PTO Form 2194 (Rev 9/2005)
`
`OMB No. 0651-0054 (Exp. 10/31/2017)
`
`Petition To Revive Abandoned Application - Failure To Respond Timely To Office Action
`
`The table below presents the data as entered.
`
`Input Field
`
`Entered
`
`SERIAL NUMBER
`
`LAW OFFICE ASSIGNED
`
`PETITION
`
`PETITION STATEMENT
`
`RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION
`
`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)(7 pages)
`
`DESCRIPTION OF EVIDENCE FILE
`
`ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS SECTION
`
`DISCLAIMER
`
`NEW ATTORNEY SECTION
`
`NAME
`
`FIRM NAME
`
`INTERNAL ADDRESS
`
`86257986
`
`LAW OFFICE 114
`
`Applicant has firsthand knowledge that the failure to respond to the Office Action by
`the specified deadline was unintentional, and requests the USPTO to revive the
`abandoned application.
`
`http://tsdr.uspto.gov/img/86257986/large
`
`ANYTHING REAL ESTATE
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`The mark consists of standard characters, without claim to any particular font style,
`size or color.
`
`evi_701095314-20150227093407270886_._AnythingRealEstate-Response.pdf
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\862\579\86257986\xml4\POA0002.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\862\579\86257986\xml4\POA0003.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\862\579\86257986\xml4\POA0004.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\862\579\86257986\xml4\POA0005.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\862\579\86257986\xml4\POA0006.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\862\579\86257986\xml4\POA0007.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\862\579\86257986\xml4\POA0008.JPG
`
`a .pdf file outlining the Applicant's arguments in response to the 2(d) refusal and
`disclaimer request.
`
`No claim is made to the exclusive right to use REAL ESTATE apart from the mark
`as shown.
`
`Antonio Vann
`
`Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig, PLLC
`
`211 Church Street, SE
`
`(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)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`

`

`STREET
`
`CITY
`
`STATE
`
`ZIP/POSTAL CODE
`
`COUNTRY
`
`PHONE
`
`EMAIL
`
`211 Church Street, SE
`
`Leesburg
`
`Virginia
`
`20175
`
`United States
`
`8552269661
`
`ip@dbllawyers.com
`
`AUTHORIZED EMAIL COMMUNICATION
`
`Yes
`
`CORRESPONDENCE SECTION
`
`ORIGINAL ADDRESS
`
`NEW CORRESPONDENCE SECTION
`
`NAME
`
`FIRM NAME
`
`INTERNAL ADDRESS
`
`STREET
`
`CITY
`
`STATE
`
`ZIP/POSTAL CODE
`
`COUNTRY
`
`PHONE
`
`EMAIL
`
`AUTHORIZED EMAIL COMMUNICATION
`
`PAYMENT SECTION
`
`TOTAL AMOUNT
`
`TOTAL FEES DUE
`
`SIGNATURE SECTION
`
`PETITION SIGNATURE
`
`SIGNATORY'S NAME
`
`SIGNATORY'S POSITION
`
`SIGNATORY'S PHONE NUMBER
`
`DATE SIGNED
`
`RESPONSE SIGNATURE
`
`SIGNATORY'S NAME
`
`SIGNATORY'S POSITION
`
`MICHAEL CARR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
`821 JETT ROBERTS RD
`JEFFERSON
`Georgia (GA)
`US
`30549-2834
`
`Antonio Vann
`
`Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig, PLLC
`
`211 Church Street, SE
`
`211 Church Street, SE
`
`Leesburg
`
`Virginia
`
`20175
`
`United States
`
`8552269661
`
`ip@dbllawyers.com
`
`Yes
`
`100
`
`100
`
`/avann/
`
`Antonio G. Vann
`
`Attorney of Record VA Bar Member
`
`855.226.9661
`
`02/27/2015
`
`/avann/
`
`Antonio G. Vann
`
`Attorney of Record, VA Bar Member
`
`

