Buy By Chapters
Trademark Prosecution and Practice Before the USPTO
first Edition

Trademark Prosecution and Practice Before the USPTO

by Dana Robinson

The process of obtaining a federal trademark registration is a process that few consumers appreciate. There is substantial work that goes into "prosecuting" a trademark through the process, and the work requires expertise. As a law student in the 1990's I took a course called IP Survey, when the text was in its first iteration (Intellectual Property in the New Technological Age 1997 by Peter Menell, Mark Lemley, Robert Merges). At the time, the primary resources for learning trademark prosecution was either a doctrinal casebook, the TMEP, and McCarthy. 

Over the course of my practice, I found myself using my past briefs as teaching tools, and realized that it was a quicker path to understanding the process than sifting through the TMEP. While McCarthy's treatise is still my "go to" resource, I found that law students and new practitioners needed to see how the arguments were formulated as much as seeing the black letter law, statutes and cases. Over the course of many years, I assembled my briefs into sections, and with the help of many law students, put the office actions and responses into a single volume, which is now what I'll call a casebook, but is actually more of a practice guide. 

The casebook/ practice guide is open source, and as close to free as one can be without me hosting a website like Barton Beebe does for the best doctrinal casebook on trademark law (which my law students are thankful for, of course). I encourage students and practitioners to poach sections of my briefs for style and arguments, but encourage everyone to check the cases, statutes, current TMEP, and of course McCarthy on Trademarks as they develop a library of briefs of their own. I also welcome colleagues from the practice to join me as co-editors and continue the work forward. 

The book is an ideal resource for clinical programs at law schools, which can use the book as reference material and as a "lump of clay" for students to use the structure of my arguments to formulate their own briefs for pro bono and clinical work. 

Read more > Hide
Acknowledgements
Preface
1. An Introduction to Trademark Prosecution
1.1. An Introduction Meant to be Read
1.2. The Registration Process
1.3. Preparing the Trademark Application
1.3.1. Types of Marks Registrable with the USPTO
1.3.2. Basic Information Required
1.3.3. Bases for Filing
1.3.4. Classifications of Marks
1.3.5. Power of Attorney
1.3.6. Foreign Priority
1.3.7. Verification
1.3.8. Summary
1.4. The Initial Examination
1.4.1. Approval for Publication
1.4.2. Rejection - The Office Action
1.4.3. Section 44 – Application Based on Foreign Registration or Application
1.5. The Life of a Trademark
1.6. Federal Laws Governing Trademark Registration
1.7. Grounds for Substantive Refusal of a Trademark
1.7.1. Ownership
1.7.2. The Function of a Mark
1.7.2.1. Trade Names
1.7.2.2. Functionality
1.7.2.3. Configuration/Trade Dress
1.7.2.4. Ornamental
1.7.2.5. Generic
1.7.2.6. Titles of Single Creative Works
1.7.3. Scandalous/Immoral Subject Matter
1.7.4. Deceptive
1.7.5. Falsely Suggest a Connection
1.7.6. Flags, Arms and Insignias
1.7.7. Illegality
1.7.8. Name of Individual
1.7.9. Likely to be Confused with a Prior Mark
1.7.10. Descriptive/Misdescriptive
1.7.11. Geographic Significance
1.7.12. Surnames
1.7.13. Characters in Creative Works
1.8. The Doctrine of Foreign Equivalents
1.9. Certification Marks
1.10. Collective Marks
1.11. Supplemental Registration and Acquired Distinctiveness
1.12. Foreign Applications
1.13. Phantom Marks
$0.75
2. Genericness
2.1. Introduction
2.1.1. Generic Terms
2.1.2. The USPTO Test for Genericness
2.1.3. Abercrombie spectrum of trademarks
2.1.4. Genericness in the Context of Domain Names
2.2. Case Study – TOESOX
2.2.1. TOESOX – Office Action #1
2.2.2. TOESOX – Office Action #2
2.2.3. TOESOX – Response to Office Action #2
2.2.4. TOESOX – Final Office Action
2.2.5. TOESOX – Request for Reconsideration After Final Office Action
2.2.6. TOESOX – Reconsideration Letter
2.2.7. TOESOX – Important Cases
2.2.7.1. Dan Robbins & Assocs. v. Questor Corp., 599 F.2d 1009 (C.C.P.A. 1979)
2.2.7.2. H. Marvin Ginn Corp. v. Int’l Ass’n of Fire Chiefs, Inc., 782 F.2d 987 (Fed. Cir. 1986)
2.2.7.3. In re Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, & Smith, Inc., 828 F.2d 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1987)
