<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
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. ... <i><b>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</b></i> or assertion of a claim of
acquired distinctiveness. ... <i><b>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.</b></i>"<br>
<br>
TMEP 1209.02(a).<br>
<br>
Pam<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">Pamela S. Chestek<br>
Chestek Legal<br>
300 Fayetteville St.<br>
Unit 2492<br>
Raleigh, NC 27602<br>
+1 919-800-8033<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:pamela@chesteklegal.com">pamela@chesteklegal.com</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.chesteklegal.com">www.chesteklegal.com</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/22/2024 11:09 AM, Edward
Timberlake via E-trademarks wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CABNf9SVAxc7u5DCQh7U=Z15eWEG3=tLZrjQac=PdaTfkzkocAQ@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><font
face="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.</font></div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><font
face="georgia, serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><font
face="georgia, serif">If no proof of use has been provided
(and accepted), then the Supplemental Register is not
currently an option.</font></div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><font
face="georgia, serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><font
face="georgia, serif"><a
href="https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/current#/current/TMEP-800d1e2649.html"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/current#/current/TMEP-800d1e2649.html</a><br>
</font></div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"
data-smartmail="gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<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 dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><span
style="font-family:georgia,serif"><br>
</span></div>
<div><font
size="2"
face="georgia,
serif">Sincerely,</font></div>
<div><font
size="2"
face="georgia,
serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div>
<div
style="font-size:small"><font
size="2"
face="georgia,
serif">Ed
Timberlake </font></div>
<div
style="font-size:small"><font
size="2"
face="georgia,
serif"><i><a
href="https://www.nclawspecialists.gov/for-the-public/find-a-board-certified-specialist/results/detail/?id=29473"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">Board Certified Specialist in
Trademark Law</a></i></font></div>
<div
style="font-size:small"><font
size="2"
face="georgia,
serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div
style="font-size:small">
<div
style="font-family:georgia,serif"><a
href="http://timberlakelaw.com/" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"><b>Timberlake
Law</b></a></div>
<div
style="font-family:georgia,serif">Chapel
Hill, NC<br>
</div>
<div
style="font-family:georgia,serif"><br>
</div>
<div
style="font-family:georgia,serif"><a
href="https://clarity.fm/edtimberlake" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">Schedule
a call on
Clarity</a><br>
</div>
<div
style="font-family:georgia,serif"><a
href="mailto:ed@timberlakelaw.com" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">ed@timberlakelaw.com</a><br>
</div>
<div
style="font-family:georgia,serif">919.960.1950<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><img
src="https://ci3.googleusercontent.com/mail-sig/AIorK4zUm0zjuSoSf91b85RXakFjrbAqMcNkJek2_S8VO9eHNz9mDAX5u3RBN0aEhVODltVLqRN-NYsDzt7A"
moz-do-not-send="true" width="96" height="96"><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</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 Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at
10:52\u202fAM Laura Geyer <<a
href="mailto:lgeyer@ndgallilaw.com" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">lgeyer@ndgallilaw.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 class="msg-5067408548694051991">
<div style="overflow-wrap: break-word;" lang="EN-US">
<div class="m_-5067408548694051991WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear Alex:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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" moz-do-not-send="true">
slightly pointless no-man's land that is the SR</a>
(\u201cSupplemental Registration: What\u2019s the Point?\u201d) .
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b> </b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Kindly,</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Laura</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="color:rgb(23,78,134)">Laura Talley Geyer</span></b><span
style="color:rgb(51,51,51)"> |
</span><b><span style="color:rgb(102,102,102)">Of
Counsel</span></b><span style="color:black">
</span><span style="font-size:11pt;color:black"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="color:rgb(23,78,134)"> </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="color:rgb(23,78,134)">ND Galli Law LLC</span></b><span
style="color:black"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>1200 G Street, N.W., Ste
800</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Washington, DC 20005</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Tel: (202) 599-9019
(direct)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><a
href="https://ndgallilaw.com/laura-geyer/"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://ndgallilaw.com/laura-geyer/</a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><a
href="https://ndgallilaw.com/" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://ndgallilaw.com/</a></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<div
style="border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:none;border-top:1pt
solid rgb(225,225,225);padding:3pt 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> Alex Butterman
<<a href="mailto:abutterman@dbllawyers.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">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" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">e-trademarks@oppedahl-lists.com</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Laura Geyer <<a
href="mailto:lgeyer@ndgallilaw.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">lgeyer@ndgallilaw.com</a>>;
Edward Timberlake <<a
href="mailto:ed@timberlakelaw.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">ed@timberlakelaw.com</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [EXT] [E-trademarks] Must a
genericy refusal be finalized?</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><b><span
style="color:rgb(204,0,0)">EXTERNAL EMAIL</span></b></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(14,40,65)">Laura:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(14,40,65)"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(14,40,65)">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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(14,40,65)"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(14,40,65)">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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(14,40,65)"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(14,40,65)">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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(14,40,65)"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(14,40,65)">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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(14,40,65)"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(14,40,65)">I
guess this is a long non-answer and commiseration.
