181
Trademark Forum / Re: a really simple trademark question
« on: 05-25-11 at 12:09 pm »
First, the test under section 2(d) is likelihood of confusion, not identity of marks. Your analysis therefore falls a bit short (although in the end your conclusions may hold true).
Second, the "IC #" is besides the point. If you don't have use under section 1(a), your application will be refused (subject to amendment to ITU status and later submission of a statement of use). My concern is larger, though. I fear that you may not be using the "mark" as a mark at all.
Finally, there is no refund. The "system" does not check anything other than making sure you have the proper fields filled-out. The examiner does the substantive review. TEAS expressly warns you that your application may be refused and there are no refunds if it is.
- Jeff
Second, the "IC #" is besides the point. If you don't have use under section 1(a), your application will be refused (subject to amendment to ITU status and later submission of a statement of use). My concern is larger, though. I fear that you may not be using the "mark" as a mark at all.
Finally, there is no refund. The "system" does not check anything other than making sure you have the proper fields filled-out. The examiner does the substantive review. TEAS expressly warns you that your application may be refused and there are no refunds if it is.
- Jeff

