To:
`
`Subject:
`
`Sent:
`
`Sent As:
`
`Attachments:
`
`Villanueva, Mike D (micv3@hotmail.com)
`
`U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 85685060 - GOD THEFATHER - N/A
`
`11/29/2012 3:43:54 PM
`
`ECOM114@USPTO.GOV
`
`Attachment - 1
`Attachment - 2
`Attachment - 3
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
`
`OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
`
`(cid:160) (cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) APPLICATION SERIAL NO.(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) MARK: GOD THEFATHER
`
`85685060
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS:
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`*85685060*
`
`CLICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER:
`
`http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp
`
`VILLANUEVA, MIKE D(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`3885 SILVERWOOD RD(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`WEST SACRAMENTO, CA 95691-5487
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`(cid:160) (cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160) (cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) APPLICANT:(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160) Villanueva, Mike D(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) (cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO :(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`N/A(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) CORRESPONDENT E-MAIL ADDRESS:(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`micv3@hotmail.com
`
`OFFICE ACTION
`
`STRICT DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER
`TO AVOID ABANDONMENT OF APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION, THE USPTO MUST RECEIVE APPLICANT’S COMPLETE
`RESPONSE TO THIS LETTER WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF THE ISSUE/MAILING DATE BELOW.
`
`(cid:160) I
`
`SSUE/MAILING DATE: 11/29/2012
`
`(cid:160) T
`
`EAS PLUS APPLICANTS MUST SUBMIT DOCUMENTS ELECTRONICALLY OR SUBMIT FEE:(cid:160) Applicants who filed their
`application online using the reduced-fee TEAS Plus application must continue to submit certain documents online using TEAS, including
`responses to Office actions.(cid:160) See 37 C.F.R. §2.23(a)(1).(cid:160) For a complete list of these documents, see TMEP §819.02(b).(cid:160) In addition, such
`applicants must accept correspondence from the Office via e-mail throughout the examination process and must maintain a valid e-mail address.(cid:160)
`37 C.F.R. §2.23(a)(2); TMEP §§819, 819.02(a).(cid:160) TEAS Plus applicants who do not meet these requirements must submit an additional fee of
`
`(cid:160)
`

