Response to Office Action

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)

---

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. 88505487 XTR(Standard Characters, see http://tmng-al.gov.uspto.report/resting2/api/img/88505487/large) has been amended as follows:

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

In response to the Official Action dated September 26, 2019, Applicant submits the following.

LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION REFUSAL - U.S. Registration Nos. 3,321,772 and 4,354,865

The Examining Trademark Attorney (Examiner) has refused registration based on the Examiner's finding that the applied-for mark, (Applicant’s mark or XTR) when used on or in connection with the identified goods, so resembles the mark in U.S. Registration Nos. 3,321,772 and 4,354,865 (the cited marks or XTR-EXTREME REAMER and XTR-S EXTREME REAMER) as to be likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake or to deceive. In response thereto, Applicant respectfully submits that its mark XTR is not likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake or to deceive consumers who would encounter the XTR mark of Applicant and those of the cited marks. Since no confusion is likely, Applicant's mark should be approved for publication.

The marks and goods at issue are as follows:

Mark	Serial No.	Class 7 Goods
XTR-EXTREME REAMER	Reg. No. 3,321,772	Power tools, namely reamers
XTR-S EXTREME REAMER	Reg. No. 4,354,865	Power tools, namely reamers
XTR	App. Ser. No. 88/505,487	Cordless and corded power tools, namely, drills, hammer drills, impact drills, grinders, drivers, sanders, staplers, routers, planers, cutters, polishers, buffers, rotary cut off tools, drill presses, impact wrenches, sharpeners, power saws, reciprocating saws, circular saws, bend saws, chop saws, table saws, tile saws, jig saws and miter saws

Likelihood of confusion is determined on a case-specific basis, applying the factors set out in In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (CCPA 1973). The DuPont factors are: (1) the similarity or dissimilarity of the marks in their entireties as to appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression; (2) the similarity or dissimilarity and nature of the goods or services as described in an application or registration or in connection with which a prior mark is in use; (3) the similarity or dissimilarity of established, likely-to-continue trade channels; (4) the conditions under which and buyers to whom sales are made, i.e., "impulse" vs. careful, sophisticated purchasing; (5) the fame of the prior mark (sales, advertising, length of use); (6) the number and nature of similar marks in use on similar goods; (7) the nature and extent of any actual confusion; (8) the length of time during and conditions under which there have been concurrent use without evidence of actual confusion; (9) the variety of goods on which a mark is or is not used (house mark, "family" mark, product mark); (10) the market interface between applicant and the owner of a prior mark; (11) the extent to which applicant has a right to exclude others from use of its mark on its goods; (12) the extent of potential confusion, i.e., whether de minimis or substantial; and (13) any other established fact probative of the effect of use. See id.

In making a determination concerning likelihood of confusion, all of the relevant factors enumerated by the Court in DuPont must be analyzed. All relevant facts must be considered on a case by case basis: [T]rademark law must necessarily be flexible responding to particular circumstances disclosed by particular fact situations... [E]ach case must be decided on the basis of all relevant facts which include the marks and the goods as well as the marketing environment in which a purchaser normally encounters them... Interstate Brands Corp. v. Celestial Seasonings, Inc., 196 USPQ 321, 324 (TTAB 1977) aff'd 198 USPQ 1151 (CCPA 1978) (emphasis added). Further, "the test is a difficult one, geared to analysis of each case on the basis of the characteristics of the marks and goods in issue". In re August Storck KG, 218 USPQ 823 (TTAB 1983).

The Examiner asserts that a likelihood of confusion exists in the instant case between Applicant's mark XTR and the following cited marks: XTR-EXTREME REAMER and XTR-S EXTREME REAMER for “power tools, namely reamers”, owned by Inrock Drilling Systems, Inc., 6000 Brittmoore Rd., Houston, Texas, Reg. No. 3,321,772 issued October 23, 2007 and Reg. No. 4,354,865 issued June 18, 2013.

A Number Of DuPont Factors Favor A Finding Of No Likelihood Of Confusion.

DuPont Factor 1: The similarity or dissimilarity of the marks in their entireties as to appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression. DuPont Factor 1 favors Applicant since the marks are different.

