[E-trademarks] seeking billing software suggestions/ specimen rejection on account of additional (generic) material

[Jessica R. Friedman]

May I make a suggestion? Vic, I think you did what I do sometimes, which is type in my own new query as a response to an older thread. But if you’re going to do that, it’s best to put a new subject matter heading that reflects the new topic. This thread is headed “billing software suggestions.” I wanted to save this thread, in case I have this same specimen rejection problem, but without giving it a new title, I never would have found it later.

Jessica R. Friedman
Attorney at Law
300 East 59 Street, Ste. 2406
New York, NY 10022
Phone: 212-220-0900
Cell: 917-647-1884
E-mail: jrfriedman at litproplaw.com<mailto:jrfriedman at litproplaw.com>
URL: www.literarypropertylaw.com<http://www.literarypropertylaw.com>

[1479430908386_PastedImage]


From: E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> on behalf of Vic Indiano via E-trademarks <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
Date: Saturday, November 30, 2024 at 9:12 PM
To: e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
Cc: Vic Indiano <gadgetlawyer at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] seeking billing software suggestions
Thank you everyone for the comments and suggestions.   Enjoy the rest of your wekend!

Vic

On Saturday, November 30, 2024 at 05:15:52 PM EST, 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:

[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<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...





Error! Filename not specified.





--
E-trademarks mailing list
E-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto: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/20241202/bdd9d0a3/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 1733004276092blob.jpg
Type: image/png
Size: 2024 bytes
Desc: 1733004276092blob.jpg
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20241202/bdd9d0a3/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 8892 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20241202/bdd9d0a3/attachment-0001.png>