Registration Ruminations

Recent Posts from Registration Ruminations

• November 20, 2009 TPAC Meeting – “Wiki TMEP” Coming?

  Some notes from today’s meeting: each pending case before the Board containing a fraud claim — and there are many — is being carefully reviewed in light of Bose the post-Bose discussion concerning accuracy in…

• After Bose, PTO Worried About Integrity of the Register

  At next week’s TPAC meeting, Commissioner Beresford will lead a discussion about what steps the Trademark Operation should take, if any, in the wake of the Federal Circuit decision in In re Bose Corp, to…

• TIRES TIRES TIRES Held Generic for Retail Tire Store

  Further to this post, the Board has found TIRES TIRES TIRES to be generic for applicant’s “retail tire store” — and if not generic, then merely descriptive without acquired distinctiveness.  In re Tires, Tires, Tires,…

• Certain Assumptions Help Applicant Overcome Refusal

  Applicant’s mark RAM for “automobile filling station services” was refused in light of the registered mark RAM ENERGY RESOURCES (“ENERGY RESOURCES” disclaimed) for oil and gas production and exploration services.  In re RAM Oil, Ltd.,…

• Unexecuted Coexistence Agreement No Help to Applicant

  The applicant in In re Sovena U.S.A. Inc., Serial No. 76599644 (T.T.A.B. October 5, 2009) (non-precedential), appeared to have a tough road ahead of it.  Its mark PARADISE for “imported and domestic olive oil and…

• Failure of Proof Dooms § 2(d) Refusal

  This decision, In re Band-It-IDEX, Inc., Serial No. 77363240 (T.T.A.B. October 20, 2009) (non-precedential), shows why the three most important things in an appeal are evidence, evidence, and evidence.  The applicant’s mark DUAL-LOKT for “buckles…

• New T.M.E.P. Kindly Asks That You Refrain from Citing Valenite Decision

  That’s exaggerating a bit, but the new T.M.E.P. does seemingly aim to confine the Board’s holding in In re Valenite Inc., 84 U.S.P.Q.2d 1346 (T.T.A.B. 2007), to the particular facts present in that case. Section…

• Arguing “Clear Error” to Board Is Clear Dud

  Under the “clear error” standard, examining attorneys should not lightly issue a new refusal or requirement that could’ve been raised in a previous office action, i.e., it shouldn’t be done unless it would be clear…

• Dreaming

  As a follow-up to this post, pro se applicant Jason Gambert has appealed the examining attorney’s refusal of SEARCH ENGINE OPTIMIZATION for “marketing services in the field of computers in the nature of providing marketing…

• 6th Edition of TMEP Issued

  The 6th edition of the Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure is out. * * * * * 10/29/09:  Less than three weeks old and there’s already a Revision 1. Posted in Miscellaneous