PTO Form 1957 (Rev 9/2005)
`
`OMB No. 0651-0050 (Exp. 07/31/2017)
`
`Response to Office Action
`
`The table below presents the data as entered.
`
`Input Field
`
`SERIAL NUMBER
`
`LAW OFFICE ASSIGNED
`
`86137115
`
`LAW OFFICE 105
`
`Entered
`
`MARK SECTION
`
`MARK
`
`LITERAL ELEMENT
`
`STANDARD CHARACTERS
`
`USPTO-GENERATED IMAGE
`
`MARK STATEMENT
`
`EVIDENCE SECTION
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)EVIDENCE FILE NAME(S)
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)ORIGINAL PDF FILE
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)CONVERTED PDF FILE(S)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(6 pages)
`
`http://tsdr.uspto.gov/img/86137115/large
`
`INSPIRATIONAL INTERIOR DESIGNS FULL SERVICE . DESIGN IN A DAY .
`ROOM JACKET
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`The mark consists of standard characters, without claim to any particular font style,
`size or color.
`
`evi_701095314-160603352_._Inspirational_Interior_Designs_-_OA_Response.pdf
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\861\371\86137115\xml4\ROA0002.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\861\371\86137115\xml4\ROA0003.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\861\371\86137115\xml4\ROA0004.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\861\371\86137115\xml4\ROA0005.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\861\371\86137115\xml4\ROA0006.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\861\371\86137115\xml4\ROA0007.JPG
`
`DESCRIPTION OF EVIDENCE FILE
`
`A PDF of arguments to overcome the Section 2(d) refusal
`
`GOODS AND/OR SERVICES SECTION (024)(current)
`
`INTERNATIONAL CLASS
`
`DESCRIPTION
`
`024
`
`Fabric drapes; Duvet covers; Bed skirts; Comforters; Blankets; Table cloth of textile; Table runner; Place mats of textile material; Furnishing
`and upholstery fabrics; Table napkins of textile
`
`FILING BASIS
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) FIRST USE ANYWHERE DATE
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) FIRST USE IN COMMERCE DATE
`
`Section 1(a)
`
`At least as early as 11/12/2013
`
`At least as early as 11/12/2013
`
`GOODS AND/OR SERVICES SECTION (024)(proposed)
`
`INTERNATIONAL CLASS
`
`TRACKED TEXT DESCRIPTION
`
`024
`
`Fabric drapes; Duvet covers; Bed skirts; Comforters; Blankets; Blankets, namely bed blankets and throw blankets; Table cloth of textile; Table
`runner; Fabric table runner; Place mats of textile material; Furnishing and upholstery fabrics; Table napkins of textile
`
`(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)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`

`

`FINAL(cid:160)DESCRIPTION
`
`Fabric drapes; Duvet covers; Bed skirts; Comforters; Blankets, namely bed blankets and throw blankets; Table cloth of textile; Fabric table
`runner; Place mats of textile material; Furnishing and upholstery fabrics; Table napkins of textile
`
`FILING BASIS
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)FIRST USE ANYWHERE DATE
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)FIRST USE IN COMMERCE DATE
`
`Section 1(a)
`
`At least as early as 11/12/2013
`
`At least as early as 11/12/2013
`
`GOODS AND/OR SERVICES SECTION (042)(no change)
`
`ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS SECTION
`
`DISCLAIMER
`
`No claim is made to the exclusive right to use INTERIOR DESIGNS, FULL
`SERVICE and DESIGN IN A DAY apart from the mark as shown.
`
`ACTIVE PRIOR REGISTRATION(S)
`
`The applicant claims ownership of U.S. Registration Number(s) 4487841.
`
`SIGNATURE SECTION
`
`RESPONSE SIGNATURE
`
`SIGNATORY'S NAME
`
`SIGNATORY'S POSITION
`
`SIGNATORY'S PHONE NUMBER
`
`DATE SIGNED
`
`AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
`
`FILING INFORMATION SECTION
`
`SUBMIT DATE
`
`TEAS STAMP
`
`/Seth Willig Chadab/
`
`Seth Willig Chadab
`
`Authorized US Attorney, MD bar member
`
`8552269661
`
`05/15/2014
`
`YES
`
`Thu May 15 17:04:29 EDT 2014
`
`USPTO/ROA-XX.XXX.XX.XX-20
`140515170429505461-861371
`15-500b99581577872b5021d8
`34aecdf9b6c1453ae6849447d
`4f8d1af26d1241d4d-N/A-N/A
`-20140515160603352174
`
`PTO Form 1957 (Rev 9/2005)
`
`OMB No. 0651-0050 (Exp. 07/31/2017)
`
`To the Commissioner for Trademarks:
`
`Response to Office Action
`
`Application serial no. 86137115(cid:160)INSPIRATIONAL INTERIOR DESIGNS FULL SERVICE . DESIGN IN A DAY . ROOM JACKET(Standard
`Characters, see http://tsdr.uspto.gov/img/86137115/large) has been amended as follows:
`
`EVIDENCE
`Evidence in the nature of A PDF of arguments to overcome the Section 2(d) refusal has been attached.
`Original PDF file:
`evi_701095314-160603352_._Inspirational_Interior_Designs_-_OA_Response.pdf
`Converted PDF file(s) ( 6 pages)
`Evidence-1
`Evidence-2
`Evidence-3
`Evidence-4
`
`