2.2.7.4. Magic Wand, Inc. v. RDB, Inc., 940 F.2d 638 (Fed. Cir. 1991)
2.2.7.5. In re America Online, Inc., 77 USPQ2d 1618 (TTAB 2006)
2.3. Case Study – EZ PEELERS
2.3.1. EZ PEELERS – Office Action #1
2.3.2. EZ PEELERS – Office Action # 2
2.3.3. EZ PEELERS – Response to Office Action
2.3.4. EZ PEELERS – Final Office Action
2.3.5. EZ PEELERS – Important Cases
2.3.5.1. In re Gould Paper Corporation, 834 F.2d 1017 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
2.3.5.2. In re The Am. Fertility Society, 188 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
2.3.5.3. Berner Int’l Corp., v. Mars Sales Co., 987 F.2d 975, (3rd Cir. 1993).
2.3.5.4. Micro Motion Inc. v. Danfoss A/S, 49 USPQ2d 1628 (TTAB 1998).
2.3.5.5. In re Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp., 240 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
2.3.5.6. In re 1800Mattress.com IP LLC, 586 F. 3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
2.3.5.7. In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293, (Fed. Cir. 2005).
2.3.5.8. ln re DNl Holdings Ltd., 77 USPQ2d 1435 (TTAB 2005).
