Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/168158949/Johnny-Football-trademark-application-office-action
Timestamp: 2017-05-01 03:25:05
Document Index: 707636047

Matched Legal Cases: ['APPLICATION NO. 85839336', '§2', '§819', '§2', '§819', '§2', '§819', '§1062', '§2', '§711', '§704', '§1052', '§1052', '§1206', '§813', '§1206', '§1206', '§1051', '§904', '§1202', '§1202', '§1202', '§1202', '§1052', '§2', '§1208', '§2', '§819', '§2', '§304', '§705', 'APPLICATION NO. 85839336']

"Johnny Football" trademark application office action | United States Patent And Trademark Office | Trademark
ScribdBrowseInterestsCareer & MoneyPersonal GrowthPolitics & Current AffairsScience & TechHealth & FitnessLifestyleEntertainmentBiographies & HistoryFictionBrowse byBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoin"Johnny Football" trademark application office actionUploaded by Darren Adam HeitnerUnited States Patent And Trademark OfficeTrademarkTrademark Trial And Appeal BoardEmailLawyer0.0 (0)DownloadEmbedDescription: The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has some concerns with Johnny Manziel's trademark application.View MoreThe U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has some concerns with Johnny Manziel's trademark application.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentTo: Subject: Sent: Sent As:
JMAN2 Enterprises, LLC (jjordan@jbwlawfirm.com) U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 85839336 - JOHNNY FOOTBALL - N/A 5/22/2013 3:41:40 PM ECOM104@USPTO.GOV
Attachments: Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 Attachment - 6 Attachment - 7 Attachment - 8 Attachment - 9 Attachment - 10 Attachment - 11 Attachment - 12 Attachment - 13 Attachment - 14
U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. MARK: JOHNNY FOOTBALL CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: VIRGIL J. JORDAN J. BENNETT WHITE, P.C. 1011 PRUITT PL TYLER, TX 75703-1124 APPLICANT: JMAN2 Enterprises, LLC
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO : N/A CORRESPONDENT E-MAIL ADDRESS: jjordan@jbwlawfirm.com
TO AVOID ABANDONMENT OF APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION, THE USPTO MUST RECEIVE APPLICANT’S COMPLETE RESPONSE TO THIS LETTER WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF THE ISSUE/MAILING DATE BELOW. ISSUE/MAILING DATE: 5/22/2013
TEAS PLUS APPLICANTS MUST SUBMIT DOCUMENTS ELECTRONICALLY OR SUBMIT FEE: Applicants who filed their application online using the reduced-fee TEAS Plus application must continue to submit certain documents online using TEAS, including responses to Office actions. See 37 C.F.R. §2.23(a)(1). For a complete list of these documents, see TMEP §819.02(b). In addition, such applicants must accept correspondence from the Office via e-mail throughout the examination process and must maintain a valid e-mail address. 37 C.F.R. §2.23(a)(2); TMEP §§819, 819.02(a). TEAS Plus applicants who do not meet these requirements must submit an additional fee of $50 per international class of goods and/or services. 37 C.F.R. §2.6(a)(1)(iv); TMEP §819.04. In appropriate situations and where all issues can be resolved by amendment, responding by telephone to authorize an examiner’s amendment will not incur this additional fee. The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney. Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issue(s) below. 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(a), 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03. SEARCH OF OFFICE’S DATABASE OF MARKS The trademark examining attorney has searched the Office’s database of registered and pending marks and has found no similar registered mark that would bar registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d). TMEP §704.02; see 15 U.S.C. §1052(d). However, marks in prior-filed pending applications may present a bar to registration of applicant’s mark.