`

`Evidence-5
`Evidence-6
`
`CLASSIFICATION AND LISTING OF GOODS/SERVICES
`Applicant proposes to amend the following class of goods/services in the application:
`Current: Class 024 for Fabric drapes; Duvet covers; Bed skirts; Comforters; Blankets; Table cloth of textile; Table runner; Place mats of textile
`material; Furnishing and upholstery fabrics; Table napkins of textile
`Original Filing Basis:
`Filing Basis: Section 1(a), Use in Commerce: The applicant is using the mark in commerce, or the applicant's related company or licensee is
`using the mark in commerce, on or in connection with the identified goods and/or services. 15 U.S.C. Section 1051(a), as amended. The mark
`was first used at least as early as 11/12/2013 and first used in commerce at least as early as 11/12/2013 , and is now in use in such commerce.
`
`Proposed:
`Tracked Text Description: Fabric drapes; Duvet covers; Bed skirts; Comforters; Blankets; Blankets, namely bed blankets and throw blankets;
`Table cloth of textile; Table runner; Fabric table runner; Place mats of textile material; Furnishing and upholstery fabrics; Table napkins of textile
`
`Class 024 for Fabric drapes; Duvet covers; Bed skirts; Comforters; Blankets, namely bed blankets and throw blankets; Table cloth of textile;
`Fabric table runner; Place mats of textile material; Furnishing and upholstery fabrics; Table napkins of textile
`Filing Basis: Section 1(a), Use in Commerce: The applicant is using the mark in commerce, or the applicant's related company or licensee is
`using the mark in commerce, on or in connection with the identified goods and/or services. 15 U.S.C. Section 1051(a), as amended. The mark
`was first used at least as early as 11/12/2013 and first used in commerce at least as early as 11/12/2013 , and is now in use in such commerce.
`ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS
`Disclaimer
`No claim is made to the exclusive right to use INTERIOR DESIGNS, FULL SERVICE and DESIGN IN A DAY apart from the mark as shown.
`
`Claim of Active Prior Registration(s)
`The applicant claims ownership of U.S. Registration Number(s) 4487841.
`
`SIGNATURE(S)
`Response Signature
`Signature: /Seth Willig Chadab/(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)Date: 05/15/2014
`Signatory's Name: Seth Willig Chadab
`Signatory's Position: Authorized US Attorney, MD bar member
`
`Signatory's Phone Number: 8552269661
`
`The signatory has confirmed that he/she is an attorney who is a member in good standing of the bar of the highest court of a U.S. state, which
`includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and other federal territories and possessions; and he/she is currently the applicant's attorney or an
`associate thereof; and to the best of his/her knowledge, if prior to his/her appointment another U.S. attorney or a Canadian attorney/agent not
`currently associated with his/her company/firm previously represented the applicant in this matter: (1) the applicant has filed or is concurrently
`filing a signed revocation of or substitute power of attorney with the USPTO; (2) the USPTO has granted the request of the prior representative to
`withdraw; (3) the applicant has filed a power of attorney appointing him/her in this matter; or (4) the applicant's appointed U.S. attorney or
`Canadian attorney/agent has filed a power of attorney appointing him/her as an associate attorney in this matter.
`
`Serial Number: 86137115
`Internet Transmission Date: Thu May 15 17:04:29 EDT 2014
`TEAS Stamp: USPTO/ROA-XX.XXX.XX.XX-20140515170429505
`461-86137115-500b99581577872b5021d834aec
`df9b6c1453ae6849447d4f8d1af26d1241d4d-N/
`A-N/A-20140515160603352174
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Applicant:
`Serial No.:
`
`Alyson Craig Interior Designs LLC
`86/137115
`
`Filed:
`Trademark Atty:
`Word Mark:
`
`December 6, 2013
`Melissa Vallillo
`INSPIRATIONAL INTERIOR DESIGNS FULL SERVICE .
`DESIGN IN A DAY . ROOM JACKET
`
`RESPONSE TO MARCH 20, 2014 OFFICE ACTION
`
`This Response is filed in reply to the Office Action e-mailed on March 20, 2014. The Applicant
`respectfully submits the following response. Applicant submits that the above-identified trademark
`application for INSPIRATIONAL INTERIOR DESIGNS FULL SERVICE. DESIGN IN A
`DAY. ROOM JACKET. is in condition for allowance to publication.
`
`Potential Section zgdg Refusal: Likelihood of Confusion
`
`Applicant submits a preliminary response to the potential section 2(d) refusal; however,
`Applicant reserves all rights to provide a detailed and more descriptive response if Examining
`Attorney Melissa Vallillo raises a Section 2(d) refusal in a subsequent Office Action.
`
`Preliminary Response with Reservation ofRights
`
`The USPTO suggests that it will refuse registration of the Applicant’s mark, INSPIRATIONAL
`INTERIOR DESIGNS FULL SERVICE . DESIGN IN A DAY . ROOM JACKET, “because of
`a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 4323378.” “[T]he question of
`confusion is related not to the nature of the mark but to its effect ‘when applied to the
`applicant.” In re EI. du Pom‘ de Nemous & Ca, 476 F.2d 1357, 1360-61 (C.C.P.A. 1973). The
`United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals listed thirteen factors to weigh in the
`likelihood of confusion analysis and stated that all of the factors must be considered “when of
`record.” Id. at 1361. The Examining Attorney has indicated that similarity of the marks,
`similarity and nature of the goods and/or services, and similarity of the trade channels of the
`goods and/or services weigh against the Applicant’s mark. However, Applicant respectfully
`asserts that when all factors are weighed, the majority weighs against the existence of a
`likelihood of confusion.
`
`(I) Similarity of Conflicting Designations
`
`The first factor is the similarity of the conflicting designations, including in their appearance,
`sound, meaning or connotation, and commercial impression. In re E. I du Pont de Nemours &
`Ca, 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973). A similar phrase found in two
`
`

