| 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 09/30/2020) |
| Input Field |
Entered |
||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SERIAL NUMBER | 88823017 | ||||||||
| LAW OFFICE ASSIGNED | LAW OFFICE 117 | ||||||||
| MARK SECTION | |||||||||
| MARK FILE NAME | http://uspto.report/TM/88823017/mark.png | ||||||||
| LITERAL ELEMENT | ONEHOME | ||||||||
| 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 wording one home appearing in lower case letters with an image of a house inside of the "o". | ||||||||
| ARGUMENT(S) | |||||||||
|
REMARKS The Description of Services has been amended in accordance with the Examining Attorney's requirement. It is respectfully submitted that the Description of Services, as amended, is sufficiently definite for purposes of registration and acceptance is respectfully urged. In accordance with the Examining Attorney’s request, Applicant has revised the Description of the Mark. The Examining Attorney has refused registration of the applied for mark, due to the presence of the following Registration and pending applications:
Applicant notes that cited Registration No. 4518376 had a Declaration of Use deadline of 22 April 2020 and a final grace period deadline of 22 October 2020. As Applicant’s review of the TSDR database shows that no Declaration of Use has been filed in connection with the cited Registration, Applicant requests the withdrawal of the citation to the foregoing registration as this registration is now legally cancelled. With regard to the noted ONE HOUSE and 1 HOMES applications, Applicant contends that the differences between the applied for marks coupled with differences between the respective parties’ service offerings shows that the foregoing noted marks and Applicant’s mark are capable of peacefully coexisting, especially in view of Applicant’s significantly amended services description and the presence of a unique design element contained within Applicant’s composite mark. In comparing marks for a likelihood of confusion, the marks must be viewed in their entirety concerning their appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression. In re E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 U.S.P.Q. 563 (CCPA 1973).Although the mark of cited registrations and noted applications all each consist of or incorporate similar elements, this fact alone is far from dispositive of a likelihood of confusion. "Per se" rules relating to likelihood of confusion have been struck down as being too inflexible as contrary to trademark law, where each case must be decided based on its own facts and circumstances. See In re Quadram Corporation, 228 U.S.P.Q. 863, 865 (TTAB 1985) and cases cited therein. The differences between the noted ONE HOUSE and 1 HOMES marks and Applicant’s ONEHOME and Design Mark render the marks visually and phonetically distinguishable. The services covered by the respective marks are also quite distinguishable. As a result of the Amendments made to Applicant’s Description, it can be seen that Applicant’s services are directed to the use of the applied for mark in connection with a web site and portal providing users with the ability to undertake artificial intelligence-enabled searches to find the right home. Applicant’s platform is intended to provide a virtual marketplace that connects homebuyers to mortgage, property and casualty insurance providers. Please see attached Exhibits 1 and 2. Applicant’s mark is not used in connection with the rendering of any actual real estate management or construction-related services. By contrast, the marks of the noted applications are not at all intended to be used in connection with such sophisticated service offerings. Rather, the noted 1 HOMES application is limited to services described as “Building management; Real estate services, namely, condominium management services.” None of the foregoing services have any relationship to or association with Applicant’s online platforms. Similarly, the ONE HOUSE application covers services pertaining to the rental and management of apartments and office spaces; the construction of houses and property management; and the provision of temporary accommodation services. None of these services are at all related to Applicant’s ONEHOME and Design-branded online platform-related service offerings. To find a likelihood of confusion, the goods and/or services for which the marks have been applied or registered must be sufficiently related. The issue is not whether purchasers would confuse the goods, but rather whether there is a likelihood of confusion as to the source of the goods/services. In re Rexel Inc., 223 USPQ 830 (TTAB 1984). If the goods and/or services are not related or marketed in such a manner that they would be encountered by the same persons in situations that would create the incorrect assumption that they originate from the same source, then, even if the marks are identical, confusion is not likely. See, e.g., Local Trademarks, Inc. v. Handy Boys, Inc., 16 U.S.P.Q.2d 1156 (T.T.A.B. 1990) ("LITTLE PLUMBER" for drain opener held