2.4. Case Study – BICYCLE WAREHOUSE
2.4.1. BICYCLE WAREHOUSE – Office Action #2
2.4.2. BICYCLE WAREHOUSE - Response to Office Action #2
2.4.3. BICYCLE WAREHOUSE – Important Cases
2.4.3.1. In re Country Music Association, Inc., 100 USPQ2d 1824 (TTAB 2011)
2.4.3.2. Alcatraz Media, Inc. v. Chesapeake Marine Tours Inc., 107 USPQ2d 1750, (TTAB 2013)
2.5. Case Study – STRONGMAN CORPORATION
2.5.1. STRONGMAN CORPORATION – Office Action
2.5.2. STRONGMAN CORPORATION – Response to Office Action
2.6. Case Study – #VIGNETO
2.6.1. #VIGNETO – Office Action
2.6.2. #VIGNETO – Response to Office Action
$0.75
3. Descriptiveness
3.1. Introduction
3.2. Refusal on Basis of Descriptiveness – TMEP § 1209
3.3. Inherently Distinctive Marks – TMEP § 1209.01(a)
3.4. Merely Descriptive Marks – TMEP § 1209.01(b)
3.5. Factors to Consider When Determining Whether a Mark is Descriptive – TMEP § 1209.03
3.6. Procedure for Descriptiveness and/or Genericness Refusal – TMEP § 1209.02
3.7. Responding to an Office Action Citing Descriptiveness – TMEP §§ 1209.02– 1209.02
3.8. Descriptiveness
3.8.1. Combined Terms and the Inception of iNames and eBrands
3.8.2. Case Study – IGOLF
3.8.2.1. IGOLF – Office Action
3.8.2.2. IGOLF – Response to Office Aciton
3.8.2.3. iGOLF – Important Cases
3.8.2.3.1. Hunter Publishing Company v. Caulfield Publishing, Ltd., 1 USPQ2d 1996 (TTAB 1986)
3.8.2.3.2. In re Abcor Dev. Corp., 588 F.2d 811 (CCPA 1978)
3.8.2.3.3. In re Associated Theatre Clubs Company, 9 USPQ2d 1660 (TTAB 1988)
3.8.2.3.4. In re Bright-Crest, Ltd., 204 USPQ 591 (TTAB 1979)
3.8.2.3.5. In re Colonial Stores, Inc., 394 F.2d 549 (C.C.P.A. 1968)
3.8.2.3.6. In re Copytele Inc., 31 USPQ2D 1540 (TTAB 1994)
3.8.2.3.7. In re Entenmann’s Inc., 15 USPQ2D 1750 (TTAB 1990)
3.8.2.3.8. In re Gyulay, 820 F.2d 1216, 3 USPQ2d 1009 (Fed. Cir. 1987)
3.8.2.3.9. In re National Presto Industries, Inc., 197 USPQ 188 (TTAB 1977)
3.8.2.3.10. In re Orleans Wines, Ltd., 196 USPQ 516 (TTAB 1977)
3.8.2.3.11. In re Polo Int’l Inc., 51 51 USPQ2D (BNA) 1061 (TTAB 1999)
3.8.2.3.12. In re Sun Microsystems, Inc., 59 USPQ2D (BNA) 1084 (TTAB 2001)
3.8.2.3.13. In re Tower Tech, Inc., 64 USPQ2d 1314 (TTAB 2002)
3.8.2.3.14. In re Wallyball, Inc., 222 USPQ (BNA) 87 (TTAB 1984)
3.8.2.3.15. In re Zanova, Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1300 (TTAB 2001)
3.8.2.3.16. In re TBG Inc., 229 USPQ 759 (TTAB 1986)
3.8.3. Case Study – ECHRISTIAN
3.8.3.1. ECHRISTIAN – Office Action
3.8.3.2. ECHRISTIAN – Response To Office Action
3.8.3.3. ECHRISTIAN – Important Cases
3.8.3.3.1. In re SPX Corp., 63 USPQ2d 1592 (TTAB 2002)
3.8.3.3.2. In re Styleclick.com Inc., 57 USPQ2d 1445 (TTAB 2000)
3.8.3.3.3. In re Steelbuilding.com., 415 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
3.8.4. CASE STUDY – VISE LATCH
3.8.4.1. VISE LATCH – Office Action
3.8.4.2. VISE LATCH – Response to Office Action
3.8.4.3. VISE LATCH – Important Cases
3.8.4.3.1. In re King Koil Licensing Co. Inc., 79 USPQ2d 1048 (TTAB 2006)
3.8.4.3.2. In re Wella Corp., 565 F.2d 143 (C.C.P.A. 1977)
3.8.4.3.3. In re Creative Goldsmiths of Wash., Inc., 229 USPQ 766 (TTAB 1986)
