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

[Orvis PC]

Found it:
https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/contact-trademarks/other-trademark-contact-information


On Mon, May 6, 2024 at 5:12 PM Orvis PC <orvispc at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/20240506/3525cef6/attachment.htm>