Request for Reconsideration after Final Action
`
`Page 1 of 10
`
`PTO Form (Rev 4/2000)
`
`OMB No. 0651«.... (Exp. 03/81/2004)
`
`Request for Reconsideration after Final Action
`
`The table below presents the data as entered.
`
`SERWJNUMBER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`\\TIC,RS\EXPO_RT1 1\IM_AGEQUTl 1\77Z_\_241\7'Z]24138
`\x_n11t1l,R£&QOQ2..j‘r
`
`l\TI(_,‘ RS\EXPORTl 1\IMAGEOUT11\777\241\77724138
`
`\xm11\RFR00O3.JPG
`
`
`
`\\'1:IC,RS\EX1_’_QRT1 1\IMAGEOUT11\7Z7\241\7Z724138
`L<_r_n1,1\RFm004.113Q,
`
`\\TI_C__I_{S\EXPORTl 1_\IMAGEOU_1‘1 1\777_\241\77724138
`\2Lm_1_1\RFRO005.JPG
`
`
`
`\\TICRS'\EXPORT1 1\IMAGEOUT11\777\241\77724138
`\xrnl1\RFRO0O6.JPG
`
`\\TlCRS\F,XP()RTl l\IM AGEOI IT] l \77’A24l \77724l 38
`\£1_l_l\RFR 00O7.JPG
`\\'I'IC RS‘\EXPORTl 1\IMAGEOUT11\777\241\77724138
`\xm1_1\RFR0008.JPG
`
`
`
`file://\\ticrs-ais-01\ticrsexport\Htm1ToTifIInput\RFRO0012010_O8_16_09_03_46_WS194...
`
`8/16/2010
`
`
`
`LEYDIG has become distinctive of the goods/services as
`
`evidenced by the ownership on the Principal Register for the
` SECTION 2(f), IN PART
`same mark for related goods or services of U.S. Registration
`
`No(s). 2295766.
`
`SECTION 2(1), LN PART BASED ON
`LEYDIG has become distinctive ofthe goods/services, as
`EVIDENCE
`demonstrated by the attached evidence.
`
`2(f) EVIDENCE FILE NAME(S)
`
`
`
`
`
`http://tgate/PDF/RFR/2010/07/26/201007261857542435502-
`77724138-009__001/epart-3898140130-
`184101507_.gLeydig_OAR_7.26.10.pdf'
`
`ORIGINAL
`PDF FILE
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Request for Reconsideration afier Final Action
`
`Page 2 of 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`http://tgate/PDF/RFR/2010/07/26/20100726185754243552—
`77724138-O09 7002/epart—3898] 40130-
`184101507_.__Exhibit_A_to_B‘2010.pdf
`
`
`
`§\TICI_{_S\EXPORTl 1\1_MAGEQUT11\777\241\ZfZ724138
`
`:§F'(:Ii;"
`
`§3§:1’iI;3fsE)D
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`§\TICRS\EXPORT11\IMAGEOUT11\777\241\77724]38
`\xml1\RFR0010.JPG
`
`\\TIC RS\EXPORT1 1\IMAGEOUT11\777\241\77724138
`\xml1\RFR0011.JPG
`
`\\TIC RS\E,XPQRT1 IJJMAGEQIJTI l.\,7771-2‘1_1,\777,24138
`‘\gn11_f\R_7FRO0 12..[PG
`
` \\TICRS\EXPORT11\IMAGEOUT11\777\241\77724138
`\x1’r111f.\RFR001_3,..J.E
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORTl 1\IMAGE()UT11\777\241\77724138
`
`\)gjn11\RFR_O014.JPG
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT1 1\IMAGEQUTl 1_X7>77\24 11777241338
`\xml l\RFR00l5.JPG
`
`\\TIC RS\lL'XPOR'I‘1 1\lMAGli()U'1‘11\777\241\77724138
`\xm11\RFR0016.JPG
`
`\\TIC RS\EXPORT1 1\IMAGEOUT11\777\241\77724138
`\xm11\RFR0017.JPG
`
`\\T1C_RS‘\EX_BQ_RTl 1_\IM_AGE4O[JT1 1_\_777\24 1\7772413_ 8
`LlI11_1\RFR0018.JPG
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT1 1\IMAGEQUT1 11:/»'_77\241\t'_77724138
`\xml1\RFROO19.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT1 1\II\/IAGEOUT11\777\241\:/77724138
`
`\xm1 1\RFRO(fl0.JPG
`
`
`
`
`\\TI§_) RS\EXPORTl 1\I.\/IAGEOUTI1\777\24l\17724138
`\xml1\RFflQ022.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPQRT1 1\II\/IAGEQUT1 1\_7_7_7j24_1XZ7]24138
`\xrnl1\RFR0024.JPG_
`
`
`
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORTl 1\I‘_\/IAGEOUT11\777\241\77724138
`\xIn11_\RFR002__5.JPG
`
`
`
`file://\\ticrs-ais-O1\ticrsexport\HtmlToTif‘fInput\RFR00O120 10_08_16_09_03_46'WS 194...
`
`8/16/2010
`
`

