PTO- 1957
`
`Approved for use through 11/30/2023. OMB 0651-0050
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it contains a valid OMB control number
`
`Response to Office Action
`
`The table below presents the data as entered.
`
`Input Field
`
`Entered
`
`SERIAL NUMBER
`
`LAW OFFICE ASSIGNED
`
`MARK SECTION (current)
`
`MARK FILE NAME
`
`LITERAL ELEMENT
`
`STANDARD CHARACTERS
`
`USPTO-GENERATED IMAGE
`
`DESCRIPTION OF THE MARK
`(and Color Location, if applicable)
`
`MARK SECTION (proposed)
`
`MARK FILE NAME
`
`LITERAL ELEMENT
`
`STANDARD CHARACTERS
`
`USPTO-GENERATED IMAGE
`
`COLOR MARK
`
`DESCRIPTION OF THE MARK
`(and Color Location, if applicable)
`
`PIXEL COUNT ACCEPTABLE
`
`PIXEL COUNT
`
`ARGUMENT(S)
`
`Please refer to the Evidence section for Argument.
`
`EVIDENCE SECTION
`
`        EVIDENCE FILE NAME(S)
`
`       ORIGINAL PDF FILE
`
`       CONVERTED PDF FILE(S)
`       (14 pages)
`
`90131990
`
`LAW OFFICE 107
`
`https://tmng-al.uspto.gov/resting2/api/img/90131990/large
`
`MISSOURI WOODWORKS
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`The mark consists of a circular design around the state of Missouri. Above and
`following the circular design is the wording "MISSOURI WOODWORKS" in
`stylized lettering.
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\901\319\90131990\xml6\ ROA0002.JPG
`
`MISSOURI WOODWORKS
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`The mark consists of a circular design consisting of two concentric circles around the
`state of Missouri and featuring a stylized background consisting of wood grain.
`Above the circular design is the wording "MISSOURI WOODWORKS" in stylized
`lettering.
`
`YES
`
`864 x 864
`
`evi_75166176254-202105281 50312505775_._OARESP_-_Re
`sponse_to_Office_Action_M ISSOURI_WOODWORKS.pdf
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\901\319\90131990\xml6\ ROA0003.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\901\319\90131990\xml6\ ROA0004.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\901\319\90131990\xml6\ ROA0005.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\901\319\90131990\xml6\ ROA0006.JPG
`
`       
`       
`       
`

`

`       ORIGINAL PDF FILE
`
`       CONVERTED PDF FILE(S)
`       (3 pages)
`
`       ORIGINAL PDF FILE
`
`       CONVERTED PDF FILE(S)
`       (12 pages)
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\901\319\90131990\xml6\ ROA0007.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\901\319\90131990\xml6\ ROA0008.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\901\319\90131990\xml6\ ROA0009.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\901\319\90131990\xml6\ ROA0010.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\901\319\90131990\xml6\ ROA0011.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\901\319\90131990\xml6\ ROA0012.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\901\319\90131990\xml6\ ROA0013.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\901\319\90131990\xml6\ ROA0014.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\901\319\90131990\xml6\ ROA0015.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\901\319\90131990\xml6\ ROA0016.JPG
`
`evi_75166176254-202105281 50312505775_._Exhibit_1.pdf
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\901\319\90131990\xml6\ ROA0017.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\901\319\90131990\xml6\ ROA0018.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\901\319\90131990\xml6\ ROA0019.JPG
`
`evi_75166176254-202105281 50312505775_._Exhibit_2.pdf
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\901\319\90131990\xml6\ ROA0020.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\901\319\90131990\xml6\ ROA0021.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\901\319\90131990\xml6\ ROA0022.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\901\319\90131990\xml6\ ROA0023.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\901\319\90131990\xml6\ ROA0024.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\901\319\90131990\xml6\ ROA0025.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\901\319\90131990\xml6\ ROA0026.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\901\319\90131990\xml6\ ROA0027.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\901\319\90131990\xml6\ ROA0028.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\901\319\90131990\xml6\ ROA0029.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\901\319\90131990\xml6\ ROA0030.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT 18\901\319\90131990\xml6\ ROA0031.JPG
`
`DESCRIPTION OF EVIDENCE FILE
`
`Office Action Response and Supporting Exhibits 1 and 2
`
`ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS SECTION
`
`DISCLAIMER
`
`ATTORNEY INFORMATION (current)
`
`NAME
`
`ATTORNEY BAR MEMBERSHIP NUMBER
`
`YEAR OF ADMISSION
`
`U.S. STATE/ COMMONWEALTH/ TERRITORY
`
`No claim is made to the exclusive right to use the outline of the state of Missouri and
`"MISSOURI WOODWORKS" apart from the mark as shown.
`
`Janet Moreira
`
`XXX
`
`XXXX
`
`XX
`
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`

