[E-trademarks] Is Only a Request to Suspend Proper to a Non-Final OA with Multiple Issues

[Edward Timberlake]

Per TMEP 718.03

 "an applicant must respond completely to each issue raised in the
examining attorney’s Office action to avoid abandonment.  Generally, a
response is incomplete if it:  (1) does not address one or more of the
requirements or refusals made in the Office action . . . "

https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/current#/result/TMEP-700d1e2962.html?q=office%20action%20complete&ccb=on&ncb=off&icb=off&fcb=off&ver=current&syn=and&results=compact&sort=relevance&cnt=10&index=3

Sincerely,

Ed Timberlake
*Board Certified Specialist in Trademark Law
<https://www.nclawspecialists.gov/for-the-public/find-a-board-certified-specialist/results/detail/?id=29473>*

*Timberlake Law* <http://timberlakelaw.com/>
Chapel Hill, NC

Schedule a call on Clarity <https://clarity.fm/edtimberlake>
ed at timberlakelaw.com
919.960.1950








On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 11:18 AM Orvis PC via E-trademarks <
e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:

> We received an office action with multiple 2(d) cites and goods/services
> rejections. One of the 2(d) citations is in its grace period and is about
> to be cancelled for failure to file Section 8/9. Is it proper to file a
> simple response requesting suspension in light of the imminent abandonment,
> where that response does not address the other 2(d) citations or the
> goods/services rejections?
>
> TMEP 716.02(e) suggests not, but I swear I have done this before.
> https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/current#/current/TMEP-700d1e2495.html
> --
> 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/20240328/7a96cd92/attachment.htm>