`

`$50 per international class of goods and/or services.(cid:160) 37 C.F.R. §2.6(a)(1)(iv); TMEP §819.04.(cid:160) In appropriate situations and where all issues can
`be resolved by amendment, responding by telephone to authorize an examiner’s amendment will not incur this additional fee.
`
`(cid:160) T
`
`he referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney.(cid:160) Applicant must respond timely and completely to
`the issue(s) below.(cid:160) 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(a), 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.
`
`(cid:160) S
`
`tatutory Refusal
`
`Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 3437926.(cid:160) Trademark
`Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.(cid:160) See the enclosed registration.
`
`(cid:160) I
`
`n any likelihood of confusion determination, two key considerations are similarity of the marks and similarity or relatedness of the goods and/or
`services.(cid:160) See Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co., 544 F.2d 1098, 1103, 192 USPQ 24, 29 (C.C.P.A. 1976); In re Iolo Techs., LLC,
`95 USPQ2d 1498, 1499 (TTAB 2010); TMEP §1207.01; see also In re Dixie Rests. Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 1406-07, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533 (Fed.
`Cir. 1997).(cid:160) That is, the marks are compared in their entireties for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression.(cid:160) In
`re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357,
`1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973)); TMEP §1207.01(b)-(b)(v).(cid:160) Additionally, the goods and/or services are compared to determine
`whether they are similar or commercially related or travel in the same trade channels.(cid:160) See Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d
`1356, 1369-71, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722-23 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc. , 308 F.3d 1156, 1165, 64 USPQ2d 1375,
`1381 (Fed. Cir. 2002); TMEP §1207.01, (a)(vi).
`
`(cid:160) T
`
`here is a likelihood of confusion because applicant’s mark, GOD THEFATHER, and registrant’s mark, THE GODFATHER and design,
`are transpositions of each other and one represents a parody of the other; and the applicant’s goods, namely, a thletic apparel, namely, shirts,
`pants, jackets, footwear, hats and caps, athletic uniforms, are identical and move in the same trade channels as registrant’s goods, namely, t-
`shirts, leading consumers to believe that applicant and registrant are affiliated.
`
`(cid:160) S
`
`ee below for a discussion on parodies from the TMEP Section 1207.01(b)(x).
`
`The fact that a mark is intended to be a parody of another trademark is not, by itself, sufficient to overcome a likelihood of confusion
`refusal, because “[t]here are confusing parodies and non-confusing parodies.” J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and
`Unfair Competition, §31.153 (4th ed. 2010); see also Nike, Inc. v. Maher, 100 USPQ2d 1018, 1023 (TTAB 2011) (“[P]arody is not a
`defense if the marks would otherwise be considered confusingly similar.”). “A true parody actually decreases the likelihood of confusion
`because the effect of the parody is to create a distinction in the viewer’s mind between the actual product and the joke.” Mutual of
`Omaha Ins. Co. v. Novak, 648 F. Supp. 905, 910, 231 USPQ 963, 965 (D. Neb. 1986), aff’d, 836 F.2d 397, 5 USPQ2d 1314 (8th Cir.
`1987). Thus, ”[w]hile a parody must call to mind the actual product to be successful, the same success also necessarily distinguishes the
`parody from the actual product.” Id.http://rdms-tmep-vip.uspto.gov/RDMS/detail/manual/TMEP/Oct2012/TMEP-ch-1200-3d105e9115
`
`Cases involving a discussion of parody include the following: Research in Motion Ltd. v. Defining Presence Mktg. Grp., Inc., 102
`USPQ2d 1187, 1192 (TTAB 2012) (sustaining oppositions to applications for the mark CRACKBERRY, for a variety of online computer
`services and clothing items, on the bases of a likelihood of confusion and likelihood of dilution by blurring with the mark
`BLACKBERRY, for handheld devices, including smartphones, and related goods and services, noting that “likelihood of confusion will
`usually trump any First Amendment concerns”); Starbucks U.S. Brands, LLC v. Ruben, 78 USPQ2d 1741 (TTAB 2006) (holding
`contemporaneous use of applicant’s mark, LESSBUCKS COFFEE, and opposer’s marks, STARBUCKS and STARBUCKS COFFEE,
`for identical goods and services, likely to cause confusion, noting that “parody is unavailing to applicant as an outright defense and,
`further, does not serve to distinguish the marks”); Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc. v. Miller, 211 USPQ 816, 820 (TTAB 1981) (holding
`CLOTHES ENCOUNTERS for clothing, and CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND for t-shirts, likely to cause confusion,
`noting that the “right of the public to use words in the English language in a humorous and parodic manner does not extend to use of such
`words as trademarks if such use conflicts with the prior use and/or registration of the substantially same mark by another”); see also
`Jordache Enters. v. Hogg Wyld Ltd., 828 F.2d 1482, 4 USPQ2d 1216, 1220, 1222 (10th Cir. 1987) (noting that “a parody of
`an existing trademark can cause a likelihood of confusion,” but affirming district court’s holding that contemporaneous use
`of LARDASHE and JORDACHE, both for jeans, is not likely to cause confusion).http://rdms-tmep-
`vip.uspto.gov/RDMS/detail/manual/TMEP/Oct2012/TMEP-ch-1200-4d105e9127
`
`Please note the following additional refusal.
`
`(cid:160) R
`
`egistration is refused because the applied-for mark as used on the specimen of record (1) is merely a decorative or ornamental feature of
`
`