`

`FIRM NAME
`
`INTERNAL ADDRESS
`
`STREET
`
`CITY
`
`STATE
`
`POSTAL CODE
`
`COUNTRY/REGION/JURISDICTION/U.S. TERRITORY
`
`PHONE
`
`FAX
`
`EMAIL
`
`ATTORNEY INFORMATION (proposed)
`
`NAME
`
`ATTORNEY BAR MEMBERSHIP NUMBER
`
`YEAR OF ADMISSION
`
`U.S. STATE/ COMMONWEALTH/ TERRITORY
`
`FIRM NAME
`
`INTERNAL ADDRESS
`
`STREET
`
`CITY
`
`STATE
`
`POSTAL CODE
`
`COUNTRY/REGION/JURISDICTION/U.S. TERRITORY
`
`PHONE
`
`FAX
`
`EMAIL
`
`OTHER APPOINTED ATTORNEY
`
`CORRESPONDENCE INFORMATION (current)
`
`NAME
`
`MAVEN IP
`
`SUITE 65
`
`9480 N.E. 2ND AVENUE
`
`MIAMI SHORES
`
`Florida
`
`33138
`
`United States
`
`305-967-7450
`
`305-967-7450
`
`janet@mavenip.com
`
`Janet Moreira
`
`XXX
`
`XXXX
`
`XX
`
`MAVEN IP
`
`Ste. 65
`
`9480 N.E. 2nd Avenue
`
`Miami Shores
`
`Florida
`
`33138
`
`United States
`
`305-967-7450
`
`305-967-7450
`
`janet@mavenip.com
`
`Gabriele Fougner
`
`JANET MOREIRA
`
`PRIMARY EMAIL ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE
`
`janet@mavenip.com
`
`SECONDARY EMAIL ADDRESS(ES) (COURTESY COPIES)
`
`trademarks@mavenip.com; barby@mavenip.com; christine@mavenip.com
`
`CORRESPONDENCE INFORMATION (proposed)
`
`NAME
`
`Janet Moreira
`
`PRIMARY EMAIL ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE
`
`janet@mavenip.com
`
`SECONDARY EMAIL ADDRESS(ES) (COURTESY COPIES)
`
`trademarks@mavenip.com; USPTO@dockettrak.com; gabriele@mavenip.com;
`juliana@mavenip.com
`
`SIGNATURE SECTION
`
`RESPONSE SIGNATURE
`
`SIGNATORY'S NAME
`
`/Janet Moreira/
`
`Janet Moreira
`
`

`

`SIGNATORY'S POSITION
`
`SIGNATORY'S PHONE NUMBER
`
`DATE SIGNED
`
`Attorney of record, Florida bar member
`
`3059677450
`
`05/28/2021
`
`ROLE OF AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
`
`Authorized U.S.-Licensed Attorney
`
`SIGNATURE METHOD
`
`Sent to third party for signature
`
`FILING INFORMATION SECTION
`
`SUBMIT DATE
`
`TEAS STAMP
`
`Fri May 28 16:52:10 ET 2021
`
`USPTO/ROA-XX.XXX.XXX.XXX-
`20210528165210734011-9013
`1990-7808538223c76d23db87
`ea678e1ebc5560aa2e8cbbda4
`bb2c05377668ec7bfb6d-N/A-
`N/A-20210528150312505775
`
`PTO- 1957
`
`Approved for use through 11/30/2023. OMB 0651-0050
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it contains a valid OMB control number
`
`To the Commissioner for Trademarks:
`
`Response to Office Action
`
`Application serial no. 90131990 MISSOURI WOODWORKS (Stylized and/or with Design, see https://tmng-al.uspto.gov
`/resting2/api/img/9013199 0/large) has been amended as follows:
`
`MARK
`Applicant proposes to amend the mark as follows:
`Current: MISSOURI WOODWORKS (Stylized and/or with Design, see https://tmng-al.uspto.gov /resting2/api/img/9013199 0/large)
`Proposed: MISSOURI WOODWORKS (Stylized and/or with Design, see mark)
`The applicant is not claiming color as a feature of the mark.
`The mark consists of a circular design consisting of two concentric circles around the state of Missouri and featuring a stylized background
`consisting of wood grain. Above the circular design is the wording "MISSOURI WOODWORKS" in stylized lettering.
`
`ARGUMENT(S)
`In response to the substantive refusal(s), please note the following:
`
`Please refer to the Evidence section for Argument.
`
`EVIDENCE
`Evidence has been attached: Office Action Response and Supporting Exhibits 1 and 2
`Original PDF file:
`evi_75166176254-202105281 50312505775_._OARESP_-_Re sponse_to_Office_Action_M ISSOURI_WOODWORKS.pdf
`Converted PDF file(s) ( 14 pages) Evidence-1Evidence-2Evidence-3Evidence-4Evidence-5Evidence-6
`Evidence-7Evidence-8Evidence-9Evidence-10Evidence-11Evidence-12Evidence-13Evidence-14
`Original PDF file:
`evi_75166176254-202105281 50312505775_._Exhibit_1.pdf
`Converted PDF file(s) ( 3 pages) Evidence-1Evidence-2Evidence-3
`Original PDF file:
`evi_75166176254-202105281 50312505775_._Exhibit_2.pdf
`Converted PDF file(s) ( 12 pages) Evidence-1Evidence-2Evidence-3Evidence-4Evidence-5Evidence-6
`Evidence-7Evidence-8Evidence-9Evidence-10Evidence-11Evidence-12
`
`ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS
`
`

