IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`In re application of:
`Human Genome Sciences, Inc.
`
`Appl. No.2 75/792,421
`
`Examining Attorney: Marlene D. Bell
`
`Filed: September 3, 1999
`
`Law Office: 105
`
`Mark: FAS TR
`
`Atty. Docket: 1488.1350000/TGD/KNR
`
`Applicant’s Ex Parte Appeal Brief
`in Support of Registration of its Trademark Application
`
`.
`#57
`M
`ficpt, Di,
`\\\lili\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
`\
`U.S. P319”
`\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\§\:i\l\1\5:002
`
`Tracy-Gene G. Durkin
`Kimberly N. Reddick
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & Fox P.L.L.C.
`
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`(202) 371-2600
`
`(202) 371-2540 Fax
`
`Attorneys for Applicant
`Human Genome Sciences, Inc.
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Applicant has appealed the Examining Attomey’s final refusal of Application Serial No.
`
`75/792,421. The Examiner’s refusal is based on the allegation that Applicant’s mark FAS TR is
`
`likely to cause confusion with Registration Nos. 1,991,859 and 2,010,660, both for the mark
`
`FASTRNA. Applicant submits that the Examining attorney has refused registration of its mark in
`
`error, and respectfully requests that the Board reverse the refusal.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS
`
`Pursuant to Section 1(b) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §1051(b), Applicant, Human
`
`Genome Sciences, Inc., filed a trademark application on September 3, 1999 for the mark FAS TR
`
`for use in connection with "proteins and/or nucleic acids and pharmaceutical preparations containing
`
`proteins and/or nucleic acids."
`
`On January 3, 2000, the Examiner issued a refusal of the mark based on Section 2(d) of the
`
`Trademark Act, alleging that the applied for mark was likely to cause confusion with Registration
`
`Nos. 1,991,859 and 2,010,660 owned by B10 101 for the mark FASTRNA, for use with "diagnostic
`
`and process reagent kits and components-for rapid isolation and purification of nucleic acid for
`
`scientific or research use" and "medical diagnostic and process reagent kits and components for rapid
`
`isolation and purification of nucleic acid for laboratory use." In that action, the Examiner also
`
`

`
`
`
`Human Genome Sciences, Inc.
`
`Appl. No. 75/792,421
`
`required amendment of the identification of goods and requested that Applicant submit information
`
`regarding the significance of the mark FAS TR.
`
`On June 30, 2000, Applicant filed a Response to the Office Action, arguing against the
`
`likelihood of confusion refusal, amending the identification of goods, explaining the lack of
`
`significance of the mark and forwarding payment of an additional class fee. On June 18, 2001, the
`
`Examiner made a final refusal of the mark based on likelihood of confusion. The Examiner also
`
`maintained that the identification of goods was unacceptable. On December 18, 2001, Applicant
`
`filed a Notice of Appeal along with a Request for Reconsideration of the likelihood of confusion
`
`refusal. Applicant also submitted an amendment to the identification of goods. The Examiner
`
`denied the Request for Reconsideration as to the likelihood of confusion refusal. However, the
`
`Examiner gave no indication as to whether Applicant’s amendment to the identification of goods was
`
`acceptable. The Applicant therefore assumes that the Examiner had no objections to the amendment,
`
`and that the identification of goods has been accepted.
`
`Therefore, the only issue on appeal is whether the mark FAS TR, for use in connection with
`
`"genetically engineered reagents for scientific and research use, namely, nucleic acids and proteins
`
`for use in diagnosis and development of pharmaceutical preparations for the treatment of diseases;
`
`and pharmaceutical preparations containing proteins and nucleic acids for the treatment of diseases"
`
`is confusingly similar to the mark FASTRNA for diagnostic kits.
`
`_3_
`
`