`

`SIGNATORY'S PHONE NUMBER
`
`DATE SIGNED
`
`AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
`
`FILING INFORMATION SECTION
`
`855.226.9661
`
`02/27/2015
`
`YES
`
`SUBMIT DATE
`
`TEAS STAMP
`
`PTO Form 2194 (Rev 9/2005)
`
`OMB No. 0651-0054 (Exp. 10/31/2017)
`
`Fri Feb 27 09:43:08 EST 2015
`
`USPTO/POA-XX.XXX.XX.XX-20
`150227094308145824-862579
`86-530b88cb739e0a2716f154
`fdfb6852352aed8a97766cc75
`bee3c124d1153ee80dc-CC-91
`87-20150227093407270886
`
`Petition To Revive Abandoned Application - Failure To Respond Timely To Office Action
`To the Commissioner for Trademarks:
`
`Application serial no. 86257986(cid:160)ANYTHING REAL ESTATE(Standard Characters, see http://tsdr.uspto.gov/img/86257986/large) has been
`amended as follows:
`PETITION
`Petition Statement
`
`Applicant has firsthand knowledge that the failure to respond to the Office Action by the specified deadline was unintentional, and requests the
`USPTO to revive the abandoned application.
`
`RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION
`
`EVIDENCE
`Evidence in the nature of a .pdf file outlining the Applicant's arguments in response to the 2(d) refusal and disclaimer request. has been attached.
`Original PDF file:
`evi_701095314-20150227093407270886_._AnythingRealEstate-Response.pdf
`Converted PDF file(s) ( 7 pages)
`Evidence-1
`Evidence-2
`Evidence-3
`Evidence-4
`Evidence-5
`Evidence-6
`Evidence-7
`
`ATTORNEY ADDRESS
`Applicant proposes to amend the following:
`Proposed:
`Antonio Vann of Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig, PLLC, having an address of
`211 Church Street, SE 211 Church Street, SE Leesburg, Virginia 20175
`United States
`ip@dbllawyers.com
`8552269661
`
`CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS CHANGE
`Applicant proposes to amend the following:
`Current:
`
`

`

`MICHAEL CARR & ASSOCIATES, INC.
`821 JETT ROBERTS RD
`JEFFERSON
`Georgia (GA)
`US
`30549-2834
`
`Proposed:
`Antonio Vann of Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig, PLLC, having an address of
`211 Church Street, SE 211 Church Street, SE Leesburg, Virginia 20175
`United States
`ip@dbllawyers.com
`8552269661
`
`ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS
`Disclaimer
`No claim is made to the exclusive right to use REAL ESTATE apart from the mark as shown.
`
`FEE(S)
`Fee(s) in the amount of $100 is being submitted.
`
`SIGNATURE(S)
`
`Signature: /avann/(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)Date: 02/27/2015
`Signatory's Name: Antonio G. Vann
`Signatory's Position: Attorney of Record VA Bar Member
`Signatory's Phone Number: 855.226.9661
`
`Response Signature
`Signature: /avann/(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)Date: 02/27/2015
`Signatory's Name: Antonio G. Vann
`Signatory's Position: Attorney of Record, VA Bar Member
`
`Signatory's Phone Number: 855.226.9661
`
`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.
`
`Mailing Address: (cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)Antonio Vann
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig, PLLC
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)211 Church Street, SE
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)211 Church Street, SE
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)Leesburg, Virginia 20175
`
`RAM Sale Number: 86257986
`RAM Accounting Date: 02/27/2015
`
`Serial Number: 86257986
`Internet Transmission Date: Fri Feb 27 09:43:08 EST 2015
`TEAS Stamp: USPTO/POA-XX.XXX.XX.XX-20150227094308145
`824-86257986-530b88cb739e0a2716f154fdfb6
`852352aed8a97766cc75bee3c124d1153ee80dc-
`
`(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)
`

`

`CC-9187-20150227093407270886
`
`CC-9187-20150227093407270886
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Applicant:
`Serial No.:
`
`Michael Carr & Associates, Inc.
`86257986
`
`Filed:
`Trademark Atty:
`Word Mark:
`
`April 21, 2014
`David A. Brookshire
`ANYTHING REAL ESTATE
`
`RESPONSE TO AUGUST 8, 2014 OFFICE ACTION
`
`This Response is filed in reply to the Office Action e-mailed on August 8, 2014. The Applicant
`
`respectfully submits the following response. Applicant submits that the above-identified trademark
`
`application for ANYTHING REAL ESTATE is in condition for allowance to publication.
`
`DISCLAIMER
`
`The Applicant submits the following disclaimer:
`
`No claim is made to the exclusive right to use “REAL ESTATE” apart from the mark as shown.
`
`POTENTIAL SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL — LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
`
`Applicant submits a preliminary response to the potential section 2(d)refi1sal; however, Applicant
`
`reserves all rights to provide a detailed and more descriptive response if Examining Attorney David
`
`Brookshire raises a Section 2(d) refusal in a subsequent Office Action.
`
`APPLICANT’S WORD MARK
`
`CITED REGISTERED MARK
`
`ANYTHING REAL ESTATE
`
`ANYTHING & EVERYTHING REAL
`ESTATE
`
`Date of First Use: 01/31/2007
`
`Date of First Use: 07/15/2011
`
`Class 035: Real estate sales management; real
`estate auctions
`
`Class: 041: Entertainment, namely, a continuing
`talk show broadcast over radio
`
`

