Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[starman]

I received a likelihood of confusion refusal where the examining attorney states our goods and services are encompassed by the prior registrant's  (in this case, computer application software for mobile phones without specifying field of use or purpose).  There are multiple international classes of goods and services, and types of goods and services within 009 provided by the registrant, which possibly could be used to narrow the scope a bit.  There is a specimen of use which much more clearly clarifies what the software does. 

In this case, how can we argue?   
- for example, can we use their specimen as evidence to define what the scope of their G&S really is?  Our G&S would no longer be encompassed.

[starman]

Anyone have any thoughts on this?  The TMEP (1402.03d) clearly says computer programs must be identified with specificity... but in this case, the registration has already been granted.  Does this mean the other identified goods and services, AND evidence in the specimen of use (or elsewhere) can be used to determine the scope of the goods and services?

I also found this-- but not sure it applies here:
An applicant may not restrict the scope of its goods and/or the scope of the goods covered in the registration by extrinsic argument or evidence, for example, as to the quality or price of the goods. See, e.g., In re Bercut-Vandervoort & Co., 229 USPQ 763, 764 (TTAB 1986).
Where the terminology in the identification is unclear, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has permitted an applicant to provide extrinsic evidence to show that the registrant’s identification has a specific meaning to members of the trade. The Board noted that in light of such evidence it is improper to consider the identification in a vacuum and attach all possible interpretations to it. In re Trackmobile Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1152, 1154 (TTAB 1990).

[Marke]

I'm afraid you're out of luck, at least with that argument.  See, e.g., http://des.uspto.gov/Foia/ReterivePdf?flNm=78377319-02-15-2006&system=TTABIS