[E-trademarks] Letters of Protest -- required evidence by the protesting party

[Orvis]

Hopefully, the TTAB will come to the same conclusion.

Jul 18, 2024 7:44:49 AM John L. Welch via E-trademarks <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>:

> IMHO: same class is irrelevant.
> If the goods are identical, then citing the registration is certainly a step in the right direction. However if the marks are not identical, then who knows what will happen?
> As to Kevin’s point, I recently filed a letter of protest against a mark for cookies that was _identical_ to my client’s registered mark for restaurant services. In addition to the registration, I submitted 12 live third-party registrations covering both cookies and restaurant services.
> The letter of protest was accepted but the examining attorney approved the application anyway.
> JLW
> [cid:image006.png at 01DAD8E5.DA9725A0]
> *John L. Welch*
> *Senior Counsel*
> Admitted to Practice: Massachusetts, New York, and Washington, DC
> jwelch at WolfGreenfield.com
> TEL. 617.646.8285
> [cid:image007.jpg at 01DAD8E5.DA9725A0][Image link][cid:image007.jpg at 01DAD8E5.DA9725A0][http://thettablog.blogspot.com/]
> *Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C.*
> BOSTON | NEW YORK | WASHINGTON DC
> wolfgreenfield.com[https://www.wolfgreenfield.com/]  [cid:image008.png at 01DAD8E5.DA9725A0][Image link][cid:image008.png at 01DAD8E5.DA9725A0][https://www.linkedin.com/company/wolf-greenfield/] [cid:image009.png at 01DAD8E5.DA9725A0][Image link][cid:image009.png at 01DAD8E5.DA9725A0][https://twitter.com/wolfgreenfield]
> *Please consider the environment before printing this email.*
> 
> /This e-mail message and any attachments may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify me immediately by replying to this message and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments. Thank you./
> *From:* E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> *On Behalf Of *Leesa N. Weiss via E-trademarks
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 17, 2024 2:17 PM
> *To:* Kevin Grierson <kgrierson at cm.law>; For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice. <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> *Cc:* Leesa N. Weiss <lweiss at esfip.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [E-trademarks] Letters of Protest -- required evidence by the protesting party
> Thank you. So, where the client/protestor’s goods read, in whole or in part on the subject application’s goods, or if they’re in the same class, or it’s really just that obvious, would it be sufficient to simply recite the client’s registrations on which the Letter of Protest is based?
> Leesa
> 
> *Leesa N. Weiss**
> /Partner/
> *[cid:image010.png at 01DAD8E5.DA9725A0]
> 9801 Washingtonian Boulevard, Suite 750
> Gaithersburg, MD 20878
> lweiss at esfip.com
> Direct:  240-864-2472
> Fax:  301-762-4056
> 
> Information contained within this email and its attachments, if any, may be confidential and/or privileged. This email is intended to be reviewed only by the individual to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of the intended recipient, please be aware that any review, dissemination, or copying of the information contained within this email and its attachments, if any, is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify me by return email and delete this email from your system.
> 
> *From:* Kevin Grierson <kgrierson at cm.law>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 17, 2024 2:10 PM
> *To:* For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice. <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> *Cc:* Leesa N. Weiss <lweiss at esfip.com>
> *Subject:* RE: Letters of Protest -- required evidence by the protesting party
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
> Same.  Got this from a successful letter of protest notification (just one mark submitted):
> 
> Please note for future submissions, if an objection in a letter of protest is based on a likelihood of confusion with existing federally registered marks or prior-pending applications, protestor need only submit the relevant registration or application serial numbers. Copies of protestor's registration certificates or the electronic equivalent thereof and their respective prosecution histories are not necessary. 
> 
> 
> I think the paragraph in  1715.05(a) you reference is only talking about evidence of confusion where the goods and services are NOT identical: 
> If an objection is based on a likelihood of confusion with existing federally registered marks or prior-pending applications, and the goods and/or services are not identical, evidence of the relatedness of the goods and/or services must be included. Such evidence may include advertisements showing that the relevant goods/services are advertised together or sold by the same manufacturer or copies of registrations showing that such goods/services emanate from the same source. Note that a list of registration numbers, a chart containing the registration numbers and identified goods/services, or a copy of a search report is not proper evidence to show the relatedness of the goods or services in the registrations. Rather, copies of the registrations or the electronic equivalent thereof showing current status and title (i.e., printouts or electronic copies taken from the trademark search system or TSDR database of the USPTO) must be submitted.
