Proceeding
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Submission
`Filer's Name
`Filer's e-mail
`Signature
`Date
`Attachments
`
`Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`ESTTA659774
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`03/06/2015
`
`Filing date:
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`92060467
`Plaintiff
`Maid Bright, Inc
`GLORIA ARCHULETA
`JUMPSTART LAW
`251 CUMBERLAND ST
`SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94114
`UNITED STATES
`gloria@jumpstartlaw.com
`Answer to Counterclaim
`Gloria D. Archuleta
`gloria@jumpstartlaw.com
`/Gloria D. Archuleta/
`03/06/2015
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS.PDF(116820 bytes )
`Exhibit A 528 File Wrapper.pdf(535598 bytes )
`Exhibit B 528 File Wrapper.pdf(596245 bytes )
`Exhibit C Post Conf Email.pdf(295570 bytes )
`Exhibit D ESTTA Receipt MaidBright Cancellation.pdf(359243 bytes )
`Exhibit E ScreenShot 12052014 140AM.pdf(45800 bytes )
`Exhibit F Maid Right Technics.pdf(90722 bytes )
`Exhibit G Maid Right Sig Clean.pdf(90715 bytes )
`Exhibit H Maid Right Tracker.pdf(88839 bytes )
`
`

`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE  
`
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD 
`
`Cancellation No. 92060467  
`Mark: “Maid Right” word mark  
`Registration No. 4,489,528 
` 
`
`Maid Bright, Inc. 
`
` 
`
`vs. 
`
`Petitioner, 
`
`Maid Right Franchising, LLC, 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`Registrant. 
`
`) 
`) 
`) 
`) 
`) 
`) 
`) 
`) 
`) 
`) 
`
` MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO REGISTRANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS  
`UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6)  
`
`   
`
`Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 6(b) and Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Manual of Procedure 
`
`(“T.B.M.P.”) §§ 509.01(a) and 509.02, Maid Bright, Inc. (“Maid Bright”), by and through Counsel, 
`
`Gloria D. Archuleta, hereby submits its Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Registrant’s Motion to 
`
`Dismiss.  
`
` This case arises from an earlier and improperly filed Opposition proceeding.  Notwithstanding the 
`
`fact that by its own allegations and admissions, Registrant Maid Right Franchising, LLC  (“MRF”) is 
`
`the junior user, it opposed Maid Bright’s application for MAID BRIGHT.  Perhaps having realized the 
`
`error of its ways or that it could not bully Maid Bright into submission, MRF1 withdrew the 
`
`Opposition.  However, before it could do so, Maid Bright filed this cancellation proceeding.  Maid 
`
`Bright did not file this proceeding for retribution but to protect its legitimate and senior rights in its 
`
`trademark from further damage by MRF. 
`
`BACKGROUND FACTS 
`
` 
`
`MRF is the owner of United States Trademark Registration No. 4,489,528 (“the ‘528 mark”) 
`
`for the mark “MAID RIGHT” for “cleaning of residential, commercial, vacation rental and new 
`
`construction buildings.” MRF filed the mark under filing basis 1(b) Intent to Use (Exhibit. A, ‘528 
`
`                                                                    
`1 MRF is owned by Jan‐Pro Franchising International Inc., a multi‐million dollar commercial 
`cleaning franchise, with over 10,000 units throughout the U.S. and Canada, and significantly greater 
`
`

