To: | Ventiva, Inc. (adam@diamentpatentlaw.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88770123 - ICE - VT-08 |
Sent: | September 01, 2020 12:18:18 PM |
Sent As: | ecom123@uspto.gov |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88770123
Mark: ICE
|
|
Correspondence Address: |
|
Applicant: Ventiva, Inc.
|
|
Reference/Docket No. VT-08
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
SUSPENSION NOTICE
No Response Required
Issue date: September 01, 2020
The Office has reassigned this application to the undersigned trademark examining attorney.
The application is suspended for the reason(s) specified below. See 37 C.F.R. §2.67; TMEP §§716 et seq.
The pending application(s) below has an earlier filing date or effective filing date than applicant’s application. If the mark in the application(s) below registers, the USPTO may refuse registration of applicant’s mark under Section 2(d) because of a likelihood of confusion with the registered mark(s). 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see 37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §§1208.02(c). Action on this application is suspended until the prior-filed application(s) below either registers or abandons. 37 C.F.R. §2.83(c). The application was previously attached to the prior Office action.
- U.S. Application Serial No(s). 88206159
Refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) resolved and maintained and continued. The following refusal is satisfied:
• Specimen Refusal
See TMEP §713.02.
The following refusal and requirements are maintained and continued:
Although applicant amended the identification of goods, it is still indefinite and needs further amendment as it is unclear what the nature of the goods are. Furthermore, several entries are still broad enough to include goods in Class 11, such as “electro-hydrodynamic cooling systems”. Applicant must indicate the generic, common commercial name for the goods such as “laptop computer cooling pads” or “internal cooling fans for computers”.
Applicant also submitted several arguments against the Section 2(d) Refusal and amended the identification of goods in order to narrow the goods. These arguments, however, are not persuasive as the current identification of goods is still broad enough to include the registrant’s goods or include goods that are commonly manufactured, produced, and sold by the same entity. Therefore, a consumer would likely be confused as to the source of the goods.
See id. These refusal and requirement will be made final once this application is removed from suspension, unless a new issue arises. See TMEP §716.01.
Suspension process. The USPTO will periodically check this application to determine if it should remain suspended. See TMEP §716.04. As needed, the trademark examining attorney will issue a letter to applicant to inquire about the status of the reason for the suspension. TMEP §716.05.
No response required. Applicant may file a response, but is not required to do so.
/Sarah C. Hopkins/
Sarah Hopkins
Examining Attorney
Trademark Office 123
(571) 270-0942
sarah.hopkins@uspto.gov