`
`
`
`Human Genome Sciences, Inc.
`
`Appl. No. 75/792,421
`
`III.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`Similarity of the Marks
`
`In determining likelihood of confusion between marks, one must consider the principal
`
`factors set out in In re E.I. DuPont de Nemours & C0. , 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973).
`
`Among these factors are (1) the similarity or dissimilarity of the marks in their entireties as to
`
`appearance, sound, meaning and commercial impression; (2) the strength of the marks as evidenced
`
`by the number and nature of similar marks in use on similar goods; and (3) the similarity or
`
`dissimilarity of the goods. Id. Not all the factors set forth in DuPont must be considered in the
`
`determination. In fact, one factor by itself may be dispositive of the issue of confusion, especially
`ifthat one factor is the similarity/dissimilarity ofthe marks. Champagne Louis Roederer v. Delicato
`
`Vineyards, 148 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 1998), see also Keebler Co. v. Murray Bakery, 866 F.2d 1386,
`
`1388, 9 USPQ2d (BNA) 1739 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Applicant submits that the subject marks are so
`
`dissimilar in appearance, sound, meaning and commercial impression that confusion is unlikely
`
`based on this factor alone.
`
`

`
`
`
`Human Genome Sciences, Inc.
`
`Appl. No. 75/792,421
`
`1.
`
`The subject marks are not similar in sound, appearance or meaning and
`generate very different commercial impressions.
`
`In addressing the similarity of the marks in both the initial and final Office Actions, the
`
`Examiner stated that the marks share the letter string "FASTR. " The Examiner further alleged that
`
`Applicant merely "omitted the last two letters in the Registrant’s mark, specifically the letters "NA"
`
`and then inserted a space between the letters "S" and "T" to create its mark. However, the mere fact
`
`that two marks contain similar elements does not alone render them confusingly similar.
`
`The addition and deletion of portions of marks and the distinctions in the overall appearance
`
`and commercial impression created by the marks must also be considered. The deletion of letters
`
`(and addition of spaces) may suffice to distinguish marks such that confusion is not likely. For
`
`example, in Kellogg Company v. Pack ’Em Enterprises, Inc., the Federal Circuit upheld the Board’s
`
`decision that the marks FROOTEE ICE for "flavored liquid frozen into bars" and FROOT LOOPS
`
`for "dessert sundaes, shakes and frozen confections" were not confusingly similar, stating that "the
`
`only similarity between the marks is that one begins with FROOT and the other begins with
`
`FROOTEE,” 951 F.2d 330 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The Court further upheld the Boards decision that this
`
`single factor was dispositive of the issue of likelihood of confusion.
`
`Id. Hence, without even
`
`considering the similarity of the goods, the Board held that the marks were so dissimilar as to make
`
`confusion unlikely, despite the fact that they shared the letter string "FROOT." See also Delicato
`
`-5-
`
`

`
`
`
`Human Genome Sciences, Inc.
`Appl. No. 75/792,421
`
`Vineyards, 148 F.3d at 1375 (affirming the Board’s decision that the marks CRYSTAL CREEK and
`
`CRISTAL for identical goods (wine) were not confusingly similar because they generated a different
`
`commercial impression).
`
`The same analysis holds true in the instant case. First, the appearance of the subject marks
`
`is different. The applied for mark appears as two words FAS TR whereas the registered marks
`
`appear as a unitary term FASTRNA. Second, the appearance of the applied for mark tends to lend
`
`itself to a distinct pronunciation so as not to be confused with FASTRNA. Although, it has been
`
`held that there is no correct pronunciation of a trademark, Kabushiki Kaisha Hattori Tokeiten v.
`
`Scuotto, 228 USPQ 461 (TTAB I 985), there are limitations on the variety of ways a particular mark
`
`may be pronounced. The Applicant’s mark FAS TR may either be pronounced FAS T-R or
`
`FASTER. On the other hand, the Registrant’s mark is pronounced as FAST R—N-A. When
`
`compared with one another, the marks FAS TR and FASTRNA do not sound alike. Hence,
`
`consumers would not likely confuse the marks based on sound.
`
`Additionally, the registered marks actually have a descriptive or highly suggestive meaning
`
`whereas the Applicant’s mark is a coined expression with no known meaning in the relevant trade.
`
`Upon review of the registered mark FASTRNA, a consumer is left with no choice but to break the
`
`term down into its descriptive components FAST and R—N-A. The term FAST denotes the quickness
`
`with which the consumer will achieve the desired results with the goods of the registration. RNA
`
`-5-
`
`