`
`mark File Wrapper.) on February 14, 2013, then filed the Statement of Use on November 26, 2013 
`
`(Exhibit. B, ‘528 mark File Wrapper.) and the ‘528 mark registered on February 25, 2014.  
`
`Maid Bright, has been in the business of providing cleaning services to residential and 
`
`commercial properties under the mark “MAID BRIGHT,” since at least as early as July 29, 2004. On 
`
`November 16, 2013, Maid Bright applied for two marks with the United States Trademark Office: (1) 
`
`the word and design mark “of a yellow sun with rays rising above a solid blue rectangle‐containing 
`
`the words, ‘Maid Bright’ in white font”  (Serial No. 86120801); and (2) the word mark, “MAID 
`
`BRIGHT” (Serial No. 86120799) Both marks were published for opposition on April 29, 2014. 
`
`(Registrant Ex. C2, Opp’n File Wrapper.) The combination word and design mark was officially 
`
`registered as U.S. Registration No. 4,567,398 on July 15, 2014. (Registrant Ex. B, Petition Marks 
`
`Cited.) 
`
` 
`
`On April 29, 2014, Maid Bright’s U.S. Application No. 86120799 (“the ‘799 application”), for 
`
`the word mark published for opposition. (Registrant Ex. B, Petition ¶ 15.)   In an attempt to pursue 
`
`settlement opportunities, Maid Bright consented to a 30‐day extension of time for MRF to oppose the 
`
`‘799 application (Registrant Exs. D–E, Request for Ext.) On June 25, 2014, Maid Bright again 
`
`consented to an extension of time for MRF to oppose the ‘799 application.   (Registrant Ex. F, Request 
`
`for Ext.) The final deadline for MRF to oppose the ‘799 application was August 27, 2014. 
`
` 
`
`Despite Maid Bright’s willingness to entertain settlement offers, none had been presented 
`
`prior to August 27, 2014, when MRF’s attorney filed a Notice of Opposition against the ‘799 
`
`application (Registrant Ex.C, Opp’n File Wrapper.) Some settlement discussions followed, and 
`
`accordingly on October 2, 2014, Maid Bright filed a stipulated motion to extend the time to file an 
`
`answer to the opposition until December 5, 2014, asserting the grounds that settlement proceedings 
`
`were pending. (Registrant Ex. H–I, Mot.)  
`
`Settlement discussions ensued, including a conference call with MRF client and counsel on 
`
`October 7, 2014, however, no settlement was reached (Exhibit C, Post‐Conf. Email), and MRF 
`
`extended no further settlement offers.  
`
`                                                                    
`2   All references to “Registrant Ex. __” are to the exhibits submitted with Registrant’s Motion 
`to Dismiss. 
`
` 
`
`2 
`
`

`
`Pursuant to the stipulated extension, Maid Bright’s answer to the Notice of Opposition was 
`
`due on December 5, 2014.  As settlement seemed very unlikely, and Maid Bright’s date of first use is 
`
`earlier than MRF’s, Maid Bright decided to proceed with a two‐pronged attack:  (1) seek cancellation 
`
`of the ‘528 Registration; and (2) move to dismiss the Notice of Opposition.  Therefore, at 1:40am on 
`
`the morning of December 5, 2014, Maid Bright filed the Petition for Cancellation (Exhibit D‐E, ESTTA. 
`
`Receipt MaidBright Cancellation, Screenshot 12‐05‐2014 1:40AM). Later that same day, Maid Bright 
`
`then attempted to file a Motion to Dismiss the Opposition, but was unable to do so because in the 
`
`interim and unbeknownst to Maid Bright, MRF had filed a Notice of Withdrawal of Opposition, 
`
`(Registrant Ex. J, TTAB Note.) which terminated the opposition action without prejudice, thus 
`
`preventing Applicant, Maid Bright from filing the prepared Motion to Dismiss. 
`
`MRF now seeks to dismiss this proceeding on the ground that Maid Bright’s pleading is 
`
`insufficient because the Opposition proceeding was withdrawn.  (Registrant Br. at §B, p.4)  The 
`
`withdrawal of the Opposition by itself does not remove Maid Bright’s standing nor render its 
`
`allegations moot.  MRF could still seek cancellation of the registration which issues from the ‘799 
`
`application.  More importantly, Maid Bright is still the senior user and entitled to enforce its mark to 
`
`prevent any further confusion. 
`
`STANDARDS FOR DIMISSAL OF A PLEADING UNDER F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) 
`
` 
`
`The legal basis for MRF's Motion is founded primarily on Ritchie v. Simpson, 170 F.3d 1092 
`
`(CAFC 1999) and Lipton Industries v. Ralston Purina Co., 670 F.2d 1024, 213 USPQ 1851 (C.C.P.A. 
`
`1982). In both of these cases, the Courts of Appeals found that the Petitioner had standing. Both of 
`
`these cases demonstrate that the only requisite for standing is a "reasonable" basis for a belief of 
`
`damages. See Ritchie: 
`
`Section 13 of the Lanham Act establishes a broad class of persons who are proper opposers; 
`by its terms the statute only requires that a person have a belief that he would suffer some 
`kind of damage if the mark is registered. However, in addition to meeting the broad 
`requirements of § 13, an opposer must meet two judicially‐created requirements in order to 
`have standing‐‐the opposer must have a "real interest" in the proceedings and must have a 
`"reasonable" basis for his belief of damage."  
` 
`Maid Bright has established a belief in the harm, i.e., being unable to have free and clear use 
`
` 
`
`of its mark within the United States. The allegations contained in the complaint are sufficient to show 
`
` 
`
`3 
`
`