The appearance of the cited marks and Applicant’s mark differ since Applicant’s mark consists of the letters XTR and the cited marks are XTR-EXTREME REAMER and XTR-S EXTREME REAMER.

As for sound, the letters XTR alone are clearly distinguishable from the phrases XTR-EXTREME REAMER and XTR-S EXTREME REAMER. It is unlikely anyone would aurally confuse XTR with XTR-EXTREME REAMER and XTR-S EXTREME REAMER.

The differences in connotation between the cited mark and Applicant’s mark can be seen in (a) the clear difference in appearance of the marks and (2) the impact of the terms EXTREME REAMER. It is clearly obvious that the terms EXTREME REAMER fundamentally changes the nature and connotation of the mark compared to XTR by itself. From a connotation standpoint there are clearly differences between Applicant’s mark and the cited marks.

Once a consumer comes across the cited marks or Applicant’s mark in the marketplace, together with the product or service that it represents, the commercial impression made on the consumer is distinct. A consumer will immediately be aware that the cited marks have to do with “reamers”, in fact “extreme reamers”.

As a result, Applicant’s mark is distinguished from the cited marks in all four elements of Factor 1: appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression.

DuPont Factor 2: The similarity or dissimilarity and nature of the goods as described in an application or registration or in connection with which a prior mark is in use. DuPont Factor 2 favors Applicant since the goods are different.

The Examiner states that “The applicant has applied for use of its mark on power tools, including several types of drills. The registrants use their marks on power tools, namely, reamers. The attached dictionary entry indicates that reamers are a type of drill. The applicant broadly describes its goods in Class 7; therefore, these goods include all the goods of the type described, which encompass the registrant’s more specific goods. Thus the parties’ goods are legally identical in part, which supports a finding of likelihood of confusion. See, e.g., In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 127 USPQ2d 1627, 1629 (TTAB 2018) (citing Tuxedo Monopoly, Inc. v.Gen. Mills Fun Grp., Inc., 648 F.2d 1335, 1336, 209 USPQ 986, 988 (C.C.P.A. 1981); Inter IKEA Sys. B.V. v. Akea, LLC, 110 USPQ2d 1734, 1745 (TTAB 2014); Baseball Am. Inc. v. Powerplay Sports Ltd., 71 USPQ2d 1844, 1847 n.9 (TTAB 2004)).”

Below are the cited marks and Applicant’s mark along with the Class 7 goods:

Mark	Serial No.	Class 7 Goods
XTR-EXTREME REAMER	Reg. No. 3,321,772	Power tools, namely reamers
XTR-S EXTREME REAMER	Reg. No. 4,354,865	Power tools, namely reamers
XTR	App. Ser. No. 88/505,487	Cordless and corded power tools, namely, drills, hammer drills, impact drills, grinders, drivers, sanders, staplers, routers, planers, cutters, polishers, buffers, rotary cut off tools, drill presses, impact wrenches, sharpeners, power saws, reciprocating saws, circular saws, bend saws, chop saws, table saws, tile saws, jig saws and miter saws

Following TMEP practice and procedure, both the cited marks and Applicant have properly specified their goods using the term “Namely”. Section 1402.03(a) of the TMEP states, in part “The terms "namely," "consisting of," "particularly," and "in particular" are definite and are preferred to set forth an identification that requires greater particularity. The examining attorney will require that vague terminology be replaced by these terms (e.g., power tools, namely, hammer drills in Class 7; needlepoint kits consisting of needles, thread, and printed patterns in Class 26; or projectors, particularly projectors for the entertainment industry in Class 9). The goods or services listed after "namely," "particularly," or the like must further define the introductory wording that precedes "namely," "particularly," or the like using definite terms within the scope of the introductory wording.”

Applicant respectfully disagrees with the Examiner that “reamers are a type of drill”. While there are drills called reamers this application of the term is not at all common. The definition of reamers is much more broad than drills and includes many other items. See Exhibit A, Wikipedia website on the term Reamer or see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reamer . Reamers are most commonly in the nature of a type of rotary cutting tool for enlarging, cleaning out or smoothing a previously formed hole.

