[E-trademarks] Not allowed to argue weak mark?

[Janet Satterthwaite]

What If you try saying it is a crowded field rather than attacking the registration itself as weak? And submit copies of registrations for similar marks.




Janet F. Satterthwaite|Partner/ Chair, Trademark Practice|Potomac Law Group, PLLC

1717 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 1025

Washington, D.C. 20006

202-486-1578

jsatterthwaite at potomaclaw.com<mailto:jsatterthwaite at potomaclaw.com>|www.potomaclaw.com<https://www.potomaclaw.com>



https://www.potomaclaw.com/professionals-janet-f-satterthwaite



This e-mail and any attachments may contain information that is private, confidential, and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us immediately and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments



________________________________
From: E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> on behalf of John Dugger via E-trademarks <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2025 6:47 PM
To: e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
Cc: John Dugger <jedugger at gmail.com>; e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] Not allowed to argue weak mark?


WARNING: External email, do not click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender’s full email address and expect the attachments.

Hi Scott,

I recommend calling the Examining Attorney to discuss and then following up with a formal response. In my experience, it can be very helpful to hash potential misunderstandings out via phone before laying out the formal argument in writing.

All the best,

John
Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 18, 2025, at 5:36 PM, Sam Castree via E-trademarks <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:


Y'know, I'm starting to think that examiners don't understand what a collateral attack on the registration actually looks like.  You're entirely right and the examiner is wrong.  In the past, I've had some success with just laying out what I'm actually saying.  "No, I'm not attacking the validity of the registered mark.  My point is that the registrant's scope of protection doesn't extend to my client's mark because..."  (But, of course, put in more lawyerly language.)  Check TMEP §§ 1207.01(d)(iv) and 1216.02 for stuff about collateral attacks, and point out how you aren't doing that.

Cheers,

Sam Castree, III

Sam Castree Law, LLC
3421 W. Elm St.
McHenry, IL 60050
(815) 344-6300

On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 5:19 PM Scott Landsbaum via E-trademarks <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>> wrote:
Hi All, Re-phrasing an email from last week to see if I can generate some input here.  In response to a 2(d) refusal, I argued that the cited registration is weak because it's used extensively in the market by different companies for identical goods.  Thus, the minor differences between our mark and the cited registration should be sufficient to avoid any confusion.  The examiner rejected the argument by claiming I am attacking the validity of the cited registration, which of course isn't allowed in this context.  This seems to me a really off response. I'd greatly appreciate a gut check here to see if I'm missing something in my argument or the examiner's response.
Thanks.

Regards,
Scott

Scott Landsbaum, Inc.
323-314-7881<tel:323-314-7881> / f 323-714-2454
8306 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 420, Beverly Hills, CA  90211
www.scottlandsbaum.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.scottlandsbaum.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=BD_ODyCnGyM4QYkJS4ogIYzIigAHSpBLLoEgzCd9OOE&m=aXR86teLGdca7ly3cmDU1OxIRgrqk4Gjsd_yzJqmyNdFiQfseTt_zwmG5gTeAXPN&s=EqbblVIZdrbiPuK81ZidEBIocUugldLgGV9YaIcRcDc&e=> / www.linkedin.com/in/scottlandsbaum/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.linkedin.com_in_scottlandsbaum_&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=BD_ODyCnGyM4QYkJS4ogIYzIigAHSpBLLoEgzCd9OOE&m=aXR86teLGdca7ly3cmDU1OxIRgrqk4Gjsd_yzJqmyNdFiQfseTt_zwmG5gTeAXPN&s=dlCkDMQ_tCp6lBBG0CS9OlH6s4WlY8qf2ULIh8gyVc4&e=>

NOTICE: This e-mail is intended solely for the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, forward, print, copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains.  Please delete it immediately and notify us by return email or by telephone at (323) 314-7881<tel:%28323%29%20314-7881>.

IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: Any discussion of tax matters contained in this or any email (including any attachments) or in any oral or other written communication is not intended to be used and cannot be used for the purpose of avoiding U.S. tax related penalties or in connection with the promotion, marketing or recommendation of any of the matters addressed in the communication.
--
E-trademarks mailing list
E-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:E-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__oppedahl-2Dlists.com_mailman_listinfo_e-2Dtrademarks-5Foppedahl-2Dlists.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=BD_ODyCnGyM4QYkJS4ogIYzIigAHSpBLLoEgzCd9OOE&m=aXR86teLGdca7ly3cmDU1OxIRgrqk4Gjsd_yzJqmyNdFiQfseTt_zwmG5gTeAXPN&s=RKrzmfhcHve86fnEXnWblSt84zJcht5meVAxUoYhJno&e=>
--
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/20250618/be23055a/attachment.html>