`
`Request for Reconsideration afier Final Action
`
`Page 3 of 10
`
`§\TICRS\EXPORT1 1\IMAGEOUT11\777\241\Z7724138
`\xm1 1\RFRO026.JPG
`
`\\TIC RS\EXPORTl l\IMAGEOUT11\777\24l\77724138
`\xm11\RFRO028.JPG
`
`http://tgate/PDF/RFR/2010/O7/26/20100726185754243552-
`77724138-009A003/epart—3898140130-
`184101507__.__LEYDIG_Exhibit_C. 1_2010.pdf
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORTl 1\IMAGEOUT11\777\241\'Z7724138
`\_u'1_11\R.FR0029.JPG
`
`\\TICR_S\EXPOR_T1 1\IMAGEOUT1 1\777\241\77724138
`\xml1\RFRO030.JPG
`
`\,\TI,CRS\EX_PQRTl 1 \11\4AGE0U T lI1.\77"_/X2_41_\7772;‘r13_8
`\>;m11\RFROO32.JPG
`
`\\'I‘IC RS\EXPOR'I‘l 1\IMAGE()U'I‘11\777\241\77724138
`\xml1\RFROO33.JPG
`
`\\TIC RS\EXPORTl 1\IMAGE(_)UT1 1\777\24l\77724138
`\xml l\RFR0034.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORTl 1\IMAGEOUT1 1\77_'7_<\241\7_f/7'_7724138
`\;qnL1\RFRO035.JPG
`
`\\I_ICRS‘\EX_EQRTl1\IMAGEOUTl1\Z77\241X:7Z724138
`§>gnl__1\RFRO_036.JPG
`
`\\'[ICRS\EXPORT1 1\IMAGEOUT11\777\241\77724138
`\L¢_‘r1_l l\RFR003 7.] PG
`
`\\TICRS\F.XPORT1 1\IMAGF.OI IT] 1_§777\241\7'7724138
`\xml l\R.FRO038.JP(_}
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT1 1\IMAGEOUT11\777\24l\77724138
`\xm11\RFR0039.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT1 1\IMAGEOUT11\777\241\77724138
`\xm11\RFRO040.JPG
`
`\\'1‘1g3;s\ux130R_T1 _17\IM/\,GEQUT_11\777\241\77724138
`,\I>s:m11I\1:,FII,IiI004l..JPG,
`
`http://tgate/PDF/RFR/2010/07/26/20100726185754243552-
`77724138-009_O04/epart—3898140130-
`1341o1507__. _Exhibit_C.2_2010.pdf
`
`ORIGINAL
`PDF FILE
`
`C ON VERTED
`PDF F'ILE(S)
`(13 pages)
`
`ORIGINAL
`PDF FILE
`
`file://\‘\ticrs—ais—O1\ticrsexport\HtmlToTifiInput\RFROO012010_08_16_O9_03_46_WS194...
`
`8/16/2010
`
`

`
`Request for Reconsideration afier Final Action
`
`Page 4 of 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`\'\TIC RS\EXPORT1 1\IMAGEOUT1 l\777\241\77724138
`\xm11\RFRO042.JPG
`
` \\T1CRS\l_&IXP0RT1 1\1.\_/1,A.(iE8QU@\7L‘-241X7E4_1,3I§
`\xm1l\RFRO043.JPG
`
`C ON VERTED
`
`PDF FILE (S)
`(9 pages)
`
`
`
`\\TICRS\F.XPOR'I‘1 1\I'.\/IAGEOI JT1 1\777\241\77724138
`\xm1 l\RFR0044.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT1 1\IMAGEOUT1 1\777\241\77724138
`\xml1\RFRO045.JPG
`
`§\TIC RS_\_E_X_EORT1 1\IMAGEOUT1 1\7T'_77\241\_’_777_2_T4_1T3 8
`\xml 1.\VR_FR0O_46.iJPG
`
`
`
`\\TICRS'\F,XPORT1 1\IMAGEOUT1 1\777\241\77724138
`
`\\TIC RS\EXPQRT1 1\IMAGEOUT1 1\777\241\77724138
`\_xm1 1\RFROQ51_8.JPG
`
`\\'l'ICRS\EXPOR'l‘l 1\IMAGEOUT1 1\777\24,l X7772__4}_1_ 38
`‘\)crnl1\RFR0049..I_PQ
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT1 1\IMAGEOUT11\777\24l\77724138
`\xm11\RFR0050.JPG
`
`http://tgate/PDF/RFR/2010/07/26/20100726185754243552!-
`77724138-0O9_005/epart-3898140130-
`1841015O7H._Exhibit_D_2010.pdf
`
`
`
`\xrnl 1\RFRO047. JPG
`
`
`
`
`ORIGINAL
`PDF FILE
`
`(TONVERTED
`
`PDF FlLE(S)
`(4 Pages)
`
`\\TICRS\F,XPORT1 1\IMAGF,OI IT1 1\777\24l\77724138
`\xml1\RFR005].JPG
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`\\IIC RS\EXPORT1 1\IMAGEOUT1 1_\_'7Z77\2_41_\_'_/7'7_24_13 8
`L_xr1l 1\RFRO052.JPG
`
`
`
`
`
`ORIGINAL
`PDF FILE
`
`\\T_'ICRS\_EXPORTl 1\IMAGEOUT1 I\]'_77\2j4_I_\77:/_2,‘}mI_38
`\xml1\RFR0053.JPG
`
`\\'I'ICRS'\F.XPOR'l'1 1\IMAGE()UT11\777\241\77724138
`\xrnl1\RFRO054.JPG
`
`
`
`
`
`http://tgatc/PDF/RFR/2010/07/26/20100726185754243 55 2-
`77724138-0O9_006/epart-3898140130-
`184101507_._Exhibit_E.1_2010pdf.pdf
`
`
`
`§3;“l‘jI’iI]f:gD
`\\TICRS\EXPORT1 1\IMAGEOUT11\777\241\77724138
`(7 Pages)
`\xm1 1\RFR0055.JPG
` \\TICRS\EXPORTl 1\IM8AGEQUT1 1\_7_77\24_1 \77724138
`
`\xm11\RFR0056.JPQ
`
`
`
`
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT1 1\IMAGEOUT11\777\241\77724138
`
`file://\\ticrs-ais-01\ticrsexpo11\HtmlToTif‘f[nput\RFR00012010_08_16_09_03_46_WS194...
`
`8/16/2010
`
`