3.8.4.3.4. In re Tennis in the Round, Inc., 199 USPQ 496 (TTAB 1978)
3.8.5. Case Study – GUILD
3.8.5.1. GUILD – Office Action
3.8.5.2. GUILD – Response to Office Action
3.9. LAUDATORY DESCRIPTIVE MARKS
3.9.1. Case Study – SUPERIOR LAW CENTER
3.9.1.1. SUPERIOR LAW CENTER – Office Action
3.9.1.2. SUPERIOR LAW CENTER – Response to Office Action
3.9.1.3. SUPERIOR LAW CENTER – Important Cases
3.9.1.3.1. In re The Place, Inc., 76 USPQ2d 1467 (TTAB 2006)
3.9.1.3.2. In re Boston Beer Co., 198 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 1999)
3.9.1.3.3. In re Dos Padres, Inc., 49 USPQ2d 1860 (TTAB 1998)
3.9.1.3.4. In re Ervin, 1 USPQ2d 1665 (TTAB 1986)
3.10. Acronyms
3.10.1. CASE STUDY - MV AUTO
3.10.1.1. MV AUTO - Office Action
3.10.1.2. MV AUTO - Office Action Response
$0.75
4. Deceptively Misdescriptive Marks
4.1. Introduction
4.2. TMEP § 1209.04 – Deceptively Misdescriptive Marks
4.3. Case Study – FISH HARVESTER
4.3.1. FISH HARVESTER – Office Action #1
4.3.2. FISH HARVESTER – Office Action #2
4.3.3. FISH HARVESTER – Response to Office Action #2
4.3.4. FISH HARVESTER – Important Cases
4.3.4.1. In re Quady Winery, Inc., 221 USPQ 1213 (TTAB 1984)
4.3.4.2. Binney & Smith Inc. v. Magic Marker Indus., Inc., 222 USPQ 1003 (TTAB 1984)
4.3.4.3. Hoover Co. v. Royal Appliance Mfg. Co., 238 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
4.3.4.4. In re Phillips-Van Heusen Corp. 63 USPQ2d 1047 (TTAB, 2002)
4.3.4.5. In re Schniberg, 79 USPQ2d 1309 (TTAB 2006)
4.3.4.6. In re AOP LLC 107 USPQ2d (BNA) 1644 (TTAB, 2013).
4.3.4.7. In re White Jasmine LLC, 106 USPQ2D 1385 (TTAB 2013)
$0.75
5. Acquired Distinctiveness
5.1. Introduction
5.2. Claiming Acquired Distinctiveness under Section 2(f) aka Secondary Meaning
5.3. TMEP § 1212 - Acquired Distinctiveness or Secondary Meaning
5.4. Case Study – CHEAP EASY FAST ONLINE TRAFFIC SCHOOL
5.4.1. CHEAP EASY FAST ONLINE TRAFFIC SCHOOL – Office Action
5.4.2. CHEAP EASY FAST ONLINE TRAFFIC SCHOOL – Office Action Response
5.4.3. CHEAP EASY FAST ONLINE TRAFFIC SCHOOL – Important Cases
5.4.3.1. In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
5.5. Case Study – PERFORMING ARTS LIVE
5.5.1. PERFORMING ARTS LIVE – Office Action #1
5.5.2. PERFORMING ARTS LIVE – Office Action Response #1
5.5.3. PERFORMING ARTS LIVE – Office Action #2
5.5.4. PERFORMING ARTS LIVE – Office Action Response #2
5.5.5. PERFORMING ARTS LIVE – Office Action #3
5.5.6. PERFORMING ARTS LIVE – Important Cases
5.5.6.1. In re Kalmbach Publishing Co., 14 USPQ2d (BNA) 1490 (TTAB 1989)
5.5.6.2. In re Ideal Indus., 508 F.2d 1336 (C.C.P.A 1975)
5.5.6.3. In re Instant Transaction Corporation of America 201 USPQ (BNA) 957, (T.T.A.B. 1979)
5.5.6.4. In re Boston Beer Co, 198 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 1999)
5.5.6.5. In re Packaging Specialist, Inc., 221 USPQ (BNA) 917 (T.T.A.B 1984)
5.5.6.6. In re Uncle Sam Chemical Co., Inc. 229 USPQ (BNA) 233 (T.T.A.B. 1986)
5.5.6.7. In re Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 774 F.2d 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