not confusingly similar to "LITTLE PLUMBER" and Design for advertising services); T.M.E.P. § 1207.01(a)(i). Here, it simply cannot be said that consumers seeing the 1 HOMES mark used in connection with condominium management services; the ONE HOUSE mark used in connection with the rental and management of apartments and office spaces, the construction of houses and property management services; and the ONEHOME and Design mark used in connection with web sites and platforms for use by certified REALTORS® in connection with the home buying process would assume there exists any relationship between the respective parties as the marks of the respective parties and their services offerings are sufficiently distinguishable. As Applicant's mark covers services which are electronic/computer software-related, the sophistication of the purchasers is an even more relevant factor for consideration. This is not the kind of case where two competing online platforms having similar functionality are being marketed side by side and whose services are purchased with a minimum degree of care. As can be seen from the attached Press Release, “OneHome is expected to be nationally available by the end of 2020 to the more than 850,000 real estate agents in North America who currently use CoreLogic’s market-leading multiple listing platform.” Applicant’s targeted consumers consist of mostly certified Realtors® who are highly sophisticated individuals seeking to use very specialized computer software platforms in connection with real estate-related transactions on behalf of their clients. The use of software platforms of these types of tasks does not result from a hasty decision made merely upon seeing a name. The services at issue are rendered for their very particular specialized purposes, and much attention is directed to the service specifications in determining the appropriateness of the services for their intended and distinctive uses. These types of services are neither available nor offered to the general consumer and are not the type of service that would be available to such a casual unsophisticated consumer let alone purchased by such consumers. The ONEHOME and Design-branded services of Applicant and those services recited in the noted Applications are markedly diverse and emanate from different, unrelated sources. In turn, as consumers will readily recognize these distinctions, each mark can coexist in the marketplace without any likelihood of confusion. The Board has long since recognized that a finding of likelihood of confusion should not automatically follow in all cases where the goods or services in question involve computer software and/or hardware. “As a result of the veritable explosion of technology in the computer field over the last several years and the almost limitless number of specialized products and specialized uses in this industry, we think that a per se rule relating to source confusion vis-a-vis computer hardware and software is simply too rigid and restrictive an approach and fails to consider the realities of the marketplace.” Information Resources Inc. v. X*Press Information Services, 6 U.S.P.Q.2d 1034, 1038 (TTAB 1988). As the services sold/rendered under the respective marks do not share a commonality of function or subject matter, there cannot exist a likelihood of confusion between the marks and their respective services. Simply because the marks at issue may cover services that are offered in the general real estate/real property field does not at all support a finding of likelihood of confusion as Applicant’s ONEHOME and Design-branded service offerings are rendered via sophisticated computer software platforms. Applicant has shown that the marks of the noted applications are distinguishable; that the services of the respective parties are very different; and that Applicant’s mark, unlike the marks of the noted application, is used in connection with very sophisticated platform driven services offered to sophisticated users who would readily and easily be aware of the differences between the respective parties’ service offerings. As such confusion between the applied for ONEHOME and Design mark and the marks of the noted applications will not occur as no such opportunity for the occurrence of confusion even exists. In view of the foregoing, it is respectfully submitted that the potential refusal of registration under Section 2(d) should be withdrawn. Further and favorable action in connection with the application is earnestly solicited. |
|||||||||
| EVIDENCE SECTION | |||||||||
| EVIDENCE FILE NAME(S) | |||||||||
| ORIGINAL PDF FILE | evi_96245160119-202010231 54244990913_._OneHome_Cli ent_Portal_Ex1.pdf | ||||||||
| CONVERTED PDF FILE(S) (7 pages) |
\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\888\230\88823017\xml5\ ROA0002.JPG | ||||||||
| \\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\888\230\88823017\xml5\ ROA0003.JPG | |||||||||
| \\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\888\230\88823017\xml5\ ROA0004.JPG | |||||||||