Merely finding a definition for the term “reamer” on a website that defines the word as “a type of drill” does not end the inquiry. First, the goods of the cited mark are “power tools, namely reamers”, not “drills, namely reamers”. If the owner of the cited marks meant to cover drills in the goods description the term “drills” instead of the term “power tools” would have been used. The goods description of the cited marks do not include drills.

The Examiner states in the Official Action that “The applicant broadly describes its goods in Class 7; therefore, these goods include all the goods of the type described, which encompass the registrant’s more specific goods. Thus the parties’ goods are legally identical in part, which supports a finding of likelihood of confusion. See, e.g., In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 127 USPQ2d 1627, 1629 (TTAB 2018) (citing Tuxedo Monopoly, Inc. v.Gen. Mills Fun Grp., Inc., 648 F.2d 1335, 1336, 209 USPQ 986, 988 (C.C.P.A. 1981); Inter IKEA Sys. B.V. v. Akea, LLC, 110 USPQ2d 1734, 1745 (TTAB 2014); Baseball Am. Inc. v. Powerplay Sports Ltd., 71 USPQ2d 1844, 1847 n.9 (TTAB 2004)).

The Applicant has not broadly defined its goods. In fact, Applicants’ goods follow proper USPTO practice and procedure with use of the term “namely” to specifically set forth the goods covered by Applicants mark. Applicant’s goods description is specific so any average person reviewing the goods description will immediately understand the goods covered by the trademark.

On the other hand, the goods description of the cited marks is not specific so any average person reviewing the goods description will immediately understand the goods covered by the trademark.

As stated in Section 1402.01 of the TMEP, “The language used to describe goods and/or services should be understandable to the average person and should not require an in-depth knowledge of the relevant field. An identification may include terms of art in a particular field or industry that are definite and limited to a single class, but, if these terms are not widely understood by the general population, the identification should include an explanation of the specialized terminology.”

Section 1402.01 of the TMEP further states: “The identification of goods and/or services must be specific, definite, clear, accurate, and concise. See In re Societe Generale des Eaux Minerales de Vittel S.A., 1 USPQ2d 1296 (TTAB 1986) , rev’d on other grounds, 824 F.2d 957, 3 USPQ2d 1450 (Fed. Cir. 1987); The Procter & Gamble Co. v. Economics Laboratory, Inc., 175 USPQ 505 (TTAB 1972) , modified without opinion, 498 F.2d 1406, 181 USPQ 722 (C.C.P.A. 1974); In re Cardinal Laboratories, Inc., 149 USPQ 709 (TTAB 1966) ; California Spray-Chemical Corp. v. Osmose Wood Preserving Co. of America, Inc., 102 USPQ 321 (Comm’r Pats. 1954); Ex parte The A.C. Gilbert Co., 99 USPQ 344 (Comm’r Pats. 1953).”

Since the goods description in the cited marks is ultimately vague, an examination of the specimen filed as proof of use for the cited marks should be made. Such an examination does provide a better understanding of what the cited mark covers through its goods description of “power tools, namely reamers”. This exercise is necessary since “power tools, namely reamers”, by itself, does not provide sufficient notice to an average person reviewing the goods description as to what the goods actually are. The goods are in fact reamers for use in oil fields, specifically horizontal directional drilling. The website of the owner of the cited marks confirms that the cited marks are used for reamers used for horizonal directional drilling. See www.inrock.com .

In sum, Applicant’s goods are not “legally identical in part” to the goods of the cited mark, since (1) not all reamers are drills; (2) the goods of the cited mark are not drills, and (3) Applicant’s goods do not include reamers.

The issue in determining whether goods or services are so commercially similar that confusion is likely is not whether some conceptual connection exists between such goods or services, or whether a situation can be hypothesized wherein a person may encounter the goods or services at issue, but rather whether such goods or services are likely to be encountered by the same persons under circumstances that would give rise, because of the marks used in connection therewith, to an incorrect assumption that they originate from the same source. See Local Trademarks, Inc. v. Handy Boys, Inc., 16 USPQ2d 1156, 1158 (TTAB 1990).

