Source: http://www.michaelstewartlaw.com/2007/10/
Timestamp: 2017-12-13 09:02:23
Document Index: 724075761

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 807', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1051', '§ 1127', '§ 2', '§ 7', '§19', '§ 2', '§ 1', '§ 1051', '§ 1127', '§ 2', '§ 1301', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 1051', '§ 1127', '§ 2']

In event that a customer located in the Territory orders directly form Acuson, all payments for Products shall be due and paid in full by letter of credit \acceptable to Acuson within thirty (30) days from the date of Acuson ‘s invoice. Acuson agrees to pay Distributor a sum equivalent to the discount structure agreed upon in Exhibit B within thirty (30) days from receipt of payment in full by the customer.
Infinito Art & Cultural Foundation, Inc.
U.S. Serial No.: 76599142
BOX TTAB NO FEE
Applicant, through its undersigned counsel, on October 27, 2006 filed a Notice of Appeal of the Examining Attorney’s Final Office Action dated May 12, 2006. The Examining Attorney has removed its objection to Applicant’s specimen of use, thereby making the subject Appeal mute.
Applicant therefore withdraws its Appeal.
midstewart@gmail.com 1-305-394-8546 Telephone
Mailed: December 19, 2006
Response to Examiner
Examining Attorney: Priscilla Milton, Esq.
Law Office: 110
FURTHER SUMBISSIONS IN CONNECTION
WITH REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Applicant herein submits further materials for consideration in connection with the Examiner’s final refusal of the specimens of use for BRAZILIAN FILM FESTIVAL Application No.: 76599142. It is requested that these materials be placed on record for the Notice of Appeal which was sent on October 27, 2006, if the Appeal should be necessary and not moot.
Applicant requests that the objections of the Examiner be withdrawn and the subject application be allowed to proceed to registration
Mailed October 27, 2006
Speciment of Use of Trademark
“… Trademark Rule 2.56(b)(2) provides that ‘[a] service mark specimen must show the mark as actually used in the sale or advertising of the services.’ When appropriate, the Board has been fairly flexible in accepting service mark specimens. See In re Ralph Mantia, Inc., 54 USPQ2d 1284 (TTAB 2000); and In re Metriplex Inc., 23 USPQ2d 1315 (TTAB 1992).”
“A customer or potential customer viewing applicant’s specimen would readily perceive the ENKLAVVOICE mark as identifying the source of applicant’s website that allows users to engage the advertising and marketing services described therein. As a result, applicant’s specimen creates a direct association between the ENKLAVVOICE mark and applicant’s recited services.”
The Board found that Applicant’s specimens “are ‘advertisements’ because they show the requisite direct association between the mark and the activities described thereafter.”
[A]pplicant has never disputed the nature of thebackground but rather has repeatedly made the pointthat as a practical matter the topographical mapdesign is little more than an amorphous pattern ofcolors in the background. No matter how identifiablethe topographical map may appear in a grayscale or asa color image, it becomes far less identifiable in 2-color black and white… The applicant sought toregister the mark in true black and white
USPTO rules (37 CFR § 2.51(b)) require:In an application under section 1(b) of the Act, thedrawing of the mark must be a substantially exactrepresentation of the mark as intended to be used onor in connection with the goods and/or servicesspecified in the application, and once an amendment toallege use under § 2.76 or a statement of use under§ 2.88 has been filed, the drawing of the mark must bea substantially exact representation of the mark asused on or in connection with the goods and/orservices.
The TMEP § 807.12(d) (4th ed. rev. April 2005) sets outthe standard for determining whether an applicant ispermitted to register less than the entire mark shown on thespecimen.In an application under § 1 of the Trademark Act, themark on the drawing must be a complete mark, asevidenced by the specimen. When the representation ona drawing does not constitute a complete mark, it issometimes referred to as “mutilation.” This termindicates that essential and integral subject matter ismissing from the drawing. An incomplete mark may notbe registered.However, in a § 1 application, an applicant has somelatitude in selecting the mark it wants to register.The mere fact that two or more elements form acomposite mark does not necessarily mean that thoseelements are inseparable for registration purposes. Anapplicant may apply to register any element of a
composite mark if that element presents, or willpresent, a separate and distinct commercial impressionapart from any other matter with which the mark is orwill be used on the specimen.The determinative factor is whether or not the subjectmatter in question makes a separate and distinctcommercial impression apart from the other element(s).The question of whether a mark is a mutilation “boilsdown to a judgment as to whether that designation for whichregistration is sought comprises a separate and distinct‘trademark’ in and of itself.” Institut National desAppellations D’Origine v. Vintners International Co., 958F.2d 1574, 22 USPQ2d 1190, 1197 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Sheller-Globe Corp. v. Scott Paper Co.,204 USPQ 329, 337 (TTAB 1979):It is apparent that the commercial impressionprojected by applicant’s mark is generated by theletters “SG” in conjunction with the grid design andthe border without any contribution by the lines(which are mathematical curves) that depict technicalcharacteristics of the products to purchasers, whoconstitute a relatively narrowly defined class oftechnically informed persons. To require applicant toseek registration for each version of the “SG” anddesign mark containing a variation of the curve wouldunduly proliferate applications at unnecessary cost toapplicant and to the Patent and Trademark Office withno benefit to the public.