| \\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\888\230\88823017\xml5\ ROA0005.JPG | |||||||||
| \\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\888\230\88823017\xml5\ ROA0006.JPG | |||||||||
| \\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\888\230\88823017\xml5\ ROA0007.JPG | |||||||||
| \\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\888\230\88823017\xml5\ ROA0008.JPG | |||||||||
| ORIGINAL PDF FILE | evi_96245160119-202010231 54244990913_._OneHome_Cli ent_Portal_Ex2.pdf | ||||||||
| CONVERTED PDF FILE(S) (3 pages) |
\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\888\230\88823017\xml5\ ROA0009.JPG | ||||||||
| \\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\888\230\88823017\xml5\ ROA0010.JPG | |||||||||
| \\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\888\230\88823017\xml5\ ROA0011.JPG | |||||||||
| DESCRIPTION OF EVIDENCE FILE | evidence in support of Applicant's arguments | ||||||||
| GOODS AND/OR SERVICES SECTION (042) (current) | |||||||||
| INTERNATIONAL CLASS | 042 | ||||||||
| DESCRIPTION | |||||||||
| providing temporary use of non-downloadable software in the nature of a mobile application for providing consumers with information about home listings, insight about properties and location, and connecting the consumer with professionals to enable home buying, selling, renovation transactions; providing temporary use of non-downloadable software in the nature of a mobile application for providing consumers with information about service providers and for use in connecting service providers and consumers through referrals; providing a website for connecting consumers and qualified service providers in the field of real property and real estate; providing a website and non-downloadable computer software that enables consumers to view and interact with digital real estate listings populated on mls platforms, allow realtors to send curated digital home listings to home buyer consumers, and engage digitally with realtors throughout the home buying and selling transaction; providing online non-downloadable computer software for use in connection with real estate home buying, selling, and referral services in the nature of providing referrals to financing, insurance, and home services; providing online non-downloadable computer software for use in connection with referral services for realtors, lenders, insurers, home inspectors and handymen | |||||||||
| FILING BASIS | Section 1(b) | ||||||||
| GOODS AND/OR SERVICES SECTION (042) (proposed) | |||||||||
| INTERNATIONAL CLASS | 042 | ||||||||
| TRACKED TEXT DESCRIPTION | |||||||||
| FINAL DESCRIPTION | |||||||||
| Providing temporary use of non-downloadable software providing consumers with information about home listings, insight about properties and location, and connecting the consumer with professionals to enable home buying, selling, renovation transactions; Providing temporary use of non-downloadable software providing consumers with information about real estate service providers and for use in connecting service providers and consumers through referrals; Providing temporary use of online non-downloadable computer software that enables consumers to view and interact with digital real estate listings populated on multiple listing service platforms, allow realtors to send curated digital home listings to home buyer consumers, and engage digitally with realtors throughout the home buying and selling transaction | |||||||||
| FILING BASIS | Section 1(b) | ||||||||
| GOODS AND/OR SERVICES SECTION (035)(class added) | |||||||||
| INTERNATIONAL CLASS | 035 | ||||||||
| DESCRIPTION | |||||||||
| Providing a website for connecting consumers and qualified service providers in the field of real property and real estate | |||||||||
| FILING BASIS | Section 1(b) | ||||||||
| GOODS AND/OR SERVICES SECTION (036)(class added) | |||||||||
| INTERNATIONAL CLASS | 036 | ||||||||
| DESCRIPTION | |||||||||
| Providing a website that enables consumers to view and interact with digital real estate listings populated on multiple listing service platforms, allow realtors to send curated digital home listings to home buyer consumers, and engage digitally with realtors throughout the home buying and selling transaction | |||||||||
| FILING BASIS | Section 1(b) | ||||||||
| ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS SECTION | |||||||||
| DESCRIPTION OF THE MARK (and Color Location, if applicable) |
The mark consists of the stylized lowercase wording "ONEHOME" with an image of the top half of a house inside of the "O". | ||||||||
| CORRESPONDENCE INFORMATION (current) | |||||||||
| NAME | MICHAEL J. LEONARD | ||||||||
| PRIMARY EMAIL ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE | ipdocket@foxrothschild.com | ||||||||
| SECONDARY EMAIL ADDRESS(ES) (COURTESY COPIES) | mleonard@foxrothschild.com | ||||||||
| DOCKET/REFERENCE NUMBER | 119210.00103 | ||||||||
| CORRESPONDENCE INFORMATION (proposed) | |||||||||
| NAME | Michael J. Leonard | ||||||||
| PRIMARY EMAIL ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE | ipdocket@foxrothschild.com | ||||||||