`

`APPLICANT’S SERVICES DIFFER FROM THE REGISTRANT SERVICES
`
`The USPTO suggests that it will refuse registration of Applicant’s mark, ANYTHING REAL
`
`ESTATE, because of a likelihood of confusion with registered mark ANYTHING & EVERYTHING
`
`RELA ESTATE in US. Registration No. 443925 5. “[T]he question of confusion is related not to the
`
`nature of the mark but to its effect ‘When applied to the [services] of the applicant.” In re E. I. du Pont
`
`de Nemours & C0,, 476 F.2d 1357, 1360, 177 USPQ 563, 566 (C.C.P.A. 1973). When analyzing an
`
`applicant’s and registrant’s goods and/or services for similarity and relatedness, that determination is
`
`based on the description of the goods and/or services stated in the application and registration at issue,
`
`not on extrinsic evidence of actual use. See0ctoc0m Sys. Inc. v. Hous. Computers Servs. Inc., 918
`
`F.2d 937, 942, 16 USPQ2d 1783, 1787 (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard
`
`Press Inc, 281 F.3d 1261, 1267, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1004 (Fed. Cir. 2002). For purposes ofa
`
`likelihood of confusion, the evidence must focus on whether the respective services are “related in
`
`some manner such that they could give rise to the mistaken belief that the services emanate from the
`
`same source. Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369, 101 USPQ2d 1713,
`
`1722 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting 7-Eleven Inc. v. Wechsler, 83 USPQ2d 1715, 1724 (TTAB 2007));
`
`TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).
`
`In the present case, the descriptions of services, as listed in the application and registration, are vastly
`
`different. The Applicant’s services are “real estate sales management; real estate auctions,” and the
`
`Registrant’s services are “Entertainment, namely, a continuing talk show broadcast over the radio.”
`
`The Examining Attorney has provided extrinsic evidence of the Registrant’s actual use in order to
`
`illustrate that the services of the Applicant’ and Registrant are related. However, as in Octocom Sys.
`
`Inc. v. Hous. Computers Servs. Inc. and Hewlett-Packard Ca. V. Packard Press Inc., the relatedness of
`
`

`

`the services should be confined to the identification of services in the application and registration. The
`
`services listed on the Registrant’s website and any other extrinsic evidence is an insufficient basis to
`
`conclude that the services are related. The evidence does not establish that the consuming public
`
`would mistake real estate management; real estate auction services to emanate from the same source as
`
`a continuing talk show broadcast over the radio. For these reasons, Applicant respectfully asserts that
`
`confusion is highly unlikely to occur.
`
`THE COMMERICIAL IMPRESSION OF THE MARKS IS DIFFERENT
`
`To ascertain the commercial impression engendered by the term sought to be registered, one must look
`
`at the specimen of record. In re Wakefern Food Corp, 205 USPQ at 77; In re Bose Corp, 546 F .2d
`
`893. 192 USPQ 213, 216 (CCPA 1976); In re Restonic Corp. 189 USPQ 248, 249 (TTAB 1975).
`
`The Applicant’s specimen of record can be found below identified as Figure 1. The Registrants
`
`specimen of record can be found below identified as Figure 2.
`
`FIGURE 1
`
`4-
`C
`feffersonhornesalescom
`I “"“"'“"""““"'“’"'
`"
`I
`
`a l n n (all Today 572-444-4110
`
`i
`
`f\/lICHAEIl_ EAFIFLINC.
`[VIC AnyrningHeoIEslale‘
`
`Home
`
`Listings
`
`Buying&Se|ling
`
`Cummunities
`
`Leasing
`
`Aboul
`
`Bing
`
`Contact
`
`SEARCH
`
`Featured
`Communities
`
`Ciimun
`oooouonoouoo
`
`Liufiiniirr;
`
`S-E91:-iI'H|’i(‘
`
`About Michael Carr &
`
`40+ Page Buyer Guide
`
`Featured Posts
`
`Assouates
`
`Ju5lTi“0HID‘~'|0W‘
`
`’
`
`’
`
`10 Simple Home Maintenance
`Tips for April
`
`

