[E-trademarks] Re-filed a previously approved ITU application, now refused?

[Kevin Grierson]

As the examiners will be happy to remind you, they are not bound the determinations of other examining attorneys.

Kevin Grierson​​​​
[cid:image001.png at 01DAAC5F.02140CF0]
[Mobile:]
  757-726-7799<tel:757-726-7799>
[Fax:]
  866-521-5663<fax:866-521-5663>
[Email:]
  kgrierson at cm.law<mailto:kgrierson at cm.law>

From: E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> On Behalf Of Gordon Firemark via E-trademarks
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2024 3:36 PM
To: e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com
Cc: Gordon Firemark <gordon.firemark at gmail.com>
Subject: [E-trademarks] Re-filed a previously approved ITU application, now refused?

EXTERNAL EMAIL
Hi all,  I’m constructing arguments and can use some input (and case citations if you know ‘em)

Applicant, through a previous attorney y filed  an ITU application, and received a notice of allowance.  Somehow Statement of Use and Specimens weren’t filed, so the app was abandoned.

Client hired me to re-file the exact same application, this time on 1(a) basis, and the examining attorney has refused it and is requiring a disclaimer (which was NOT required in the now-abandoned version of the same mark) of one word in this 3-word mark.

Client prefers NOT to disclaim, and has asked me to respond accordingly.

Is there any merit to the argument that the applicant should be able to rely on the prior approval without the disclaimer requirement?

It seems to me that administrative agencies should apply rules and laws consistently across identical scenarios… particularly when presented by the exact same applicant?  Isn’t this a due-process  thing?   (I can’t find much to support my thinking specifically with respect to the USPTO)

Thanks in advance for any insights
____________________________________
Gordon Firemark
Attorney at Law
Firemark Entertainment Law | The Podcast Lawyer™
10940 Wilshire Blvd. Fl. 16 | Los Angeles, CA 90024
 www.firemark.com<http://www.firemark.com> | gfiremark at firemark.com<mailto:gfiremark at firemark.com> | (310)421-9970
[cid:image005.png at 01DAAC5F.02140CF0]
____________________________________

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240522/ed2e965a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 3100 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240522/ed2e965a/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 285 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240522/ed2e965a/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 452 bytes
Desc: image003.png
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240522/ed2e965a/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.png
Type: image/png
Size: 394 bytes
Desc: image004.png
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240522/ed2e965a/attachment-0003.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image005.png
Type: image/png
Size: 9779 bytes
Desc: image005.png
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240522/ed2e965a/attachment-0004.png>