| SECONDARY EMAIL ADDRESS(ES) (COURTESY COPIES) | mleonard@foxrothschild.com | ||||||||
| DOCKET/REFERENCE NUMBER | 119210.00103 | ||||||||
| PAYMENT SECTION | |||||||||
| APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION PER CLASS | 275 | ||||||||
| NUMBER OF CLASSES | 2 | ||||||||
| TOTAL FEES DUE | 550 | ||||||||
| SIGNATURE SECTION | |||||||||
| DECLARATION SIGNATURE | /mjl/ | ||||||||
| SIGNATORY'S NAME | Michael J. Leonard | ||||||||
| SIGNATORY'S POSITION | Attorney of Record, PA Bar Member | ||||||||
| DATE SIGNED | 10/23/2020 | ||||||||
| RESPONSE SIGNATURE | /mjl/ | ||||||||
| SIGNATORY'S NAME | Michael J. Leonard | ||||||||
| SIGNATORY'S POSITION | Attorney of Record, PA Bar Member | ||||||||
| DATE SIGNED | 10/23/2020 | ||||||||
| AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY | YES | ||||||||
| FILING INFORMATION SECTION | |||||||||
| SUBMIT DATE | Fri Oct 23 15:55:13 ET 2020 | ||||||||
| TEAS STAMP | USPTO/ROA-XX.XXX.XXX.XXX- 20201023155513483009-8882 3017-7504b986e5d352cc0209 891139e6199c754946fc26160 32704a76904db59c574b-DA-5 5127261-20201023154244990 913 |
||||||||
| 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 09/30/2020) |
REMARKS
The Description of Services has been amended in accordance with the Examining Attorney's requirement. It is respectfully submitted that the Description of Services, as amended, is sufficiently definite for purposes of registration and acceptance is respectfully urged.
In accordance with the Examining Attorney’s request, Applicant has revised the Description of the Mark.
The Examining Attorney has refused registration of the applied for mark, due to the presence of the following Registration and pending applications:
|
Registration/ Application No. |
Mark |
|
4518376 |
ONE HOME |
|
88776856 |
ONE HOUSE |
|
88457662 |
1 HOMES |
Applicant notes that cited Registration No. 4518376 had a Declaration of Use deadline of 22 April 2020 and a final grace period deadline of 22 October 2020. As Applicant’s review of the TSDR database shows that no Declaration of Use has been filed in connection with the cited Registration, Applicant requests the withdrawal of the citation to the foregoing registration as this registration is now legally cancelled.
With regard to the noted ONE HOUSE and 1 HOMES applications, Applicant contends that the differences between the applied for marks coupled with differences between the respective parties’ service offerings shows that the foregoing noted marks and Applicant’s mark are capable of peacefully coexisting, especially in view of Applicant’s significantly amended services description and the presence of a unique design element contained within Applicant’s composite mark.
In comparing marks for a likelihood of confusion, the marks must be viewed in their entirety concerning their appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression. In re E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 U.S.P.Q. 563 (CCPA 1973).Although the mark of cited registrations and noted applications all each consist of or incorporate similar elements, this fact alone is far from dispositive of a likelihood of confusion. "Per se" rules relating to likelihood of confusion have been struck down as being too inflexible as contrary to trademark law, where each case must be decided based on its own facts and circumstances. See In re Quadram Corporation, 228 U.S.P.Q. 863, 865 (TTAB 1985) and cases cited therein. The differences between the noted ONE HOUSE and 1 HOMES marks and Applicant’s ONEHOME and Design Mark render the marks visually and phonetically distinguishable.
The services covered by the respective marks are also quite distinguishable. As a result of the Amendments made to Applicant’s Description, it can be seen that Applicant’s services are directed to the use of the applied for mark in connection with a web site and portal providing users with the ability to undertake artificial intelligence-enabled searches to find the right home. Applicant’s platform is intended to provide a virtual marketplace that connects homebuyers to mortgage, property and casualty insurance providers. Please see attached Exhibits 1 and 2. Applicant’s mark is not used in connection with the rendering of any actual real estate management or construction-related services.
By contrast, the marks of the noted applications are not at all intended to be used in connection with such sophisticated service offerings. Rather, the noted 1 HOMES application is limited to services described as “Building management; Real estate services, namely, condominium management services.” None of the foregoing services have any relationship to or association with Applicant’s online platforms. Similarly, the ONE HOUSE application covers services pertaining to the rental and management of apartments and office spaces; the construction of houses and property management; and the provision of temporary accommodation services. None of these services are at all related to Applicant’s ONEHOME and Design-branded online platform-related service offerings.