`
`that the actions of MRF make the belief reasonable. MRF has opposed the registration of Maid 
`
`Bright's trademark. 
`
` 
`
`Maid Bright indisputably has a "real interest" in the cancellation, the real interest is the 
`
`economic harm which will come from the inability to use its own mark within the United States. 
`
` 
`The first ground for MRF’s motion to dismiss is its contention that the complaint fails to state 
`
`ARGUMENT 
`
`a claim for relief. The sole basis for this contention is its argument that Maid Bright has failed to 
`
`plead sufficient facts to establish a reasonable basis for its assertions of “Likelihood of Confusion,” 
`
`and that the registered mark will damage Maid Bright, and as such according to MBF, lacks standing. 
`
`When deciding a motion to dismiss, the allegations of the Petition must be accepted as true, 
`
`see Ritchie: 
`
`For purposes of ruling on a motion to dismiss for want of standing, a reviewing court must 
`accept as true all well‐pled and material allegations of the complaint, and must construe the 
`complaint in favor of the complaining party. See Jewelers, 823 F.2d at 492, 2 USPQ2d at 
`2022; Selva & Sons, Inc. v. Nina Footwear, Inc., 705 F.2d 1316, 1320, 217 USPQ 641, 644 
`(Fed.Cir.1983). 
` 
`Thus the Board must accept as true that Maid Bright is the senior right holder, having 
`
`consistently used the MAID BRIGHT mark in commerce since at least as early as July 29, 2004 and 
`
`that a likelihood of confusion exists, as outlined in paragraphs 8 through 24 of the Petition and thus 
`
`the Petition sets forth sufficient reason for the Registration to be cancelled as invalid. 
`
`MRF’s Motion ignores the fundamental law that allegations of a pleading must be accepted as 
`
`true. Maid Bright need not establish facts sufficient to prevail at trial when setting forth allegations in  
`
`its pleadings. A Petition need only contain allegations sufficient to specify the reasonably 
`
`held belief of perceived harm. The Petition in this matter satisfies that requirement. 
`
`I. STANDING 
`
`To establish standing in an opposition, an opposer must show both “a real interest in the 
`
`proceedings as well as a ‘reasonable’ basis for his belief of damage. See Ritchie v. Simpson, 170 F.3d 
`
`1092, 50 USPQ2d1023, 1025 (Fed. Cir.  1999).  As stated above, Maid Bright has clearly shown that it 
`
` 
`
`4 
`
`

`
`has both a real interest in these proceedings as well as a reasonable basis for believing he will be 
`
`damaged by the continued existence of Reg. No. 4,489,528. 
`
`In its Petition, Maid Bright cites as a basis for cancellation, its marks, Registration No. 
`
`4567398 and Application Serial No. 86120799. Petitioner, “Maid Bright” has been in the business of 
`
`providing cleaning services for over ten years, since at least as early as July 2004 (Petition ¶2).  
`
`Registrant, “Maid Right,” having filed their statement of actual use as of November 26, 2013 [Id.], has 
`
`been operating concurrently for approximately 16 months at the time of filing their opposition 
`
`action, and in that relatively short time, MRF has filed for three substantially similar marks, the ‘528 
`
`Application MAID RIGHT, as well as, MAID RIGHT TECHNICS Registration No. 4565410, MAID RIGHT 
`
`SIGNATURE CLEAN Registration No. 4565411, and MAID RIGHT TRACKER Registration No. 4594092
`
`in the same International Class 037, for nearly identical services (Exhibit F‐H MRF File Wrappers.) In 
`
`that time, MRF also filed Opposition No. 91218055 against Maid Bright, which has caused harm by 
`
`threatening Maid Bright’s plans for expansion.  Although the opposition was dismissed without 
`
`prejudice, MRF and the subject registration continue to pose a threat of harm to Maid Bright.  See 
`
`General Mills, Inc. v. Nature’s Way Products, 202 USPQ 840, 841 (TTAB 1979) (counterclaimant’s 
`
`position as defendant in the opposition gives him a personal stake in the controversy).   There is 
`
`nothing preventing MRF from seeking to cancel Maid Bright’s registration or the registration that will 
`
`issue from the ‘799 application.  Nor is there anything preventing MRF from relying on Reg. No. 
`
`4,489,528 to take other steps, such as litigation against Maid Bright and its marks, to the detriment of 
`
`Maid Bright. 
`
`Furthermore, the Petition to Cancellation clearly pleads, and the record supports the 
`
`pleading, that Maid Bright has used its marks for the same or similar goods as those set forth in Reg. 
`
`No. 4,489,528 A pleading which sets forth that the parties use the same or similar marks for the same 
`
`or similar goods and services is sufficient grounds to establish standing. See Cunningham v. Laser Golf 
`
`Corp., 222 F.3d 943, 55 USPQ2d 1842, 1844 (Fed. Cir.2000). See L. & J.G. Stickley Inc. v. Cosser, 81 
`
`USPQ2d 1956, 1964 (TTAB 2007) (cancellation petitioner’s standing based on prior common law use 
`
`of elements contained in defendant’s registered marks).
`
` 
`
`5 
`
`