`
`
`
`Human Genome Sciences, Inc.
`
`Appl. No. 75/792,421
`
`is a well known acronym for Ribo-Nucleic Acid, which describes a functional feature of the
`
`registered goods. When the terms FAST and RNA are placed together, the mark suggests that with
`
`use of the registered product, consumers will be able to obtain R—N-A quickly. On the contrary, the
`
`applied for mark has no meaning in the relevant trade. The term "FAS" scientifically refers to a
`
`specific molecule in the body. The letters "TR" represent the Applicant’s own coined acronym for
`
`Tumor Neuerosis Factor and Receptor Protein.
`
`It is an acronym that only the Applicant uses in
`
`connection with the goods and is unknown within the relevant trade as a descriptive term.
`
`Accordingly, it is submitted that consumers are not likely to be confused by the two terms on the
`
`grounds that the marks mean the same thing.
`
`Finally, the marks FASTRNA and FAS TR generate very distinct commercial impressions,
`
`so as to obviate any likelihood of confusion. The overall impression of a mark plays a great role in
`
`distinguishing it from other marks, and should be given strong consideration in determining if a
`
`likelihood of confusion exists. Estate ofP.D. Beckwith, Inc. v. Comm ’r ofPatents, 252 U.S. 538,
`
`545-46 (1920); New England Fish Co. v. Hervin C0., 184 U.S.P.Q. 817, 818 (CCPA 1975). As
`
`stated previously, the registered mark brings to mind specific qualities about the goods of the
`
`registration. Upon View of the mark FASTRNA, a consumer is left with the impression that it can
`
`obtain RNA quickly or rapidly through use of the goods. In fact, the Registrant’s identification of
`
`goods mimics the commercial impression generated by the mark, as the goods are use for "rapidly
`
`isolating and purifying nucleic acid [RNA]."
`
`

`
`
`
`Human Genome Sciences, Inc.
`
`Appl. No. 75/792,421
`
`In contrast, since the applied for mark is a coined expression, the consumer does not
`
`automatically form an impression about the nature of the goods. If a consumer views the mark and
`
`pronounces it as FAS T—R, the consumer has no impression at all regarding the nature of the goods.
`
`Hence the mark is arbitrary. If the consumer pronounces the applied for mark as FASTER, the
`
`consumer may be left with the impression that the goods are FASTER than other products, but it still
`
`maintains no impression about the type or class of goods. Accordingly, the registered mark
`
`FASTRNA generates a very different commercial impression than the mark FAS TR.
`
`In View of the foregoing, it is clear that the marks FASTRNA and FAS TR are not likely to
`
`cause confusion, as they are different in sound, appearance, meaning and commercial impression.
`
`2.
`
`The term FAST is a weak term on the Trademark Register and therefore
`is only entitled to a limited scope of protection.
`'
`
`When making a determination as to likelihood of confusion between marks, the Examiner
`
`must consider not only the similarities between the marks, but also the strength of the registered
`
`’ mark. The strength of the registered mark dictates the scope of protection of the mark. Words with
`
`commonly understood meanings or that are descriptive or highly suggestive in nature are considered
`
`to be weak trademarks, and are afforded a narrower scope of protection. See King Candy Co. v.
`
`Eunice King’s Kitchen, Inc., 182 USPQ 108, 109-110 (CCPA. 1974)(holding MISS KINGS for
`
`"cakes" not likely to be confused with KINGS for "candy" since KINGS is a weak mark).
`
`-3-
`
`