5.5.6.8. Yamaha Int’l Corp. v Yoshino Gakki Co 840 F.2d 1572 (1988)
5.5.6.9. Bd. of Trs. of Univ. of Ala. v. Pitts, Jr., 107 USPQ2d 2001, 2016 (TTAB 2013)
$0.75
6. Disclaimers & Supplemental Registration
6.1. Supplemental Registration
6.1.1. Introduction
6.1.2. TMEP
6.1.2.1. § 815 Application Filed on Supplemental Register
6.1.2.2. § 816 Amending Application to Supplemental Register
6.1.3. Case Study – CORONADO CAYS
6.1.3.1. CORONADO CAYS – Office Action
6.1.3.2. CORONADO CAYS – Response to Office Action
6.1.4. Supplemental Register – Important Cases
6.1.4.1. Daggett & Ramsdell, Inc. v. I. Posner, Inc. 115 USPQ 96 (Comr. 1957)
6.1.4.2. In re Controls Corporation of America 46 USPQ2D (BNA) 1308 (TTAB 1997)
6.1.4.3. Terry Nazon, d/b/a Terry Nazon Inc. v. Charlotte Ghiorse 119 USPQ2D (BNA) 1178 (TTAB 2016)
6.2. Disclaimers
6.2.1. TMEP - § 1213 Disclaimer of Elements in Marks
6.2.2. Case Study – DIGITAL ADVERTISING MADE EASY
6.2.2.1. DIGITAL ADVERSITING MADE EASY – Office Action
6.2.2.2. DIGITAL ADVERSITING MADE EASY – Response to Office Action
6.2.2.3. DIGITAL ADVERSITING MADE EASY – Important Cases
6.2.2.3.1. Estate of P.D. Beckwith, Inc. v. Comm'r of Patents, 252 U.S. 538 (1920)
6.2.2.3.2. Dena Corp v Belvedere Intl. Inc. 950 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1991)
6.2.2.3.3. In re August Storck KG 218 USPQ 823 (TTAB 1983)
6.2.2.3.4. Schwarzkopf v. John H. Breck, Inc. 340 F.2d 978 (C.C.P.A. 1965)
6.2.2.3.5. In re Stereotaxis, Inc., 429 F.3d 1039 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
6.2.3. Case Study – MODISH BABY
6.2.3.1. MODISH BABY – Office Action
6.2.3.2. MODISH BABY – Response to Office Action
6.2.4. Case Study – MODERN COOPERAGE
6.2.4.1. MODERN COOPERAGE – Office Action
6.2.4.2. MODERN COOPERAGE – Response to Office Action
6.2.4.3. MODERN COOPERAGE – Office Action # 2
6.2.4.4. MODERN COOPERAGE – Response to Office Action # 2
6.2.4.5. MODERN COOPERAGE – Office Action #3
6.2.4.6. MODERN COOPERAGE – Response to Office Action #3
$0.75
7. Geographic Marks
7.1. Introduction
7.1.1. Element #1: Primary Geographic Significance
7.1.2. Element #2: Geographic Origin of Goods/Services
7.1.3. Element #3: Goods/Place or Services/Place Association
7.2. Primarily Geographically Descriptive
7.2.1. Case Study – CORONADO CAYS
7.2.1.1. CORONADO CAYS – Office Action #1
7.2.1.2. CORONADO CAYS – Response to Office Action # 1
7.2.1.3. CORONADO CAYS – Important Cases
7.2.1.3.1. In re Societe Generale Des Eaux Minerales De Vittell S.A., 3 USPQ2d 1450 (Fed. Cir. 1987)
7.2.1.3.2. In re California Pizza Kitchen, 10 USPQ2d 1704 (TTAB 1989)
7.2.1.3.3. In re Chalk’s International Airlines Inc., 21 USPQ2d 1637 (TTAB 1991)
7.2.1.3.4. In re Joint-Stock Co. “Baik,” 80 USPQ2d 1305 (TTAB 2006)
7.2.2. Primarily Geographically Misdescriptive
7.2.2.1. Geographic Origin of the Goods or Services
7.3. Primarily Geographically Deceptively Misdescriptive and Geographically Deceptive Marks
7.3.1. TMEP 1210.05 Geographically Deceptive Marks
7.3.2. TMEP 1210.06(b) Marks that Include Primarily Geographically Deceptively Misdescriptive
7.3.3. TMEP 1210.07 Supplemental Register and § 2(f)
7.3.4. In re House of Windsor, Inc., 221 U.S.P.Q. 53 (T.T.A.B. 1983)
7.3.5. Case Study – ROYAL HAVANA RESORT & CASINO
7.3.5.1. ROYAL HAVANA – TTAB Appeal Brief for Appellant
7.3.5.2. ROYAL HAVANA – Important Cases
7.3.5.2.1. In re Jacques Bernier Inc., 13 USPQ2d 1725, (Fed. Cir. 1990)
7.3.5.2.2. In re Juleigh Jeans Sportswear, Inc., 24 USPQ 2d 1694 (TTAB 1992)
7.3.6. Case Study – HAVANA TIME
7.3.6.1. HAVANA TIME – Office Action #1
7.3.6.2. HAVANA TIME – Response to Office Action #1
7.3.6.3. HAVANA TIME – Office Action #2
7.3.6.4. HAVANA TIME – Response to Office Action #2
7.3.6.5. HAVANA TIME – Office Acton #3
7.3.6.6. HAVANA TIME – Important Cases
7.3.6.6.1. In re Perry Mfg. Co. 12 USPQ2d 1751 (TTAB 1989)