`
`Request for Reconsideration afier Final Action
`
`Page 5 of 10
`
`
`
`§xm11\R_FR0057.JPG
`7
`4
`\\TICRS\F)\PORT1 1\IMAGF.OUT1 1\777\241\'77724] 38
`\xm11\RFR0058 JPG
`
`
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORTl 1\IMAGEOUT11\777\241\77724138
`\xml1\RFR0059.JPG
`
`
` \xml1\RFR0061.JPG
`
`
`
`
`
`\\:I‘ICRS\EXPQ_RTl 1\IM/XGEQUT1‘1\777\2§{1_§777241 3 8
`\xml l\RFR0060.JPG
`
`\\TIC RS‘\EXPORT1 1\IMAGEOUT11\777\241\77724138
`
`http://tgate/PDF/RFR/2010/07/26/20100726185754243552-
`77724138-O09_007/epari-3898140130-
`184101507_.>_Exhibit_E.2_2010.pdf
`
`
`
`ORIGINAL
`PDF FILE
`
`(s)
`
`(6 Pages,
`
`ORIGINAL
`
`PDF FILE
`
`
`
`(5 pages)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` \\TICRS\EXPORT1 1\IMAGEOUT11\777\241\77724138
`\xml1\RFROO62.JPG
` \,\'_l‘IC__RS\liXRQR7l'1l,\I_M/\Gl5lOU'1'1l\'Z77\24017223138
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORTl 1\IMAGEOUT11\777\241\77724138
`\xm11\R1<‘R0064.JPG
`
`\\TIC RS\EXPORT1 1\IMAGE()UT1 1\777\241\77724138
`\xm1l\RFR0065.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORTl 1\IMAGEOUT1_1_\777\241_\77724138
`\xm1l\RFR0066.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORTl 1\IMAGE__OUT11\777\241YZ7724138
`\..xm,lflEfl067.JPG
`
`
`
`http://tgate/PDF/RFR/2010/O7/26/2010072618575424355I2-
`77724138—O09_008/epart-3898140130-
`184101507#._lvlxhibit_F_2010.pdf
`
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORTl 1\IMAGEOUT11\777\241\77724138
`
`\xml1\RFRO068.JPG
`
`
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORTl 1\IMAGEOUT1 1\777\241\77724138
`\xm11\RFR0069.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORTl 1\IMAGEOUT1 1\777\24 l\77724138
`\xml1\RI7R0070.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORTl1\IMAGEOUT11\777\241\77724138
`\xm11\RFR0071.JPG
`
`
`
`
`X\TICRS\F,XP_ORT1 1\IM_AGEQUT11§777\24>1_\f/7724138
`\)<1'r1l1\RFR0072.JL(}_
`
`
`file://\\ticrs-ais—01\ticrsexport\HtmlToTif‘fInput\RFR0O012010_08_16_O9_03w464WS194...
`
`8/16/2010
`
`

`
`Request for Reconsideration afier Final Action
`
`Page 6 of 10
`
`
` MISCELLANEOUS STATEMENT
`MISCELLANEOUS FILE NA1\'fl§,(S)
`
`Declaration
`
`1?§;‘:.1II:’]:L
`
`if)”
`(1 page)
`
`SIGNATURE SECTION
`
`http://tgatc/PDF/RFR/2010/07/26/20100726185754243552-
`77724138-0O9_009/mis-3898140130-
`184101507_._LEYDIG_dcclaration_7.26. l0.pdf
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT1 1\IMAGEOUT1 1\777\241\77724138
`\xm11\RFRO073.JPG
`
`/Mark I W
`Mar“ W
`Member of Board of Directors
`07/26/2010
`
`AUTIIORIZ ED SIGNATORY
`
`Attorney ofrecord, IL bar member
`07/26/2010
`YES
`
`CONCURRENT APPEAL NOTICE FTLED YES
`
`FILING INFORMATION SECTION
`
`TEAS STAMP
`
`M°nJu12618:57:54 EDT 2010
`USPTO/RFR—38.98.140. 130-2
`01 007261 857542435 52-77724
`13 8-4706c79f0a724c51b9fed
`7eb 59bfe7b3 d41-N/A—N/A-20
`10072618410 1 507179
`
`
`
`
`
`...............................\......................-.».......................................,...........M.-.............u...............M....................................................................,................................................................................. ..............
`
`PTO Fon'n (Rev 4/2000)
`
`OMB No 0651:... (Exp. 08/31/2004)
`
`Request for Reconsideration after Final Action
`
`To the Commissioner for Trademarks:
`
`Application serial no. 77724138 has been amended as follows:
`
`file='-.ticrs—ais-O1\ticrsexpo1t\HtmlToTiff'Input\RFR0001 2010_08v16A09_03_46#WS194...
`
`8/16/2010
`
`

