To: | LMH Trading LLC (mimylinh87@gmail.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88856063 - LILY - N/A |
Sent: | July 09, 2020 09:53:07 AM |
Sent As: | ecom110@uspto.gov |
Attachments: |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88856063
Mark: LILY
|
|
Correspondence Address: |
|
Applicant: LMH Trading LLC
|
|
Reference/Docket No. N/A
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
SUSPENSION NOTICE
No Response Required
Issue date: July 09, 2020
The application is suspended for the reason specified below. See 37 C.F.R. §2.67; TMEP §§716 et seq.
The pending application below has an earlier filing date or effective filing date than applicant’s application. If the mark in the application 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. 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 below either registers or abandons. 37 C.F.R. §2.83(c). Information relevant to the application below was sent previously.
- U.S. Application Serial No. 88756546
NOTE: The following refusals are maintained and continued: Refusal under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act- Likelihood of Confusion Based on the Marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 3835434 and 3835435, Refusal under Sections 1 & 45 of the Trademark Act- Specimen Not Acceptable- Applied-for Mark is Not on Specimen and Refusal under Sections 1 & 45 of the Trademark Act- Specimen Not Acceptable- Goods in Class 05 Not on Specimen- Class 05 Only. Specifically, the examining attorney reviewed the arguments in response to the Refusal under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act- Likelihood of Confusion Based on the Marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 3835434 and 3835435 and finds them unpersuasive. Additionally, applicant has submitted a list of registrations; however, the mere submission of a list of registrations or a copy of a private company search report does not make such registrations part of the record. See In re Peace Love World Live, LLC, 127 USPQ2d 1400, 1405 n.17 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re 1st USA Realty Prof’ls, 84 USPQ2d 1581, 1583 (TTAB 2007); In re Duofold Inc., 184 USPQ 638, 640 (TTAB 1974)); TBMP §1208.02; TMEP §710.03. To make third party registrations part of the record, an applicant must submit copies of the registrations, or the complete electronic equivalent from the USPTO’s automated systems, prior to appeal. In re Star Belly Stitcher, Inc., 107 USPQ2d 2059, 2064 (TTAB 2013); TBMP §1208.02; TMEP §710.03. Accordingly, these registrations will not be considered. Furthermore, the applicant’s amendment to the identification of goods contingent upon the persuasiveness of its arguments against the refusal will not be considered until the applicant expressly amends the identification in a formal response. TMEP §1402.06(a). Lastly, the applicant did not respond to the Refusal under Sections 1 & 45 of the Trademark Act- Specimen Not Acceptable- Applied-for Mark is Not on Specimen and Refusal under Sections 1 & 45 of the Trademark Act- Specimen Not Acceptable- Goods in Class 05 Not on Specimen- Class 05 Only.
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.
/Deborah L. Meiners/
Attorney Advisor
Law Office 110
(571) 272-8993
Deborah.Meiners@USPTO.gov