`

`Disclaimer
`No claim is made to the exclusive right to use the outline of the state of Missouri and "MISSOURI WOODWORKS" apart from the mark as
`shown.
`
`The owner's/holder's current attorney information: Janet Moreira. Janet Moreira of MAVEN IP, is a member of the XX bar, admitted to the bar in
`XXXX, bar membership no. XXX, is located at
`
`      SUITE 65
`      9480 N.E. 2ND AVENUE
`      MIAMI SHORES, Florida 33138
`      United States
`      The phone number is 305-967-7450.
`      The fax number is 305-967-7450.
`      The email address is janet@mavenip.com
`
`The owner's/holder's proposed attorney information: Janet Moreira. Other appointed attorneys are Gabriele Fougner. Janet Moreira of MAVEN
`IP, is a member of the XX bar, admitted to the bar in XXXX, bar membership no. XXX, and the attorney(s) is located at
`
`      Ste. 65
`      9480 N.E. 2nd Avenue
`      Miami Shores, Florida 33138
`      United States
`      The phone number is 305-967-7450.
`      The fax number is 305-967-7450.
`      The email address is janet@mavenip.com
`
`Janet Moreira submitted the following statement: The attorney of record is an active member in good standing of the bar of the highest court of a
`U.S. state, the District of Columbia, or any U.S. Commonwealth or territory.
`
`Correspondence Information (current):
`      JANET MOREIRA
`      PRIMARY EMAIL FOR CORRESPONDENCE: janet@mavenip.com
`      SECONDARY EMAIL ADDRESS(ES) (COURTESY COPIES): trademarks@mavenip.com; barby@mavenip.com; christine@mavenip.com
`
`Correspondence Information (proposed):
`      Janet Moreira
`      PRIMARY EMAIL FOR CORRESPONDENCE: janet@mavenip.com
`      SECONDARY EMAIL ADDRESS(ES) (COURTESY COPIES): trademarks@mavenip.com; USPTO@dockettrak.com;
`gabriele@mavenip.com; juliana@mavenip.com
`
`Requirement for Email and Electronic Filing: I understand that a valid email address must be maintained by the owner/holder and the
`owner's/holder's attorney, if appointed, and that all official trademark correspondence must be submitted via the Trademark Electronic
`Application System (TEAS).
`
`SIGNATURE(S)
`Response Signature
`Signature: /Janet Moreira/     Date: 05/28/2021
`Signatory's Name: Janet Moreira
`Signatory's Position: Attorney of record, Florida bar member
`
`Signatory's Phone Number: 3059677450 Signature method: Sent to third party for signature
`
`The signatory has confirmed that he/she is a U.S.-licensed attorney who is an active member in good standing of the bar of the highest court of a
`U.S. state (including the District of Columbia and any U.S. Commonwealth or territory); and he/she is currently the owner's/holder's attorney or
`an associate thereof; and to the best of his/her knowledge, if prior to his/her appointment another U.S.-licensed attorney not currently associated
`with his/her company/firm previously represented the owner/holder in this matter: the owner/holder has revoked their power of attorney by a
`signed revocation or substitute power of attorney with the USPTO; the USPTO has granted that attorney's withdrawal request; the owner/holder
`has filed a power of attorney appointing him/her in this matter; or the owner's/holder's appointed U.S.-licensed attorney has filed a power of
`attorney appointing him/her as an associate attorney in this matter.
`
`

`

`Mailing Address:    JANET MOREIRA
`   MAVEN IP
`   SUITE 65
`   9480 N.E. 2ND AVENUE
`   MIAMI SHORES, Florida 33138
`Mailing Address:    Janet Moreira
`   MAVEN IP
`   Ste. 65
`   9480 N.E. 2nd Avenue
`   Miami Shores, Florida 33138
`
`Serial Number: 90131990
`Internet Transmission Date: Fri May 28 16:52:10 ET 2021
`TEAS Stamp: USPTO/ROA-XX.XXX.XXX.XXX-202105281652107
`34011-90131990-7808538223c76d23db87ea678
`e1ebc5560aa2e8cbbda4bb2c05377668ec7bfb6d
`-N/A-N/A-20210528150312505775
`
`        
` 
`