SECTION 2(c) – CONSENT
Registration is refused because the applied-for mark consists of or includes a name, portrait, or signature identifying a particular living individual whose written consent to register the mark is not of record. Trademark Act Section 2(c), 15 U.S.C. §1052(c); TMEP §1206; see, e.g., In re Hoefflin, 97 USPQ2d 1174 (TTAB 2010). The refusal under Section 2(c) will be withdrawn if applicant provides the following: (1) A statement that the name shown in the mark identifies Johnathan Paul Manziel, a living individual whose consent is of record. If the name represents that of a pseudonym, stage name, title and name combination, or nickname, applicant must include a statement that JOHNNY FOOTBALL identifies the {pseudonym/stage name/title and name/nickname} of Johnathan Paul Manziel, a living individual whose consent is of record; and
(2) A written consent, personally signed by the individual whose name, signature, or portrait appears in the mark, authorizing applicant to register the identifying matter as a trademark and/or service mark with the USPTO (e.g., “I, Johnathan Paul Manziel, consent to the use and registration by JMAN2 Enterprises, LLC, of my name as a trademark and/or service mark with the USPTO”). See TMEP §§813, 813.01(a), 1206.04(a). Applicant is advised that the written consent must include a statement of the party’s consent to applicant’s registration, and not just the use, of the identifying matter as a trademark. See Krause v. Krause Publ’ns, Inc., 76 USPQ2d 1904, 1912-13 (TTAB 2005); In re New John Nissen Mannequins, 227 USPQ 569, 571 (TTAB 1985); Reed v. Bakers Eng’g & Equip. Co., 100 USPQ 196, 199 (PTO 1954); TMEP §1206.04(a). For purposes of Section 2(c), a name in a mark identifies a particular living individual if the person bearing the name will be associated with the mark as used on the goods or services because he or she (1) is “so well known that the public would reasonably assume [a] connection” or (2) is “publicly connected with the business in which the mark is being used.” In re Hoefflin, 97 USPQ2d 1174, 1175-76 (TTAB 2010); see also Krause v. Krause Publ’ns, Inc., 76 USPQ2d 1904, 1909-10 (TTAB 2005); In re Sauer, 27 USPQ2d 1073, 1075 (TTAB 1994). A determination that a person is publicly connected with the business in which the mark is being used may be based on evidence that he or she is well known in the relevant field of goods or services, is associated with the entity using the mark (e.g., the named individual is a corporate officer or partner of the applicant), and/or is actually connected to the goods or services at issue (e.g., the named individual invented the identified goods in the application). See Krause v. Krause Publ’ns Inc., 76 USPQ2d 1904, 1909-10 (TTAB 2005); In re New John Nissen Mannequins, 227 USPQ 569, 570 (TTAB 1985); Reed v. Bakers Eng’g & Equip. Co., 100 USPQ 196, 199-200 (PTO 1954); TMEP §1206.02. In the present case, the name JOHNNY FOOTBALL is well-known in the field of football. See the enclosed excerpt from Wikipedia.org. Section 2(c) applies not only to full names, but also to any first name, surname, shortened name, pseudonym, stage name, title, or nickname that identifies a particular living individual. See In re Hoefflin, 97 USPQ2d 1174, 1177-78 (TTAB 2010) (holding registration of the marks OBAMA PAJAMA, OBAMA BAHAMA PAJAMAS, and BARACK’S JOCKS DRESS TO THE LEFT barred under Section 2(c) in the absence of consent to register, because the marks create a direct association with President Barack Obama); In re Sauer, 27 USPQ2d 1073, 1074-75 (TTAB 1993) (holding registration of a mark containing BO, used in connection with a sports ball, barred under Section 2(c) in the absence of consent to register, because BO is the nickname of a well-known athlete and thus use of the mark would lead to the assumption that he was associated with the goods), aff’d per curiam, 26 F.3d 140 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Steak & Ale Rests. of Am., Inc., 185 USPQ 447, 448 (TTAB 1975) (affirming a Section 2(c) refusal of the mark PRINCE CHARLES because the wording identifies a particular well-known living individual whose consent was not of record). Applicant should note the following additional ground for refusal. SECTIONS 1, 2 AND 45 REFUSAL – MERELY ORNAMENTAL
Registration is refused because the applied-for mark as used on the specimen of record (1) is merely a decorative or ornamental feature of applicant’s clothing; and (2) does not function as a trademark to indicate the source of applicant’s clothing and to identify and distinguish applicant’s clothing from others. Trademark Act Sections 1, 2, and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051-1052, 1127; see In re Lululemon Athletica Can. Inc., 105 USPQ2d 1684, 1689 (TTAB 2013); In re Pro-Line Corp., 28 USPQ2d 1141, 1142 (TTAB 1993); TMEP §§904.07(b), 1202.03 et seq. When evaluating a mark that appears to be ornamental, the size, location, dominance, and significance of the alleged mark as applied to the goods are all relevant factors in determining the commercial impression of the applied-for mark. See, e.g., In re Lululemon Athletica Can. Inc., 105 USPQ2d at 1687 (quoting In re Right-On Co., 87 USPQ2d 1152, 1156 (TTAB 2008)); In re Dimitri’s Inc., 9 USPQ2d 1666, 1667 (TTAB 1988); TMEP §1202.03(a). With respect to clothing, consumers may recognize small designs or discrete wording as trademarks, rather than as merely ornamental features, when located, for example, on the pocket or breast area of a shirt. See TMEP §1202.03(a). Consumers may not, however, perceive larger designs or slogans as trademarks when such matter is prominently displayed across the front of a t-shirt. See In re Pro-Line Corp., 28 USPQ2d at 1142 (holding BLACKER THE COLLEGE SWEETER THE KNOWLEDGE centered in large letters across most of the upper half of a shirt, to be a primarily ornamental slogan that was not likely to be perceived as a source indicator); In re Dimitri’s Inc., 9 USPQ2d at 1667-68 (holding SUMO used in connection with stylized depictions of sumo wrestlers and displayed in large lettering across the top-center portion of t-shirts and caps, to be an ornamental feature of the goods that did not function as a trademark); TMEP §1202.03(a), (b), (f)(i), (f)(ii). In this case, the submitted specimen shows the applied-for mark, JOHNNY FOOTBALL, located directly on the upper-center area of the front of the shirt, where ornamental elements often appear. See TMEP §1202.03(a), (b). Furthermore, the mark is displayed in a relatively large size on the clothing such that it dominates the overall appearance of the goods. Therefore, consumers would view the applied-for mark as a decorative or ornamental feature of the goods, rather than as a trademark to indicate the source of applicant’s goods and to distinguish them from others. In appropriate circumstances, applicant may overcome this refusal by satisfying one of the following options: (1) Submit a different specimen (a verified “substitute” specimen) that was in actual use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application (or prior to the filing of an amendment to allege use) and that shows proper trademark use for the identified goods in International Class 25.
(3) Claim acquired distinctiveness under Trademark Act Section 2(f) by submitting evidence that the applied-for mark has become distinctive of applicant’s goods; that is, proof that applicant’s extensive use and promotion of the mark allowed consumers now directly to
associate the mark with applicant as the source of the goods.
For an overview of all response options referenced above and instructions on how to satisfy each option online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, please go to http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/law/ornamentalclothing.jsp. PRIOR-FILED APPLICATIONS The filing dates of pending U.S. Application Serial Nos. 85769563, 85791489, 85791517 and 85814656 precede applicant’s filing date. See attached referenced applications. If one or more of the marks in the referenced applications register, applicant’s mark may be refused registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d) because of a likelihood of confusion with the registered mark(s). See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §§1208 et seq. Therefore, upon receipt of applicant’s response to this Office action, action on this application may be suspended pending final disposition of the earlier-filed referenced applications. In response to this Office action, applicant may present arguments in support of registration by addressing the issue of the potential conflict between applicant’s mark and the marks in the referenced applications. Applicant’s election not to submit arguments at this time in no way limits applicant’s right to address this issue later if a refusal under Section 2(d) issues. Applicant must respond to the requirement set forth below. TEAS PLUS Applicant must submit an additional application processing fee of $50 per class because the application as filed did not meet the TEAS Plus application filing requirements. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(1)(iv), 2.22(a), (b); TMEP §§819.01 et seq., 819.04. Specifically, applicant failed to meet the following application filing requirement: a consent to register the mark from the person identified in the mark (or conversely, if appropriate, a statement that the name or portrait in the mark does not identify a living individual) was not provided. The additional fee is required even if applicant later corrects these application requirements. RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION If applicant has questions regarding this Office action, please telephone or e-mail the assigned trademark examining attorney. All relevant e-mail communications will be placed in the official application record; however, an e-mail communication will not be accepted as a response to this Office action and will not
extend the deadline for filing a proper response. See 37 C.F.R. §2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05. Further, although the trademark examining attorney may provide additional explanation pertaining to the refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) in this Office action, the trademark examining attorney may not provide legal advice or statements about applicant’s rights. See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06.