`
`Maid Bright further maintains, “it has been and will continue to be damaged by the 
`
`continued ‘528 registration which is causing injury to Petitioner’s business plans for expansion, is 
`
`impairing Maid Bright’s rights in its Mark, and is inconsistent with Maid Bright’s long established 
`
`rights and priority, and will continue to cause injury to Maid Bright until registration is cancelled” 
`
`(Petition ¶23).   Maid Bright’s pleading that it has used its mark for the same or similar goods as 
`
`those identified by MRF and belief that Maid Bright’s business plans and rights to its mark are in 
`
`jeopardy demonstrate both a real interest and a reasonable basis for belief of damage. 
`
`As the above indicates, Maid Bright has clearly established standing. 
`
`II. PRIORITY 
`
`As grounds for cancellation, Maid Bright alleges both likelihood of confusion and priority.  
`
`Maid Bright has been using the mark “Maid Bright” in commerce in connection with cleaning services 
`
`since at least as early as July 2004 (Petition ¶2).  On Nov. 16, 2013, Maid Bright filed the “‘799 
`
`Application” to register the MAID BRIGHT mark in International Class 037.  The’799 Application is 
`
`based upon actual use under Section 1(a) of the Trademark Act and claims a date of first use in 
`
`interstate commerce of Jul. 29, 2004 (Petition ¶14).  MRF filed the MAID RIGHT mark under filing 
`
`basis 1(b) Intent to Use (Exhibit A, ‘528 mark File Wrapper.) on February 14, 2013, and filed the 
`
`Statement of Use on November 26, 2013 claiming that its date of first use in interstate commerce was 
`
`April 23, 2013. (Exhibit B, ‘528 mark File Wrapper.) MRF does not dispute that Maid Bright is the 
`
`senior user or assert that MRF has prior rights over Maid Bright.  In addition, in its opposition to the 
`
`‘799 application, MRF asserted that there was a likelihood of confusion between the parties’ marks.  
`
`(Notice of Opp. ¶ 8).  These facts sufficiently establish a cause of action under Section 2(d) and 14 of 
`
`the Trademark Act.  Maid Bright does not need to prove these facts at this stage.  If proven, Maid 
`
`Bright would clearly be entitled to the relief sought in this proceeding. 
`
`       
`
` 
`
`6 
`
`

`
` 
`
`III. LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION 
`
`At the time the cancellation was filed, the filing of the Opposition by MRF pursuant to Section 
`
`2(d) of the Trademark Act was an admission that a likelihood of confusion exists between Maid 
`
`Bright’s “MAID BRIGHT” mark and MRF’s “MAID RIGHT” mark for the same services” (Petition ¶ 17). 
`
`MRF maintains that its voluntarily withdrawal of its Opposition to the ‘799 Application following the 
`
`initiation of this Cancellation proceeding somehow obliterates the likelihood of confusion between 
`
`the substantially similar “Maid Bright” and “Maid Right” marks and thus revokes Maid Bright’s 
`
`standing to seek Cancellation. In a similar case, Registrant, Delaware Quarries, Inc. requested 
`
`reconsideration, contending that once the Board dismissed the Section 2(d) claims, PlayCore no 
`
`longer had standing to seek cancellation of the “ROCKSCAPE” registration. The Board disagreed that 
`
`PlayCore lacked standing, since as a general rule, standing is assessed at the time the counterclaim is 
`
`filed and a defendant in an opposition has inherent standing to assert its counterclaims and as such 
`
`the same principles should apply in this case.  Delaware Quarries, Inc. v. PlayCore IP Sub, Inc., 
`
`Opposition No. 91190282 (July 2, 2013).  
`
`The analysis for likelihood of confusion in most cases turns on two key considerations, the 
`
`similarities of the marks and the similarities of the goods and services. See Federated Foods, Inc. v. 
`
`Fort Howard Paper Co., 544 F.2d 1098, 192 USPQ 24, 29 (CCPA 1976)(“The fundamental inquiry 
`
`mandated by Section 2(d) goes to the cumulative effect of differences in the essential characteristics 
`
`of the goods and differences in the marks”).  On its face, Petitioner’s MAID BRIGHT mark is 
`
`substantially similar to Registrant’s MAID RIGHT mark, differing in only being one letter away from 
`
`being legally identical. As Opposition No. 91218055, on which Petitioner’s cancellation is predicated, 
`
`alleges, Registrant’s “MAID RIGHT” mark so resembles Petitioner’s “MAID BRIGHT” mark, “as to be 
`
`likely, when used in connection with the promotion of cleaning services, as to cause confusion or 
`
`cause mistake, or to deceive the public” (Petition ¶18). Petitioner agrees.  
`
`Furthermore, both Petitioner’s ‘799 Application and Registrant’s ‘528 mark indicate cleaning 
`
`services, the identical class of goods and services in International Class 037.  See Cunningham v. Laser 
`
`Golf Corp., 222 F.3d 943, 55 USPQ2d at 1846‐47 (Fed. Cir. 2000)(Federal Circuit found substantial 
`
` 
`
`7 
`
`

