To:
`Subject:
`Sent:
`Sent As:
`
`THOMAS DIETRICH(tom@smcarthurlaw.com)
`U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 97738815 - ABRAMS - Examiner Brief
`October 04, 2023 03:18:25 PM EDT
`tmng.notices@uspto.gov
`
`Attachments
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
`
`
`
`U.S. Application Serial No.  97738815
`
`Mark:   ABRAMS
`
`Correspondence Address:  
`THOMAS DIETRICH
`THE MCARTHUR LAW FIRM, PC
`9465 WILSHIRE BLVD., SUITE 300
`BEVERLY HILLS CA 90212
`UNITED STATES
`
`Applicant:   Pro Eagle LLC
`
`Reference/Docket No.  N/A
`
`Correspondence Email Address:   tom@smcarthurlaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXAMINING ATTORNEY’S APPEAL BRIEF
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`
`Applicant has appealed the examining attorney's refusal to register the applied-for mark ABRAMS
`
`because it is primarily merely a surname under §2(e)(4) of the Trademark Act of 1946 (as amended)
`
`(hereinafter “the Trademark Act”), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(4).
`
`
`STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
`
`On January 2, 2023, applicant filed an intent-to-use application under §1(b) of the Trademark Act
`
`seeking registration on the Principal Register for the mark ABRAMS for “electric jacks; lifting jacks
`
` 
`

`

`other than hand-operated; pneumatic jacks; power-operated jacks” in International Class 7, and "hand
`
`jacks; hand operated lifting jacks; manually-operated jacks” in International Class 8.   On February 23,
`
`2023, the examining attorney refused registration on the Principal Register under §2(e)(4) of the
`
`Trademark Act because the applied-for mark is primarily merely a surname.   On March 9, 2023,
`
`applicant submitted a response arguing in favor of registration on the Principal Register.   On April 6,
`
`2023, the examining attorney continued and made final his refusal under §2(e)(4).   On June 5, 2023,
`
`applicant submitted a request for reconsideration arguing in favor of registration on the Principal
`
`Register.   On July 5, 2023, applicant filed a notice of appeal, and the application was remanded to the
`
`examining attorney to address applicant's request for reconsideration.   On July 11, 2023, the examining
`
`attorney denied applicant's request for reconsideration, continuing the final refusal under §2(e)(4) and
`
`notifying the Board to resume the appeal.   On July 12, 2023, the Board resumed the appeal, and on
`
`August 4, 2023, applicant filed its appeal brief, which was forwarded to the examining attorney the
`
`following day.
`
`
`The sole issue presented on appeal is whether applicant's applied-for mark ABRAMS is primarily
`
`ISSUE
`
`merely a surname under §2(e)(4) of the Trademark Act.
`
`.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`APPLYING THE  BENTHIN INQUIRIES, THE EXAMINING ATTORNEY HAS SUBMITTED
`SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATING THAT ABRAMS IS PRIMARILY MERELY
`A SURNAME UNDER §2(E)(4) OF THE TRADEMARK ACT 
`
`
`It is well established that an applicant's mark is primarily merely a surname if the surname, when
`
`viewed in connection with applicant's recited goods, “‘is the primary significance of the mark as a
`
`whole to the purchasing public.’”  Earnhardt v. Kerry Earnhardt, Inc., 864 F.3d 1374, 1377, 123
`
`USPQ2d 1411, 1413 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting In re Hutchinson Tech. Inc., 852 F.2d 552, 554, 7
`
`USPQ2d 1490, 1492 (Fed. Cir. 1988)); TMEP §1211.01.   For standard character marks such as
`applicant's, the following inquiries are often used to determine the public's perception of a term's
`primary significance:
`
`(1) Whether the surname is rare;
`
`