`

`
`
`

`

`Trademarks
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Applicant:
`
`MindBomb LLC
`
`
`
`Mark:
`Serial No.
`Trademark
`Examining Attorney:
`LawOffice:
`
`90131990
`
`Jimmy Stein
`107
`
`Response to Office Action
`
`Applicant MindBomb, LLC (“Applicant”) hereby responds to the Office Action dated
`
`December21, 2020 issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (‘USPTO’). The
`
`USPTO has initially refused to register Applicant’s mark, MISSOURI WOODWORKS &
`
`Design, subject of Application Serial No. 90131990 (sometimes referred to as “Applicant’s
`
`Mark”), on the following bases: (1) Specimen Refusal; (11) Disclaimer Requirement; and (111) Mark
`
`Description Requirement.
`
`Applicant’s Mark wasfiled in connection with the following goods/services:
`
`Class 021:
`
`Cheese boards; Cutting boards; Cutting boards for the
`kitchen; Lazy susans; Serving trays.
`
`I
`
`AMENDMENT
`
`A. Mark Description
`
`Applicant hereby amends its mark description as follows:
`
`1
`@ MAVENIP e
`
`@ 9480 N.E. 25¢ Ave., Suite 65, Miami Shores, FL 33138 @ Local Tel & Fax: 305.967.7450 @
`Www. mavenip. com
`
`

`

`Trademarks
`
`The mark consists of a circular design consisting of two concentric
`circles around the state of Missouri and featuring a stylized background
`consisting of wood grain. Above the circular design is the wording
`"MISSOURI WOODWORKS"1nstylized lettering.
`
`B. Disclaimer
`
`Applicant hereby submits the following disclaimer:
`
`Noclaim is made to the exclusive right to use the outline of the state of Missouri
`and “MISSOURI WOODWORKS”apart from the mark as shown.
`
`Il.
`
`RESPONSE
`
`A. Specimen Refusal
`
`The USPTO has refused Applicant’s Mark onthe basis that the mark shownonthe drawing
`
`does not match the mark on the specimen submitted and cites TMEP § 801.12(a). The USPTO
`
`argues that the specimen displays the mark as MISSOURI WOODWORKSAN INNOVATIVE
`
`CUSTOM WORKSHOP (& Design) and the drawing displays the mark as MISSOURI
`
`WOODWORKS(& Design). In its application dated August 24, 2020, Applicant submitted the
`
`following drawing:
`
`
`
`The mark displayed on the specimen, submitted in support of Applicant’s application, 1s:
`
`2
`@ MAVENIP e
`
`@ 9480 N.E. 28¢ Ave., Suite 65, Miami Shores, FL 33138 @ Local Tel & Fax: 305.967.7450 @
`Www. mavenip. com
`
`

`

`|
`
`I
`
`Trademarks
`
`
`
`and
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`-R
`
`e |
`
`Phad
`
`The legal standard for evaluating whether a drawing matches a specimenis established in
`
`Section 2.51(a) of the Rules of Practice in Trademark Cases, authorized by 15 U.S. Code § 1123,
`
`which providesas follows:
`
`In an application under section l(a) of the Act, the drawing of the mark must be a
`substantially exact representation of the mark as used on or in connection with the
`goods and/or services.
`
`(emphasis added).
`
`“[T]he determination of whether a mark shown in the drawing is a substantially exact
`oo5
`
`representation of the mark shown on the specimen is ‘assuredly a subjective one.’
`
`In re wTe
`
`Corp., 87 USPQ2d 1536, 1539 (TTAB 2008) (quoting In re R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 222 USPQ
`
`552, 552 (TTAB 1984)) [precedential] (emphasis added). Indeed, “each case presents its own
`
`unique circumstances and requires a judgment as to that particular designation.” Jn re 1175856
`
`Ontario Ltd., 81 USPQ2d 1146, 1448 (TTAB 2006) [precedential].
`
`An applicant has some latitude in selecting the mark it wants to register.
`
`TMEP
`
`§807.12(d); In re 1175856 Ontario Ltd., 81 USPQ2d at 1448.
`
`It is well-settled that an applicant
`
`mayseek to register any portion of a composite mark 1f that portion presents a separate and distinct
`
`3
`@ MAVENIP e
`
`@ 9480 N.E. 28¢ Ave., Suite 65, Miami Shores, FL 33138 @ Local Tel & Fax: 305.967.7450 @
`Www. mavenip. com
`
`