`
`evidence supported Board determination that parties’ goods would be offered to same purchasers in 
`
`same channels of trade, based on “identical in part” and otherwise closely related goods) and In re 
`
`Smith and Mehaffey, 31 USPQ2d 1531, 1532 (TTAB 1994) (“Because the goods are legally identical, 
`
`they must be presumed to travel in the same channels of trade, and be sold to the same class of 
`
`purchasers”). See also, Hewlett‐Packard Co. v. Packard Press Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 
`
`1005 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“absent restrictions in the application and registration, [related] goods and 
`
`services are presumed to travel in the same channels of trade to the same class of purchasers”). 
`
`In addition, Petitioner’s reasonable belief of injury stems from the likelihood that if 
`
`Petitioner moves forward with its expansion plans, that the senior user Petitioner may expand into 
`
`the junior user Registrant’s service area, thus heightening the likelihood of confusion. See AMF Inc. v. 
`
`Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341, 348‐49 (9th Cir. 1979) (a "strong possibility" that either party may 
`
`expand his business to compete with the other will weigh in favor of finding that the present use is 
`
`infringing). 
`
`III. CONCLUSION 
`
`In view of the foregoing, a result of which, has established Petitioner standing as well as its 
`
`priority and well pleaded Petition for Cancellation with respect to the marks and the services set out 
`
`therein, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board reject the Registrant’s motion to dismiss 
`
`pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). 
`
`Respectfully submitted,  
`Maid Bright, Inc. 
`
`     
`
` 
`
`Date: ________________________ 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`
`BY: ______________________________________________ 
`Gloria D. Archuleta 
`Jumpstart Law 
`251 Cumberland Street 
`San Francisco, CA 94114 
`Telephone: 310‐903‐0364 
`Attorney for Applicant 
`
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`
` 
`
`8 
`
`

`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`   
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
`
` 
` 
`I hereby certify that the above and foregoing Answer to Registrant’s Motion to Dismiss is being filed 
`electronically through the ESTTA dashboard at “uspto.gov” and a copy of the same is being served on 
`the Attorney of Record for the Registrant, Kenneth Cohen, by mailing via First Class mail postage 
`prepaid to McHale & Slavin, P.A., 2855 PGA Blvd., Palm Brach Gardens, Fl  33410, on this 6th day of 
`March, 2015. 
`
`     
`
` 
`
`9 
`
`

`
`PTO Form 1478 (Rev 9/2006)
`
`OMB No. 0651-0009 (Exp 12/31/2014)
`
`Trademark/Service Mark Application, Principal Register
`
`Serial Number: 85849632
`Filing Date: 02/14/2013
`
`The table below presents the data as entered.
`
`Input Field
`
`SERIAL
`NUMBER
`
`85849632
`
`MARK INFORMATION
`
`*MARK
`
`MAID RIGHT
`
`Entered
`
`STANDARD
`CHARACTERS
`
`USPTO-
`GENERATED
`IMAGE
`
`LITERAL
`ELEMENT
`
`MARK
`STATEMENT
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`MAID RIGHT
`
`The mark consists of standard characters, without claim to any particular font,
`style, size, or color.
`
`REGISTER
`
`Principal
`
`APPLICANT INFORMATION
`
`*OWNER OF
`MARK
`
`*STREET
`
`*CITY
`
`*STATE
`(Required for U.S.
`applicants)
`
`Maid Right Franchising, LLC
`
`2520 Northwinds Parkway, Suite 375
`
`Alpharetta
`
`Georgia
`
`*COUNTRY
`
`United States
`
`*ZIP/POSTAL
`CODE
`(Required for U.S.
`applicants only)
`
`30009
`
`PHONE
`
`FAX
`
`561-625-6575
`
`561-625-6572
`
`