`
`
`
`Human Genome Sciences, Inc.
`
`Appl. No. 75/792,421
`
`In this instance, FAST is not a particularly strong term. The term is highly descriptive of a
`
`desired feature or quality of the Registrant’s goods. Cf, Ashe v. Pepsico, Inc., 205 USPQ 451, 453
`
`(S.D.N.Y. 1979) (stating that the word ADVANTAGE is a commonly used word meaning benefit,
`
`gain, profit, upper hand, or superior dominating position.)
`
`It is respectfully submitted that
`
`consumers have become immune to such usage of the term FAST and recognize that the term is used
`
`merely to convey beneficial qualities about the goods.
`
`Thus, it should not be granted as much
`
`protection as a term that might be considered an arbitrary or coined expression. See e. g., Ashe, 205
`
`USPQ 451 (finding no likelihood of confusion between ADVANTAGE ASHE for "tennis glasses"
`
`and ADVANTAGE for "tennis rackets" because ADVANTAGE is a highly suggestive, weak mark).
`
`Further support that the marks should not be held confusingly similar is the existence of a
`
`plethora of third-party registrations of FAST - formative marks for both related and unrelated goods.
`
`See American Cynamid Co. v. S. C. Johnson & Son, 729 F.Supp 1018, 13 USPQ 2d (BNA) 1032
`
`(D.N.J. 1989) (stating that the Court may certainly consider that one word of a trademark has
`
`commonly been used for similar products on the PTO Register); Ice Cold Auto Air of Clearwater,
`
`Inc. v. Cold Air & Accessories, Inc., 828 F. Supp 925, 935 (D.Fl. 1993) As demonstrated by the
`
`chart below, there are quite a number of registrations in which the term FAST has been incorporated
`
`into marks approved by the Trademark Office for goods related to those of the Registrant.
`
`

`
`
`
`Human Genome Sciences, Inc.
`
`Appl. No. 75/792,421
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`GOODS/SERVICES
`
`Reagents for labeling nucleic
`acid for scientific or research
`use.
`
`Pharmaceutical preparation for
`treating hyperuricemia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`REGISTRATION NO.
`
`MARK
`
`2,180,540
`
`FASTTAG
`
`2,351,735
`
`2,465,096
`
`FASTURTEC
`
`‘
`
`FASTLINE
`
`
`
`2,248,496
`
`FASTMABS
`
`
`
`Chemicals used in industry and
`science, namely, solid phase
`matrices for separation and
`immobilization of proteins and
`enzymes.
`
`Chemicals used in industry and
`science, namely chemical solid
`phase matrices for absorption
`chromatography to separate and
`immobilize proteins and
`enzymes.
`
`Chemicals for the synthesis and
`purification of DNA.
`
`
`
`
`1,897,918
`
`FASTPHORAMIDITE
`
`
`
`2,006,344
`
`FASTDNA
`
`Process reagent kit and
`components thereof for rapid
`isolation and purification of
`nucleic acid, comprised of
`solutions, containers,
`
`mechanical lysing media, and
`
`instructions for isolating and
`
`purifying nucleic acid
`
`containing substances in a
`chemical, biochemical or
`
`
`
`
`
`
`molecular biology laboratory.
`
` Flourescent substrate reagent
`
`
`
`for detection of
`
`chloramphenicol
`acetyltransferase, sold in kits.
`
`
`
`
`
`FASTCAT
`
`-10-
`
`