`

`Trademarks
`
`commercial impression that indicates source of the applicant’s goods/services and distinguishes
`
`them from the goods/services of others. Jn re Chem. Dynamics Inc., 839 F.2d 1569, 5 USPQ2d
`
`1828, 1829 (Fed. Cir. 1988). If the portion of the mark sought to be registered does not create a
`
`separate and distinct commercial impression, the result is an impermissible mutilation of the mark
`
`as used. See In Re University ofMiami, 123 USPQ2d 1075 (TTAB 2017) [precedential] (the Board
`
`found that despite the appearance of the text, “the overall display on the specimens creates the
`
`separate and distinct commercial impression ofa personified ibis). See the following summary
`
`of cases where the TTAB reversed the USPTO’s refusals that the specimens were not
`
`
`
`substantially exact representations of application drawings and finding that the instead,
`
`
`
`specimens were acceptable.
`
`
`Specimen
`Drawing
`Case
`
`
`
`
`
`[precedential] EseI
`
`
`
`In Re University of
`Miami,
`123 USPQ2d
`1075.
`(TTAB
`2017)
`
`
`4
`@ MAVENIP e
`
`@ 9480 N.E. 28¢ Ave., Suite 65, Miami Shores, FL 33138 @ Local Tel & Fax: 305.967.7450 @
`www.mavenip.com
`
`

`

`Trademarks
`
`
`
`ai
`a
`
`A
`a
`&
`A>
`&
`-
`1H
`
`#
`
`s
`
`Ke
`
`Mt
`
`df Ly uu >
`
` WSI
`
`a
`
`A,
`“>
`a
`A
`A
`>
`
`HdtytM
`“4ffiy
`
`y
`wy
`N
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WWI i7,-
`In re TBL Licensing
`"Ip
`LLC,
`Serial
`No.
`86684964
`(TTAB
`25,
`September
`2017)
`[non-precedential] !
`
`
`In re 1175856 Ontario
`Ltd., 81 USPQ2d 1146,
`1448
`(TTAB
`2006)
`[precedential]
`
`
`1 TMEP §705.05 states:
`
`Prior to December 27, 2006, it was the policy of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board that Board opinions
`not designated as precedential should not be cited and, if cited, were to be disregarded. Gen. Mills Inc.v.
`Health Valley Foods, 24 USPQ2d 1270, 1275 n.9 (TTAB 1992). The Board has changed that policy. In
`announcing the change, the Board stated that:
`
`[T]he Board will henceforth permit citation to any TTAB disposition as follows:
`
`The TTAB will continue its current practice of designating all final decisions as either
`precedential or not precedential. Unless specifically designated as precedential, an order
`on a motion should be considered not precedential.
`
`The TTAB will continueits practice of considering precedential decisions as binding upon
`the TTAB.
`
`A decision designated as not precedential is not binding upon the TTAB but_maybecited
`for whatever persuasive value it might have.
`
`Citation to all TTAB decisions should be to the United States Patent Quarterly, if the
`decision appears therein; otherwise, to a USPTO public electronic database.
`If a non-
`precedential decision does not appear in the United States Patent Quarterly or the USPTO's
`public electronic databases, the citing party should append a copy of the decision to the
`motion or brief in which the decision iscited.
`
`Decisions of other tribunals may be cited to the extent allowed and for the purposes
`permitted by the tribunal that issued the decision.
`5
`@ MAVENIP e
`
`@ 9480 N.E. 28¢ Ave., Suite 65, Miami Shores, FL 33138 @ Local Tel & Fax: 305.967.7450 @
`www.mavenip.com
`
`

`

`
`
`Trademarks
`
`re Karsten Mfg.
`In
`Corp.,
`Serial
`No.
`78347910
`(TTAB
`2005)?
`
`
`
`In re Nat'l Inst. for Auto.
`Serv. Excellence,
`218
`USPQ 744, 745 (TTAB
`1983)
`[non-
`precedential]?
`
`
`
`
`In re Schecter Bros.
`
`USPQ 694, 695 (TTAB
`1974)4
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`iy
`
`.
`
`Dyel:
`PRODUCTS
`
`Renn;
`
`
`
` Sead
`
`
`
`Modular
`
`Corp.
`
`182
`
`
`
`Inc., 137
`In re Sterno,
`USPQ 328 (TTAB 1963)
`[non-precedential]*°
`
`? In Karsten, the Board permitted registration of the mark as shownonthe left, where the submitted specimen and
`actual use shownonthe right contained overlaid word elements “G2” and “PING”.
`> In Auto, the Board found the design of meshed gears "is distinctive in nature" and "creates a commercial
`impression separate and apart from the words superimposed thereon".
`*In Schecter, the Board found that where specimens showmark consisting in part of "RAINAIRE" together with its
`shadowimage, it is not a mutilation of mark to delete shadow image from drawing since "RAINAIRE"creates the
`essential impression.
`>In Sterno, the Board foundthat the design of a bear with a can or container aroundits torso was separate fromthe
`word “STERNO”appearing on the label of the container.
`6
`
`@ MAVENIP e
`
`@ 9480 N.E. 25¢ Ave., Suite 65, Miami Shores, FL 33138 @ Local Tel & Fax: 305.967.7450 @
`www.mavenip.com
`
`