`
`Request for Reconsideration afier Final Action
`
`Page 7 of 10
`
`ADDITIONAL S'l‘A'l‘EMEN'l'S
`
`Section 2(1), in part, Prior Registration(s)
`LEYDIG has become distinctive of the goods/services as evidenced by the ownership on the Principal
`Register for the same mark for related goods or services of U.S. Registration No(s). 2295766.
`
`Section 2(1), in part, based on Evidence
`LEYDIG has become distinctive of the goods/services, as demonstrated by the attached evidence.
`Original PDF file:
`http://tgate/PDF/RFR/2010/07/26/20100726185754243S52-77724138-0O9gO01/epart-3898140130-
`184101507_.4Leydig_OAR_ _7.26.10.pdf
`Converted PDF fi]e(s) (7 pages)
`213) siymn/ce;1
`2(1) evidence-_2
`11,) re57
`lD,€3,V].dL1C,f3;4
`fl£)ge\’idenCe_-5
`iidence-6_
`2_(_fLe3idence—’7_
`Original PDF file:
`http://tgate/PDF/RFR/2010/O7/26/20100726185754243552-77724138-009_O02/epart-3898140130-
`1841015O7_._ExhibitHA~to_B_2010.pdf
`Converted PDF f'1le(s) (20 pages)
`Z(1).ie_\'idence-1
`l1L,vit1<::1_ssc5c_-.2
`2(Q evidence-3:
`211) evidence-4}
`2 I evidence-5
`
`21f ) evidence-6
`2
`evidence-7
`2
`evidence-8
`
`2(1)vevidence-2
`2 t evidence-10
`
`2(t) evidence-11
`
`Ztihuidflcgfi
`2(1) e\'id§nc:—_1§
`210 evidence-O14
`2J1)-.esvidse,nc<::15
`211) ,6 vid,ence:16
`2(1) evidence- 17
`2 1 evidence-18
`2 t evidence-19
`2
`evidence-20
`
`Original PDF file:
`http://tgate/PDF/RFR/2010/07/26/20100726185754243552-77724138-009_OO3/epart-3898140130-
`184101507_._LEYDIG_Exhibit_C.1‘2010.pdf
`Converted PDF file(s) (13 pages)
`Z(iL¢_yid:r19§_:_1
`Z(f)_evsic,1_enc_e-2
`2(1) eviclence -3
`2(1) evidence-4
`
`file://\\ticrs-ais-01\ticrsexport\HtmlToTifilnput\RFR000120lO_08_16_09_03_46_WS 194...
`
`8/16/2010
`
`

`
`Request for Reconsideration afier Final Action
`
`Page 8 of 10
`
`210 ee;'_i_d_e_r1_C§,-25
`2(1) '3\’i'~l€fJ£,€-.6,
`.20) ex-'id_@rI,Cc-27.
`fit) evidence-8
`2(1) 9y_idence:9
`%0§\;ic1e4e- 10
`ggfjgidence-11
`2;! ) evidence-12
`211 ) evidence-13
`
`Original PDF file:
`http://tgate/PDF/RFR/2010/O7/26/20100726185754243552-77724138-009_O04/epait-3898140130-
`184101507_.‘EXhibit_C.2_2010.pdf
`Converted PDF f'Ile(s) (9 pages)
`211) §yidc:r_1§t:—,1,
`2(1) eviden_ce;2
`At) i<:vi91,en_c9—3
`At) ,e\;'id,ence,,-5%
`
`%:%,,§V."i.§<.‘-£C,<_3;5
`
`2 1 evidence -6
`
`1(1)5_vi dence -7
`;(j) gvigencc-8
`2( I) evi ence-9
`Original PDF file:
`http://tgate/PDF/RFIUZO10/07/26/2010072618S754243552-77724138-009_005/epaxt-3898140130-
`184101507_.4Exhibi1_D_2010.pdf
`Converted PDF file(s) (4 pages)
`;(l;)_c:\'idence-1
`21l 1 evidence—2
`211 ) evidence—3
`
`Al),g\'id§n_c§,-fl
`Original PDF file:
`http://tgate/PDF/RER/2010/07/26/20100726185 754243552-77724138-009 006/epart-3898140130-
`184101507 . Exhibit E21 20 l0pdf.pdf
`Converted PDF file(s) (7 pages)
`gm evidence-1
`2Lf)_gvidence -2
`Ziilflngczl
`A1)@_.v_iidence-:1
`2(1) ,;e\'id@,r1_c,9:§
`ZLD,s:\:is,1Le—§
`Zfllsiyidsmcefl
`Original PDF file:
`htlpz/./tgate/PDF/RFR/2010/07/26/'20100726185754243552-77724138-009__007/epart-3898140130-
`184101507__._Exhibit__E.2 _2010.pdf
`Converted PDF file(s) (6 pages)
`AfLe;ii<im:§.-.1
`ggflgvidence-2
`2(i) evidence-3
`2(£Le._\_'_i.<,19ncefi
`Z(I)_<:vi<_1§m=§;5
`2(I)ee vi dscnce-:3
`
`file://\‘\tiCrs—ais—O1\ticrsexpor1\HtmlToTiffInput\RFR000] 20l0__08_16_09_03_46_WS194...
`
`8/16/2010
`
`