`

`
`(2) Whether anyone connected with applicant uses the term as a surname;
`
`(3) Whether the term has any recognized meaning other than as a surname; and
`
`(4) Whether the term has the structure and pronunciation of a surname
`
`
`In re Colors in Optics, Ltd., 2020 USPQ2d 53784, at *1-2 (TTAB 2020) (citing In re Benthin Mgmt.
`
`GmbH, 37 USPQ2d 1332, 1333-34 (TTAB 1995) for the Benthin inquiries); TMEP §1211.01; see also
`
`In re Etablissements Darty et Fils, 759 F.2d 15, 16-18, 225 USPQ 652, 653 (Fed. Cir. 1985). 
`
`These inquiries are not exclusive, and any of these circumstances – singly or in combination – and any
`
`other relevant circumstances may be considered when making this determination.  In re Six Continents
`
`Ltd., 2022 USPQ2d 135, at *5 (TTAB 2022) (citing In re tapio GmbH, 2020 USPQ2d 11387, at *9
`
`(TTAB 2020); In re Olin Corp., 124 USPQ2d 1327, 1330 (TTAB 2017); Azeka Bldg. Corp. v. Azeka,
`
`122 USPQ2d 1477, 1480 (TTAB 2017); In re Integrated Embedded, 120 USPQ2d 1504, 1506 n.4
`
`(TTAB 2016)); TMEP §1211.01.  In short, there  is "no rule as to the kind or amount of evidence
`necessary to show that the applied-for mark would be perceived as primarily merely a surname." In re
`tapio GmbH, 2020 USPQ2d 11387 at *8.
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`The Evidence of Record Shows That Abrams is a Common Surname
`
`
`The evidence of record clearly demonstrates that Abrams is a common surname, not a rare surname. 
`
`One of the ways an examining attorney may show surname significance is by providing evidence of the
`
`total number of occurrences of a particular surname in the LexisNexis® surname database, which is a
`
`regularly updated nationwide directory of mobile phone numbers and other numbers (such VOIP
`
`numbers) and the names with which they are associated.  See TMEP §111.02(b)(ii).  In this case, the
`
`examining attorney has submitted evidence showing the surname Abrams appearing 59,411 times
`
`in  the  LexisNexis® surname database, clearly indicating that Abrams is a common surname, not a rare
`
`surname.   See February 23, 2023 Non-Final Action, TSDR p.  5.    
`
`In its brief, applicant states that it "does not dispute that Abrams is a surname of some frequency in the
`
`U.S.  Indeed, it is the country's 1,387th most common surname, between the surnames Gregg and
`
`Smart."   6 TTABVUE 10.  Although applicant seems to concede that Abrams is a common surname,
`
`

`

`the examining attorney nonetheless notes that the determination of whether Abrams is a common or
`
`rare surname is  not done solely by comparing its 59,411 listings
`
`in the  LexisNexis® surname
`
`database  to the total number of listings in that database, or by its numerical ranking among other
`
`surnames in the country, because even common surnames frequently represent only a small fraction of
`
`those total numbers.  In re Gregory, 70 USPQ2d 1792, 1795 (TTAB 2004).  Rather,  if a surname
`
`appears routinely in news reports or articles and receives media publicity so as to be broadly exposed to
`
`the general public, then such a surname is not rare and its primary significance to purchasers would be
`
`that of a surname.  See  In re Beds & Bars Ltd., 122 USPQ2d 1546, 1551 (TTAB 2017);  In re Gregory,
`
`70 USPQ2d at 1795; TMEP §1211.01(a)(v). 
`
`In this case, the examining attorney has established with abundant evidence from news articles that
`
`Abrams is a common surname well known to the purchasing public.  First, to give a general sense of
`
`how broadly exposed the general public is to the surname Abrams, the examining attorney submitted an
`
`entry from Wikipedia that provides a list of many prominent people with this surname.  See July 11,
`
`2023 Request for Reconsideration Denied, TSDR pp. 5-6.   But more specifically, this evidence includes
`
`the following 12 publications:
`
`
`•
`
`An online article from yahoo! news entitled “J.J. Abrams, Disney shooting in, around
`
`Albuquerque," which discusses J.J. Abrams, "the director behind 2000s television mainstays
`
`Alias and Lost and more recently the movie, Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker..." http://news-
`
`yahoo-com-j-j-abrams-disney-shooting-033200911-html.   See July 11, 2023 Request for
`
`Reconsideration Denied, TSDR pp. 7-13.
`
`•
`
`An online article from The Hollywood Reporter entitled "J.J. Abrams, Warner Bros. Team for
`
`Adaptation of Stephen King Crime Novel 'Billy Summers,'" which discusses J.J. Abrams and his
`
`film project partnership with Warner Bros. studio.   http://www.hollywoodreporter-com-movies-
`
`movie-news-jj-abrams-returns-to-movies-billy-summers-1235304213/.   See July 11,
`
`2023 Request for Reconsideration Denied, TSDR pp. 14-20.  
`
`
`
`•
`
`An online article from The New York Times entitled " Eager to Grab National Spotlight, Abrams
`
`Falls Again on Georgia Stage," which discusses Stacey Abrams and her second campaign for
`
`