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(14,40,65)"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(14,40,65)"> </span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:black">Alex
Butterman</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:black">Partner<b>
</b></span><b><span
style="font-family:"Avenir
Next";color:rgb(55,66,138)"></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-family:"Avenir
Next";color:rgb(55,66,138)">DUNLAP </span></b><b><span
style="font-family:"Avenir
Next";color:rgb(97,106,115)">BENNETT </span></b><b><span
style="font-family:"Avenir
Next";color:rgb(55,66,138)">& LUDWIG</span></b><span
style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(21,96,130)"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:3pt"><i><span
style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:black">211 Church St., SE;
Leesburg, VA 20175</span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:3pt"><span
style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:black">T:
703-777-7319</span><span
style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(21,96,130)">
\u2013
</span><span style="color:rgb(21,96,130)"><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" moz-do-not-send="true"><b><span
style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">BIO</span></b></a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:3pt"><span
style="color:rgb(21,96,130)"><img style="width:
1.7416in; height: 0.5083in;"
id="m_-5067408548694051991Picture_x0020_1"
src="cid:part1.jltwFdCn.XPM3rtt0@chesteklegal.com"
alt="A blue and white logo
Description automatically generated" class=""
width="167" height="49" border="0"></span><span
style="color:rgb(21,96,130)"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:3pt"><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" moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="color:rgb(14,40,65);text-decoration:none"><img
style="width: 3.125in; height: 0.525in;"
id="m_-5067408548694051991Picture_x0020_3"
src="cid:part2.auUfEppk.HjN0SLeG@chesteklegal.com"
class="" width="300" height="50" border="0"></span></a><span
style="color:rgb(21,96,130)"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(21,96,130)">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><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(14,40,65)"></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(14,40,65)"> </span></p>
<div>
<div
style="border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:none;border-top:1pt
solid rgb(225,225,225);padding:3pt 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> E-trademarks <<a
href="mailto:e-trademarks-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">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" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">e-trademarks@oppedahl-lists.com</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Laura Geyer <<a
href="mailto:lgeyer@ndgallilaw.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">lgeyer@ndgallilaw.com</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [EXT] [E-trademarks] Must a
genericy refusal be finalized?</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Honored colleagues:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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?</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And if the grenade is indeed
correctly included, what\u2019s the betting on ultimate
chances of refusal? 95%? 85% 75%?
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">*[I will persist in using this
term \u2013 with apologies to Gilbert and Sullivan]
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>\u201cGenericy, genericy\u201d</i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>The OED cries \u201cheresy\u201d</i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>But other terms are awkward,
see</i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>So let\u2019s all use \u201cgenericy\u201d</i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="color:rgb(23,78,134)">Laura Talley
Geyer</span></b><span
style="color:rgb(51,51,51)"> |
</span><b><span style="color:rgb(102,102,102)">Of
Counsel</span></b><span style="color:black">
</span><span style="font-size:11pt;color:black"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="color:rgb(23,78,134)"> </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="color:rgb(23,78,134)">ND Galli Law LLC</span></b><span
style="color:black"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>1200 G Street, N.W., Ste
800</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Washington, DC 20005</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Tel: (202) 599-9019
(direct)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><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" moz-do-not-send="true">https://ndgallilaw.com/laura-geyer/</a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><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" moz-do-not-send="true">https://ndgallilaw.com/</a></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="moz-mime-attachment-header"></fieldset>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>