`
`Request for Reconsideration alter Final Action
`
`Page 9 of 10
`
`Original PDF file:
`http://tgate/PDF/RFR/2010/07/26/20100726185754243552-77724138-009_O08/epart-3898140130-
`184101507g._Exhibit_F_2010.pdf
`Converted PDF f1le(s) (5 pages)
`2
`evidence-1
`
`A
`%£mxid::1_c_e.-3
`2(1). eviL1¢ac<::4,
`2(1)_;vic_1en,ue;:.5.
`
`Declaration
`
`Original PDF file:
`http://tgate/PDF/RFR/2010/07/26/20100726185754243552-77724138-0O9_O09/mis-3898140130-
`184101507_._LEYDIG_declaration_7.26.l0.pdf
`Converted PDF f'1le(s) (1 page)
`Miscellaneous E_ilg1_
`
`SIGNATURE(S)
`Declaration Signature
`lfthe applicant is seeking registration under Section l(b) and/or Section 44 of the Trademark Act, the
`applicant has had a bona fide intention to use or use through the applicant's related company or licensee
`the mark in commerce on or in connection with the identified goods and/or services as of the filing date
`of the application. 37 C.F.R. Secs. 2.34(a)(2)(i); 2.34 (a)(3)(i); and 2.34(a)(4)(ii); and/or the applicant
`has had a bona fide intention to exercise legitimate control over the use of the mark in commerce by its
`members. 37 OF. R. Sec. 2.44. ll‘ the applicant is seeking registration under Section 1(a) of the
`Trademark Act, the mark was in use in commerce on or in connection with the goods and/or services
`listed in the application as of the application filing date or as of the date of any submitted allegation of
`use. 37 C.F.R. Secs. 2.34(a)(l)(i); and/or the applicant has exercised legitimate control over the use of
`the mark in commerce by its members. 37 C.F.R. Sec. 2.44. The undersigned, being hereby warned that
`willful false statements and the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under 18
`U.S.C. Section 1001, and that such willfitl false statements mayjeopardize the Validity ofthe application
`or any resulting registration, declares that he/she is properly authorized to execute this application on
`behalf of the applicant; he/she believes the applicant to be the owner of the trademark/service mark
`sought to be registered, or, if the application is being filed under 15 U.S.C. Section l05l(b), he/she
`believes applicant to be entitled to use such mark in commerce; to the best of his/her knowledge and
`belief no other person, firm, corporation, or association has the right to use the mark in commerce, either
`in the identical form thereof or in such near resemblance thereto as to be likely, when used on or in
`connection with the goods/services of such other person. to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to
`deceive; that if the original application was submitted unsigned, that all statements in the original
`application and this submission made of the declaration signer's knowledge are true; and all statements
`in the original application and this submission made on information and belief are believed to be true
`
`Date: 07/26/2010
`Signature: /Mark J. Liss/
`Signalory's Name: Mark J. Liss
`Signatory's Position: Member of Board of Directors
`
`Request for Reconsideration Signature
`Signature: /Nimita L. Parekh’
`Date: 07/26/2010
`Signatory's Name: Nimita L. Parekh
`Signatory's Position: Attorney of record, IL bar member
`
`file://\\ticrs—ais-O1\ticrsexpo1t\HtmlToTiffInput\RFRO00l20l0_08_l6_O9_O3_46_WS194...
`
`8/16/2010
`
`

`
`Request for Reconsideration afier Final Action
`
`Page 10 of 10
`
`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 attomey or an associate thereof; and to
`the best of his/her knowledge, ifprior to his/her appointment another U.S. attorney or a Canadian
`attomcy/agent not currently associated with his/hcr 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.
`
`The applicant is filing a Notice of Appeal in conjunction with this Request for Reconsideration.
`
`Serial Number: 77724138
`Internet Transmission Date: Mon Jul 26 18:57:54 EDT 2010
`
`TEAS Stamp: USPTO/RFR-38.98.140.130-2010072618575424
`3552-77724138-4706c79f0a724c51b9fed7eb59
`bfe7b3d4l -
`/A-N/A-20100726184101507179
`
`tile :Mi‘uticrs—ais—O l \ticrsexpo1t\HtmlT0Tifllnput\RFR000 l 20 1 0_08_l 6_09_ 03_46VWS194---
`
`8/15/2010
`
`