`

`governor of Georgia.   http://www-nytimes-com-2022-11-10-us-politics-stacey-abrams-georgia-
`
`governor-election-html.   See July 11, 2023 Request for Reconsideration Denied, TSDR pp. 30-
`
`46. 
`
`•
`
`An online article from Politico entitled " Stacey Abrams says she'll be president by 2040," which
`
`discusses Stacey Abrams and how her "name has been floated as a possible Democratic vice
`
`presidential pick..."  http://www-politico-com-news-2020-01-31-stacey-abrams-president-2040-
`
`109869.   See July 11, 2023 Request for Reconsideration Denied, TSDR pp. 66-68.
`
`•
`
`An online article from The Washington Post entitled " Stacey Abrams to join Howard University
`
`in role focused on race, politics," which discusses Stacey Abrams and how "she was considered a
`
`likely vice-presidential candidate for Joe Biden."  http://www-washingtonpost-com-education-
`
`2023-04-05-stacey-abrams-joins-howard-university/.   See July 11, 2023 Request for
`
`Reconsideration Denied, TSDR pp. 21-29.
`
`•
`
`An online article from yahoo! entertainment entitled "Dan Abrams Mocks 'Woke' ESPN Purge
`
`Theories...," which discusses the cable news anchor Dan Abrams and a particular topic on his
`
`nightly news show "Dan Abrams Live."  http://www-yahoo-com-entertainment-dan-abrams-
`
`mocks-woke-espn-151138816-html.   See July 11, 2023 Request for Reconsideration Denied,
`
`TSDR pp. 47-52.
`
`•
`
`An online article from The New York Times entitled “ The Doting Dad Side of Dan Abrams,"
`
`which discusses Dan Abrams, describing him as a "fast talking legal expert, new-media mogul
`
`and restaurant maven."  http://www-nytimes-com-2015-07-16-style-the-doting-dad-side-of-dan-
`
`abrams-html.   See July 11, 2023 Request for Reconsideration Denied, TSDR pp. 53-65.
`
`•
`
`An online article from The Washington Post entitled "CJ Abrams is set on learning from his
`
`struggles at the plate," which discusses CJ Abrams, who plays shortstop for the Washington
`
`Nationals in Major League Baseball. http://www-washingtonpost-com-sports-2023-06-23-cj-
`
`abrams-struggles-nationals.  See July 11, 2023 Request for Reconsideration Denied, TSDR pp.
`
`69-77.
`
`•
`
`An online article from the  Duke Law website entitled " First Amendment legend Abrams urges
`
`broad protections for free speech,” which discusses Floyd Abrams, describing him as "one of the
`
`nation's preeminent advocates of free speech."  http://law-duke-edu-news-first-amendment-
`
`

`

`legend-abrams-urges-broad-protections-free-speech/.   See July 11, 2023 Request for
`
`Reconsideration Denied, TSDR pp. 78-80.
`
`•
`
`An online article from Us Magazine entitled "Taylor Swift Duets With Gracie Abrams...," which
`
`discusses musician Gracie Abrams and her concert performance alongside Taylor Swift during
`
`Taylor Swift's 'Eras Tour.'"  http://www-usmagazine-com-entertainment-news-taylor-swift-duets-
`
`with-gracie-abrams-at-eras-tour-for-1st-time/.   See July 11, 2023 Request for Reconsideration
`
`Denied, TSDR pp. 81-93.
`
`•
`
`An online article from CNN politics entitled " Biden nominates controversial former Trump-
`
`appointee to Public Diplomacy Commission," which discusses Elliott Abrams, who has served in
`
`government as an Assistant Secretary of State and Deputy National Security Advisor. 
`
`http://www-cnn-com-2023-07-03-politics-elliott-abrams-public-diplomacy-nomination-index-
`
`html   See July 11, 2023 Request for Reconsideration Denied, TSDR pp. 98-102.  
`
`•
`
`An online entry from the Encyclopedia  Britannica  entitled "Creighton Williams Abrams, Jr.,"
`
`which discusses the famous U.S. Army general and the fact that "[t]he U.S. Army's main battle
`
`tank, the M-1 Abrams, was named in his honour."  http://britannica.com/topic/Vietnam-War-
`
`POWs-and-MIAs-2051428.  See April 6, 2023 Final Action, TSDR pp. 9-11.
`
`
`Although applicant, in its brief, characterizes this evidence as showing merely that "random public
`
`figures surnamed Abrams occasionally appear in the media," the examining attorney respectfully
`
`suggests that the individuals highlighted in this collection of articles are not "random" people, but
`
`rather, high-profile people in the fields of media, entertainment, politics, sports and the law, appearing
`
`in influential, and widely-read news and entertainment publications.  6 TTABVUE 10.  Indeed, one of
`
`the individuals highlighted in these articles, Stacey Abrams, twice captured national media attention
`
`while campaigning for governor of Georgia, and was mentioned as a possible Democratic Party
`
`candidate for Vice President of the United States.  See  July 11, 2023 Request for Reconsideration
`Denied, TSDR pp. 21-29, 66-68.
`
`In addition, the examining attorney has submitted several third-party registrations with the surname
`
`Abrams appearing in the registered marks.  What is noteworthy about these registrations is that all of
`
`them are registered either on the Principal Register under §2(f) based on acquired distinctiveness or on
`
`

