[E-trademarks] Office Action Asserts Not Enough Class Fees Paid

[Orvis PC]

Thank you. I have heard of this but never called a supervisor. How do you
figure out the managing or senior attorney? I found the number of everyone
in LO128, but I cannot figure out the title. Thanks.

On Mon, May 6, 2024 at 4:48 PM Simor Moskowitz <SMoskowitz at whda.com> wrote:

> I assume that you have looked at the online list of Acceptable Goods and
> Services? Could the Examiner be misconstruing the goods, and therefore
> mis-classifying them??
>
> Maybe call the Examiner's Managing Attorney or Senior Attorney before
> responding and request his/her input on how to respond.
>
> Simor Moskowitz
> .........................................................
>
> Simor L. Moskowitz
>
> Westerman, Hattori, LLP
>
> 8500 Leesburg Pike, Suite 7500
>
> Tysons, VA 22182
>
> *(240) 731-0609 (cell)*
>
> 703) 827-3803 (DD)
> (703) 827-3800 (main)
> (571) 395-8753 (fax)
> smoskowitz at whda.com
>
> (Member DC and MD Bars)
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> on behalf
> of Orvis via E-trademarks <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, May 6, 2024 12:47 PM
> *To:* for trademark practitioners <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> *Cc:* Orvis <orvispc at gmail.com>
> *Subject:* [E-trademarks] Office Action Asserts Not Enough Class Fees Paid
>
> You don't often get email from e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com. Learn why
> this is important <https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification>
> We filed a multi-class application. We just received a non-final office
> action where the Examiner deferred a review of the merits of the
> application. The Examiner says we filed in multiple classes but also says
> the goods and services fall in at least two more classes than we identified
> and paid for. To be clear, we properly paid for all the classes we listed.
>
> The Examiner gives us two options. Either we can pay more fees for
> additional classes ( and select how many) or we can delete classes not
> covered by the fees already submitted.
>
> This application is based on a foreign registration, so for 44(e)
> purposes, we replicated the classes.
>
> I don't understand the requirement to pay for more classes when the USPTO
> has not demonstrated how a single good or service is properly in an
> additional class. I would like to respond: the PTO has not established any
> facts or reasoning requiring additional fees for additional classes, and
> thus, applicant requests withdrawal of the office action.
>
> Does anyone have comments on how to deal with these unsubstantiated
> requirements?
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240506/61166b5b/attachment.htm>