`

`Trademarks
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`InreDempsterBrothers,|DUMPMASTER Dd EMPSTE
`
`132 USPQ 300
`Inc.,
`(TTAB
`1961)
`[non-
`precedential|
`
`UMPMASTE
`
`There are several cases that have come to this determination, especially as to composite
`
`marks, however no imagesexist to show the differences. See Jn re Servel, Inc., 181 F.2d 192, 85
`
`USPQ 257, 260 (CCPA 1950) (refusal to register the mark SERVELas a mutilation of “SERVEL
`
`INKLINGS”reversed, where the specimen displays an insignia between the words “SERVEL”
`
`and “INKLINGS”) [precedential]; fn re Raychem Corp., 12 USPQ2d 1399, 1400 (TTAB 1989)
`
`(reversing the refusal to register TINEL-LOCK as mutilation of mark "TRO6AI-TINEL-LOCK-
`
`RING," noting that part or stock number does not usually function as a source identifier, and the
`
`“fact that hyphens connect both the part number and the generic term to the mark does not,
`
`under_the circumstances presented in this case, create_a_unitary expression such that
`
`‘“TINEL-LOCK’has no significance by itself as_a_trademark.”) [non-precedential];
`
`Jn re
`
`Sansui Electric Co., Litd., 194 USPQ 202 (TTAB 1977) (Board allowedregistration of QSE and
`
`QSD;specimens showed use as QSE-4 and QSD-4) [non-precedential].
`
`Applicant submits that (1) MISSOURI WOODWORKS& Designis a trademark; and (2)
`
`that the MISSOURI WOODWORKS& Design mark is a separate and distinct mark without the
`
`wording AN INNOVATIVE CUSTOM WORKSHOP. Simply because Applicant sometimes
`
`includes the language AN INNOVATIVE, CUSTOM WORKSHOPand sometimes it does not,
`
`does not diminish Applicant’s Mark as a trademark, capable of distinguishing Applicant’s
`
`goods/services from others. In fact, unlike the many examples referenced above, the wording that
`
`is excluded from Applicant’s drawing is not
`
`intricately connected to the MISSOURI
`
`7
`@ MAVENIP e
`
`@ 9480 N.E. 28¢ Ave., Suite 65, Miami Shores, FL 33138 @ Local Tel & Fax: 305.967.7450 @
`www.mavenip.com
`
`

`

`Trademarks
`
`WOODWORKS & Design mark. The specimen 1s a substantially exact representation of the
`
`drawing and any text that is missing from the drawing is informational, non-distinctive, and/or
`
`immaterial. TMEP §§ 807.12(a), 807.14(a). Any variations between the mark depicted in the
`
`drawing and the mark depicted in the specimen are inconsequential and do not create a different
`
`overall commercial
`
`impression. The USPTO has not
`
`submitted any evidence that AN
`
`INNOVATIVE CUSTOM WORKSHOPisindicative of third-party source such that it would
`
`convey a different commercial impression fromthe drawing.
`
`1. AN INNOVATIVE CUSTOM WORKSHOPIs Informational Matter
`
`It is well settled that “[e]xtraneous matter shown on the specimenthat is not part ofthe
`
`mark (e.g., ... informational matter []) may not be shown on the drawing.” TMEP §807.12(a)
`
`(emphasis added). TMEP §1202.04. “Matter is merely informational and does not function as a
`
`mark when, based on its nature and the context of its use by the applicant and/or others in the
`
`marketplace, consumers would perceive it as merely conveying general information about the
`
`goods orservices or an informational message, and not as a meansto identify anddistinguish the
`
`applicant’s goods/services fromthose ofothers.” TMEP §1202.04.
`
`Similar to the case at bar is TBE and Institut Nat. Des Appellations D'Origine v. Vintners
`
`Int'l Co., 958 F.2d 1574, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1992) [precedential]. In TBL, after the USPTO foundthat
`
`the presence ofthe additional elements incorporated in the mark shownin the specimenofuse,
`
`including the additional wording “TIMBERLAND” onthe specimenthat was not in the drawing,
`
`changed the mark, the Board reversed, reasoning that “[m]erchants often present a mark together
`
`with other matter.” JBL, Serial No. 86684964 (TTAB 2017).
`
`8
`@ MAVENIP e
`
`@ 9480 N.E. 25¢ Ave., Suite 65, Miami Shores, FL 33138 @ Local Tel & Fax: 305.967.7450 @
`www.mavenip.com
`
`