`

`'r-v-.r~-au..--m-~aree.i
`
`: C
`
`FIGURE 2
`
`*
`
`° “
`
`mm?"
`
`Autlui ‘
`
`U‘.-IEN IN
`
`L\'LNr:-,
`
`— r.E‘-'rAuL>vliuN‘:‘
`
`F<E:.r.\i_Im.E".
`
`GMHC am»:
`
`CLIP-TAC 1'
`
`xuml IJIHEI-'.‘}‘.uAV
`
`.-um-.0V‘.
`Illnuunr n,2cn n
`
`Iumaunln
`
`mm A KONHINI
`
`Anything & Everything Real Estate
`LIVE I Join the KDOW Business &
`
`Money Expo on March 27th I Meet
`the RE360Radio Team During Our
`Live Broadcast
`
`(HAT WITH JOE
`:1: m :
`
`«IV was :r: .
`
`.2‘
`
` w : A
`
`KD OW
`---M-~—---W-«
`4I.3I.J§-.r:I.E29.-
`:3
`Would You Like To Chat With Joe For An Annual Mortgage Review?
`(Eick Here In Request A Phone (all.
`
`Our
`
`suhsalbelsretainIhoeshow
`
`Both specimens include commercial elements that are different and more dominant than the
`
`trademarks in question. On the Applicant’s specimen, its mark is overshadowed by the a design and
`
`the words MICHAEL CARR. INC. On the Registrant’s specimen, its mark is overshadowed by the
`
`large Words “REAL ESTATE 360.” The dominant features in the specimens of record are Vastly
`
`different. These different features contribute to an overall different commercial impression between
`
`the marks.
`
`SIMILAR MARKS ARE CAPABLE OF REGISTRATION
`
`The Applicant concedes that its trademark identical in part to the Registrant’s mark. Wl1611 comparing
`
`marks, the test is not whether the marks can be distinguished in a side-by-side comparison, but rather
`
`whether the marks are sufficiently similar in tenns of their overall commercial impression that
`
`

`

`confusion as to the source of the goods and/or services offered under the respective marks is likely to
`
`result. Midwestern Pet Foods, Inc. v. Societe des Produits Nestle SA, 685 F.3d 1046, 1053, 103
`
`USPQ2d 1435, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Davia, 110 USPQ2d 1810, 1813 (TTAB 2014); TMEP
`
`§1207.01(b). 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 US. 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 confiising 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 (8th 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).
`
`CONSUMER CONFUSION IS UNLIKELY BECAUSE OF THE PERIOD OF CONCURRENT
`USE BETWEEN THE MARKS
`
`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.”
`
`In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Ca, 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 566 (C.C.P.A. 1973).
`
`One of the factors includes the period of concurrent use of the marks.
`
`In the present case, the record
`
`

`

`reflects that the Applicant’s first use date is January 2007. The Registrant’s registration reflects a first
`
`use date of July 2011. Therefore, the marks have been used concurrently for over three years without
`
`incident. These facts also weigh in favor of the registration of Applicant’s mark.
`
`THE CONSUIVIERS INVOLVED WILL MAKE CAREFUL DECISIONS SUFFICENT TO
`AVOID CONFUSION
`
`Another one of the “DuPont Factors” is the conditions under which and buyers to whom sales are
`
`made (i.e. impulse V. careful). Id. The Applicant’s services will require customer input, details and
`
`feedback in order to provide its services, as the Applicant manages and auctions real estate. The cited
`
`registrant’s services will be utilized by an audience of radio show listeners, tuning in to a show titled
`
`“REAL ESTATE 360.” The primary source identifier on the Registrant’s specimen is REAL
`
`ESTATE 360. It is unlikely that consumers will identify, much less confuse, the Registrant’s mark as
`
`having some association, sponsorship or affiliation with the Applicant’s services. The careful choices
`
`that Applicant’s consumers will make are sufficient to avoid a likelihood of COI1fi.lSlOIl.
`
`THE EVIDENCE FAILS TO SHOW A 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. In the present case, the services are not the same. Based on the specimens of
`
`record, the commercial impression of the marks is not the same. Therefore, the likelihood of
`
`C011filSl011 cannot be found to be substantial.
`
`

`

`CONCLUSION
`
`Applicant has fully responded to the Office Action. Furthermore, for at least the above reasons,
`
`Applicant asserts that Applicant’s mark, ANYTHING REAL ESTATE, is sufficiently distinct from
`
`the cited registration, so as not to 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,
`/Antonio G. Vann/
`
`Antonio G. Vann (VSB # 79765)
`Attorney of Record for the Applicant
`
`

`

`RAM SALE NUMBER: 86257986
`
`RAM ACCOUNTING DATE: 20150227
`
`INTERNET TRANSMISSION DATE:
`
`SERIAL NUMBER:
`
`2015/O2/27
`
`86/257986
`
`Description
`
`Fee
`Code
`
`Transaction
`
`Total Fees
`Paid
`
`POA
`
`7005
`
`2015/02/27
`
`I 00
`
`