/Barney L. Charlon/ Trademark Examining Attorney Law Office 104 (571) 272-9141 (571) 273-9104 (fax) barney.charlon@uspto.gov
TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER: Go to http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp. Please wait 48-72 hours from the issue/mailing date before using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), to allow for necessary system updates of the application. For technical assistance with online forms, e-mail TEAS@uspto.gov. For questions about the Office action itself, please contact the assigned trademark examining attorney. E-mail communications will not be accepted as responses to Office actions; therefore, do not respond to this Office action by e-mail. All informal e-mail communications relevant to this application will be placed in the official application record. WHO MUST SIGN THE RESPONSE: It must be personally signed by an individual applicant or someone with legal authority to bind an applicant (i.e., a corporate officer, a general partner, all joint applicants). If an applicant is represented by an attorney, the attorney must sign the response. PERIODICALLY CHECK THE STATUS OF THE APPLICATION: To ensure that applicant does not miss crucial deadlines or official notices, check the status of the application every three to four months using the Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) system at http://tsdr.uspto.gov/. Please keep a copy of the TSDR status screen. If the status shows no change for more than six months, contact the Trademark Assistance Center by e-mail at TrademarkAssistanceCenter@uspto.gov or call 1-800-7869199. For more information on checking status, see http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/process/status/. TO UPDATE CORRESPONDENCE/E-MAIL ADDRESS: Use the TEAS form at http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/correspondence.jsp.
JMAN2 Enterprises, LLC (jjordan@jbwlawfirm.com) U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 85839336 - JOHNNY FOOTBALL - N/A 5/22/2013 3:41:41 PM ECOM104@USPTO.GOV
USPTO OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) HAS ISSUED ON 5/22/2013 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 85839336
Please follow the instructions below: (1) TO READ THE LETTER: Click on this link or go to http://tsdr.uspto.gov, enter the U.S. application serial number, and click on “Documents.” The Office action may not be immediately viewable, to allow for necessary system updates of the application, but will be available within 24 hours of this e-mail notification. (2) TIMELY RESPONSE IS REQUIRED: Please carefully review the Office action to determine (1) how to respond, and (2) the applicable response time period. Your response deadline will be calculated from 5/22/2013 (or sooner if specified in the Office action). For information regarding response time periods, see http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/process/status/responsetime.jsp. Do NOT hit “Reply” to this e-mail notification, or otherwise e-mail your response because the USPTO does NOT accept e-mails as responses to Office actions. Instead, the USPTO recommends that you respond online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) response form located at http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp. (3) QUESTIONS: For questions about the contents of the Office action itself, please contact the assigned trademark examining attorney. For technical assistance in accessing or viewing the Office action in the Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) system, please e-mail TSDR@uspto.gov.
Failure to file the required response by the applicable response deadline will result in the
ABANDONMENT of your application. For more information regarding abandonment, see http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics/abandon.jsp. PRIVATE COMPANY SOLICITATIONS REGARDING YOUR APPLICATION: Private companies not associated with the USPTO are using information provided in trademark applications to mail or e-mail trademark-related solicitations. These companies often use names that closely resemble the USPTO and their solicitations may look like an official government document. Many solicitations require that you pay “fees.” Please carefully review all correspondence you receive regarding this application to make sure that you are responding to an official document from the USPTO rather than a private company solicitation. All official USPTO correspondence will be mailed only from the “United States Patent and Trademark Office” in Alexandria, VA; or sent by e-mail from the domain “@uspto.gov.” For more information on how to handle private company solicitations, see http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/solicitation_warnings.jsp.
