[E-trademarks] seeking billing software suggestions

[daniel at keganlaw.com]

Examiner needs reminding of, if I remember correctly, Composite marks, where
BIG TEXT and small-text, can support 3 separate trademarks, if all other considerations are
ok (eg not generic, not prior conflicting registration, etc. Similar with text and/or image,
if not too entangled. TMEP likely has exxplicit numbered section.
Daniel Kegan

> On Nov 30, 2024, at 5:14 PM, Vic Indiano via E-trademarks <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:
> 
> Re; Specimens.
> 
> I recently received rejection of specimens that I submitted that I struck me as odd, since I have never received a rejection of specimens on this basis before, although I have submitted many similar specimens.
> 
> Hypothetically, the trademark is for the term Fast Flush in the standard character format
> 
> The specimen that I submitted showed the mark in a logo form and appeared as follows:
> 
> <1733004276092blob.jpg>
> The reason for the rejection was that it did not show the mark Fast Flush that was sought to be registered. Rather, the examiner believed that the mark that was shown was
> 
> Fast Flush Plumbing and HVAC
> 
> This struck me as strange, as I have never had a specimen rejected that showed of the mark adjacent to a generic descriptor.
> 
> Is the trademark examiner's rejection legitimate? Or is in fact the specimen not a proper showing of the mark?
> 
> When I followed up with the examiner by presenting other specimens for her to review, she made another interesting comment.
> 
> Some of the new specimens show the term Fast Flush, whereas others showed the term Faster Flush.
> 
> I can understand that the use of the term Faster Flush in the specimens does not show use of the term. However, her comment was that the specimens as a group were not good because the mark was used inconsistently in different specimens.
> 
> To my knowledge, there is no requirement that a trademark be used  in a consistent manner, so long as it is being used in the manner for which an application is sought somewhere.
> 
> Again, do you believe the examiner to be correct in her assertion, or a she off base. 
> 
> Any thoughts and help are most welcome.
> 
> Vic Indiano 
> 
> The Indiano Law Group, LLC
> 
>  
> 
> E. Victor Indiano
> 
> 9795 Crosspoint Blvd. Suite 185
> 
> Indianapolis, IN 46256
> 
> Direct Phone:317-927-8465
> 
> E-Mail Vic at IM-iplaw.com 
> 
> www.indyiplaw.com <http://www.indyiplaw.com/> 
> 
> www.im-iplaw.com <http://www.im-iplaw.com/> 
> 
> 
> Indiano Law Group, LLC | Indianapolis Intellectual Property Lawyers
> Indiano Law Group, LLC, is a boutique litigation firm in Indianapolis providing patent and intellectual property...
>  <http://www.im-iplaw.com/>
> 
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> <1733004276092blob.jpg>-- 
> E-trademarks mailing list
> E-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com
> http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20241130/88ceb1a3/attachment.html>