<div dir="ltr">In my experience it's very hit or miss as to whether an examiner is open to competing evidence of multiple registrations for the same mark for different goods by different owners to overcome a 2(d) refusal. Maybe 20% of the time it works and the rest it doesn't. And of course this has become extremely difficult because it's so easy, at least in the consumer products field where massive brands produce almost everything, for an examiner to find 3 examples of any two goods sold under the same mark and then issue a refusal. Quite frustrating.<br clear="all"><div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:12.8px">Regards,</span><br></div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="color:rgb(102,102,204)"><font color="#000000">Scott</font></span></div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><br></div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="color:rgb(102,102,204);font-size:12.7273px">Scott Landsbaum, Inc.</span></div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="color:rgb(102,102,204)"><a href="tel:323-314-7881" value="+13233147881" style="color:rgb(17,85,204)" target="_blank">323-314-7881</a> / f 323-714-2454 </span></div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="color:rgb(102,102,204)">8306 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 420, Beverly Hills, CA 90211</span></div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:12.8px;color:rgb(102,102,204)"><a href="http://www.scottlandsbaum.com/" style="color:rgb(17,85,204)" target="_blank">www.scottlandsbaum.com</a> / </span><font color="#6666cc"><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/scottlandsbaum/" target="_blank">www.linkedin.com/in/scottlandsbaum/</a></font><br><br style="color:rgb(102,102,204)"><font size="1" style="color:rgb(102,102,204)">NOTICE: This e-mail is intended solely for the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, forward, print, copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains. Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail or by telephone at <a href="tel:%28323%29%20314-7881" value="+13233147881" style="color:rgb(17,85,204)" target="_blank">(323) 314-7881</a>.<br><br>IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE:<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;color:rgb(51,51,255)"> </span></font><font size="1" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;color:rgb(102,102,204)">Any discussion of tax matters contained in this or any email (including any attachments) or in any oral or </font><font size="1" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;color:rgb(102,102,204)">other </font><font size="1" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;color:rgb(102,102,204)">written communication is not intended to be used and cannot be used for the purpose of avoiding U.S. tax related penalties or in connection with the promotion, marketing or recommendation of any of the matters addressed in the communication.</font></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Feb 8, 2024 at 1:15 PM Pamela Chestek via E-trademarks <<a href="mailto:e-trademarks@oppedahl-lists.com">e-trademarks@oppedahl-lists.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><u></u>
<div>
I believe the question was about relatedness of the goods and
services, though, not distinctiveness of the mark. I have been
mulling whether one could find a way to import the similar standard
into relatedness of goods though.<br>
<br>
Pam<br>
<br>
<div>Pamela S. Chestek<br>
Chestek Legal<br>
300 Fayetteville Street<br>
Unit 2492<br>
Raleigh, NC 27602<br>
<a href="mailto:pamela@chesteklegal.com" target="_blank">pamela@chesteklegal.com</a><br>
(919) 800-8033<br>
<a href="http://www.chesteklegal.com" target="_blank">www.chesteklegal.com</a><br>
<br>
</div>
<div>On 2/8/2024 12:34 PM, Sam Castree via
E-trademarks wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"times new roman",serif"><span style="font-size:16px">Dear Diana,</span></div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"times new roman",serif"><span style="font-size:16px"><br>
</span></div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"times new roman",serif"><span style="font-size:16px">I've had this issue a handful of
times, although usually the examiner only provides maybe 2
or 3 examples. I provide a dozen or two counterexamples,
and I lead with this paragraph:</span></div>
<blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 40px;border:none;padding:0px">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"times new roman",serif">
<p style="margin:0in;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">"Applicant
acknowledges that the PTO's allowance of prior
third-party registrations is not <i>per se</i> binding on
registrations by
later applicants. Nevertheless,
third-party registrations can be relevant to show whether
<i>a mark, or a portion
thereof, is descriptive or suggestive</i>. TMEP §
1207.01(d)(iii); <i>see also,
e.g., Jack Wolfskin Ausrustung Fur Draussen GmbH &
Co. KGAA v. New
Millennium Sports</i>, S.L.U. 797 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir.
2015). Moreover, the Federal Circuit “encourages the
PTO to achieve a uniform standard for assessing
registrability of marks.” <i>In
Re Nett Designs</i>, 236 F.3d 1339, 1342 (Fed. Cir.,
2001). Thus, in the
interest of maintaining uniform standard of
registrability, <span style="font-size:12pt">Applicant
submits that <i>[word]</i>, when applied
to <i>[goods]</i>, is at least suggestive, rather than
merely descriptive."</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"times new roman",serif"><span style="font-size:16px"><br>
</span></div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"times new roman",serif"><span style="font-size:16px">It's worked pretty well for me.</span></div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"times new roman",serif"><span style="font-size:16px"><br>
</span></div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"times new roman",serif"><span style="font-size:16px">Cheers,</span><br>
</div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:tahoma;font-size:medium"><span style="font-family:"times new roman",serif"><span style="font-size:16px"> </span></span></div>
<div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:tahoma;font-size:medium"><span style="font-family:"times new roman",serif"><span style="color:rgb(255,102,0);font-size:12pt">Sam<span> Castree,
III</span></span></span></div>
<div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:tahoma;font-size:medium"><span style="font-family:"times new roman",serif"><span style="color:rgb(255,102,0);font-size:12pt"><br>
</span></span></div>
<div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:medium"><font face="times new roman, serif"><span style="color:rgb(255,102,0);font-size:12pt"><span><i>Sam
Castree Law, LLC</i></span></span></font></div>
<div style="color:rgb(34,34,34)"><font face="times new roman, serif"><span style="color:rgb(255,102,0)"><span><span style="font-size:12pt"><i>3421 W. Elm St.</i></span></span></span></font></div>
<div style="color:rgb(34,34,34)"><font face="times new roman, serif"><span style="color:rgb(255,102,0)"><span><span style="font-size:12pt"><i>McHenry, IL 60050</i></span></span></span></font></div>
<div style="color:rgb(34,34,34)"><font face="times new roman, serif"><span style="color:rgb(255,102,0)"><span><span style="font-size:12pt"><i>(815) 344-6300</i></span></span></span></font></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Feb 8, 2024 at 1:36 PM
diana <a href="http://lo-dp.com" target="_blank">lo-dp.com</a>
via E-trademarks <<a href="mailto:e-trademarks@oppedahl-lists.com" target="_blank">e-trademarks@oppedahl-lists.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div><span style="font-family:Aptos,Aptos_EmbeddedFont,Aptos_MSFontService,Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">Interested
in whether anyone has successfully persuaded TTAB that
their volume of evidence in a 2(d) outweighs the
examiner's. Overall issue is that the USPTO appears to
have inconsistent practice history. Examiner has
refused registration because an identical mark exists
in another class, and there are a variety examples of
companies providing both types of goods. On the other
hand, there are a substantial number of
counter-examples of coexistence, i.e., Company 1 sells
goods in one of the classes, Company 2 sells goods in
the other class, mark is identical, and they coexist,
without 2(d) ever being issued. Examiner has issued
2(d) and is sticking by it, indicating that not bound
by what other examiner do. The evidence in terms of
USPTO records is conflicting, and the USPTO practice
is inconsistent, with many records on both sides. Does
something like this get resolved on each examiner's
whim, or is there something more predictable and
orderly? Thank you!</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:Aptos,Aptos_EmbeddedFont,Aptos_MSFontService,Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:Aptos,Aptos_EmbeddedFont,Aptos_MSFontService,Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">Diana
Palchik</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:Aptos,Aptos_EmbeddedFont,Aptos_MSFontService,Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><a href="http://palchik.net" target="_blank">palchik.net</a></span></div>
</div>
-- <br>
E-trademarks mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:E-trademarks@oppedahl-lists.com" target="_blank">E-trademarks@oppedahl-lists.com</a><br>
<a href="http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com</a><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
-- <br>
E-trademarks mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:E-trademarks@oppedahl-lists.com" target="_blank">E-trademarks@oppedahl-lists.com</a><br>
<a href="http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com</a><br>
</blockquote></div>