`

`marks is not dispositive of a confusing similarity between the marks when the marks give off
`different commercial expressions. See Kellogg Co. v. Pack ’em Enterprises, Inc, 951 F.2d 330 (Fed.
`Cir. 1991). When Applicant’s mark (INSPIRATIONAL INTERIOR DESIGNS FULL SERVICE
`. DESIGN IN A DAY . ROOM JACKET), and Registrant’s mark (INSPIRATIONS INTERIOR
`DESIGN, INC.) are compared, the appearance is not similar despite the shared terms. The terms that
`the marks share are variations of the terms “INSPIRATION” and “INTERIOR DESIGN.” It is
`
`important to note that the cited registration has disclaimed the term “INTERIOR DESIGN, INC.”
`
`The overall appearance of the marks, as a whole, is dissimilar. The Applicant uses the terms
`INSPIRATIONAL, FULL SERVICE, DESIGN IN A DAY, and ROOM JACKET, while the
`cited registration uses solely INSPIRATIONS. Phonetically the marks differ in sound, as the
`Applicant’s mark consists of nineteen syllables and the Registrants marks consists of only ten
`syllables.
`
`In In re
`When viewed in their entireties, despite the common elements, the marks a whole differ.
`Electrolyte Labs, 929 F.2d 645, U.S.P.Q. 2d 1239 (Fed. Cir. 1990), the Federal Circuit reversed
`the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, and held that the marks “K+ and Design” and “K+EFF”
`for “competitive dietary supplements” were not likely to be confilsed even if consumers would
`say “KPlus” and “K-Plus EFF” when calling for products.” Id. The Court held that the
`the Registrant’s mark was a significant difference, and ruled that “No element of a mark is
`ignored simply because it is less dominant, or would not have trademark significance if used
`alone.” Id. Furthermore, to ignore the role of additional elements would fly in the face of the
`Well-known rule that, in assessing the likelihood of confilsion, marks should be considered in
`their entireties. In the present case, the Applicant’s mark includes substantially more additional
`elements to significantly reduce any likelihood of confusion. The Cited Registration consists of
`three Words, whereas the Applicant’s mark consists of eleven Words. To this end, the marks
`substantially differ when viewed in their entireties.
`
`in
`
`Visually, the phrase INSPIRATIONAL INTERIOR DESIGNS FULL SERVICE. DESIGN IN A
`DAY. ROOM JACKET is easily distinguished from the phrase INSPIRATIONS INTERIOR
`DESIGN, INC. The structure and format are unique to the commercial impression of the
`Registrant’s mark. These terms further create a distinct commercial impression that is different
`from the Applicant’s mark. For at least these reasons, Applicants asserts that the mark
`INSPIRATIONAL INTERIOR DESIGNS FULL SERVICE . DESIGN IN A DAY . ROOM
`
`JACKET. is significantly different than the mark INSPIRATIONS INTERIOR DESIGN, INC.
`This factor Weighs in the Applicant’s favor.
`
`(2) Similarity or Dissimilarity and the Nature of the Goods or Services
`
`The second factor is the similarity or dissimilarity and the nature of the goods or services as
`described in an application or registration or in connection with a prior use of the mark. In re E.
`I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973). Both
`marks cover interior design services. Under this factor, Applicant agrees that this factor weighs