Documents Similar To "Johnny Football" trademark application office actionSkip carousel20081231 Mommy Doctor Office Action Response - Final2008-11-19 Red Devil Clothing - OarGumbs Lenora Assignment 5AGL v. Lsil - ComplaintNoticeNoticeTrademark Cases for IPLRescuecom Corporation v. Google, Inc. - Document No. 1Trade Mark ApplicationNon Conventional MarkLoctite 567IP CompendiumUntitledPossibilities of Foreign Funds With FCRA RegistrationMaking a mark - An Introduction to Trademarks for SMEsCOMM LectureUntitledCopier 3570 4570 Spec SheetCEMEP-EFF-Trademark and Requirements 20091222atTrade Marks - the myths and reality of UK practice!Berris v. Abyadang DigestRULES AND REGULATIONS ON TRADEMARKS.pdfAFS 5 Upgrade Grids CatsANSYS Fluent Population Balance Module Manual.pdf163398-CHANELLETrump Your Competition v. Trump - opposition to motion for protective order.pdfUntitledUntitledBrooklyn Nets v. Boro Park Physical Therapy - trademark complaint.pdfDocuments About United States Patent And Trademark OfficeSkip carouselProvisional Patent ApplicationUSPTO Refuses Apple's iPad mini Trademark ApplicationPinch to Zoom Patent InvalidatedAnswer and Aff Def FINALCanatelo v. HikvisionDonald Trump Political Trademark FileDigi-flex v. Gripmaster.pdfBon Appetit v. Schwan's - Bon Appetit trademark complaint.pdfShagbook Notice of OppositionJohnny Rockets v. Johnny Rocks - trademark complaint.pdfPhilips Electronics North America v. Lux Electronic Products et. al.Pentair Water Pool and Spa et. al. v. Hayward Industries et. al.Canatelo v. NuvicoVehicle IP v. OldcastleTPW v. Yelp - We Know Just the Place trademark complaint.pdfFronto OppCREWPfizer et. al. v. MSP Singapore CompanyDehn&#039;s Innovations v. Total Import Solutions, Inc. d/b/a Nanoskin Car Care Products et. al.American Vehicular Sciences v. Bmw Group A/K/A Bmw et. al.Bayer Intellectual Property et. al. v. ReaDataQuill v. Huawei Technologies et. al.Oakley v. DK JuiceBsg Tech v. J.A. CosmeticsLakeSouth Holdings v. Wal-Mart Stores et. al.Kliot v. Mike's Hard Lemonade complaint.pdfAutodesk v. Lee - DWG not distinctive.pdfGrenade v. GurrnaidGreen Crush v. Crushed Red - restaurants declaratory judgment complaint.pdfProctor OrderMore From Darren Adam HeitnerSkip carouselMike Peluso v. New Jersey Devils, et al.Asset Purchase and Contribution Agreement for Dan FeganDan Fegan Employment Agreements With RelaitivityISE v. Dan FeganKobe Bryant Opposition to Black Mamba Trademark applicationPredictIt CFTC NZ No Action Letter 2014Chicago Cubs v. Vendors of Unlicensed GoodsMemo Re Amended RegulationsNFLPA Regulations Governing Contract Advisors (amended thru August 2016)LeCharles Bentley Demand to NBCJPP v Schefter - Response to Motion to DismissResponses to Schefter's Tweet on JPP Medical RecordsAxelband's motion to dismiss Marlins complaintShawne Merriman v Vermont Teddy BearOctagon Motion to DisqualifyRomo's Fantasy Event v NFLRhode Island DFS OpinionBlacher Report Copyright Infringement LawsuitCHICAGO-#2405493-V8 - Complaint for DJ -- FanDuel and H2HDraftKings v. Madigan Complaint and Certificate of ServiceGilbert Arenas v. Boulevard ManagementCastro v. Windstar Club Inc.Duckett v Engelhard, et al.Gatorade Lawsuit Over HateradeHonus Wagner v Louisville SluggerAdidas AG v SkechersDefendant NFL's Original AnswerSuicide Player Pool PatentCurtis Anderson's Plea against NFL Concussion settlementTop 100 Basketball Players