`
`Mark: LEYDIG
`
`Serial No.1 77/724,138
`Matter: 267018
`
`Page 1 of 7
`
`RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION DATED JANUARY 25, 2010
`
`This Response answers the Office Action issued on January 25, 2010 regarding
`
`Application Serial No. 77,724,138 for the mark LEYDIG [hereinafter the “Application”] filed
`
`by Leydig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd. [hereinafter the “Applicant”]. Please consider the following
`
`remarks towards reconsideration of the Application.
`
`REMARKS
`
`The Examiner has issued a final refusal for App1icant’s “LEYDIG” mark on the basis that
`
`“LEYDIG” is primarily merely a surname. Applicant respectfinlly disagrees that “LEYDIG” is
`
`primarily merely a surname, and even if it were, Applicant submits that “LEYDIG” has acquired
`
`distinctiveness, thus making it appropriate for registration on the Principal Register under
`
`Section 2(i) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(1).
`
`I.
`
`“LEYDIG” HAS ACQ QUIRED DISTINCTIVENESS
`
`The “LEYDIG” mark has acquired distinctiveness through: (a) evidence of Applicant’s
`
`ownership of a prior registration for a similar mark covering identical services, and (b) direct and
`
`circumstantial evidence which establish that the relevant public associates the mark “LEYDIG”
`
`with Applicant’s legal services. TMEP § 1212. Such evidence proves that Applicant’s
`
`“LEYDIG” mark has become distinctive and therefore acquired a secondary rnea.ning—namely,
`
`that the mark “LEYDIG” signifies Applicant, a provider of legal services, to the general public,
`
`business clients, and the legal profession. As such, Applicant respectfully requests that the
`
`Examining Attorney permit its Application to proceed onto publication under Section 2(f) of the
`
`Trademark Act.
`
`

`
`Mark: LEYDIG
`
`Serial No.: 77/724,138
`Matter: 267018
`
`Page 2 of 7
`
`A.
`
`Applicant Claims Ownership of 21 Prior Federal Registration for a Mark that is the
`“Legal Equivalent” of the Proposed Mark.
`
`Evidence of ownership of one or more prior federal registrations of the “same mark” for
`
`the same or closely related services may be used as prima facie evidence to establish that the
`
`mark at issue has acquired secondary meaning. See 4 J. THOMAS MCCARTHY, MCCARTHY ON
`
`TRADEMARKS AND UNFAIR COMPETITION [hereinafter “MCCARTHY”], § 15:63, 15-97 (4th ed.
`
`2009) (citing T.M.R.P. 2.41 (b)). The Applicant, here, owns a prior federal registration on the
`
`Principal Register for the mark “LEYDIG VOIT & MAYER” (Reg. No. 2, 295,766) covering
`
`services identical to those covered under this Application, namely, legal services. In the Ofiice
`
`Action issued on July 22, 2009, the Examining Attorney indicated that Applicant could not
`
`submit its prior registration for the mark “LEYDIG VOIT & MAYER”, inter alia, as evidence of
`
`acquired distinctiveness under Section 2(t), asserting that the registration was “not for the same
`
`mark” as this Application. However, in her most recent Office Action issued on January 25,
`
`2010, the Examining Attorney simply stated that Applicant may “submit a claim of ownership of
`
`one or more prior registrations on the Principal Register” for a mark that is the same as the mark
`
`in this Application and for the same or related services.
`
`Clearly, there is no dispute as to whether Applicant’s prior “LEYDIG VOIT & MAYER”
`
`registration encompasses the “same or related services” to this Application, as both cover legal
`
`services. The crucial inquiry here, therefore, is whether Applicant’s prior “LEYDIG VOIT &
`
`MAYER” registration is for the “same mark” as its current Application, sufficient to constitute
`
`primafacie evidence of secondary meaning for the benefit of this Application. For the purpose of
`
`Trademark Rule 2.41 (b), a proposed mark is the “same mar ” as a previously registered mark “if
`
`

`
`Mark: LEYDIG
`
`Serial No.: 77/724,138
`Matter: 267018
`
`Page 3 of 7
`
`it is the ‘legal equivalent’ of such mark. In re Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp, 57 U.S.P.Q.2d
`
`1807, 1812 (Fed. Cir. 2001). A mark is the “legal equivalent” of another mark if it “creates the
`
`same, continuing commercial impression such that consumer would consider them both the same
`
`mark.” Id. Further, if a mark is deemed the "legal equivalent” of another mark, then the earlier
`
`use of the prior mark can be “tacked” onto a later use of the other mark, even though there may
`
`be slight differences among the marks. See id. For instance, the Federal Circuit, in In re DiaI—A-
`
`Mattress Operating Corp., held that the mark “l —888—M-A-T-R-E-S-S” for the service of retail
`
`telephone sales of mattresses was the “legal equivalent” as the previously registered mark “(212)
`
`M—A-T—T—R-E—S” for retail store services for mattresses, despite the slight variations in content
`
`and spelling of the marks because both marks evoked the same continuing commercial
`
`impression. Id. at 1813.
`
`Like in In re Dial-A-Mattress, here, App1icant’s prior “LEYDIG VOIT & MAYER”
`
`registration is the “legal equivalent” to its proposed “LEYDIG” mark, as the term “LEYDIG” is
`
`the dominant portion and theme of both marks. Although there may be differences in the content
`
`of the marks (namely, the addition of the terms “VOIT” and “MAYER”) this does not affect the
`
`commercial impression created by both marks. The reasons for which are multi-‘fold. First,
`
`“LEYDIG” is the most prominent portion of Applicant’s mark, in part, due to its location within
`
`the beginning of Applicant’s marks.
`
`In fact, the Board has determined that the first word to
`
`appear within a mark “is most likely to be impressed upon the mind of a purchaser and
`
`remembered.” Presto Products Inc. v. Nz'ce—Pak Products, Inc., 9 U.S.P.Q.2d 1895, 1897 (TTAB
`
`1988); see also Century 2] Real Estate Corp. v. Century Life of/Imerica, 23 U.S.P.Q.2d 1698,
`
`1700 (Fed. Cir. 1992). As such, “l.l£YDlG” being the first word to appear within both
`
`