`in favor of a likelihood of confusion.
`
`

`

`(3) Similarity or Dissimilarity ofEstablished Likely to Continue Trade Channels
`
`The third factor is the similarity or dissimilarity of established, likely-to-continue trade channels. In
`re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & C0., 476 F.2d at 1361, 177 USPQ at 567. Applicant intends to
`initially use its mark within the state of New Jersey and the tri-state area. The Registrant’ s location
`listed on their registration is in California, but it is unclear as to the trade channels the Registrant
`uses. The trade channels for the interior design industry are vast because the trade channels could be
`limited narrowly to a neighborhood region, or it could be nation-wide. It being unclear as to the
`Registrant’s trade channels, this factor weighs in the Applicant’s favor.
`
`(4) Conditions Upon Sales Are Made
`
`The fourth factor is the conditions under which and buyers to whom sales are made (i.e. impulse V.
`careful). Id. Consumers interested in Applicant’s services will be sophisticated consumers seeking
`interior design services for their homes in the New York and New Jersey area. Therefore, consumers
`will carefully identify the uniquely formatted mark INSPIRATIONAL INTERIOR DESIGNS FULL
`SERVICE. DESIGN IN A DAY. ROOM JACKET when searching for the Applicant’s services. It is
`well-settled that the likelihood of confusion is reduced where purchasers and potential purchasers
`of the services at issue are sophisticated. See Electronic Design & Sales, Inc. v. Electronic Data
`Sys. Corp, 954 F.2d 713, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (no confusion between identical marks where,
`inter alia, both parties’ goods and services “are usually purchased after carefitl consideration by
`persons who are highly knowledgeable about the goods or services and their source.”); see also
`T.M.E.P. § 1207.01(d)(vii) (care in purchasing tends to minimize likelihood of confusion).
`Applicant’s customers are likely to exercise a high level of care and are not likely to be confilsed
`into thinking Registrant’s product originates from, or is sponsored by, Applicant or vice versa.
`This factor weighs in the Applicant’s favor.
`
`(5) Fame ofthe Prior Mark
`
`The fifth factor is the fame of the prior mark (e.g., sales, advertising, length of use, eta). Id. There is
`no evidence that the prior mark is famous, this factor weighs in the Applicant’s favor.
`
`(6) Number and Nature ofSimilar Marks in Use on Similar Goods
`
`The sixth factor is the number and nature of similar marks in use in connection with similar services.
`
`Id. In this case, the USPTO has not made any assertions as to the number and nature of marks used in
`connection with restaurant services. A search of the USPTO records for “INSPIRATION” related
`
`trademarks for interior design, reveals four records. Therefore, Applicant asserts that this factor
`weighs in Applicant’s favor.
`
`(7) Nature and Extent ofAny Actual Confusion
`
`The seventh factor concerns the nature and extent of any actual COI1fi1SlOI1. Id. No evidence exists that
`any consumer has been confused by the use of these two marks. Consequently, this factor weighs in
`Applicant’s favor or is at least neutral in the likelihood of confusion analysis.
`
`

