[E-trademarks] seeking billing software suggestions

[Sam Castree]

Dear Vic,

Ugh, yes, I've dealt with this nonsense on occasion.  The case that you're
looking for is *In re University of Miami*
<https://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/ttabvue-86616382-EXA-13.pdf> (TTAB
2017). See also TMEP § 807.12(d)
<https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/current#/current/TMEP-800d1e1709.html>.
And, if you want to see a winning office action response (drafted by yours
truly), then check the response here
<https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=90245538&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch>
.

Cheers,

Sam Castree, III

*Sam Castree Law, LLC*
*3421 W. Elm St.*
*McHenry, IL 60050*
*(815) 344-6300*

On Sat, Nov 30, 2024 at 4:16 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:
>
> [image: Inline image]
> 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
>
> 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/>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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/fde48da3/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 1733004276092blob.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2024 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20241130/fde48da3/attachment.jpg>