`

`the Supplemental Register, meaning that the marks were not eligible for registration on the Principal
`
`Register as inherently distinctiveness because Abrams is primarily merely a surname under §2(e)(4). 
`
`Below is a sampling of the registrations entered into the record by the examining attorney.
`
`
`Registration No. 1229651
`Registration No. 1359136
`Registration No. 3718035
`Registration No. 3886835
`Registration No. 5207614
`Registration No. 5254275
`Registration No. 5331418
`Registration No. 5602385
`Registration No. 5721334
`
`Registration No. 6110770
`
`Registration No. 2376230
`Registration No. 7070235
`
`ABRAMS
`ABRAMS
`ABRAMS CAPITAL
`ABRAMS BOOKS
`ABRAMS
`ABRAMS
`ABRAMS PRESS
`ABRAMS BLOCK BOOKS
`ABRAMS FOUNDATION
`ABRAMS INSURANCE
`SOLUTIONS
`ABRAMS 
`ABRAMS STEEL GUIDE
`
`Principal Register -- §2(f)
`Principal Register -- §2(f)
`Principal Register -- §2(f)
`Principal Register -- §2(f)
`Principal Register -- §2(f)
`Principal Register -- §2(f)
`Principal Register -- §2(f)
`Principal Register -- §2(f)
`Principal Register -- §2(f)
`
`Principal Register -- §2(f)
`
`Supplemental Register
`Supplemental Register
`
`
`See February Non-Final Action, TSDR pp. 6-14; April 6, 2023 Final Action, TSDR pp. 26-27, 32-33;
`and July 11, 2023 RFR Denied, TSDR pp. 104-107, 110-115.
`
`In its brief, applicant argues that "[t]he other ABRAMS trademark registrations cited by the Examining
`
`Attorney have no controlling value and were not properly cited."  See 6 TTABVUE 8.  The examining
`
`attorney respectfully disagrees.  It is well established, as applicant correctly points out later in its brief
`
`when discussing the Benthin inquiries, that "any other relevant circumstances may be considered when
`
`making [a surname] determination."  In re Tapio, 2020 USPQ2d 11387, at *9 (citing In re Eximius, 120
`
`USPQ2d at 1278)....There is no rule as to the kind or amount of evidence necessary to show that the
`
`applied-for mark would be perceived as primarily merely a surname" (emphasis added).   See 6
`
`TTABVUE 9-10.  Accordingly, these third-party registrations are not only properly cited, but strongly
`
`support the examining attorney's conclusion that Abrams is primarily merely a surname under §2(e)(4),
`
`and therefore ineligible for registration on the Principal Register without a showing of acquired
`
`distinctiveness under §2(f). 
`
`
`
`2.
`
`The Absence of Anyone Connected With Applicant Using Abrams as a Surname is Merely a
`Neutral Factor
`
`