`

`(8) Length of Time During and Conditions under which There Has Been Concurrent Use
`Without Evidence ofActual Confusion
`
`The eighth factor is the length of time during and conditions under which there has been concurrent
`use Without evidence of actual confusion. Id. Applicant’s mark has been in use since November 12,
`2013. Registrant’s mark has been in use since May 12, 2009. Therefore, there has been concurrent
`use of the mark since 2013 without evidence of actual confusion. Therefore, this factor weighs in the
`Applicant’s favor.
`
`(9) Variety of Goods on which a Mark Is or Is Not Used
`
`The ninth factor is the variety of goods on which a mark is or is not used (house mark, “family”
`mark, product mark). In re E. I. du Pom‘ de Nemours & Ca, 476 F.2d at 1361, 177 USPQ at 567.
`Both marks at issue here are used in connection with interior design services. The Cited Registration
`is not a part of a family of marks. Consequently, this factor weighs in the Applicant’s favor.
`
`(10) Market Interface Between Applicant and the Owner ofa Prior Mark
`
`The tenth factor is the market interface between Applicant and the owner of a valid, prior mark. Id. In
`this case, there has been no interface between the Applicant and the Registrant, and therefore this
`factor weighs in Applicant’s favor or is at least neutral in the likelihood of confusion analysis.
`
`(11) Extent to which Applicant has a Right to Exclude Others from Use of its Mark on its
`Goods
`
`The eleventh factor is the extent to which Applicant has a right to exclude others from use of its mark
`on its goods. Id. The Applicant claims rights to exclusive use of the applied for mark apart from
`common law usage of the mark since 2013. This factor Weighs in Applicant’s favor or is at least
`neutral in the likelihood of confusion analysis.
`
`(12) Extent ofPotential Confusion
`
`The twelfth factor is the extent of potential COI1fU.Sl0I1, 1'. e., whether de minimis or substantial. Id.
`Because (1) it is unclear as to what trade channels the Registrant uses, (2) the Applicant’s mark has a
`substantial amount of additional elements, (3) there are numerous “INTERIOR DESIGN” related
`marks in the interior design industry, and (4) the high level of sophistication of the purchaser, the
`potential for confiision is de minimis and weighs heavily against a likelihood of confusion.
`Therefore, this factor weighs in the Applicant’s favor.
`
`(13) Whether There Are any Other Established Facts Probative ofthe Eflect of Use
`
`The thirteenth factor looks to whether there are any other established facts probative of the effect of
`use. Applicant reserves all rights to provide a detailed and more descriptive response on this factor if
`the USPTO should raise a Section 2(d) refusal in a subsequent Office Action. Applicant further
`asserts that the USPTO has found a mark capable of registration, even in cases where the marks are
`nearly identical and are covered under the same classification. Furthermore, courts have long held
`that the addition of different terms to a common element appreciably reduces the likelihood of
`confusion between two marks. See US Trust v. U.S. States Trust Co., 210 F. Supp. 2d 9, 27-28 (D.
`Mass 2002) (UNITED STATES TRUST COMPANY not confusingly similar to UNITED STATES
`
`