`

`applicant’s clothing; and (2) does not function as a trademark to identify and distinguish applicant’s clothing from that of others and to indicate
`the source of applicant’s clothing. (cid:160) Trademark Act Sections 1, 2, and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051-1052, 1127; see In re Pro-Line Corp., 28 USPQ2d
`1141, 1142 (TTAB 1993); In re Dimitri’s Inc. , 9 USPQ2d 1666, 1667 (TTAB 1988); In re Astro-Gods Inc., 223 USPQ 621, 623 (TTAB 1984);
`TMEP §§904.07(b), 1202.03 et seq.
`
`(cid:160) W
`
`ith respect to clothing, consumers recognize small designs or discrete wording as trademarks, rather than as merely ornamental features, when
`located, for example, on the pocket or breast area of a shirt.(cid:160) See TMEP §1202.03(a).(cid:160) However, consumers typically do not perceive larger
`designs or slogans as trademarks, especially when such matter is displayed across the front of a t-shirt.(cid:160) See In re Pro-Line Corp., 28 USPQ2d at
`1142 (holding “BLACKER THE COLLEGE SWEETER THE KNOWLEDGE,” centered in large letters across most of the upper half of a shirt,
`to be a primarily ornamental slogan that is not likely to be perceived as a source indicator); In re Dimitri’s Inc. , 9 USPQ2d at 1667-68 (holding
`“SUMO,” used in connection with stylized depictions of sumo wrestlers and displayed in large lettering across the top-center portion of t-shirts
`and caps, to be an ornamental feature of the goods that does not function as a trademark); TMEP §1202.03(a), (b), (f)(i), (f)(ii).
`
`(cid:160) I
`
`n this case, the submitted specimen shows the applied-for mark, GOD THEFATHER, appearing directly on the upper-center area of the front of
`the shirt, where ornamental elements typically appear.(cid:160) See TMEP §1202.03(a), (b).(cid:160) Furthermore, the mark is displayed in a relatively large size
`on the clothing such that it dominates the overall appearance of the goods.(cid:160) Lastly, the applied-for mark appears to be a slogan with little or no
`particular trademark significance.
`
`(cid:160) T
`
`herefore, consumers would view the applied-for mark as a decorative or ornamental feature of the goods, rather than as a trademark to
`distinguish applicant’s goods from those of others and to indicate the source of applicant’s goods.
`
`(cid:160) I
`
`n appropriate circumstances, applicant may overcome this refusal by satisfying one of the following options:
`
`(cid:160) (cid:160) (1) Submit a different specimen (a verified “substitute” specimen ) that was in actual use in commerce at least as early as the filing date
`
`of the application (or prior to the filing of an amendment to allege use; or prior to the expiration of the deadline for filing a statement of
`use) and that shows proper trademark use for the identified goods in International Class 25.
`
`(cid:160) (
`
`2) Amend to the Supplemental Register, which is a second trademark register for marks not yet eligible for registration on the Principal
`Register, but which may be capable over time of functioning as source indicators.
`
`(cid:160) (
`
`3) Claim acquired distinctiveness under Trademark Act Section 2(f) by submitting evidence that the applied-for mark has become
`distinctive of applicant’s goods; that is, proof that applicant’s extensive use and promotion of the mark allowed consumers now directly
`to associate the mark with applicant as the source of the goods.
`
`(cid:160) (
`
`4) Submit evidence that the applied-for mark is an indicator of secondary source; that is, proof that the mark is already recognized as a
`
`source indicator for other goods or services that applicant sells/offers.(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`(5) Amend the filing basis to intent to use under Section 1(b), if the current filing basis is based on use in commerce under Section 1(a).(cid:160)
`This will later necessitate additional fee(s) and filing requirements.
`
`(cid:160) F
`
`or an overview of all the options referenced above and instructions on how to satisfy each option online using the Trademark Electronic
`Application System (TEAS) form, please go to http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/law/ornamentalclothing.jsp.
`
`(cid:160) A
`
`lthough there is no prescribed method or place for affixation of a mark to goods, the location of a mark on the goods “is part of the
`environment in which the [mark] is perceived by the public and . . . may influence how the [mark] is perceived.” (cid:160) In re Tilcon Warren Inc., 221
`USPQ 86, 88 (TTAB 1984); see In re Paramount Pictures Corp., 213 USPQ 1111, 1115 (TTAB 1982).(cid:160) Thus, where consumers have been
`conditioned to recognize trademarks in a certain location, as on the breast area of a shirt, ornamental matter placed in a different location is less
`
`