`
`LEGAL ENTITY INFORMATION
`
`TYPE
`
`limited liability company
`
`STATE/COUNTRY
`WHERE
`LEGALLY
`ORGANIZED
`
`Delaware
`
`GOODS AND/OR SERVICES AND BASIS INFORMATION
`
`INTERNATIONAL
`CLASS
`
`037
`
`Cleaning of residential, commercial, vacation rental and new construction
`buildings
`
`*I
`
`DENTIFICATION
`
`FILING BASIS
`
`SECTION 1(b)
`
`ATTORNEY INFORMATION
`
`NAME
`
`ATTORNEY
`DOCKET
`NUMBER
`
`Carl J. Spagnuolo
`
`4201U.000011
`
`FIRM NAME
`
`McHale & Slavin, P.A.
`
`STREET
`
`CITY
`
`STATE
`
`2855 PGA Boulevard
`
`Palm Beach Gardens
`
`Florida
`
`COUNTRY
`
`United States
`
`ZIP/POSTAL
`CODE
`
`PHONE
`
`FAX
`
`33410-2910
`
`561-625-6575
`
`561-625-6572
`
`EMAIL ADDRESS
`
`ustrademarks@mchaleslavin.com
`
`AUTHORIZED TO
`COMMUNICATE
`VIA EMAIL
`
`Yes
`
`OTHER
`APPOINTED
`ATTORNEY
`
`Michael A. Slavin, Brian Taillon, Edward F. McHale, Keith Campbell, David
`Zelner, Amy S. Price
`
`CORRESPONDENCE INFORMATION
`
`NAME
`
`Carl J. Spagnuolo
`
`FIRM NAME
`
`McHale & Slavin, P.A.
`
`STREET
`
`2855 PGA Boulevard
`
`

`
`CITY
`
`STATE
`
`Palm Beach Gardens
`
`Florida
`
`COUNTRY
`
`United States
`
`ZIP/POSTAL
`CODE
`
`PHONE
`
`FAX
`
`33410-2910
`
`561-625-6575
`
`561-625-6572
`
`EMAIL ADDRESS
`
`ustrademarks@mchaleslavin.com
`
`AUTHORIZED TO
`COMMUNICATE
`VIA EMAIL
`
`Yes
`
`FEE INFORMATION
`
`NUMBER OF
`CLASSES
`
`1
`
`FEE PER CLASS
`
`325
`
`*TOTAL FEE DUE 325
`
`*TOTAL FEE
`PAID
`
`325
`
`SIGNATURE INFORMATION
`
` ORIGINAL
`PDF FILE
`
`hw_5019216050-101918063_._4201U000011_MAID_RIGHT_Decl-
`PoA021313.pdf
`
` CONVERTED
`PDF FILE(S)
` (1 page)
`
`SIGNATORY'S
`NAME
`
`SIGNATORY'S
`POSITION
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\858\496\85849632\xml1\APP0003.JPG
`
`Richard Kissane
`
`CEO
`
`

`
`PTO Form 1478 (Rev 9/2006)
`
`OMB No. 0651-0009 (Exp 12/31/2014)
`
`Trademark/Service Mark Application, Principal Register
`
`Serial Number: 85849632
`Filing Date: 02/14/2013
`To the Commissioner for Trademarks:
`
`MARK: MAID RIGHT (Standard Characters, see mark)
`The literal element of the mark consists of MAID RIGHT.
`The mark consists of standard characters, without claim to any particular font, style, size, or color.
`
`The applicant, Maid Right Franchising, LLC, a limited liability company legally organized under the laws
`of Delaware, having an address of
` 2520 Northwinds Parkway, Suite 375
` Alpharetta, Georgia 30009
` United States
`
`requests registration of the trademark/service mark identified above in the United States Patent and
`Trademark Office on the Principal Register established by the Act of July 5, 1946 (15 U.S.C. Section 1051
`et seq.), as amended, for the following:
`
` International Class 037: Cleaning of residential, commercial, vacation rental and new construction
`buildings
`Intent to Use: The applicant has a bona fide intention to use or use through the applicant's related company
`or licensee the mark in commerce on or in connection with the identified goods and/or services. (15
`U.S.C. Section 1051(b)).
`
`The applicant's current Attorney Information:
` Carl J. Spagnuolo and Michael A. Slavin, Brian Taillon, Edward F. McHale, Keith Campbell, David
`Zelner, Amy S. Price of McHale & Slavin, P.A.
` 2855 PGA Boulevard
` Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410-2910
` United States
`The attorney docket/reference number is 4201U.000011.
`The applicant's current Correspondence Information:
` Carl J. Spagnuolo
` McHale & Slavin, P.A.
` 2855 PGA Boulevard
` Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410-2910
` 561-625-6575(phone)
` 561-625-6572(fax)
` ustrademarks@mchaleslavin.com (authorized)
`
`