The goods sold under the cited marks and the goods sold under Applicant’s mark and the purchasers therefore are sufficiently different to avoid any reasonable likelihood of confusion between the marks. This supports a finding of no likelihood of confusion between Applicant’s mark and the cited mark.

DuPont Factor 3: The similarity or dissimilarity of established, likely-to-continue trade channels. DuPont Factor 3 favors Applicant since the trade channels are different.

Applicant’s products are offered exclusively though the more than 1700 United States store locations of home improvement retailer Lowe’s and though its website (see www.lowes.com ). Lowe’s is a home improvement retailer in the business of providing home improvement products, hardware, building materials, lawn and garden supplies and home décor products and services. Under the KOBALT brand of hand and power tools, Lowe’s offers line of tools under the sub-brand XTR (See Exhibit B).

The product sold under the cited mark is a specialized tool used for horizontal directional drilling, which appears to be available through limited channels, including the website of the owner of the cited mark (see www.inrock.com ).

The trade channels for the goods sold under the cited mark and under Applicant’s mark are distinct. As such, this factor favors Applicant and a finding of no likelihood of confusion.

DuPont Factor 4: The conditions under which and buyers to whom sales are made, i.e., "impulse" vs. careful, sophisticated purchasing. DuPont Factor 4 favors Applicant since purchasers would not confuse home improvement power tools with reamers used for oil field horizontal directional drilling.

Given the distinct differences in function, cost and use of the products offered under Applicant’s mark and those of the cited marks, the conditions under which sales are made is distinctly different. The specialized function and cost of the goods sold under the cited marks would dictate that all sales of the goods under the cited mark would be in the nature of careful, sophisticated purchasing, including appropriate research and planning. This is compared to the retail sale of power tools for home improvement, in which the conditions under which sales are made would be in the nature of a typical sale of a consumer product with a cost of between 50.00 to 300.00 USD. See In re Research and Trading Corp., 230 USPQ 49, 50 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As such, this factor favors Applicant.

DuPont Factor 5: The fame of the prior marks (sales, advertising, length of use). DuPont Factor 5 favors Applicant given that the goods offered under the cited mark are specialized goods directed to a specific industry.

The cited marks XTR-EXTREME REAMER and XTR-S EXTREME REAMER were registered in 2007 and 2013. Given the nature of the products sold under the cited marks, any advertising and sales would be limited to other commercial customers in the horizontal directional drilling and oilfield services industries.

DuPont Factor 6: The number and nature of similar marks in use on similar goods. DuPont Factor 6 favors Applicant since the number and nature of similar marks consisting of XTR or using XTR as a prefix in the oil and gas industry shows a narrow scope of protection afforded to the letters XTR in International Class 7 in that industry.

The Applicant wishes to bring to the attention of the Examiner the following registered trademarks to show that a significant number of active trademark registrations exist in the records of the USPTO that consist of or contain XTR for highly similar goods for use in the oil and gas industry in Class 7, which show that the USPTO has consistently granted a narrow scope of protection to the term XTR (See Exhibit C).