`

`Trademarks
`
`In Jnstitut,
`
`the court found that
`
`the word “CALIFORNIA” was informational and
`
`therefore,
`
`the specimenreflecting the word was still a substantially exact representation of
`
`CHABLIS WITH A TWIST. Jnstitut, 958 F.2d at 1582.
`
`TAYLOR _ a Ti mia
`
`Col
`
`aPsion
`oe CHABLIS &
`}—%& TWIST «©
`a ACRISP. FLAVORFUL WHITE WINE WITH A HINT OF NATURAL CITRUS
`r-
`~~,
`.
`+,
`ALC. 11.0% BY VOL.
`A
`oe
`(EEanee ae «eet —
`gi
`FIGURE 1
`
`Just as in TBE and Institut, the wording in the case at bar, namely, AN INNOVATIVE,
`
`CUSTOM WOODSHOP1s simply informational matter, in other words, an informational message
`
`used on marketing materials.
`
`It 1s not distinctive matter.
`
`In fact, the wording under the mark
`
`changes depending on the product being sold and advertised. See Exhibit 1. The wording AN
`
`INNOVATIVE, CUSTOM WOODSHOP(used when advertising Applicant’s goods/services
`
`under the MISSOURI WOODWORKS & Design mark is interchangeable with “CUTTING
`
`BOARD OIL” and “COMPLIMENTARY CAREKIT” (used to identify certain of Applicant’s
`
`products). See Exhibit 1.
`
`Just as the State where a wine was produced was informational and not
`
`part of the Jnstitut applicant’s mark, all of the above phrases are information in that they tell
`
`consumers more about Applicant’s goods/services — the phrasing doesnot act as a source identifier
`
`and are not a part of Applicant’s composite mark.
`
`
`9
`@ MAVENIP e
`
`@ 9480 N.E. 25¢ Ave., Suite 65, Miami Shores, FL 33138 @ Local Tel & Fax: 305.967.7450 @
`www.mavenip.com
`
`€
`

`

`Trademarks
`
`Merchantsoften present their marks with additional informational matter. See Exhibit 2.°
`
`In fact, the most common “message[s] [] ordinarily [] used in advertising []
`
`in the relevant
`
`industry” (TMEP §1202.04) in this instance are a variation of “CUSTOM WOODSHOP” or
`
`“CUSTOM WOODWORKING?”or “CLASSIC CRAFTSMANSHIP” or “FINE CUSTOM [type
`
`of good]” or “CUSTOM FINE[type of goods]” or “CUSTOM [type of GOOD] and FINE
`
`WOODWORKING”. See Exhibit 2. These phrases used, in close association with the respective
`
`seller’s marks, are informational matter ordinarily used in the woodworking industry to advertise
`
`and communicate with the consuming public about the goods and services being sold. Importantly,
`
`these messages are “not [] a means to identify and distinguish the [merchant]’s goods/services
`
`from those of others.” TMEP §1202.04.
`
`In fact, these words cannot be used to “identify and
`
`distinguish the applicant’s goods/services from those of others” because they all use the same
`
`words, and all such words need to be available to all merchants in the woodworking industry. Jd
`
`(“Matter may be merely informational and fail to function as a source indicatorfor various reasons,
`
`including...[if] the matter is a common phrase or message that would ordinarily be used in
`
`advertising or in the relevant industry.”); see also, Exhibit 2.
`
`
`
` 2)
`
`3)
`4)
`5)
`6)
`7)
`8)
`
`
`
`° Exhibit 2 consists of the following URLS, herein madeofrecord, last assessed May 6, 2021:
`
`1)
`https://www.angelcitywoodshop.com/
`://thanelorbach.com/
`s://WWW.mattin-antique-restorations.com/
`
`3 //www.lewiswoodshop.com/
`
`https://www.eldridgelumberyard.com/custom-woodshop
`
`
`https://leidyswoodworking.com/
`
`http:/Avww.jimcardoncustoms.com/
`
`http://lechnercw.com/custom-woodshop/waukesha/
`Www.cabinetsbycw.com/
`https://www.the-woodshop.net/
`11) https:/Awww.macikwoodworking.com/
`10
`@ MAVENIP e
`
`@ 9480 N.E. 28¢ Ave., Suite 65, Miami Shores, FL 33138 @ Local Tel & Fax: 305.967.7450 @
`Www. mavenip. com
`
`

`

`Trademarks
`
`Importantly, while “[d]Jeletion of matter from the mark canresult in a materialalteration....
`
`[i]nformational matter...shou/ld [] be deleted from the mark, unlessit is truly part of a composite
`
`mark and the removal of this matter would alter the overall commercial impression.” TMEP
`
`§807.14(a). (emphasis added). This reasoning further supports reversal ofthe refusal here. Here,
`
`Applicant has deleted the informational material AN INNOVATIVE, CUSTOM WORKSHOP
`
`from the drawing;
`
`the deletion of the informational material does not alter the commercial
`
`impressionofthe mark; the matter AN INNOVATIVE, CUSTOM WORKSHOP1s separable from
`
`the other elements; and the Applicant’s Mark is registerable matter. See TMEP §§1202.04. “The
`
`controlling question [in determining ifdeletion results in material alteration] is always whether the
`
`old and newforms of the mark create essentially the same commercial impression. See Jack
`
`Wolfskin Ausrustung Fur Draussen GmbH & Co. KGAA v. New Millennium Sports, S.L.U., 797
`
`F.3d 1363, 1370, 116 USPQ2d 1129, 1133-34 (Fed. Cir. 2015) [precedential] (emphasis added).
`
`For the reasons discussed herein, AN INNOVATIVE, CUSTOM WOODSHOP is
`
`separable informational matter and deletion of such matter is appropriate. Applicant respecttully
`
`requests that the Examiner withdrawits refusal of Applicant’s specimen.
`
`2. AN_ INNOVATIVE, CUSTOM WOODSHOP is Separable_from_the Other
`Elements in Applicant’s Mark
`
`To determine if an element of a mark is inseparable from the mark as a whole, namely,
`
`whether the mark is unitary, the USPTO must consider a numberoffactors, including “whetherit
`
`is physically connected by lines or other design features; the relative location of the respective
`
`elements; and the meaning of the terminology as used on or in connection with the goods or
`
`11
`@ MAVENIP e
`
`@ 9480 N.E. 25¢ Ave., Suite 65, Miami Shores, FL 33138 @ Local Tel & Fax: 305.967.7450 @
`Www. mavenip. com
`
`