`
`A fee payment in the amount of $325 has been submitted with the application, representing payment for 1
`class(es).
`
`Declaration
`
`The undersigned, being hereby warned that willful false statements and the like so made are punishable by
`fine or imprisonment, or both, under 18 U.S.C. Section 1001, and that such willful false statements, and
`the like, may jeopardize the validity of the application or any resulting registration, declares that he/she is
`properly authorized to execute this application on behalf of the applicant; he/she believes the applicant to
`be the owner of the trademark/service mark sought to be registered, or, if the application is being filed
`under 15 U.S.C. Section 1051(b), he/she believes applicant to be entitled to use such mark in commerce;
`to the best of his/her knowledge and belief no other person, firm, corporation, or association has the right
`to use the mark in commerce, either in the identical form thereof or in such near resemblance thereto as to
`be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods/services of such other person, to cause confusion,
`or to cause mistake, or to deceive; and that all statements made of his/her own knowledge are true; and
`that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true.
`
`Declaration Signature
`
`Signature: Not Provided Date: Not Provided
`Signatory's Name: Richard Kissane
`Signatory's Position: CEO
`RAM Sale Number: 85849632
`RAM Accounting Date: 02/14/2013
`
`Serial Number: 85849632
`Internet Transmission Date: Thu Feb 14 10:49:11 EST 2013
`TEAS Stamp: USPTO/BAS-50.192.160.50-2013021410491119
`1215-85849632-5004398b8e64d11dda058fc86c
`276291f1c1c23c834952c7473d4f87cad151a0ac
`-CC-10982-20130214101918063948
`
`

`
`MAID RIGHT
`
`

`
`DECLLRAEIO
`
`Atty. Doc. No.
`
`4201.011
`
`false
`The undersigned, being hereby warned that willful
`statements,
`and the like so made are punishable by fine or
`imprisonment,
`or both,
`under
`18 U.S.C.
`1001,
`and that
`such
`willful
`false statements may
`jeopardize the validity of
`the
`application or any resulting registration, declares that he/she
`is properly authorized to execute this application on behalf of
`the applicant;
`to be regis
`the trademark/service mark sought
`105l(b),
`application is being filed under
`.
`believes applicant
`to be entitled to use such mark in commerce;
`to the best of his/her knowledge and belief no other person,
`firm, corporation, or association has the right to use the mark
`in commerce, either in the identical
`form thereof of or in such
`near
`resemblance thereto as to be likely , when used on or
`in
`connection with.
`the goods/services of
`such other person,
`to
`cause confusion, or
`to cause mist
`or
`to deceive,
`and that
`all statements made of his/her o
`statements made on information
`
`Applicants hereby appoint Michael A. Slavin (Reg. No. 34,016),
`Edward F. Mcfiale, Carl Spagnuolo, Keith Campbell, Brian Taillon, David
`Zelner and Amy S. Price of the firm MCHALE & SLAVIN, P.A., with full
`power of substitution and revocation,
`its attorneys to prosecute this
`application to register,
`to transact all business in the Patent and
`Trademark Office
`in
`connection
`therewith,
`and
`to receive
`the
`Certificate of Registration; and requests that all correspondence from
`the Patent
`and Trademark Office
`concerning this
`application be
`addressed to:
`
`Carl J. Spagnuolo
`MCHALE & SLAVIN, P.A.
`
`2855 PGA Bl’
`Palm Beach Garden ,‘
`(561) 625 65 5
`Email: ustrademarks mc aleslavin.
`
`

`
`PTO Form 1553 (Rev 9/2005)
`
`OMB No. 0651-0054 (Exp. 10/31/2017)
`
`Trademark/Service Mark Statement of Use
`(15 U.S.C. Section 1051(d))
`
`The table below presents the data as entered.
`
`Input Field
`
`Entered
`
`SERIAL NUMBER
`
`85849632
`
`LAW OFFICE ASSIGNED
`
`LAW OFFICE 109
`
`EXTENSION OF USE
`
`NO
`
`MARK SECTION
`
`MARK
`
`OWNER SECTION
`
`NAME
`
`STREET
`
`CITY
`
`STATE
`
`ZIP/POSTAL CODE
`
`COUNTRY
`
`PHONE
`
`FAX
`
`MAID RIGHT
`
`Maid Right Franchising, LLC
`
`2520 Northwinds Parkway, Suite 375
`
`Alpharetta
`
`Georgia
`
`30009
`
`United States
`
`561-625-6575
`
`561-625-6572
`
`GOODS AND/OR SERVICES SECTION
`
`INTERNATIONAL CLASS
`
`037
`
`CURRENT IDENTIFICATION
`
`Cleaning of residential, commercial, vacation rental
`and new construction buildings
`
`GOODS OR SERVICES
`
`KEEP ALL LISTED
`
`FIRST USE ANYWHERE DATE
`
`FIRST USE IN COMMERCE DATE
`
`02/14/2013
`
`04/23/2013
`
`SPECIMEN FILE NAME(S)
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT
`16\858\496\85849632\xml11 \SOU0002.JPG
`
`Screen shot of website promoting the applied-for
`
`