`
`
`
`Human Genome Sciences, Inc.
`
`Appl. No. 75/792,421
`
`
`
`GOODS/SERVICES
`
`Biochemicals, namely, reagents
`for polymerase chain reaction
`amplification for use in
`molecular biology research.
`
`Isoelectric focusing ge1s...and
`coomassie-type stains in tablet
`form for use in academic
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FASTIN
`
`
`
`
`industrial, clinical and research
`
`laboratories to analyze and
`characterize proteins and
`polypeptides.
`
`.
`
`Pharmaceutical, namely an
`anorexicgenic agent.
`
`REGISTRATION NO.
`
`MARK
`
`2,493,102
`
`FASTSTART
`
`1,470,292
`
`PHASTGEL
`
`FASTSTICK
`Pharmaceutical preparation,
`
`namely, an anti—inflammatory.
`
` Diagnostic preparations for
`medical and science purposes,
`used in microbiology, namely
`culture media.
`
`FLOUROFAST
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1,395,486
`
`2,205,700
`
`2.231.714
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Sinus and allergy preparations
`containing antihistamines,
`analgesics and decongestants.
`
`
`
`
`
`Pharmaceutical Preparations in
`the form of discs, troches,
`tablets, etc. for use in the
`
`treatment of symptoms of the
`common cold.
`
`Pharmaceutical preparations for
`weight loss reduction.
`
`2,057,5 16
`
`1,313,026
`
`1,785,143
`
`
`
`PRO-FAST
`
`
`
`FASPAK
`A filled plastic bag containing
`pharmaceutical preparations-
`
`namely antibiotics.
`‘
`
`
`ULTRAFAST
`NEPHRETECT
`
`Diagnostic reagents for clinical
`or medical laboratory use.
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`
`
`2,390,174
`
`FAST MELT
`
`2,169,049
`
`FAST DRY
`
`

`
`
`
`Human Genome Sciences, Inc.
`Appl. No. 75/792,421
`
`
`
`REGISTRATION NO.
`
`MARK
`
`GOODS/SERVICES
`
`1,158,751
`
`UNIFAST
`
`1,645,544
`
`2,230,273
`
`
`
`
`‘
`
`FASTLANE
`
`FASTTRACK
`
`An ethical pharmaceutical
`preparation for the treatment of
`obesity.
`
`Agarose used in electrophoresis
`in the field of biotechnology.
`
`Biochemical laboratory kits
`consisting primarily of - R
`Nase, protein degrader, loligo
`dT cellulose, buffers and
`
`columns for isolating RNA.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Attached as Exhibit A are printouts of the aforementioned registrations downloaded from the PTO
`
`database.
`
`All of the foregoing registered marks for goods in related industries share a similar feature,
`
`the term FAST. Nevertheless, the marks co-exist on the Register, a fact which the Examiner failed
`
`to acknowledge in her analysis of the likelihood of confusion between the marks. Like the American
`
`Cynamid case wherein the Court held that the term "MAX" was weak because of the coexistence of
`
`four registrations containing the term as either a prefix or suffix for identical goods, the term FAST
`
`is weak for the types of goods in question. American Cynamid C0. 729 F. Supp. at 1024. Hence,
`
`the term must not be accorded as much weight as would a strong term and the Applicant’s mark
`
`should be held sufficiently distinct so as to obviate any likelihood of confusion between consumers.
`
`-12-
`
`

`
`
`
`B.
`
`Similarity of the Goods.
`
`Human Genome Sciences, Inc.
`
`Appl. No. 75/792,421
`
`Although the Applicant has demonstrated that the marks are so dissimilar as to obviate
`
`confusion, the Applicant must still address the issue of the relatedness of the goods. The goods of
`
`the FASTRNA Registrations are different from the goods of the FAS TR application. The
`
`Registrations are used in connection with diagnostic and process reagent kits for scientific use,
`
`research use and medical laboratory use for the purpose of rapidly isolating and purifying nucleic
`
`acid. Applicant’s goods consist of actual proteins, nucleic acids and medicinal reagents intended
`
`to be used in connection with pharmaceuticals for treating patients having diseases, including
`
`immune disorders and for scientific and research purposes relating to such diseases. The function
`
`or purpose of the goods is quite distinct. Whereas the Applicant provides consumers with the actual
`
`genes/nucleic acids to administer to patients or to conduct research, the Registrant only provides
`
`testing kits to isolate and purify these gene/nucleic acids.
`
`1.
`
`The purchasers of the goods are sophisticated and hence not likely to be
`confused.
`
`Also appropriate for consideration in a likelihood of confusion analysis are the conditions
`
`under which sales are made and the sophistication of buyers to whom the goods are sold. In Re E.I.
`
`Dupont de Nemeurs & C0., 476 F.2d 1357 (CCPA 1993), 177 USPQ (BNA) 563. Applicant’s goods
`
`are intended to be sold primarily to managed care organizations, pharmacies, drug distributors, drug
`
`-13-
`
`