MARK Reg. No. / Appl. No.	OWNER Appl. Date / Reg. Date	CLASS 7 GOODS
XTR 5,592,862 87/240,587	Electro-Flow Controls Limited 11/17/2016 10/30/2018	Machine parts in the nature of mechanical valves, hydraulic controls, pneumatic controls, pneumatic valve actuators, linear actuators, hydraulic valve actuators, pneumatic valves in the nature of valves being parts of machines operated pneumatically, and electro-hydraulic valve actuators, all for use in the oil and gas industry and none of the aforementioned for use with transmissions; oil and gas well drilling equipment in the nature of mechanical isolation tools for isolating zones within an oil and gas drilling riser to regulate and control the flow of drilling fluid and gas, namely, drilling rig mechanical handling machines and devices, drilling rig mechanization machines and devices, and axial flow pumps; oil and gas well drilling equipment in the nature of mechanical isolation tools for regulating and controlling the flow of drilling fluid and gas in marine risers, namely, drilling rig mechanical handling machines and devices, drilling rig mechanization machines and devices, and axial flow pumps; oil and gas well drilling equipment in the nature of riser isolation devices tools for regulating and controlling the flow of drilling fluid and gas, namely, drilling rig mechanical handling machines and devices, drilling rig mechanization machines and devices, and axial flow pumps; oil and gas equipment being machine parts in the nature of flow control manifolds; gas handling apparatus in the nature of machine tools for hydrocarbon drilling or production systems; structural parts and fittings for the aforesaid goods
T XTREME and Design 3,815,973 76/685,760	Fordia Group Inc. 01/14/2008 07/13/2010	Drilling tools, namely, power driven core drilling bits
XTRACAP 3,682,900 77/681,141	TAM International, Inc. 03/02/2009 09/15/2009	Oil well equipment, namely, downhole packers installed on casing joints or casing mandrels for use in controlling the flow and movement of fluids
XTREMEZONE 2,599,592 78/043,687	Baker Hughes Incorporated 01/18/2001 07/23/2002	Machines and machine tools; namely, discontinuous rib external casing packers with composite end assemblies for use in downhole oil or gas wells.
XTREMEGRIP 5,886,265 87/895,206	Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. 04/27/2018 10/15/2019	Oil and gas well downhole equipment, namely, liner hangers.
XTREAMPURE 4,255,074 85/446,413	Pecofacet (US) Inc. 10/13/2011 12/04/2012	Fluid filters, namely, oil filters and fuel filters for use in the oil and gas, refinery, petrochemical, and industrial water markets.

The above registrations show that the letters XTR are commonly used and registered for goods in Class 7 in the oil and gas industry. Consumers in the space would find such use of the letters XTR commonplace. The behavior of the USPTO is consistent with this, as it can be seen from the above that the USPTO consistently affords a narrow scope of protection to the letters XTR in Class 7 in the oil and gas industry. It appears the letters XTR are used in the industry to evoke or promote the “extreme” nature, function or durability of the goods. This includes the cited marks:

Mark	Serial No.	Class 7 Goods
XTR-EXTREME REAMER	Reg. No. 3,321,772	Power tools, namely reamers
XTR-S EXTREME REAMER	Reg. No. 4,354,865	Power tools, namely reamers

In the instant case, Applicant’s mark XTR can be distinguished both from a trademark and goods basis from the number of registrations containing or consisting of XTR for various goods in Class 7 for use in the oil and gas industry. This factor favors a finding of no likelihood of confusion.

DuPont Factor 7: The nature and extent of any actual confusion. DuPont Factor 7 is neutral.

Applicant has no record of any actual confusion between the cited marks and Applicant’s mark since Applicants’ goods have only recently been offered for sale to consumers.

DuPont Factor 8: The length of time during and conditions under which there have been concurrent use without evidence of actual confusion. DuPont factor 8 is neutral.

Applicant has no record of any concurrent use between the cited marks and Applicant’s mark since Applicants’ goods have only recently been offered for sale to consumers.

DuPont Factor 9: The variety of goods on which a mark is or is not used. DuPont Factor 9 supports a finding of no likelihood of confusion since the cited marks are used for very specialized goods for use in the oil and gas industry.

The goods of the cited marks XTR-EXTREME REAMER and XTR-S EXTREME REAMER are reamers for use in horizontal directional drilling in the oil and gas industry. These goods are very expensive to obtain and are for use in a very specialized function. This factor favors Applicant.

DuPont Factor 10: The market interface between applicant and the owner of a prior mark. DuPont factor 10 favors a finding of no likelihood of confusion since the there is little market interface between Applicant and the owner of the cited marks.

Applicant is an intellectual property holding (IP) company and licensor of IP and is a wholly owned subsidiary of licensee Lowe’s Companies, Inc., which operates over 1700 retail home improvement retail stores in the United States. The owner of the cited marks, Inrock Drilling Systems, Inc. is a company in the oil and gas industry that supplies equipment, including reamers, to others in the oil and gas industry, specifically in the area of horizontal directional drilling. The market interface between Applicant and the owner of the cited marks is not significant where confusion would occur between Applicant’s mark and the cited marks.

DuPont Factor 11: The extent to which applicant has a right to exclude others from use of its mark on its goods. This factor is neutral. This factor is neutral since Applicant is in the process of advertising, marketing and selling goods under Applicant’s XTR mark.