`

`Trademarks
`
`services.” TMEP §1213.05 (citing Dena Corp. v. Belvedere Int’l, Inc., 950 F.2d 1555, 1561, 21
`
`USPQ2d 1047, 1052 (Fed. Cir. 1991) [precedential] at 1052).
`
`In Dena, the Federal court found that the word element of the mark was not physically
`
`connected by lines or design with the design element. Jd. The court distinguished the case from
`
`others, where the marks were “indivisible symbol[s] rather than two divisible [elements].” /d
`
`(citing B. Kuppenheimer & Co. v. Kayser-Roth Corp., 326 F.2d 820, 823 (C.C.P.A. 1964). The
`
`court reasoned that where elements were inextricably linked such that when one element was
`
`removed, it changed the other elements of the mark, then the elements were inseparable. For
`
`example, in the below mark, the word SUPPANTSwould changeif the two “P” letters along with
`
`the whole word KUPPENHEIMERwas removed:
`
`*
`€ K:
`uppenhei
`suppSirs mer
`
`id
`
`Here, AN INNOVATIVE, CUSTOM WORKSHOP, as
`
`that
`
`language appears on
`
`Applicant’s specimen, is not physically connected to Applicant’s Mark by lines or other design
`
`features,
`
`the location of the mark is at bottom of Applicant’s Mark,
`
`the wording AN
`
`INNOVATIVE, CUSTOM WORKSHOP isin a smaller, less distinct, non-bolded font, and the
`
`wording is descriptive and non-distinctive. Applicant’s Mark is not reliant on the wording AN
`
`INNOVATIVE, CUSTOM WORKSHOP and has a distinct meaning independent from this
`
`wording. Removal of this language does not disrupt Applicant’s Mark. Due to prominent and
`
`distinct design of Applicant’s Mark, the commercial impression in the drawing and the specimen
`
`are the same. See, e.g. Dena, 950 F.2d at 156 (“[nJothing melds [the word element of the mark]
`
`with the [] design to create a single indivisible symbol.”)
`
`12
`@ MAVENIP e
`
`@ 9480 N.E. 25¢ Ave., Suite 65, Miami Shores, FL 33138 @ Local Tel & Fax: 305.967.7450 @
`Www. mavenip. com
`
`

`

`Trademarks
`
`For the reasons discussed herein, Applicant respectfully requests that
`
`the Examiner
`
`withdrawits refusal of Applicant’s specimen.
`
`3. The Mark Contains Registerable Source-Indicating Matter Apart from AN
`INNOVATIVE, CUSTOM WOODSHOP
`
`Applicant’s Mark is registerable.
`
`“The critical inquiry in determining whether matter
`
`functions as a trademark or service mark is how the proposed mark would be perceived by the
`
`relevant public.” TMEP §1202.04 (citing D.C. One Wholesaler, Inc., 120 USPQ2d 1710, 1713
`
`(TTAB 2016) [precedential]; Jn re Phoseon Tech., Inc., 103 USPQ2d 1822, 1827 (TTAB 2012)
`
`(noting that the critical inquiry in determining whether a mark functions as a trademark is the
`
`"commercial impression it makes on the relevant public (e.g., whether the term sought to be
`
`registered would be perceived as a mark identifying the source of the goods)") [precedential]; Jn
`
`re Eagle Crest, Inc., 96 USPQ2d 1229 [precedential]; Jn re Remington Prods., Inc., 3 USPQ2d
`
`1715 [non-precedential].
`
`Section 45 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1127, defines trademark as follows:
`
`The term "trademark" includes any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination
`thereof—
`(1) used by a person, or
`(2) which a person has a bonafide intention to use in commerce and applies to register on
`the principal register established by this Act,
`to identify and distinguish his or her goods, including a unique product, from those
`manufactured or sold by others and to indicate the source of the goods, even if that source 1s
`unknown.
`
`Here, there is no qu