`
`Mark: LEYDIG
`
`Serial No.: 77/724,138
`Matter: 267018
`
`Page 4 of 7
`
`Applicant’s prior registration and its proposed mark, is the most memorable portion of its marks,
`
`and so it is the dominant element of Applicant’s mark.
`
`In addition, “LEYDIG” has been used as part of App1icant’s law firm name since 1970,
`
`and thus, Applicant has been referred to as “LEYDIG” rather than by its full formal name at the
`
`time. See, e.g., Suismarz, Shapiro, W001, Brennan, Gary & Greerzberg PC v. Suisman, 80
`
`U.S.P.Q.2d 1072, 1078 (D. Conn. 2006) (finding that the shortened name “SUISMAN
`
`SHAPlRO” has become synonymous with and refers distinctly to plaintiff’s law firm).
`
`Moreover, it is customary and readily accepted to identify law firms by a shortened term when
`
`the firm’s name includes several individual terms. See Suisman, 80 U.S.P.Q.2d at 1078.
`
`As such, to relevant consumers, the media, and the legal community, “LEYDIG”, the
`
`dominant portion and theme of App1icant’s marks, has served as an identifying mark uniquely
`
`referring to Applicant. The fact that Applicant’s “LEYDIG VOIT & MAYER” registration
`
`covers services idgrrtfi to those covered by App1icant’s “LEYDIG” mark further supports this
`
`notion. Because AppIicant’s prior registration is the “legal equivalent” of Applicant’s proposed
`
`mark, the use of “LEYDIG” in the previous registration should be “tacked” onto the later use of
`
`Applicant’s “LEYDIG” mark. See id. Applicant’s prior registration for “LEYDIG VOIT &
`
`MAYERS” therefore should serve as primafacie evidence that Applicant’s “LEYDIG” mark
`
`has acquired distinctiveness under Section 2(f). As such, Applicant respectfully requests that the
`
`Examiner allow its mark to proceed to publication under § 2(f).
`
`

`
`Mark: LEYDIG
`
`Serial No.: 77/724,138
`Matter: 267018
`
`Page 5 of 7
`
`B.
`
`Direct and Circumstantial Evidence Establishes that the Public Immediately
`Recognizes "LEYDIG" as :1 Provider of Legal Services.
`
`Even if the Examining Attorney determines that Applicant’s prior registration is not the
`
`“legal equivalent” of its proposed mark, Applicant respectfully requests that the Examining
`
`Attorney consider the circumstantial evidence submitted by Applicant to establish that its
`
`“LEYDIG” mark has acquired distinctiveness. Such evidence proves that the mark “LEYDIG”
`
`is recognized by the relevant public as a provider of legal services.
`
`As indicated in Applicant’s response to the Office Action of July 22, 2009, Applicant has
`
`served as a provider of legal services to the public through its various partnerships and corporate
`
`forms under different names, with its name always including the term “LEYDIG” for over 40
`
`years. (See Exhibit A, printout from the book Leydig, Voit, & Mayer: 1893-1993, showing
`
`history of App1icant’s law firm name). As such, during this time, the general public, clients, and
`
`legal professionals have referred to Applicant’s law firm as “LEYDIG” rather than by its full
`
`formal name at the time.
`
`To this end, Applicant requests consideration of various articles, which show the public’s
`
`use of “LEYDIG” to identify Applicant’s legal services. (See Exhibit B, copies of articles and
`
`other media referring to Applicant’s law firm as “LEYDlG”). These articles demonstrate
`
`independent third-party use of the term “LEYDIG” to identify legal services offered by
`
`Applicant. For instance, the third-parties within these articles are journalists who have used the
`
`term “LEYDIG” in the articles of major legal publications. Such third-party use of “LEYDIG”
`
`makes the mark distinctive to the readers, who are members of the general public and the legal
`
`profession.
`
`