DuPont Factor 12: The extent of potential confusion, i.e., whether de minimis or substantial. DuPont Factor 12 favors a finding of no likelihood of confusion since the likelihood of potential confusion is de minimus.

The marks are different: XTR and XTR-EXTREME REAMER and XTR-S EXTREME REAMER

The goods are different:

Drills, hammer drills, impact drills, grinders, drivers, sanders, staplers, routers, planers, cutters, polishers, buffers, rotary cut off tools, drill presses, impact wrenches, sharpeners, power saws, reciprocating saws, circular saws, bend saws, chop saws, table saws, tile saws, jig saws and miter saws

And

Reamers

The channels of trade are different: Applicant’s goods available only in Lowe’s retail home improvement stores and online at www.lowes.com. The goods of the cited mark are offered to commercial and industrial customers in the oil and gas industry.

The letters XTR are used and registered for related goods and services either alone or as a prefix by a number of different entities in Class 7 in the oil and gas industry.

Given the clear differences in the marks, the goods sold under the marks, the channels of trade, and taking into consideration the nature of the letter XTR and its use by third parties in the oil and gas industry, the potential for confusion is de minimis. This factor favors Applicant.

DuPont Factor 13: Any other established fact probative of the effect of use, i.e., any other relevant facts. DuPont Factor 13 favors Applicant.

The Examiner states: “The exclusive rights to use of the term REAMER in the registrant’s marks have been disclaimed; this term is less significant because it is a term commonly used in industry and would not be perceived as a source indicator by consumers. See TMEP 1209 et seq.”

Section 1213.10 of the TMEP states: “A disclaimer does not remove the disclaimed matter from the mark. The mark must still be regarded as a whole, including the disclaimed matter, in evaluating similarity to other marks. See In re Nat'l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 1059, 224 USPQ 749, 751 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Specialty Brands, Inc. v. Coffee Bean Distribs., Inc., 748 F.2d 669, 672, 223 USPQ 1281, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 1984); Giant Food, Inc. v. Nation’s Foodservice, Inc., 710 F.2d.

1565, 1570, 218 USPQ 390, 395 (Fed. Cir. 1983); Schwarzkopf v. John H. Breck, Inc., 340 F.2d 978, 144 USPQ 433 (C.C.P.A. 1965); In re MCI Commc'ns Corp., 21 USPQ2d 1534, 1538-39 (Comm’r Pats. 1991).”

Any consumer encountering the cited marks XTR-EXTREME REAMER and XTR-S EXTREME REAMER will encounter the mark as a whole and will utilize all elements of the mark, including the term REAMER, to determine the source of the goods. Given the widespread use of the letters XTR as a trademark or part of a trademark in the oil and gas industry in general, (as set forth in detail above in DuPont Factor 6) it is necessary for any consumer to consider the mark as a whole in order to distinguish the marks in the marketplace. Taking the cited mark as a whole, including the term REAMER, there exists no likelihood of confusion between Applicant’s mark and the cited marks. If anything, rather than tending to increase a likelihood of confusion between Applicant’s mark and the cited marks since the term REAMER is disclaimed, the term REAMER reduces any likelihood of confusion between Applicant’s mark and the cited mark because it helps the consumer distinguish between goods offered under the marks XTR-EXTREME REAMER and XTR-S EXTREME REAMER and other goods that use the letters XTR as a mark or part of a mark.

CONCLUSION

Applicant submits that there is no reasonable likelihood of confusion between Applicant's mark and the cited mark. The trademark laws seek to prevent a likelihood of confusion, not remote possibilities of confusion based on speculation or supposition. See In re Chalet Chocolates, Inc., 212 USPQ 968, 969 (TTAB 1982). A conclusion that a likelihood of confusion exists between Applicant's mark and the cited mark would be speculative and not supported by the record.

If there is any doubt as to whether there is a likelihood of confusion, that doubt must be resolved in favor of the prior registrant. See In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1209, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 464-65, 6 USPQ2d 1025, 1026 (Fed. Cir. 1988); In re G.B.I. Tile & Stone, Inc., 92 USPQ2d 1366, 1372 (TTAB 2009) ; see also In re C.H. Hanson Co., 116 USPQ2d 1351 (TTAB 2015).

