To: | PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (Trademarks@us.pwc.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 90087019 - PROEDGE - N/A |
Sent: | July 06, 2021 05:26:52 PM |
Sent As: | ecom125@uspto.gov |
Attachments: |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 90087019
Mark: PROEDGE
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
Applicant: PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
|
|
Reference/Docket No. N/A
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
NONFINAL OFFICE ACTION
The USPTO must receive applicant’s response to this letter within six months of the issue date below or the application will be abandoned. Respond using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS). A link to the appropriate TEAS response form appears at the end of this Office action.
Issue date: July 06, 2021
This Office action is supplemental to and supersedes the previous Office action issued on November 24, 2020 in connection with this application. Based on information and/or documentation in applicant’s response, the trademark examining attorney now issues the following new requirement: Improperly Signed Revocation of Attorney Requirement. See TMEP §§706, 711.02.
In a previous Office action dated November 24, 2020, the trademark examining attorney refused registration of the applied-for mark based on the following: Section 2(d) Refusal. In addition, applicant was required to satisfy the following requirement: Identification Requirement.
The examining attorney notes that the Section 2(d) Refusal and Identification Requirement is continued and MAINTAINED.
The following is a SUMMARY OF ISSUES that applicant must address:
• NEW ISSUE: Improperly Signed Revocation of Attorney Requirement
• Section 2(d) Refusal
• Identification Requirement
Applicant must respond to all issues raised in this Office action within six (6) months of the date of issuance of this Office action. 37 C.F.R. §2.62(a); see TMEP §711.02. If applicant does not respond within this time limit, the application will be abandoned. 37 C.F.R. §2.65(a).
IMPROPERLY SIGNED REVOCATION OF ATTORNEY REQUIREMENT
In this case, the party who signed the document is Jeffrey Dicker, Director, and he or she does not have legal authority to bind applicant because a Director is not a recognized officer for a Limited Liability Partnership. See TMEP §611.04. In fact, Jeffrey Dicker appears to have been previously identified as the attorney of record, and not as a juristic officer. Thus, the USPTO will not process the revocation and will continue to recognize the current attorney of record as applicant’s representative. See TMEP §§604.03, 606.
RESPONSE GUIDELINES
The USPTO does not accept emails as responses to Office actions; however, emails can be used for informal communications and are included in the application record. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(c), 2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05.
How to respond. Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action.
/Teague Avent/
Teague Avent
Examining Attorney
Law Office 125
(571) 272-1219
teague.avent@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE