<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Aptos;}
@font-face
{font-family:Georgia;
panose-1:2 4 5 2 5 4 5 2 3 3;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;
mso-ligatures:none;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Yes, indeed it is. And it happens even in situations where the marks in question are far more distinctive than a lot of the ridiculously incapable dreck that is on the SR. But one\u2019s mileage may vary! Thanks again, Pam.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:#174E86;mso-ligatures:standardcontextual">Laura Talley Geyer</span></b><span style="color:#333333;mso-ligatures:standardcontextual"> |
</span><b><span style="color:#666666;mso-ligatures:standardcontextual">Of Counsel</span></b><span style="color:black;mso-ligatures:standardcontextual">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black;mso-ligatures:standardcontextual"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:#174E86;mso-ligatures:standardcontextual"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:#174E86;mso-ligatures:standardcontextual">ND Galli Law LLC</span></b><span style="color:black;mso-ligatures:standardcontextual"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ligatures:standardcontextual">1200 G Street, N.W., Ste 800<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ligatures:standardcontextual">Washington, DC 20005<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ligatures:standardcontextual">Tel: (202) 599-9019 (direct)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ligatures:standardcontextual"><a href="https://ndgallilaw.com/laura-geyer/">https://ndgallilaw.com/laura-geyer/</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ligatures:standardcontextual"><a href="https://ndgallilaw.com/">https://ndgallilaw.com/</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Pamela Chestek via E-trademarks<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, October 22, 2024 11:31 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> e-trademarks@oppedahl-lists.com<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Pamela Chestek <pamela@chesteklegal.com><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [E-trademarks] [EXT] Must a genericy refusal be finalized?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><b><span style="color:#CC0000">EXTERNAL EMAIL</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">This is clearly a shot across the bow that they consider it generic. And maybe already have the evidence.<br>
<br>
"Even if it appears that the mark is generic, the proper basis for the initial refusal is §2(e)(1) descriptiveness.
<b><i>If there is strong evidence that the proposed mark is generic, the examining attorney should include a statement that the subject matter appears to be a generic name</i></b> for the goods or services in conjunction with the refusal on the ground that
the matter is merely descriptive. ... <b><i>If, on the other hand, the mark appears to be capable, the examining attorney should provide appropriate advice concerning a possible amendment to the Supplemental Register</i></b> or assertion of a claim of acquired
distinctiveness. ... <b><i>If the record is unclear as to whether the designation is capable of functioning as a mark, the examining attorney must refrain from giving any advisory statement.</i></b>"<br>
<br>
TMEP 1209.02(a).<br>
<br>
Pam<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Pamela S. Chestek<br>
Chestek Legal<br>
300 Fayetteville St.<br>
Unit 2492<br>
Raleigh, NC 27602<br>
+1 919-800-8033<br>
<a href="mailto:pamela@chesteklegal.com">pamela@chesteklegal.com</a><br>
<a href="http://www.chesteklegal.com">www.chesteklegal.com</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 10/22/2024 11:09 AM, Edward Timberlake via E-trademarks wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Georgia",serif">There is another way to read the Trademark Examining Attorney stating that they \u201ccannot recommend that applicant amend the application to proceed \u2026 on the Supplemental Register as possible response
options to this refusal,\u201d and that is that amending to the Supplemental Register is only possible when the application for registration is currently based on use.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Georgia",serif">If no proof of use has been provided (and accepted), then the Supplemental Register is not currently an option.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Georgia",serif"><a href="https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/current#/current/TMEP-800d1e2649.html">https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/current#/current/TMEP-800d1e2649.html</a></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Georgia",serif">Sincerely,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Georgia",serif">Ed Timberlake </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Georgia",serif"><a href="https://www.nclawspecialists.gov/for-the-public/find-a-board-certified-specialist/results/detail/?id=29473" target="_blank">Board Certified Specialist in Trademark Law</a></span></i><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Georgia",serif"><a href="http://timberlakelaw.com/" target="_blank"><b>Timberlake Law</b></a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Georgia",serif">Chapel Hill, NC<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Georgia",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Georgia",serif"><a href="https://clarity.fm/edtimberlake" target="_blank">Schedule a call on Clarity</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Georgia",serif"><a href="mailto:ed@timberlakelaw.com" target="_blank">ed@timberlakelaw.com</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Georgia",serif">919.960.1950<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><img border="0" width="96" height="96" style="width:1.0in;height:1.0in" id="_x0000_i1027" src="https://ci3.googleusercontent.com/mail-sig/AIorK4zUm0zjuSoSf91b85RXakFjrbAqMcNkJek2_S8VO9eHNz9mDAX5u3RBN0aEhVODltVLqRN-NYsDzt7A"><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 10:52<span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">\u202f</span>AM Laura Geyer <<a href="mailto:lgeyer@ndgallilaw.com">lgeyer@ndgallilaw.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Dear Alex:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Much appreciated! I wish I could say I were a junior attorney first looking at this issue from this angle, hechk, I\u2019ve even written an article recently about the
<a href="https://ndgallilaw.com/2024/08/27/supplemental-registration-whats-the-point/" target="_blank">
slightly pointless no-man's land that is the SR</a> (\u201cSupplemental Registration: What\u2019s the Point?\u201d) .
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">What threw me was something I genuinely hadn\u2019t seen once in the 25 years of doing this. Not just a genericy advisory (seen some of those despite best efforts to get clients to
<i>pick actual trademarks please</i> for the love of G-d) but a further \u201csort of\u201d pre-finding of genericy\u201d in the \u201cdon\u2019t even try that\u201d about attempting amendment to the SR. There\u2019s not really a different way to read the Examiner\u2019s addition about how that because
of the genericy possibility, they \u201c<b>cannot recommend that applicant amend the application to proceed \u2026 on the Supplemental Register as possible response options to this refusal\u201d.
</b>That is a backhanded warning that the genericy issue has already been worked out when, as you say, there\u2019s actually no reason to touch it substantively.<b>
</b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b> </b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">I will hypothetically advise the client that this is officially a roll the dice situation with possibly slightly weighted dice. It may be that by the time the amendments are filed
and the dust settles, they may overcome that issue. Or they may crap out with a 2.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Kindly,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Laura<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b><span style="color:#174E86">Laura Talley Geyer</span></b><span style="color:#333333"> |
</span><b><span style="color:#666666">Of Counsel</span></b><span style="color:black">
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b><span style="color:#174E86"> </span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b><span style="color:#174E86">ND Galli Law LLC</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">1200 G Street, N.W., Ste 800<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Washington, DC 20005<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Tel: (202) 599-9019 (direct)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><a href="https://ndgallilaw.com/laura-geyer/" target="_blank">https://ndgallilaw.com/laura-geyer/</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><a href="https://ndgallilaw.com/" target="_blank">https://ndgallilaw.com/</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> Alex Butterman <<a href="mailto:abutterman@dbllawyers.com" target="_blank">abutterman@dbllawyers.com</a>>
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, October 22, 2024 1:43 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice. <<a href="mailto:e-trademarks@oppedahl-lists.com" target="_blank">e-trademarks@oppedahl-lists.com</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Laura Geyer <<a href="mailto:lgeyer@ndgallilaw.com" target="_blank">lgeyer@ndgallilaw.com</a>>; Edward Timberlake <<a href="mailto:ed@timberlakelaw.com" target="_blank">ed@timberlakelaw.com</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [EXT] [E-trademarks] Must a genericy refusal be finalized?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt"><b><span style="color:#CC0000">EXTERNAL EMAIL</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#0E2841">Laura:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#0E2841"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#0E2841">I agree with you that this \u201cgenericy\u201d determination is one of the most unintuitive, complicated processes
in application examination that I have experienced, and I have regularly seen experienced TM attorneys and inexperienced TM examiners (including myself) get this wrong. I am not sure how this process developed, i.e. if it is a matter of statutory interpretation
or based upon the particular language of the Lanham Act, but the TMEP explains the examination procedure at Section 1209.02(a) (\u201cThe examining attorney must not initially issue a refusal in an application for registration on the Principal Register on the ground
that a mark is a generic name for the goods or services, <b><i>unless the applicant asserted that the mark has acquired distinctiveness under §2(f) in the application itself</i></b>.\u201d)</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#0E2841"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#0E2841">Essentially, the determination of the examiner as to whether or not a mark is generic boils down to the
determination of whether or not <b>the mark can acquire distinctiveness</b>. And the definition of a mark on the Supplemental Register is a mark \u201c<i>capable</i> of acquiring distinctiveness.\u201d The Supplemental Register is effectively a holding pattern for a
mark in \u201cno man\u2019s land\u201d because the mark is technically not sufficiently distinctive to be considered an enforceable mark, but the mark could be on its way there. Consequently, a genericy determination cannot be made until the applicant either requests registration
on the Supplemental Register or claims 2(f). So as you note, this becomes approximately a 4-plus step process if the application is based upon ITU and a 3-step process if based upon use: 1) descriptiveness refusal; 2) allegation of use and SR registration
amendment (or just SR amendment if already in use); 3) initial refusal of the SR amendment or 2(f) claim; 4) final refusal of the SR or 2(f) amendment. The 2(f) amending process can even extend across several office actions if the refusals initially argue
the particular level of evidence required to claim 2(f) for the particular mark. There may also be times when this determination is made in the ITU context, such as an application based upon Section 44e which can also be amended to the SR.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#0E2841"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#0E2841">Therefore, the fastest way to force this issue in examination is to seek SR registration or claim 2(f)
and it probably is most cost effective to do so with minimal argument after the descriptiveness refusal has initially been argued. Then, once the examiner contends that SR and 2(f) registration are not available because the mark is allegedly generic, all resources
can be devoted to arguing that the mark is capable of or has actually acquired distinctiveness. This is why this process is probably better suited to marks which have been in use and need to better protect the use rights that have accrued. If the mark has
not yet been in use, the genericy determination seems less impactful because the applicant has less invested in the mark and may be content knowing that the applicant cannot be prevented from using the term even though it cannot be considered a mark and the
applicant cannot exclude others from use of the term. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#0E2841"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#0E2841">I got this wrong in one of the first cases I examined which I refused because of descriptiveness and
which ended up being the only refusal I had to defend on appeal. My mistake was initially issuing the genericy warning which set the tone and substance of subsequent arguments to be whether or not the mark was generic. Then, when it came time to defend the
refusal, my mentor had explained that the genericy issue was not yet ripe because the applicant had not sought an SR registration. So the appeal proceeded with me needing only to defend that the mark was merely descriptive, which it clearly was. I keep seeing
examiners make this same error. This was the reason why a couple of years ago, I prosecuted an application that received about six office actions arguing whether a 2(f) or SR registration could issue and when the 4<sup>th</sup> OA was declared \u201cfinal,\u201d it
really was not. We finally registered the mark with a lot of it being disclaimed and the appeal we initiated was dropped by a new examiner being reassigned to the case and reconsidering the refusal. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#0E2841"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#0E2841">I guess this is a long non-answer and commiseration.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#0E2841"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#0E2841"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Alex Butterman</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Partner<b>
</b></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b>DUNLAP BENNETT & LUDWIG</b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:3.0pt"><i><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">211 Church St., SE; Leesburg, VA 20175</span></i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:3.0pt"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">T: 703-777-7319</span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#156082"> \u2013
</span><span style="color:#156082"><a href="https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.dbllawyers.com%2fattorney%2falex-butterman%2f&c=E,1,T3fmbVo7MWmiIcJvLr0vx-U9lJ_2AXEckc-aqYIJ1KBeG48Cc0ICCr5xwNW9XmY9Evl2LmNAz8Ou3IRYaNAB2F9nvm59pTUyC1MbDlG9DpL-xHEBqGdq-a2D&typo=1" target="_blank"><b><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">BIO</span></b></a></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:3.0pt"><span style="color:#156082"><img border="0" width="167" height="49" style="width:1.7416in;height:.5083in" id="m_-5067408548694051991Picture_x0020_1" src="cid:image001.png@01DB2477.0DDDF600" alt="A blue and white logo
Description automatically generated"></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:3.0pt"><a href="https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.dbllawyers.com%2fempowering-innovators%2f&c=E,1,Z-vaG-waAdGmESU4ivqyPD-oXQVsTArwP4GM8uLIY_29My7tf8cHYv8Zr46AnRZE0n8N7aDoa4uWE-FsJpFSt4nWktQ6DkGWHL9YnkIBc7Om1JoGb1g,&typo=1" target="_blank"><span style="color:#0E2841;text-decoration:none"><img border="0" width="300" height="50" style="width:3.125in;height:.525in" id="m_-5067408548694051991Picture_x0020_3" src="cid:image002.png@01DB2477.0DDDF600"></span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#156082">This electronic message contains information from Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig PLLC and may be confidential