7.3.6.6.2. In re Cal. Innovations Inc., 329 F.3d 1334, (Fed. Cir. 2003)
7.3.6.6.3. Les Halles De Paris J.V., 334 F.3d 1371, (Fed. Cir. 2003)
7.3.7. Recent Primarily Geographically Deceptively Misdescriptive Cases
7.3.7.1. In re Spirits Int’l, N.V., 563 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2009)
7.3.7.2. In re Compania de Licores Internacionales S.A., 102 USPQ2d 1841 (TTAB 2012)
7.3.7.3. In re Miracle Tuesday LLC, 695 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
$0.75
8. Trade Dress, Non-Traditional Marks, Functionality and Failure to Function as a Mark
8.1. Introduction
8.2. TMEP § 818
8.3. Is it a Trademark?
8.3.1. In re Aerospace Optics, Inc., Serial No. 76171288
8.4. Trade Dress
8.4.1. TMEP § 1202.02 Registration of Trade Dress
8.4.2. Examples of Registrable Trade Dress
8.4.2.1. Phonechip
8.4.2.2. Vehicle Tire Valve Cap
8.4.2.3. Bebida De Energia Caballo Negro (Black Horse Energy Drink)
8.4.2.4. Misc. Design 86867839
8.4.2.5. Ab Circle
8.4.3. Case Study – Hookah Jar
8.4.3.1. Hookah Jar – Office Action # 1
8.4.3.2. Hookah Jar – Response to Office Action #1
8.4.3.3. Hookah Jar – Office Action # 2
8.4.3.4. Hookah Jar – Response to Office Action #2
8.4.3.5. Hookah Jar – Office Action # 3
8.4.3.6. Hookah Jar – Response to Office Action # 3
8.4.3.7. Hookah Jar – Office Action # 4
8.4.3.8. Hookah Jar – Request for Reconsideration
8.4.3.9. Hookah Jar – Important Cases
8.4.3.9.1. Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763 (1992)
8.4.3.9.2. In re Celia Clarke, dba Clarke’s OSEWEZ 17 USPQ2d (BNA) 1238 (TTAB 1990)
8.4.3.9.3. Qualitex Co. v Jacobson Prods. Co., 514 U.S. 159 (1995)
8.4.3.9.4. Wal-Mart Stores v. Samara Bros. 529 U.S. 205 (2000)
8.5. Functionality
8.5.1. TMEP § 818
8.5.2. TMEP § 1202.02
8.5.3. Case Study- Hookah Jar
8.5.3.1. Hookah Jar – Office Action # 1
8.5.3.2. Hookah Jar – Response to Office Action #1
8.5.3.3. Hookah Jar – Office Action # 2
8.5.3.4. Hookah Jar – Response to Office Action #2
8.5.3.5. Hookah Jar – Office Action # 3
8.5.3.6. Hookah Jar – Response to Office Action #3
8.5.3.7. Hookah Jar – Important Cases
8.5.3.7.1. In re Morton-Norwhich Prods. 213 USPQ (BNA) 9 (C.C.P.A 1982)
8.5.3.7.2. Inwood Labs. v. Ives Labs, 456 U.S. 844 (1982)
8.5.3.7.3. Traffix Devices v. Mktg.Displays, 58 USPQ2d 1001 (2001)
8.5.3.7.4. Jay Franco & Sons, Inc. v. Franek, 615 F.3d 855 (7th Cir. 2010)
8.5.4. Aesthetic Functionality
8.5.4.1. TMEP § 1202.02
8.5.4.2. Fleischer Studios, Inc., v. A.V.E.L.A, Inc.
8.5.4.3. Order Re: Motion for Summary Judgment Fleischer Studios Inc., v A.V.E.L.A., Inc.
8.5.4.4. Brunswick Corp. v. British Seagull Ltd., 32 USPQ 2d, 1120 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
8.5.4.5. Au-Tomotive Gold, Inc. v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 457 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2006)
8.6. Ornamental
8.6.1. TMEP § 1202.03
8.6.2. Case Study – SAY THAT
8.6.2.1. SAY THAT – Office Action # 1
8.6.2.2. SAY THAT – Response to Office Action
8.6.2.3. SAY THAT – Office Action # 2
8.6.2.4. SAY THAT – Request for Reconsideration
8.6.2.5. SAY THAT – Important Cases
8.6.2.5.1. In re Olin Corporation 181 USPQ (BNA) 182 (TTAB 1973)
8.6.2.5.2. In re Lululemon Athletica Canada Inc. 105 USPQ2D (BNA) 1684 (TTAB 2013)
8.6.2.5.3. In re Paramount Pictures Corp. 213 USPQ 1111 (TTAB 1982)
8.6.2.5.4. In re Pro-Line Corp. 28 USPQ2D 1141 (TTAB 1993)
8.6.2.5.5. In re Right-On Co., Ltd. 87 USPQ2D 1152 (TTAB 2008)
$0.75
9. Likelihood of Confusion
9.1. Introduction
9.2. Case Study – YUMM
9.2.1. Office Action Refusal – YUMM
9.3. The Standard Likelihood of Confusion Refusal
9.3.1. Case Study – THERAVIDA
9.3.1.1. THERAVIDA – Office Action
9.3.1.2. THERAVIDA – Response to Office Action
9.3.1.3. THERAVIDA – Important Cases
9.3.1.3.1. In re E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 177 USPQ 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973).