To find a likelihood of confusion, the goods and/or services for which the marks have been applied or registered must be sufficiently related. The issue is not whether purchasers would confuse the goods, but rather whether there is a likelihood of confusion as to the source of the goods/services. In re Rexel Inc., 223 USPQ 830 (TTAB 1984). If the goods and/or services are not related or marketed in such a manner that they would be encountered by the same persons in situations that would create the incorrect assumption that they originate from the same source, then, even if the marks are identical, confusion is not likely. See, e.g., Local Trademarks, Inc. v. Handy Boys, Inc., 16 U.S.P.Q.2d 1156 (T.T.A.B. 1990) ("LITTLE PLUMBER" for drain opener held not confusingly similar to "LITTLE PLUMBER" and Design for advertising services); T.M.E.P. § 1207.01(a)(i). Here, it simply cannot be said that consumers seeing the 1 HOMES mark used in connection with condominium management services; the ONE HOUSE mark used in connection with the rental and management of apartments and office spaces, the construction of houses and property management services; and the ONEHOME and Design mark used in connection with web sites and platforms for use by certified REALTORS® in connection with the home buying process would assume there exists any relationship between the respective parties as the marks of the respective parties and their services offerings are sufficiently distinguishable.
As Applicant's mark covers services which are electronic/computer software-related, the sophistication of the purchasers is an even more relevant factor for consideration. This is not the kind of case where two competing online platforms having similar functionality are being marketed side by side and whose services are purchased with a minimum degree of care. As can be seen from the attached Press Release, “OneHome is expected to be nationally available by the end of 2020 to the more than 850,000 real estate agents in North America who currently use CoreLogic’s market-leading multiple listing platform.” Applicant’s targeted consumers consist of mostly certified Realtors® who are highly sophisticated individuals seeking to use very specialized computer software platforms in connection with real estate-related transactions on behalf of their clients. The use of software platforms of these types of tasks does not result from a hasty decision made merely upon seeing a name. The services at issue are rendered for their very particular specialized purposes, and much attention is directed to the service specifications in determining the appropriateness of the services for their intended and distinctive uses. These types of services are neither available nor offered to the general consumer and are not the type of service that would be available to such a casual unsophisticated consumer let alone purchased by such consumers. The ONEHOME and Design-branded services of Applicant and those services recited in the noted Applications are markedly diverse and emanate from different, unrelated sources. In turn, as consumers will readily recognize these distinctions, each mark can coexist in the marketplace without any likelihood of confusion.
The Board has long since recognized that a finding of likelihood of confusion should not automatically follow in all cases where the goods or services in question involve computer software and/or hardware. “As a result of the veritable explosion of technology in the computer field over the last several years and the almost limitless number of specialized products and specialized uses in this industry, we think that a per se rule relating to source confusion vis-a-vis computer hardware and software is simply too rigid and restrictive an approach and fails to consider the realities of the marketplace.” Information Resources Inc. v. X*Press Information Services, 6 U.S.P.Q.2d 1034, 1038 (TTAB 1988). As the services sold/rendered under the respective marks do not share a commonality of function or subject matter, there cannot exist a likelihood of confusion between the marks and their respective services. Simply because the marks at issue may cover services that are offered in the general real estate/real property field does not at all support a finding of likelihood of confusion as Applicant’s ONEHOME and Design-branded service offerings are rendered via sophisticated computer software platforms.
Applicant has shown that the marks of the noted applications are distinguishable; that the services of the respective parties are very different; and that Applicant’s mark, unlike the marks of the noted application, is used in connection with very sophisticated platform driven services offered to sophisticated users who would readily and easily be aware of the differences between the respective parties’ service offerings. As such confusion between the applied for ONEHOME and Design mark and the marks of the noted applications will not occur as no such opportunity for the occurrence of confusion even exists.
In view of the foregoing, it is respectfully submitted that the potential refusal of registration under Section 2(d) should be withdrawn. Further and favorable action in connection with the application is earnestly solicited.
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.