> So I think the idea here is that if you’re going to submit evidence of relatedness of goods or services, you have to show that the third-party marks you’re using are use-based registrations and not 66(a) or 44(e) registrations.
> 
> 
> *Kevin Grierson**​**​**​**​*
> [cid:image011.png at 01DAD8E5.DA9725A0]
> [cid:image012.png at 01DAD8E5.DA9725A0][Mobile:][cid:image012.png at 01DAD8E5.DA9725A0]
>   757-726-7799[tel:757-726-7799]
> [cid:image013.png at 01DAD8E5.DA9725A0][Fax:][cid:image013.png at 01DAD8E5.DA9725A0]
>   866-521-5663[fax:866-521-5663]
> [cid:image014.png at 01DAD8E5.DA9725A0][Email:][cid:image014.png at 01DAD8E5.DA9725A0]
>   kgrierson at cm.law
> *From:* E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> *On Behalf Of *Leesa N. Weiss via E-trademarks
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 17, 2024 1:54 PM
> *To:* e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com
> *Cc:* Leesa N. Weiss <lweiss at esfip.com>
> *Subject:* [E-trademarks] Letters of Protest -- required evidence by the protesting party
> EXTERNAL EMAIL
> Am I missing something? I recently filed several Letter of Protests (which, ultimately, were accepted with the evidence being forwarded to the respective examiners). The Letters of Protest were all based on likelihood of confusion issues.
> TMEP Section 1715.05(a) states:  “Note that a list of registration numbers, a chart containing the registration numbers and identified goods/services, or a copy of a search report is not proper evidence to show the relatedness of the goods or services in the registrations. Rather, copies of the registrations or the electronic equivalent thereof showing current status and title (i.e., printouts or electronic copies taken from the trademark search system or TSDR database of the USPTO) must be submitted.” So, I’ve submitted TSDR printouts of the client’s (protestor’s) registrations (no more than 5 registrations), along with the required index. I did not submit copies of the actual Certificates of Registration.
> 
> The notifications from the PTO advising that the Letter of Protest has been accepted now state:  “In addition, copies of the protestor’s own registration certificates or the electronic equivalent thereof are not necessary.”
> 
> The TMEP appears to be telling me one thing, while the Attorney Advisor issuing the notification is telling me something else. Which is correct? If I don’t have to go through the exercise of downloading copies of the client’s registrations as supporting evidence, that would be a great timesaver.
> Thanks, in advance.
> Leesa
> 
> *Leesa N. Weiss**
> /Partner/
> *[cid:image010.png at 01DAD8E5.DA9725A0]
> 9801 Washingtonian Boulevard, Suite 750
> Gaithersburg, MD 20878
> lweiss at esfip.com
> Direct:  240-864-2472
> Fax:  301-762-4056
> 
> Information contained within this email and its attachments, if any, may be confidential and/or privileged. This email is intended to be reviewed only by the individual to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of the intended recipient, please be aware that any review, dissemination, or copying of the information contained within this email and its attachments, if any, is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify me by return email and delete this email from your system.
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240718/4106803b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image006.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1575 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240718/4106803b/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image007.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 23449 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240718/4106803b/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image008.png
Type: image/png
Size: 590 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240718/4106803b/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image009.png
Type: image/png
Size: 735 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240718/4106803b/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image010.png
Type: image/png
Size: 8938 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240718/4106803b/attachment-0003.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image011.png
Type: image/png
Size: 3100 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240718/4106803b/attachment-0004.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image012.png
Type: image/png
Size: 285 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240718/4106803b/attachment-0005.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image013.png
Type: image/png
Size: 452 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240718/4106803b/attachment-0006.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image014.png
Type: image/png
Size: 394 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240718/4106803b/attachment-0007.png>