9.3.1.3.2. In re Total Quality Group Inc., 51 USPQ2d 1474 (TTAB 1999).
9.3.1.3.3. In re August Storck KG, 218 USPQ 823 (TTAB 1983).
9.3.1.3.4. In re Martin’s Famous Pastry Shoppe, Inc., 748 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
9.3.1.3.5. In re Fesco, Inc., 219 USPQ 437 (TTAB 1983)
9.3.1.3.6. Industrial Nucleonic Corp. v. Hinde Engineering Co., 475 F.2d 1197 (C.C.P.A. 1973).
9.3.1.3.7. In re Lamson Oil Co., 6 USPQ2d 1041 (TTAB 1987)
9.3.1.3.8. Recot, Inc. v. M.C. Becton, 214 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
9.3.1.3.9. Shen Manufacturing Co., Inc., v. The Ritz Hotel Limited, 393 F.3d 1238, (Fed. Cir. 2005).
9.4. Case Study – DUKE AND DAISY
9.4.1. DUKE AND DAISY – Office Action
9.4.2. DUKE AND DAISY – Response to Office Action
9.4.3. DUKE AND DAISY: Important Cases
9.4.3.1. Crocker Nat’l Bank v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 228 USPQ 689 (TTAB 1986).
9.4.3.2. In re J.M. Originals Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1393 (TTAB 1987).
9.4.3.3. In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534 (TTAB 1988).
9.4.3.4. In re Dakin’s Miniatures, Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593 (TTAB 1999).
9.4.3.5. In re the Hearst Corporation, 982 F.2d 493, (Fed. Cir. 1993).
9.4.3.6. In re Majestic Distilling Co., 315 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
9.4.3.7. In re Chatam Int’l Inc., 380 F.3d 1340, (Fed. Cir. 2004)
9.5. Case Study – MEDBRIDGE EDUCATION
9.5.1. MEDBRIDGE EDUCATION – Office Action
9.5.2. MEDBRIDGE EDUCATION – Response to Office Action
9.5.3. MEDBRIDGE EDUCATION – Important Cases
9.5.3.1. Astra Pharm. Prods., Inc. v. Beckman Instruments, Inc., 718 F.2d 1201, 1206 (1st Cir. 1983).
9.5.3.2. Electronic Design & Sales Inc. v. Electronic Data Systems Corp., 954 F.2d 713, (Fed. Cir. 1992).
9.5.3.3. In re Opus One, Inc., 60 USPQ2d 1812 (TTAB 2001).
9.5.3.4. In re Broadway Chicken, Inc., 38 USPQ 2d 1559 (T.T.A.B. 1996).
9.5.3.5. Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772
9.6. Case Study – PITSTOP AUTOGLASS
9.6.1. PITSTOP AUTOGLASS – Office Action
9.6.2. PITSTOP AUTOGLASS – Response to Office Action
9.6.3. PITSTOP AUTOGLASS – Important Cases
9.6.3.1. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 526 F.2d 556 (C.C.P.A. 1975).
9.6.3.2. Franklin Mint Corp., 667 F.2d 1005 (CCPA 1981).
9.6.3.3. In re National Novice Hockey League, Inc., 222 USPQ 638 (TTAB 1984).
9.7. Case Study – ALPHA
9.7.1. ALPHA – Office Action
9.7.2. ALPHA – Response to Office Action
9.8. Case Study – TPS
9.8.1. TPS – Office Action
9.8.2. TPS – Response to Office Action
9.9. Single Letter Trademarks
9.9.1. Chemetron Corp. v. Morris Coupling & Clamp Co., 203 USPQ 537 (TTAB 1979).
$0.75
10. Fraud, Bone Fide Intent, Use and Abandonment
10.1. Introduction
10.2. TMEP: Fraud During Prosecution
10.2.1. TMEP §720 Fraud Upon the USPTO
10.2.2. TMEP §906.04 Fraud
10.2.3. Fraud During Prosecution-Important Cases
10.2.3.1. In re Bose Corp., 580 F.3d 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2009)
10.2.3.2. Foods, Inc. v. Brady Bunte 96 USPQ 2d 1544 (2010)
10.2.3.3. Asian and Western Classics B.V. v. Selkow, 92 USPQ2d 1478 (TTAB, 2009)
10.2.3.4. Meckatzer Lowenbrau Benedikt Weib KG v. White Gold, LLC, 95 USPQ2D 1185 (TTAB 2010)
10.3. Other Issues in Statement of Use
10.3.1. TMEP 1202.03 Refusal on Basis of Ornamentation
10.3.2. TMEP Amendments
10.4. Bona Fide Intent
10.4.1. Lack of Bona Fide Intent Cases
10.4.1.1.  Aktieselskabet AF 21 November 2001 v. Fame Jeans Inc., 86 USPQ2D (BNA) 1527 (D.C. Cir. 2008)
10.4.1.2. The Saul Zaentz Company dba Tolkien Enterprises v. Joseph M. Bumb 95 USPQ 2D (BNA) 1723 (TTAB 2010)
10.4.1.3. Boston Red Sox Baseball Club L.P. v. Sherman, 88 USPQ 2D 1581 (TTAB 2008)
10.4.1.4. M.Z. Berger & Co. v. Swatch AG, 114 USPQ2D (BNA) 1892 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