`
`
`
`Human Genome Sciences, Inc.
`
`Appl. No. 75/792,421
`
`wholesalers, home health care providers, clinicians and doctors for use with patients having immune
`
`disorders, as well as to medical researchers, universities having medical research programs, hospitals
`
`and other research companies to study the effects on the body. l The individuals within the
`
`organizations described above who are tasked with requesting or ordering these different products
`
`are medical doctors, skilled scientists and skilled clinicians with advanced degrees such as M.D.
`
`and/or Ph.D. Registrant's goods are likely to be purchased and used by research laboratories. Such
`
`purchasers are also highly skilled scientists. Applicant’s highly-skilled consumers are not likely to
`
`believe that Applicant’ s specific proteins, nucleic acids and pharmaceutical preparations that are used
`
`to treat and research patients with immune disorders emanate from Registrant. Likewise,
`
`Registrant's sophisticated consumers are not likely to think that a provider of testing kits (for the
`
`purpose of isolating RNA) is also selling pharmaceutical preparations and the like for the treatment
`
`of patients with diseases, such as immune disorders. This is apparent from the sheer number of
`
`registered "Fast" formative marks above.
`
`Moreover, not only are these professionals likely to be able to discern the differences between
`
`the products, they are also trained to understand the slight nuances between the names of drugs,
`
`chemicals and products for testing the same. As such, the professionals who come in contact with
`
`the Applicant’s mark FAS TR and the mark of the registrations FASTRNA, are not likely to be
`
`confused.
`
`-14-
`
`

`
`
`
`Human Genome Sciences, Inc.
`
`Appl. No. 75/792,421
`
`2.
`
`The marks are used on a limited variety of goods.
`
`As evidenced by the name FASTRNA, the mark of the registrations is actually used only for
`
`RNA isolation and purification from bacteria, fungi, algae, plant and animal tissues or cells.
`
`Attached as Exhibit B are descriptions of the testing kits on which Registrant uses its marks.
`
`Applicant’s mark is intended to be used with proteins and nucleic acids for treatment of human
`
`patients with immune disorders and for research regarding the effectiveness of the same. Hence the
`
`variety of the goods with which the registered and applied for marks are used are limited.
`
`Accordingly, it is not likely that confusion between the two will occur.
`
`-15-
`
`

`
`
`
`IV.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Human Genome Sciences, Inc.
`
`Appl. No. 75/792,421
`
`Applicant has demonstrated that the marks FAS TR and FASTRNA are dissimilar in sound,
`
`appearance, meaning and commercial impression. It has further proven via evidence of third-party
`
`registrations that the term FAST is weak as used in connection with goods in the relevant trade.
`
`Finally, it has shown that given the dissimilarities in the mark, the goods are not similar enough to
`
`render the marks likely to cause confusion in the marketplace. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully
`
`requests that the Board reverse the Examiner’s rejection of the application, and remand the
`
`application to the Examiner for Approval for Publication.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`
` fig :
`
`Tracy-Gene G. Durkin
`Kimberly N. Reddick
`Attorneys for Applicant
`
`Date: April 15, 2002
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`(202) 371-2600
`
`SKGF_DCl:1968.1
`
`-16-
`
`

