Source: https://ttabcenter.com/office-action/beef-house-inc/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 10:03:55+00:00

Document:
Owners Name: Beef House, Inc.
Applicant thanks the Examiner for her helpful suggestion.
services in class 43 because of an alleged likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S.
§ 2(d) of the Act, because of an alleged likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S.
in In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357 (CCPA 1973). See TMEP § 1207.01.
marks, as required under TMEP § 1207.01(b).
are quite dissimilar and that no likelihood of confusion exists between them.
causing the two marks to have very different appearances. Cf. Carefirst of Maryland Inc. v.
alliteration to distinguish the different sounds of two marks).
not at all conveyed by the Mark.
then confusion is not likely.”).
period of time is strong evidence that no likelihood of confusion exists.
II. THE “BEEF HOUSE” MARK IS NOT MERELY DESCRIPTIVE.
it is not merely descriptive of those services. See TMEP § 1209.01(a).
“To be refused registration . . . under § 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C.
§1052(e)(1), a mark must be merely descriptive . . . of the goods or services to which it relates.
distinctive and respectfully requests that the refusal be withdrawn. See TMEP § 1213.05(c).
years of use. See § 2(f) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(f).
submission of a declaration signed by the applicant. See TMEP § 1212.05(d).
interstate commerce in connection with providing restaurant services since 1964. (Wright Decl.
continuous” and has caused the Mark to become distinctive of Applicant’s services. (Id.) Mr.
Examiner is invited to contact Applicant’s attorney.

References: § 2
 § 1207
 § 1207
 v.

 § 1209
 § 2

§1052
 § 1213
 § 2
 § 1052
 § 1212