Applicant respectfully requests that its application be approved for publication.

Respectfully submitted,

/swgoode/

Scott Goode

Attorney of Record, DC Bar member

EVIDENCE
Evidence in the nature of EXHIBIT A - REAMER - WIKIPEDIA EXHIBIT B - PICTURE OF CONTAINER FOR THE GOODS DEPICTING THE MARK EXHIBIT C - REG. NO. 5592862 XTR EXHIBIT C- REG. NO. 3815973 TXTREME & DESIGN EXHIBIT C - REG. NO. 3682900 XTRACAP EXHIBIT C - REG. NO. 2599592 XTREMEZONE EXHIBIT C - REG. NO. 5886265 XTREMEGRIP EXHIBIT C - REG. NO. 4255074 XTREMEPURE has been attached.
JPG file(s):
Evidence-1
Original PDF file:
evi_168244451-20200326150917609664_._EXHIBIT_A_-_REAMER_-_Wikipedia.pdf
Converted PDF file(s) ( 8 pages)
Evidence-1
Evidence-2
Evidence-3
Evidence-4
Evidence-5
Evidence-6
Evidence-7
Evidence-8
Original PDF file:
evi_168244451-20200326150917609664_._EXHIBIT_C_-_REG._NO._5592862_XTR.pdf
Converted PDF file(s) ( 2 pages)
Evidence-1
Evidence-2
Original PDF file:
evi_168244451-20200326150917609664_._EXHIBIT_C_-_REG._NO._3815973_TXTREME___DESIGN.pdf
Converted PDF file(s) ( 1 page)
Evidence-1
Original PDF file:
evi_168244451-20200326150917609664_._EXHIBIT_C_-_REG._NO._3682900_XTRACAP.pdf
Converted PDF file(s) ( 1 page)
Evidence-1
Original PDF file:
evi_168244451-20200326150917609664_._EXHIBIT_C_-_REG._NO._2599592_XTREMEZONE.pdf
Converted PDF file(s) ( 1 page)
Evidence-1
Original PDF file:
evi_168244451-20200326150917609664_._EXHIBIT_C_-_REG._NO._4255074_XTREAMPURE.pdf
Converted PDF file(s) ( 2 pages)
Evidence-1
Evidence-2
Original PDF file:
evi_168244451-20200326150917609664_._EXHIBIT_C_-_REG._NO._5886265_XTREMEGRIP.pdf
Converted PDF file(s) ( 2 pages)
Evidence-1
Evidence-2
Correspondence Information (current):
      Scott W. Goode
      PRIMARY EMAIL FOR CORRESPONDENCE: Scott.goode@lowes.com
      SECONDARY EMAIL ADDRESS(ES) (COURTESY COPIES): Trademarks@lowes.com

The docket/reference number is XTR.
Correspondence Information (proposed):
      Scott W. Goode
      PRIMARY EMAIL FOR CORRESPONDENCE: Scott.goode@lowes.com
      SECONDARY EMAIL ADDRESS(ES) (COURTESY COPIES): Trademarks@lowes.com

The docket/reference number is XTR.

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)
Response Signature
Signature: /swgoode/     Date: 03/26/2020
Signatory's Name: Scott W. Goode
Signatory's Position: Attorney of record: DC Bar

Signatory's Phone Number: 704 758 4927

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:    Scott W. Goode
   LF, LLC
   
   1000 LOWE'S BOULEVARD
   MOORESVILLE, North Carolina 28117
Mailing Address:    Scott W. Goode
   LF, LLC
   1000 LOWE'S BOULEVARD
   MOORESVILLE, North Carolina 28117
        
Serial Number: 88505487
Internet Transmission Date: Thu Mar 26 15:51:45 ET 2020
TEAS Stamp: USPTO/ROA-XXX.XXX.X.XX-20200326155145500
339-88505487-710c7a0f236a699b3a3c8723caf
7c6230f384b6adee9aa13981472fadf3cd8d511-
N/A-N/A-20200326150917609664