`

`
`The second of the Benthin inquiries asks whether anyone connected with applicant uses the applied-for
`
`mark as a surname.  In this case, applicant has stated for the record that the surname Abrams "has no
`
`connection to Applicant or its owners' names..."  6 TTABVUE 4.   However, the fact that “a proposed
`
`mark is not applicant's surname, or the surname of an officer or employee, does not tend to establish
`
`one way or the other whether the proposed mark would be perceived as a surname.” In re Thermo
`
`LabSystems Inc., 85 USPQ2d 1285, 1287 (TTAB 2007) (quoting In re Gregory, 70 USPQ2d 1792,
`
`1795 (TTAB 2004)); see In re Adlon Brand GmbH & Co. KG, 120 USPQ2d 1717, 1724 (TTAB 2016). 
`
`It is well settled, in §2(e)(4) surname analyses, that the absence of a person connected with applicant
`
`that has this term as a surname is merely a neutral factor. In re Thermo LabSystems Inc., 85 USPQ2d at
`
`1287.
`
`
`3.
`
`Abrams Has No Recognized Meaning Other Than as a Surname
`
`
`Central to applicant's arguments in favor of registration is its claim that "[t]he third factor--whether the
`
`mark has any recognized meaning other than as a surname...supports registration."  See June 5, 2023
`
`Request for Reconsideration, TSDR p.6.  In this case, applicant is arguing that the surname Abrams is
`
`inherently distinctive when used in connection with manually and power-operated jacks.  According to
`
`applicant, since car and truck jacks and tanks have similar characteristics and attributes, consumers are
`
`going to associate the use of the applied-for mark on jacks with the U.S. Army's Abrams M1 tank. 
`
`Specifically, in its brief, applicant asserts that "the purchasing public--who has been inundated with
`
`media about tough, durable 'Abrams tanks' for 43-plus years--would perceive car or truck jack[s]
`
`intended for use under difficult conditions to be named after a tank known for those characteristics."  6
`
`TTABVUE 16.  However, the examining attorney respectfully suggests that any connection or
`
`association in the minds of the purchasing public between applicant's goods and tanks is purely
`
`speculative, and entirely unsupported by any evidence in the record.  Even so, applicant makes the
`
`following argument relative to the third Benthin inquiry: 
`
`
`In the current day--after the Abrams M1 tank has become widely known--the "purchasing public"
`is more likely to perceive the mark ABRAMS as being associated with tanks than solely as a
`surname.... Consider similar examples.  Until 1955 or so, "McDonalds" was merely a surname. 
`But after selling millions of hamburgers, the public came to associate the surname with fast food
`
`

`

`restaurants.  Until 1935 or so, "Disney" was merely a surname.  But after widespread success,
`consumers came to associate the surname with animated films.   
`
`
`See June 5, 2023 Request  for Reconsideration, TSDR p.7.  Applicant's argument is that the surname
`
`Abrams, much like the surnames McDonald and Disney, has become famous for a particular product
`
`rather than merely as a surname.  In other words, Abrams is to tanks what McDonald's is to fast food
`
`restaurants and Disney is to animated films.          
`
`It is noteworthy, however, that applicant highlights McDonald's®  restaurants, because its argument is
`
`directly at odds with the well-settled rule that evidence of a term's recognition and fame in connection
`
`with a particular product is only relevant to prove acquired distinctiveness under Trademark Act §2(f),
`
`and is not pertinent to a determination of surname significance.   See  In re McDonald's Corp., 230
`
`USPQ 304, 307 (TTAB 1986) (holding McDonald's primarily merely a surname despite applicant's
`
`evidence of secondary meaning, noting that, absent a claim of secondary meaning under Section 2(f),
`
`“registration must be refused”);  In re Cazes,  21 USPQ2d 1796, 1797 (TTAB 1991) (holding
`
`BRASSERIE LIPP primarily merely a surname despite applicant's evidence of the mark's fame, noting
`
`that applicant did not make a Section 2(f) claim and, without a formal claim of distinctiveness,
`
`“evidence of fame [could not] serve as the basis for allowing registration of applicant's mark”);  TMEP
`
`
`
`§1211.02(b)(vii).  
`
`So even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the purchasing public has come to associate the
`
`surname Abrams with the U.S. Army's M1 tank, this is merely an argument that Abrams has acquired
`
`distinctiveness when used in connection with tanks.  Indeed, the record supports this.  The examining
`
`attorney has submitted the U.S. Army's  Registration No. 1359136 for ABRAMS for "tanks," which was
`
`registered under §2(f) precisely because Abrams is primarily merely a surname, and therefore not
`
`inherently distinctive.  See April 6, 2023 Final Action, TSDR pp. 26-27.  Applicant seems to be
`
`conflating the concept of acquired distinctiveness, or secondary meaning, with the concept of
`
`"recognized meaning other than as a surname."  Its example of McDonald's ® restaurants is a perfect
`
`illustration of this point.  As the Board in In re McDonald's Corp. held, evidence of secondary meaning
`
`does not, without a §2(f) claim, overcome a §2(e)(4) refusal.  In this case, the fact that the surname
`
`Abrams may have acquired distinctiveness as an indicator of the commercial source of particular
`
`