`
`SPECIMEN DESCRIPTION
`
`services with mark prominently displayed on the
`website.
`
`REQUEST TO DIVIDE
`
`PAYMENT SECTION
`
`NUMBER OF CLASSES IN USE
`
`SUBTOTAL AMOUNT [ALLEGATION
`OF USE FEE]
`
`TOTAL AMOUNT
`
`SIGNATURE SECTION
`
`DECLARATION SIGNATURE
`
`SIGNATORY'S NAME
`
`NO
`
`1
`
`100
`
`100
`
`/Carl J. Spagnuolo/
`
`Carl J. Spagnuolo/
`
`SIGNATORY'S POSITION
`
`Attorney of record, Florida bar member
`
`DATE SIGNED
`
`11/26/2013
`
`SIGNATORY'S PHONE NUMBER
`
`561-625-6575
`
`FILING INFORMATION
`
`SUBMIT DATE
`
`Tue Nov 26 11:29:44 EST 2013
`
`TEAS STAMP
`
`USPTO/SOU-50.192.160.50-2
`0131126112944119975-85849
`632-500e0f5aa71cf37214f13
`7a7d6190bb13651dbe45d66ac
`336ed59826bb1997711-CC-15
`975-20131126112020038259
`
`

`
`PTO Form 1553 (Rev 9/2005)
`
`OMB No. 0651-0054 (Exp. 10/31/2017)
`
`Trademark/Service Mark Statement of Use
`(15 U.S.C. Section 1051(d))
`To the Commissioner for Trademarks:
`
`MARK: MAID RIGHT
`SERIAL NUMBER: 85849632
`
`The applicant, Maid Right Franchising, LLC, having an address of
` 2520 Northwinds Parkway, Suite 375
` Alpharetta, Georgia 30009
` United States
`is submitting the following allegation of use information:
`
`For International Class 037:
`Current identification: Cleaning of residential, commercial, vacation rental and new construction buildings
`
`The mark is in use in commerce on or in connection with all goods or services listed in the application or
`Notice of Allowance or as subsequently modified for this specific class
`
`The mark was first used by the applicant, or the applicant's related company, licensee, or predecessor in
`interest at least as early as 02/14/2013, and first used in commerce at least as early as 04/23/2013, and is
`now in use in such commerce. The applicant is submitting one specimen for the class showing the mark as
`used in commerce on or in connection with any item in the class, consisting of a(n) Screen shot of website
`promoting the applied-for services with mark prominently displayed on the website..
`Specimen File1
`
`The applicant is not filing a Request to Divide with this Allegation of Use form.
`
`A fee payment in the amount of $100 will be submitted with the form, representing payment for the
`allegation of use for 1 class.
`
`Declaration
`
`Applicant requests registration of the above-identified trademark/service mark in the United States Patent
`and Trademark Office on the Principal Register established by the Act of July 5, 1946 (15 U.S.C. Section
`1051 et seq., as amended). Applicant is the owner of the mark sought to be registered, and is using the
`mark in commerce on or in connection with the goods/services identified above, as evidenced by the
`attached specimen(s) showing the mark as used in commerce.
`
`

`
`The undersigned, being hereby warned that willful false statements and the like so made are punishable by
`fine or imprisonment, or both, under 18 U.S.C. Section 1001, and that such willful false statements may
`jeopardize the validity of the form or any resulting registration, declares that he/she is properly authorized
`to execute this form on behalf of the applicant; he/she believes the applicant to be the owner of the
`trademark/service mark sought to be registered; and that all statements made of his/her own knowledge
`are true; and that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true.
`
`Signature: /Carl J. Spagnuolo/ Date Signed: 11/26/2013
`Signatory's Name: Carl J. Spagnuolo/
`Signatory's Position: Attorney of record, Florida bar member
`Signatory's Phone: 561-625-6575
`
`RAM Sale Number: 85849632
`RAM Accounting Date: 11/26/2013
`
`Serial Number: 85849632
`Internet Transmission Date: Tue Nov 26 11:29:44 EST 2013
`TEAS Stamp: USPTO/SOU-50.192.160.50-2013112611294411
`9975-85849632-500e0f5aa71cf37214f137a7d6
`190bb13651dbe45d66ac336ed59826bb1997711-
`CC-15975-20131126112020038259
`
`

`
`
`Http:..';'wv*M:.rna[dr|ght.(:)mv‘
` Tcnl; Han;
`
`
`
`mammalian:
`
`_n-sauna uppmmny
`
`lunrr:-nun
`
`uanrnnaun
`
`
`
`P|_=a1‘es's