`
`
`
`\ r_
`V’
`~-
`
`.
`
`ATTORN EYS AT LAW
`
`
`
`Commissioner for Trademarks
`
`2900 Crystal Drive
`Arlington, VA 22202-3513
`
`Robert Greene Sterne
`Edward J. Kessler
`Jorge A. Goldstein
`David K.S. Cornwell
`Robertw. Esmond
`Tra
`-Gene G. Durkin
`Mic ele A. Cimbala
`Michael 3. Ray
`ric
`.
`re e
`lE?obe(rt Sfokohl
`lg/|ichael'§).LLe:
`_
`teven
`. u wlg
`in a .
`corn
`JLOhé'I
`fuovert
`Robert c. Millonig
`Lawrence B. Bugaisky
`Donald J. Featherstone
`Michael V. Messinger
`Judm, U, Kg,”
`Timothy J. Shea, Jr.
`
`Patrick E. Garrett
`Jeffery T. Helveye
`Held: L. Klaus
`C stal D. Sayles
`E wardW.Yee
`_
`Albert L. Ferro'
`Donald R. Banowlt
`Peter A. Jackman
`eresa
`.
`e er
`_JF1ollyl°fi1lI"l’clCda|ll
`Jéfhdey Sggvgaver
`n rlc
`. atterson
`en . asu o
`flrgcenfi LF. Ca ulalno
`Eldora Ellison Floyd
`W. Russell Swindell
`Thomas C. Fiala
`Brian J. Del Buono‘
`W9“ Leg geastmr
`Reginald D. Lucas‘
`
`Kimberly N. Reddick
`Theodore A. Wood
`Elizabeth J. Haanes
`Bruce E. Chalker
`.
`Jose hS.0st_roff
`Fran ‘R. Comngh_am
`Chnstlne M. Lhuller ‘
`Rae L
`n Prengarnan
`awrente .
`arro
`iane hersjhecnovlcnh"
`George S. Bardmesser
`Emfiqungl
`,5(;‘,§,",§‘,_,°,‘,,L'C“[’,"as5 H,
`'
`_
`Karen R. Markowlcz
`Andrea J. Kamage
`
`April 15,2002
`
`US. Parental TMOVC/TM Mal R t. o . # *
`lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll °’
`04-15-2002
`
`
`
`Nan
`J. Leith
`Josep M. Conrad III
`Ann E. Summerfield
`Helene C. Carlson
`Gaby L. Lon sworth
`Matthew J. owd
`Aaron L. Schwartz
`Angelique G. Uy
`ary . un‘
`EIAOYJS llfiaévenko
`l[§atrln2aLY.S|1::|l‘
`ryan .
`'
`on
`103
`.
`0|
`karsonfi Eclshenberg
`
`,
`_
`,
`l_n Maryland
`Admitted onl
`*Adm_med on y in Vlrglnla
`-Admitted only In Texas
`
`WRITER ’s DIRECT NUMBER:
`(202) 789-5509
`INTERNETADDRESS:
`kreddick@skaf.com
`
`Attn: Box TTAB
`
`Re:
`
`U.S. Trademark Application
`in the name of Human Genome Sciences, Inc.
`
`Appl. No. 75/792,421; Filed: September 3, 1999
`Mark: FAS TR (Int’l Classes 001 and 005)
`_
`Our Ref: 1488.1350000/TGD/KNR
`
`Madam:
`
`Transmitted herewith for appropriate action are the following documents:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Ex Parte Appeal Brief with Exhibits A & B; and
`
`One (1) return postcard.
`
`
`
`It is respectfully requested that the attached postcard be stamped with the date of filing of
`these documents, and that it be returned to our courier. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is
`
`hereby authorized to charge any fee deficiency, or credit any overpayment, to our Deposit Account
`No. 19-0036.
`
`Very truly yours,
`
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`
`
`
`Kimberly N. Re dick
`Attorney for Applicant
`
`TGD/KNR/rlw
`
`Enclosures
`
`Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein 8: Fox P.L.LC.
`SKGF_DCl:3l68.l
`
`2 1100 New York Avenue, NW 2 Washington, DC 20005 : 202.371.2600 f 202.371.2540 : www.sl<gf.com