We agree with applicant that“ITT Industries” and “AES Division” are equivalent to ahouse mark or trade name. The omission of these names doesnot normally result in a mutilation of the mark. In reServel, Inc., 181 F.2d 192, 85 USPQ 257, 260 (CCPA 1950)(“The courts in a proper case may recognize the right toregistration of one part of an owner’s mark consisting oftwo parts.” SERVEL functions as a mark apart from the termINKLINGS); Textron Inc. v. Cardinal Engineering Corp., 164USPQ 397, 399 (TTAB 1969) (“While the record does show thatTextron’s principal or house mark ‘HOMELITE’ appears on itschain saws as well as in all of its advertising literature,there is no statutory limitation on the number oftrademarks that one may use on or in connection with aparticular product to indicate origin”); and In re Emco,Inc., 158 USPQ 622, 623 (TTAB 1968) (“It is concluded thatthe law and the record support applicant’s position that‘RESPONSER’ is registrable without addition of the surname‘MEYER’”).
Furthermore, mereproximity “does not endow the whole with a single,integrated, and distinct commercial impression.” DenaCorp. v. Belvedere International Inc., 960 F.2d 1555, 21USPQ2d 1047, 1052 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
The topographical mapand the wording are insignificant elements.
We conclude that the mark sought to be registeredcreates a separate and distinct commercial impression fromthe other material on the specimen. The mark stands out onthe specimen and the other material is insignificant aswell as hard to notice. Therefore, applicant’s mark is nota mutilation of a unitary mark, and it is a substantiallyexact representation of the mark shown on the specimen.
Section 1 of The Trademark Act requires that anapplicant submit “specimens or facsimiles of the mark asused in commerce.” 15 U.S.C. § 1051.
1051. Trademark ActSection 45 provides further that a mark is “in use incommerce … on goods when – (A) it is placed in any manneron the goods or their containers or the displays associatedtherewith or on the tags or labels affixed thereto …” 15U.S.C. § 1127. The Trademark Rules likewise specify, inpertinent part, that, “A trademark specimen is a label, tagor container for the goods, or a display associated withthe goods.” 37 C.F.R. § 2.56(b)(1).
Catalogs and the electronic equivalent of catalogs maybe acceptable as specimens, provided they qualify as“displays associated with the goods” under cases, such as,Lands’ End Inc. v. Manbeck, 797 F.Supp. 511, 24 USPQ2d 1314(E.D. Va. 1992) and In re Dell Inc., 17 USPQ2d 1725 (TTAB2004).
stating, “it issettled that, ‘There is no doubt that one product can bearmore than one protectable trademark.’ MCCARTHY ONTRADEMARKS § 7:2 and cases cited.”
applies. A designationmay both identify a “process” or “technology” and functionas a mark. In re Lativ Systems, Inc., 223 USPQ 1037, 1038(TTAB 1984).
See Trademark Rules 2.34(a)(1)(iv) and 2.86(a)(3).
Trademark Rule2.51 provides that “the drawing of the mark must be asubstantially exact representation of the mark as used onor in connection with the goods and/or services.”
The question iswhether the mark sought to be registered is a “mutilation”or an incomplete representation of the mark that isactually used. See, e.g. In re Miller Sports Inc., 51USPQ2d 1059 (TTAB 1999).
1999).It is well settled that an applicant may seek toregister any portion of a composite mark if that portionpresents a separate and distinct commercial impressionwhich indicates the source of applicant’s goods or servicesand distinguishes applicant’s goods or services from thoseof others. See Institut National des AppellationsSer No. 782988987D’Origine v. Vintners International Co. Inc. 958 F.2d 1574,22 USPQ2d 1190, 1197 (Fed. Cir. 1992); and In re ChemicalDynamics Inc., 839 F.2d 1569, 5 USPQ2d 1828 (Fed. Cir.1988). If the portion of the mark sought to be registereddoes not create a separate and distinct commercialimpression, the result is an impermissible mutilation ofthe mark as used.
As noted by our primary reviewing Court in ChemicalDynamics, supra at 1829, quoting 1 J. T. McCarthy,Trademarks and Unfair Competition §19:17 (2d ed. 1984), theissue of mutilation “all boils down to a judgment as towhether that designation for which registration is soughtcomprises a separate and distinct ‘trademark’ in and ofitself.”
pplicant failed to submit acceptablespecimens pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 2.51(a)(1), 2.51(b)(1),and 2.56(b)(2).”
must be a directassociation between the mark sought to be registered andthe services specified in the application, with sufficientreference to the services in the specimen to create thisassociation.”