or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, or use of the contents is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us and delete the message without copying or disclosing it.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#0E2841"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> E-trademarks <<a href="mailto:e-trademarks-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com" target="_blank">e-trademarks-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com</a>>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Laura Geyer via E-trademarks<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, October 21, 2024 12:34 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice. <<a href="mailto:e-trademarks@oppedahl-lists.com" target="_blank">e-trademarks@oppedahl-lists.com</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Laura Geyer <<a href="mailto:lgeyer@ndgallilaw.com" target="_blank">lgeyer@ndgallilaw.com</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [EXT] [E-trademarks] Must a genericy refusal be finalized?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Honored colleagues:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">So, let\u2019s say hypothetically one had a final refusal to register based on mere descriptiveness. However, that refusal also added a genericy* \u201cadvisory\u201d concluding that \u201c\u2026 the trademark
examining attorney <b>cannot recommend that applicant amend the application to proceed \u2026 on the Supplemental Register as possible response options to this refusal</b>.\u201d<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Setting aside the mere decriptiveness issue, it appears (based on the hypothetical clarification that one might have requested prior to throwing away client $$ on a response, an
AAU, and lawyer time for that stuff) that although refusal based on genericy is one based on overlapping but ultimately different grounds, there is no need to make that determination final. That builds a grenade into an OA -- the only way to find out whether
the mark will be ultimately refused as generic is to pull the pin and file the AAU (blowing the filing fee and lawyer time to do that) and only at that point will the mystery be revealed either in an approval or the kablooey of a new final refusal. This seems
absurd. Why is a genericy refusal not (like any ground for refusal) one that must be made final with other grounds for refusal in such an OA, since there is no need for the evidence of use to be examined in order to make that ruling?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">And if the grenade is indeed correctly included, what\u2019s the betting on ultimate chances of refusal? 95%? 85% 75%?
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">*[I will persist in using this term \u2013 with apologies to Gilbert and Sullivan]
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><i>\u201cGenericy, genericy\u201d</i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><i>The OED cries \u201cheresy\u201d</i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><i>But other terms are awkward, see</i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><i>So let\u2019s all use \u201cgenericy\u201d</i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b><span style="color:#174E86">Laura Talley Geyer</span></b><span style="color:#333333"> |
</span><b><span style="color:#666666">Of Counsel</span></b><span style="color:black">
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b><span style="color:#174E86"> </span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b><span style="color:#174E86">ND Galli Law LLC</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">1200 G Street, N.W., Ste 800<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Washington, DC 20005<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Tel: (202) 599-9019 (direct)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><a href="https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fndgallilaw.com%2flaura-geyer%2f&c=E,1,3F_1EkoAbmE6FpzwthqH6oEUCk0nfEzvUubrmPuWFzZMIiVtrIqlyHidn_5KgKyaAVrmxmEC2zrKWRKjeVduv09vGuO7r7UC_cBlgUmgNLIP9w,,&typo=1&ancr_add=1" target="_blank">https://ndgallilaw.com/laura-geyer/</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><a href="https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fndgallilaw.com%2f&c=E,1,SEuwx6soIcaz8xNxlEOLohOMHBlyl7096dQkvDYlQFxddc7FsS4fiJC2VSPwnwK7lZWkQScDDk6n1eQj1zsm7B-Aytd-qYezFIlZ4uBbi0OF3Js,&typo=1&ancr_add=1" target="_blank">https://ndgallilaw.com/</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>