`

`products, such as tanks, does not demonstrate that it has a recognized meaning other than as a surname. 
`
`In short, the record is devoid of evidence that Abrams has a recognized meaning other than as a
`
`surname, and therefore the third Benthin inquiry clearly supports the examining attorney's refusal under
`
`§2(e)(4). 
`
`
`4.  Abrams Has The Structure And Pronunciation of a Surname
`
`
`Under the fourth Benthin inquiry, an examining attorneys may submit evidence that the public would
`
`perceive a term to have surname significance due to its structure or pronunciation. In re Eximius Coffee,
`
`LLC, 120 USPQ2d 1276, 1280 (TTAB 2016). For example, the examining attorney may compare the
`
`mark at issue to other common surnames that are configured similarly and sound similar. In re tapio
`
`GmbH, 2020 USPQ2d 11387, at *12 (TTAB 2020) (citing In re Eximius Coffee, 120 USPQ2d at
`
`1280)). In this case, the examining attorney has submitted evidence clearly establishing that Abrams
`
`has the structure and pronunciation of a surname.  Specifically, the examining attorney has attached
`
`printouts from the  LexisNexis® surname database  showing similar, common surnames to which the
`
`public has been exposed -- namely, Abraham, Abram and Abrahams -- appearing  87,238, 14,666 and
`
`7,067 times, respectively. See July 11, 2023 Request for Reconsideration Denied, TSDR pp. 118-120. 
`
`Such evidence
`
`that Abrams has a similar structure and pronunciation as other common
`
`surnames  strongly supports the examining attorney's finding that the primary significance of Abrams is
`
`that of a surname.  In re tapio GmbH, 2020 USPQ2d 11387, at *12 (TTAB 2020) (citing  In re Giger, 78
`
`USPQ2d 1405, 1409 (TTAB 2006));  In re Eximius Coffee, LLC, 120 USPQ2d 1276, 1280 (TTAB
`
`2016);  see TMEP §1211.01(a)(vi).
`
`
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`
`Through the submission of substantial evidence from a variety of sources (including the LexisNexis®
`
`surname database, the USPTO's X-Search database, dictionary and reference websites, and over a
`
`dozen news articles from nationally-recognized publications), the examining attorney has demonstrated
`
`that the primary significance of the applied-for mark ABRAMS to the purchasing public, when viewed
`
`in connection with applicant's goods, is that of a surname.  The examining attorney has applied each of
`
`

`

`the relevant Benthin inquiries to establish that Abrams is a common surname with no recognized
`
`meaning other than as a surname, and that Abrams has the structure and pronunciation of a surname. 
`
`For the foregoing reasons, the refusal to register applicant's mark because it is primarily merely a
`surname under §2(e)(4) of the Trademark Act should be affirmed. 
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`/Nick Altree/
`Nick Altree
`Examining Attorney
`LO107--LAW OFFICE 107
`(571) 272-9336
`Nick.Altree@uspto.gov
`
`
`
`
`
`/Leslie Bishop/
`Managing Attorney
`Law Office 107
`
`
`

`

`United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
`
`USPTO OFFICIAL NOTICE
`
`Examining attorney’s appeal brief has issued
`on October 4, 2023 for
`U.S. Trademark Application Serial No.  97738815
`
`A USPTO examining attorney has issued an appeal brief. Follow the steps below.
`
`(1)   Read the appeal brief. This email is NOT the appeal brief.
`
`(2)  Submit reply brief within 20 days of October 4, 2023 , if you wish to do
`so.  If submitted, a reply brief must be submitted using the Electronic System for
`Trademark Trials and Appeals (ESTTA) and received by the USPTO on or before
`11:59 p.m. Eastern Time of the last day of the reply period.
`
`(3)  Direct questions about the appeal proceeding to the Trademark Trial and
`Appeal Board at 571-272-8500 or TTABInfo@uspto.gov.
`
`