned say it won't. A mere assumption that confusion is likely will rarely prevail against uncontroverted evidence from those on the firing line that it is not. Id. at 568. We have often said, in trademark cases involving agreements reflecting parties' views on the likelihood of confusion in the marketplace, that they are in a much better position to know the real life situation than bureaucrats or judges and therefore such agreements may, depending on the circumstances, carry great weight, as was held in DuPont. Bongrain International (American) Corp. v. Delice de France Inc., 829 F.2d. 1118, 1 USPQ2d 1775, 1778 (Fed.Cir.1987)." Based upon the foregoing discussion, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection and submits that the present application is in condition for allowance to publication, which action is respectfully requested. Respectfully submitted, /Usha Menon/ Usha Menon Attorney of record, Texas Bar Member

EVIDENCE

Original PDF file:
evi_9819413175-2021020619 5457689836_._Miko_Consent _USPTO.pdf
Converted PDF file(s) ( 5 pages) Evidence-1Evidence-2Evidence-3Evidence-4Evidence-5
Correspondence Information (current):
      Usha Menon
      PRIMARY EMAIL FOR CORRESPONDENCE: umenon@dmiplaw.com
      SECONDARY EMAIL ADDRESS(ES) (COURTESY COPIES): info@dmiplaw.com

The docket/reference number is META004TM.
Correspondence Information (proposed):
      Usha Menon
      PRIMARY EMAIL FOR CORRESPONDENCE: umenon@dmiplaw.com
      SECONDARY EMAIL ADDRESS(ES) (COURTESY COPIES): info@dmiplaw.com

The docket/reference number is META004TM.

Requirement for Email and Electronic Filing: I understand that a valid email address must be maintained by the owner/holder and the owner's/holder's attorney, if appointed, and that all official trademark correspondence must be submitted via the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS).

SIGNATURE(S)
Request for Reconsideration Signature
Signature: /Usha Menon/     Date: 02/06/2021
Signatory's Name: Usha Menon
Signatory's Position: Attorney of record, Texas Bar Member

Signatory's Phone Number: 832-886-6845 Signature method: Signed directly within the form

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.

The applicant is not filing a Notice of Appeal in conjunction with this Request for Reconsideration.

Mailing Address:    Usha Menon
   D'AMBROSIO & MENON, PLLC
   
   3 Sugar Creek Center Blvd. Suite 100
   SUGAR LAND, Texas 77478
Mailing Address:    Usha Menon
   D'AMBROSIO & MENON, PLLC
   3 Sugar Creek Center Blvd. Suite 100
   SUGAR LAND, Texas 77478
        
Serial Number: 88634701
Internet Transmission Date: Sat Feb 06 19:58:43 ET 2021
TEAS Stamp: USPTO/RFR-XX.XXX.XX.XXX-2021020619584311
4276-88634701-760f04797c844dc842738d78e6
85bc60ffad6651d56f3feffb31e73e5314b8f2-N
/A-N/A-20210206195457689836