10.5. Abandonment
10.5.1. Reinstatement of a Cancelled Registration
10.5.2. TMEP 1712 Reinstatement of Applications and Registrations
10.5.3. Abandonment of Applications
10.5.3.1. TMEP 1714 Petition to Revive Abandoned Application
10.5.3.2. TMEP 1705.05 Due Diligence
$0.75
11. Primarily Merely Surname & Consent to Use the Name of a Living Person
11.1. Introduction
11.2. Consent to Use a Name
11.2.1. TMEP 1206
11.2.2. Case Study- Tiffany Taylor
11.2.2.1. TIFFANY TAYLOR – Office Action
11.2.2.2. TIFFANY TAYLOR – Response to Office Action
11.2.2.3. TIFFANY TAYLOR – Important Cases
11.2.2.3.1. In re Raymond M. Mancino 219 USPQ 1047 (TTAB 1983)
11.2.3. In re Steak and Ale Restaurants of America, Inc. 185 USPQ 447 (TTAB 1975)
11.2.4. In re Richard M. Hoeffflin 97 USPQ 2D 1174 (TTAB 2010)
11.3. Surnames
11.3.1. TMEP 1211
11.3.2. Case Study – ESQUIVEL
11.3.2.1. ESQUIVEL – Office Action #1
11.3.2.2. ESQUIVEL – Response to Office Action #1
11.3.2.3. ESQUIVEL – Office Action #2
11.3.2.4. ESQUIVEL – Important Cases
11.3.2.4.1. In re Kahan & Weisz Jewelry Mfg. Corp., 508 F.2d 831 (CCPA 1975)
11.3.2.4.2. In re Etablissments Darty Et Fils, 225 USPQ (BNA) 652 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
11.3.2.4.3. In re Benthin Management GmbH 37 USPQ2D (BNA) 1332 (TTAB 1995)
11.3.3. Case Study – EVERARD
11.3.3.1. EVERARD – Office Action #1
11.3.3.2. EVERARD – Response to Office Action # 1
11.3.3.3. EVERARD – Office Action # 2
11.3.3.4. EVERARD – Request for Reconsideration
11.3.3.5. EVERARD – Important Cases:
11.3.3.5.1. In re E. Martinoni Company, 189 USPQ (BNA) 589 (TTAB, 1975)
11.3.3.5.2. In re Petrin Corp,, 231 USPQ 902 (TTAB 1986)
11.3.3.5.3. In re Rebo High Definition Studio Inc. 15 USPQ 2d 1314 (TTAB 1990)
11.3.3.5.4. In re Hamilton Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. 27 USPQ2D (BNA) 1939 (TTAB 1993)
11.3.3.5.5. In Re United Distillers, 56 USPQ 2D (BNA) 1220 (TTAB 2000)
11.3.3.5.6. In re Gregory 70 USPQ 2D (BNA) 1792 (TTAB 2004)
11.3.3.5.7. In re Giger 78 USPQ 2D (BNA) 1405 (TTAB, 2005)
$0.75

Dana Robinson is adjunct professor of law and director of the USPTO Trademark Clinic at California Western School of Law. Dana helped co-launch and direct the IP Clinic at University of San Diego School of Law, where he was adjunct faculty and taught trademark courses, and IP Survey. Dana graduated from USD School of Law in 1999, cum laude. His expertise includes a broad base of intellectual property law that covers copyright, trademark, patent, trade secret and international intellectual property.  His publications include Digital Rights Management Lite: Freeing Ebooks from Reader Devices and Software, 17 Va. J.L. & Tech. 152 (2012).  

Dana has filed, managed and prosecuted thousands of trademarks over the course of his law practice career. He has represented clients in numerous trademark infringement actions, as well as cancellations, oppositions and appeals before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.  His practice includes managing international trademark estates in over 40 countries.  Dana has worked on domain name disputes, beginning with complex multi-party cybersquatting actions. Dana's trademark work has included the famous brands of many Las Vegas resorts, such as Bellagio, Mandalay Bay, Wynn, Palms, Treasure Island, Station Casinos, Stratosphere, Golden Nugget, and Stratosphere. Dana has also worked on hundreds of trademarks for non-casino clients, including La Terra Fina, Sunbelt Communications, Teligence Communications, UNLV, HyLoft, iGolf.com, and many others.

Dana has used his experience as a seasoned trademark prosecution attorney to teach and mentor, and compiled his cases into a practice guide that others can use for teaching trademark prosecution before the USPTO. 

© Copyright by Dana Robinson. All rights reserved 2021.