`

`likely to be perceived as an indicator of source.(cid:160) See TMEP §1202.03(a), (b).
`
`(cid:160) A
`
`pplicant must respond to the requirement(s) set forth below.
`
`Drawing/Specimen
`
`(cid:160) T
`
`he mark on the specimen disagrees with the mark on the drawing.(cid:160) In this case, the specimen displays the mark as GOD THEFATHER and
`design; and the drawing shows the mark as GOD THEFATHER.
`
`(cid:160) A
`
`n application based on Trademark Act Section 1(a) must include a specimen showing the applied-for mark in use in commerce for each class
`of goods.(cid:160) Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a).(cid:160) The mark
`on the drawing must be a substantially exact representation of the mark on the specimen.(cid:160) 37 C.F.R. §2.51(a); TMEP §807.12(a); see 37 C.F.R.
`
`§2.72(a)(1).(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`The drawing of the mark can be amended only if the amendment does not materially alter the mark as originally filed.(cid:160) 37 C.F.R. §2.72(a)(2); see
`TMEP §§807.12(a), 807.14 et seq.(cid:160) However, amending the mark in the drawing to conform to the mark on the specimen would be a material
`alteration in this case because the mark on the specimen creates a different commercial impression from the mark on the drawing.(cid:160) Adding a
`design element to mark is considered a material alteration.
`
`(cid:160) T
`
`herefore, applicant must submit the following:
`
`(1)(cid:160) A substitute specimen showing use in commerce of the mark on the drawing.(cid:160) See TMEP §807.12(a).; and
`
`(2)(cid:160) The following statement, verified with an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20:(cid:160) “The substitute specimen was in
`use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application.”(cid:160) See 37 C.F.R. §§2.59(a), 2.193(e)(1); TMEP §904.05.(cid:160) If
`submitting a specimen requires an amendment to the dates of use, applicant must also verify the amended dates.(cid:160) 37 C.F.R. §2.71(c);
`TMEP §904.05.
`
`(cid:160) E
`
`xamples of specimens for goods are tags, labels, instruction manuals, containers, photographs that show the mark on the actual goods or
`packaging, or displays associated with the actual goods at their point of sale.(cid:160) See TMEP §§904.03 et seq.
`
`(cid:160) I
`
`f applicant cannot satisfy the above requirements, applicant may amend the application from a use in commerce basis under Trademark Act
`Section 1(a) to an intent to use basis under Section 1(b), for which no specimen is required.(cid:160) See TMEP §806.03(c).(cid:160) However, if applicant
`amends the basis to Section 1(b), registration will not be granted until applicant later amends the application back to use in commerce by filing
`an acceptable allegation of use with a proper specimen.(cid:160) See 15 U.S.C. §1051(c)-(d); 37 C.F.R. §§2.76, 2.88; TMEP §1103.
`
`(cid:160) T
`
`o amend to Section 1(b), applicant must submit the following statement, verified with an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20:(cid:160)
`“Applicant has had a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce on or in connection with the goods and/or services listed in the
`application as of the filing date of the application.”(cid:160) 37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(2); TMEP §806.01(b); see 15 U.S.C. §1051(b); 37 C.F.R.
`§§2.35(b)(1), 2.193(e)(1).
`
`(cid:160)P
`
`ending receipt of a proper response, registration is refused because the specimen does not show the applied-for mark in use in commerce as a
`trademark and/or service mark.(cid:160) Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); TMEP §§904,
`904.07(a).
`
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`

`

`Further action awaits response to the above.
`
`/RaulCordova/
`
`Law Office 114
`
`(571)272-9448
`
`raul.cordova@uspto.gov(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER: (cid:160) Go to http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp. (cid:160) Please wait 48-72 hours from the
`issue/mailing date before using TEAS, to allow for necessary system updates of the application.(cid:160) For technical assistance with online forms, e-
`mail TEAS@uspto.gov.(cid:160) For(cid:160)questions about the Office action itself, please contact the assigned trademark examining attorney.(cid:160)(cid:160) E-mail
`communications will not be accepted as responses to Office actions; therefore, do not respond to this Office action by e-mail.
`
`(cid:160) A
`
`ll informal e-mail communications relevant to this application will be placed in the official application record.
`
`(cid:160) W
`
`HO MUST SIGN THE RESPONSE:(cid:160) It must be personally signed by(cid:160)an individual applicant or(cid:160)someone with legal authority to bind an
`applicant (i.e., a corporate officer, a general partner, all joint applicants).(cid:160)(cid:160)If an applicant is represented by an attorney, the attorney must sign the
`
`response.(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`PERIODICALLY CHECK THE STATUS OF THE APPLICATION: (cid:160) To ensure that applicant does not miss crucial deadlines or official
`notices, check the status of the application every three to four months using Trademark Applications and Registrations Retrieval (TARR) at
`http://tarr.uspto.gov/. (cid:160) Please keep a copy of the complete TARR screen. (cid:160) If TARR shows no change for more than six months, call
`1-800-786-9199. (cid:160) For more information on checking status, see http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/process/status/.
`
`(cid:160) T
`
`O UPDATE CORRESPONDENCE/E-MAIL ADDRESS:(cid:160) Use the TEAS form at http://www.uspto.gov/teas/eTEASpageE.htm.
`
`(cid:160) F
`
`or this application to proceed toward registration, applicant must explicitly address each refusal and/or requirement raised in this Office action.(cid:160)
`If the action includes a refusal, applicant may provide arguments and/or evidence as to why the refusal should be withdrawn and the mark should
`register.(cid:160) Applicant may also have other options for responding to a refusal and should consider such options carefully.(cid:160) To respond to
`
`requirements and certain refusal response options, applicant should set forth in writing the required changes or statements.(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`If applicant does not respond to this Office action within six months of the issue/mailing date, or responds by expressly abandoning the
`application, the application process will end, the trademark will fail to register, and the application fee will not be refunded.(cid:160) See 15 U.S.C.
`§1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.65(a), 2.68(a), 2.209(a); TMEP §§405.04, 718.01, 718.02.(cid:160) Where the application has been abandoned for failure to
`respond to an Office action, applicant’s only option would be to file a timely petition to revive the application, which, if granted, would allow
`the application to return to live status.(cid:160) See 37 C.F.R. §2.66; TMEP §1714.(cid:160) There is a $100 fee for such petitions.(cid:160) See 37 C.F.R. §§2.6,
`2.66(b)(1).
`
`(cid:160) B
`
`ecause of the legal technicalities and strict deadlines involved in the USPTO application process, applicant may wish to hire a private
`attorney specializing in trademark matters to represent applicant in this process and provide legal advice.(cid:160) Although the undersigned trademark
`examining attorney is permitted to help an applicant understand the contents of an Office action as well as the application process in general, no
`
`USPTO attorney or staff is permitted to give an applicant legal advice or statements about an applicant’s legal rights. (cid:160) TMEP §§705.02, 709.06.(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`For attorney referral information, applicant may consult the American Bar Association’s Consumers’ Guide to Legal Help at
`http://www.abanet.org/legalservices/findlegalhelp/home.cfm, an attorney referral service of a state or local bar association, or a local telephone
`directory.(cid:160) The USPTO may not assist an applicant in the selection of a private attorney.(cid:160) 37 C.F.R. §2.11.
`
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`