The Trademark Act § 1(a)(1) (15 U.S.C. § 1051(a)(1))requires an applicant who is the owner of a trademark usedin commerce to file “such number of specimens or facsimilesof the mark as used as may be required by the Director.” Amark is used “on services when it is used or displayed inthe sale or advertising of services and the services arerendered in commerce, or the services are rendered in morethan one State or in the United States and a foreigncountry and the person rendering the services is engaged incommerce in connection with the services.” 15 U.S.C.§ 1127.(((me sale of advertising services…bz film
“service mark specimen must show the mark as actuallyused in the sale or advertising of the services.” 37 CFR§ 2.56(b)(2).
2.56(b)(2).The Federal Circuit addressed the question of theproper specimens for services in the following manner:It is not enough for the applicant to be a provider ofservices; the applicant also must have used the markto identify the named services for which registrationis sought. In In re Universal Oil Products Co. [476F.2d 653, 177 USPQ 456 (CCPA 1973)], the CCPA affirmedthe board’s refusal to register PACOL and PENEX asmarks for engineering services, even though theapplicant was a provider of such services, because themarks had been used only to identify certain processesand not to identify the engineering services for whichregistration was sought. The CCPA stated that theapplicant had failed to show a “direct association”between the mark and the services named in theapplication. The “direct association” test does notcreate an additional or more stringent requirement forregistration; it is implicit in the statutorydefinition of “a mark used * * * to identify anddistinguish the services of one person * * * from theservices of others and to indicate the source of theservices.”In re Advertising & Marketing Development Inc., 821F.2d 614, 2 USPQ2d 2010, 2014 (Fed. Cir. 1987)(footnotesomitted).
Regarding letterhead stationery, it “may be acceptableas evidence of service mark use, if it includes a referenceto the service.” In re Monograms America Inc., 51 USPQ2d1317, 1319 (TTAB 1999). “To create an association betweenthe mark and the services, the specimen does not have tospell out the specific nature or type of services. Ageneral reference to the industry may be acceptable.” TMEP§ 1301.04(c) (4th ed. April 2005). See, e.g., In re RalphMantia Inc., 54 USPQ2d 1284, 1286 (TTAB 2000) and In reSouthwest Petro-Chem, Inc., 183 USPQ 371, 372 (TTAB 1974).
“A drawing depicts themark sought to be registered.” 37 CFR § 2.52. The“drawing of the mark must be a substantially exactrepresentation of the mark as used on or in connection withthe goods and/or services.” 37 CFR § 2.51(a).
a). Inasmuch asthe mark in the drawing is not a substantially exactrepresentation of the mark in the letterhead specimens,Ser. No. 764982567these specimens are not acceptable to support theregistration of the mark.
the same mark that is in applicant’s drawing. There is aline of cases that supports the acceptability of specimensthat do not themselves set out what the services are whenthe specimens are used during the performance of theservices. In In re Red Robin Enterprises, Inc., 222 USPQ911, 914 (TTAB 1984), the board held that “the photographsof applicant’s costume mark on a garbed performer or model,as submitted in this case and with evidence of priorregistration for a collateral use, are adequate servicemark specimens.” In a subsequent case, the board foundthat a specimen consisting of a photograph of a two-colorfence was acceptable for a service mark for renting chainlink fences. In re Eagle Fence Rentals, Inc., 231 USPQ 228(TTAB 1986).
theyshow use of applicant’s color scheme in the rendering(i.e., ‘sale’) of its services.”
commerce.” We have no basis to conclude thatthese name plates are actually used as a service mark.Indeed, the affiant does not even mention the servicesspecifically.
Section 1(a) of The Trademark Act requires that anapplicant submit “specimens or facsimiles of the mark asused” as part of the application. 15 U.S.C. § 1051(a)(1).The Act provides further that a mark is “in use in commerce. . . on services when it is used or displayed in the saleor advertising of the services.” 15 U.S.C. § 1127. TheTrademark Rules likewise specify, “A service mark specimenmust show the mark as actually used in the sale oradvertising of the services.” 37 C.F.R. § 2.56(b)(2). TheBoard has observed that use in the “rendition” of servicesshould be viewed as an element of the “sale” of servicesunder Section 45 of the Act. In re Red Robin Enterprises,Ser No. 782413965Inc., 222 USPQ 911, 913 (TTAB 1984). See also In reMetriplex Inc., 23 USPQ2d 1315, 1316 (TTAB 1992); In reEagle Fence Rentals, Inc., 231 USPQ 228, 230 (TTAB 1986).