`

`TRUST COMPANY OF BOSTON, both for financial services); Colgate Palmolive Co. V. Carter-
`Wallace, Inc., 432 F.2d 1400, 1402, 167 U.S. P. Q. 529, 530 (C.C.P.A. 1970) (PEAK PERIOD not
`confusing similar to PEAK); Servo Corp. Am. v. Servo-Tek Prod. Co., 289 F. 2d 955, 981 129
`U.S.P.Q. 352, 353 (C.C.P.A. 1961) (SERVOSPEED not confusingly similar to SERVO); Sweats
`Fashions, Inc. v. Pannill Knitting Co., 833 F. 2d 1560, 1564, 4 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1793, 1796 (Fed. Cir.
`1987) (SWEATS not confusing similar to ULTRA SWEATS), both for sportswear); Gen. Mills Inc.
`v. Kellog Co., 824 F. 2d 622, 627, 3 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1442, 1446 (8111 Cir. 1987) (OATMEAL RAISIN
`CRISP not confusingly similar to APPLE RASIN CRISP, both for breakfast cereal); Consol. Cigar v.
`RJR Tobacco Co., 491 F.2d 1265, 1267, 181 U.S.P.Q. 44, 45 (C.C.P.A. 1974) (DUTCH APPLE for
`pipe tobacco not confusingly similar to DUTCH MASTERS for cigars).
`
`N0 Substantial Likelihood of Confusion
`When determining whether an Applicant’s mark creates a likelihood of confusion, with marks
`covered by cited registrations "[a] showing of mere possibility of confusion is not enough; a
`substantial likelihood that the public will be confused must be shown." Omaha Natl. Bank, 633 F.
`Supp. at 234, 229 U.S.P.Q. at 52. Applying the factors set forth in Du Pont, and absent “substantial
`doubt,” In re Mars, Inc., 741 F. 2d 395, 396 222 U.S.P.Q. 938 (Fed. Cir. 1984), registration of
`Applicant’s mark is appropriate. For these reasons and others, the majority of these factors weigh
`against a finding of a likelihood of confusion. Applicant respectfully submits that the mark for
`INSPIRATIONAL INTERIOR DESIGNS FULL SERVICE . DESIGN IN A DAY . ROOM
`
`JACKET. does not create a likelihood of confusion with Registration Number 4323378 for
`INSPIRATIONS INTERIOR DESIGN, INC.
`
`Disclaimer
`
`Applicant adopts the following standardized format for a disclaimer:
`
`No claim is made to the exclusive right to use “INTERIOR DESIGNS”, “FULL
`SERVICE” and “DESIGN IN A DAY” apart from the mark as shown.
`
`Claim of Ownership of Prior Registration
`
`Applicant adopts the following claim of ownership:
`
`Applicant is the owner of U.S. Registration No. 4487841
`
`Identification of Goods
`
`Applicant adopts the following identification:
`
`Fabric drapes; Duvet covers; Bed skirts; Comforters; Blankets, namely bed
`blankets and throw blankets; Table cloth of textile; Fabric table runner; Place mats
`of textile material; Furnishing and upholstery fabrics; Table napkins of textile, in
`International Class 24
`
`

`

`Conclusion
`
`Applicant has fully responded to the March 20, 2014 Office Action. Majority of the ‘DuPont’ factors
`weigh in the Applicant’s favor. Furthermore, for at least the above reasons, Applicant asserts that
`Applicant’s mark, INSPIRATIONAL INTERIOR DESIGNS FULL SERVICE . DESIGN IN A
`DAY . ROOM JACKET, is sufficiently distinct from INSPIRATIONS INTERIOR DESIGN, INC.
`that it will not result in consumer confusion. Applicant respectfully submits in good faith that all
`potential 2(d) refusals, rejections, and/or objections have been overcome and that the applied for
`mark is in condition for publication.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`/Seth Willig Chadabl
`Seth Willig Chadab (MD bar member)
`Attorney of Record for the Applicant
`
`