`

`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`

`

`Print: NOV 27, 2012
`
`TflT5T523
`
`DESIGN MARK
`
`Serial Number
`T8T5T523
`
`Status
`REGISTERED
`
`Word Mark
`THE GODFATHER
`
`Standard Character Mark
`No
`
`Registration Number
`3437925
`
`Date Registered
`2DDSxD5x27
`
`Type of Mark
`TRADEMARK
`
`Register
`PRINCIPAL
`
`Mark Drawing Code
`[3] DESIGN PLUS woRDS, LETTERS ANDxoR NDNEERS
`
`Owner
`Paramount Pictures Corporation CORPORATION DELAWARE 5555 Melrose
`Avenue Hollywood CALIFORNIA 90038
`
`Goodsfservioes
`
`G & S: Apparel,
`U22 039.
`US
`IC 025.
`Class Status -- ACTIVE.
`namely, T—shirts. First Use: ZOOTKOTKOI. First Use In Commerce:
`2007/O7HUl.
`
`Prior Registration(s)
`l6T4068;lTUT295
`
`Description of Mark
`The mark consists of Puppet hands with the words "THE GODFATHER"
`dangling from strings.
`
`Colors Claimed
`Color is not Claimed as a feature o: the mark.
`
`Filing Date
`2005fllfl8
`
`

`

`Print: Nov 27, 2012
`
`78157523
`
`Examining Attorney
`MCBRIDE , THEODORE
`
`Attorney of Record
`Scott Martin
`
`

`

`

`

`To:
`
`Subject:
`
`Sent:
`
`Sent As:
`
`Attachments:
`
`Villanueva, Mike D (micv3@hotmail.com)
`
`U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 85685060 - GOD THEFATHER - N/A
`
`11/29/2012 3:43:55 PM
`
`ECOM114@USPTO.GOV
`
`IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING YOUR TRADEMARK APPLICATION
`
`Your trademark application (Serial No. 85685060) has been reviewed.(cid:160)(cid:160) The examining attorney assigned by the
`United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) has written a letter (an “Office Action”) on 11/29/2012
`to which you must respond.(cid:160) Please follow these steps:
`
`(cid:160) 1
`
`. Read the Office letter by clicking on this link OR go to http://tmportal.uspto.gov/external/portal/tow and enter your serial number to
`
`access the Office letter.(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) PLEASE NOTE: The(cid:160)Office letter may not be(cid:160)immediately available but will be(cid:160)viewable within(cid:160)24 hours of this e-mail notification.
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`2. Respond within 6 months, calculated from 11/29/2012 (or sooner if specified in the Office letter), using the Trademark Electronic Application
`
`System Response to Office Action form. If you have difficulty using the USPTO website, contact TDR@uspto.gov.(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`3. Contact the examining attorney who reviewed your application with any questions about the content of the office letter:
`
`(cid:160) /
`
`RaulCordova/
`
`Law Office 114
`
`(571)272-9448
`
`raul.cordova@uspto.gov(cid:160)
`
`Failure to file any required response by the applicable deadline will result in the ABANDONMENT of your application.
`
`Do NOT hit “Reply” to this e-mail notification, or otherwise attempt to e-mail your response, as the USPTO does NOT accept e-mailed
`responses.(cid:160) Instead, please use the Trademark Electronic Application System Response to Office Action form.
`
`WARNING
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`