the possiblility that an acceptable specimen mayshow use of a mark only in the rendering of the servicesrather than in the advertisement of the services.Throughout the brief the examining attorney arguesthat the specimen must explicitly refer to the services.Here too the examining attorney takes too narrow a view.The Board has recognized that the service need not bereferenced explicitly even in a specimen which purports toshow use of a mark in the advertisement or promotion of theservices. See In re International Environmental Corp., 230Ser No. 782413967USPQ 688, 691 (TTAB 1986)(specimen showing use of mark insurveys used to promote service with no mention of“distributorship services” found acceptable).
acceptable). In the caseof a specimen intended to show use of the mark in the saleor “rendering” of the service, the specimen need not andoften will not include an explicit reference to theservice. In re Metriplex Inc., 23 USPQ2d at 1316.See In re International Environmental Corp., 230Ser No. 782413967USPQ 688, 691 (TTAB 1986)(specimen showing use of mark insurveys used to promote service with no mention of“distributorship services” found acceptable). In the caseof a specimen intended to show use of the mark in the saleor “rendering” of the service, the specimen need not andoften will not include an explicit reference to theservice. In re Metriplex Inc., 23 USPQ2d at 1316.The examining attorney relies on In re Advertising &Marketing Development Inc., 821 F.2d 614, 2 USPQ2d 2010(Fed. Cir. 1987). In that case the Federal Circuitreversed the Board’s affirmance of an examining attorney’srejection of a specimen for advertising services. Thecourt found that the applicant’s use of its mark incorrespondence with potential clients offering itsadvertising services was acceptable to show use for thepurpose of registration for advertising services, eventhough its clients also used the mark in the advertisementof their own services. Id. at 2015.
service. Here again, the examining attorneyfails to consider the possiblity of use of the mark in theSer No. 782413968rendering of the advertising service, a type of use whichwas neither alleged nor considered in In re Advertising &Marketing Development Inc. Here, applicant’s markidentifies applicant as the source of the brochures, theadvertising vehicle in question, not the source of itsclient tenants’ goods and services.
The facts before us are distinguishable from those inthe Admark case. Most importantly, the totality of therecord here establishes that the mark applicant seeks toregister is one applicant uses to identify its ownservices, in particular, its advertising services renderedon behalf of the tenant businesses.
businesses. The record indicatesthat the mark, as used on the specimen, would be associatedwith applicant, the shopping center operator, by the tenantSer No. 782413969businesses, and with the advertising service rendered byapplicant for the benefit of those tenant businesses.
In conclusion, applicant’s brochure, which itsubmitted as a substitute specimen, shows use of theapplied-for mark in the rendering of its advertisingservices in Class 35 for the benefit of its clients, thetenant businesses in its shopping center.
Notice of Appeal USPTO
BOX TTAB FEE
NOTICE OF APPEALAND REQUEST FOR SUSPENSION OF TIME FOR APPLICANT’S BRIEF ON APPEAL
Applicant, through its undersigned counsel, hereby appeals the Examining Attorney’s Final Office Action dated May 12, 2006.
The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board is advised that Applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration after final refusal dated September 15, 2006. To date, no response from the Examining Attorney has been received.
It is believed that Applicant’s additional evidence and argument submitted to the Trademark Examiner will be accepted such that the Appeal will ultimately be moot.
In view of the impending Appeal deadline, Applicant hereby submits its Appeal, but requests that the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board suspend the time for Applicant to submit its Brief until a reasonable time, preferably 60 days, after a decision is rendered by the Examining Attorney.
The filing fee for the Notice of Appeal is $100.00 per class, and such fee is included herein.
68.065 Actions to collect worthless checks, drafts, or orders of payment; attorney’s fees and collection costs.—
(3) Before recovery under this section may be claimed, a written demand must be delivered by certified or registered mail, evidenced by return receipt, or by first-class mail, evidenced by an affidavit of service of mail, to the maker or drawer of the check, draft, or order of payment to the address on the check or other instrument, to the address given by the drawer at the time the instrument was issued, or to the drawer’s last known address. The form of such notice shall be substantially as follows:
“You are hereby notified that a check numbered _____ in the face amount of $_____ issued by you on (date) , drawn upon (name of bank) , and payable to _____, has been dishonored. Pursuant to Florida law, you have 30 days from receipt of this notice to tender payment in cash of the full amount of the check plus a service charge of $25, if the face value does not exceed $50, $30, if the face value exceeds $50 but does not exceed $300, $40, if the face value exceeds $300, or 5 percent of the face amount of the check, whichever is greater, the total amount due being $_____ and _____ cents. Unless this amount is paid in full within the 30-day period, the holder of the check or instrument may file a civil action against you for three times the amount of the check, but in no case less than $50, in addition to the payment of the check plus any court costs, reasonable attorney fees, and any bank fees incurred by the payee in taking the action.”