`
`Mark: LEYDIG
`
`Serial No.: 77/724,138
`Matter: 267018
`
`Page 6 of 7
`
`In addition, "LEYDIG" has acquired distinctiveness through Applicant's extensive
`
`advertising efforts in promoting its mark. Applicant now avers that it spends a substantial
`
`amount of money annually to advertise its "LEYDIG" mark for its legal services. Over the past
`
`several years, Applicant has placed such advertising in nationally distributed publications,
`
`including: Inside Counsel; Corporate Counsel,‘ and Fortune 500 Magazine, as well as online
`
`publications such as IPO Daily News and INTA Daily News. (See Exhibit C, copies of
`
`Applicant’s advertising efforts).
`
`One example of Applicant's national advertising efforts is its website located at
`
`www.leydig.com.com. (See Exhibit D, printouts of App1icant’s website). Applicant's firm
`
`brochure is another example of its substantial advertising, which contains informational pages,
`
`all of which bear Applicant’s “LEYDIG” mark. (See Exhibit E, copy of Applicant’s law firm
`
`brochure). Applicant’s firm brochure is routinely distributed to its potential new clients
`
`throughout the Midwest region, as well as within the United States. Yet another example of
`
`Applicant's advertising efforts is its quarterly newsletter, which Applicant distributes, a version
`
`of which is submitted herewith as Exhibit F.
`
`Therefore, based upon the actual and circumstantial evidence of acquired distinctiveness
`
`including independent third-party use of the “LEYDIG”, as well as Applicant's own extensive
`
`advertising efforts, Applicant respectfully submits that the term "LEYDIG" has in fact acquired
`
`distinctiveness, namely, that it is immediately recognized as a provider of legal services.
`
`

`
`Mark: LEYDIG
`
`Serial No; 77/724,138
`Matter: 267018
`
`Page 7 of 7
`
`11.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`In view of the foregoing remarks, Applicant respectfully submits that the mark
`
`“LEYDIG” is not primarily merely a sumame, and even it were, it has acquired distinctiveness
`
`through Applicant’s prior registration, as well as direct and circumstantial evidence which proves
`
`that the term "LEYDIG" refers uniquely to Applicant's legal services, thus making it appropriate
`
`for registration on the Principal Register under Section 2(i) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §
`
`lO52(f).
`
`It is requested that the Examining Attorney contact the undersigned if further clarification
`
`is needed or if a telephone conference would be useful in resolving any issues pending in this
`
`Application.
`
`Dated: /] I QSHO
`
`
`
`LEYDIG, VOIT & MAYER, LTD.
`Two Prudential Plaza
`Suite 4900
`
`Chicago, IL 60601-6780
`Phone (312) 616-5600
`Fax (312) 6165700
`
`

`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`
`.......
`
`.x;......
`24:1‘
`
`1,.
`
`A:I.1
`I.K
`3'
`..
`
`

`
`
`
`1:13; Q1_1ange§ m‘ Firm Nam;
`
`
`
`.‘—.*.a-«:-'"‘
`
`
`
`_-....-,—._-.-.._.=<..-..
`<#<(~3!:nr'-:&€<.=.‘-.'
`
`Law Offices of Luther L. Miller
`
`Miner and Chindahl
`
`Miller, Chindahl & Parker
`
`Chindahl, Parker & Carlson
`
`Parker, Carlson, Pitzner & Hubbard
`
`Carlson, Pitzner, Hubbard & Wolfe
`
`Wolfe, Hubbard, Voit & Osann
`
`Wolfe, Hubbard, Leydig, Voit & Osann
`
`Wolfe, Hubbard, Leydig, Voit & Osann, Ltd.
`
`Leydig, Voit, Osann, Mayer & Holt, Ltd.
`
`Leydig, Voit & Mayer
`
`1893
`
`1913
`
`1916
`
`1922
`
`1935
`
`1944
`
`1959
`
`1970
`
`1971
`
`1976
`
`1985
`
`vars:
`
`r5.‘.-
`
`

`
`EXHIBIT B
`
`

`
`The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times
`
`November 02, 2009
`
`Lucrative NIH Contract to Bring 11’ Work to D.C.
`
`Four firms won National Institutes of Health contracts last month worth up to hundreds of millions of dollars in
`total over 10 years. The contracts cover contested proceedings over patents awarded in the biotechnology,
`chemistry and mechanical/electrical/software fields.
`Foley & Lardner, an Am Law 100 firm, will soon begin work on its first NIH contract, worth up to $208 million.
`It’s the only firm that said it would heavily utilize its D.C.—based attorneys.
`Mark Kassel, chair of Foley's chemical and pharmaceutical practice, said the NIH has a right to review the
`contracts annually and his firm is unlikely to get $208 million worth of work. “We will see some fraction of that,”
`he said. “It's all based on what the need is.”
`
`They’ll be sharing the lucrative contested-proceedings litigation with three firms that have had NIH contracts in
`the past: San Francisco—based Townsend 8': Townsend 8: Crew could get up to $209 million, and Chicago firm
`Leydig, Voit & Mayer is looking at $183 million. Both firms have Washington offices. McAndrews, Held & Malloy,
`whose only location is in Chicago, won a contract worth up to $181 million. Both Townsend and Leydig also won
`other NIH contracts earlier this year and will focus their NIH efforts in their home offices, though the Washington
`staff may play a backup role, finn spokesmen said.
`The NIH Office of Technology Transfer, based in Rockville, Md., hires private lawyers to help it patent technology
`developed in NIH laboratories and by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The office filed 343 U.S. patent
`applications and received $92.7 million in patent royalties in fiscal year 2008, according to its online statistics.
`Kassel said the contract calls primarily for litigation support; patent interferences, which determine who will be
`awarded the patent when multiple applications are filed; and inter partes re-examinations, where a third party
`asks the patent office to re-examine the validity of a patent. The bulk of Foley's interferences will be handled out of
`the D.C. office, said Washingtorrbased partner George Quillin.
`Quillin said he recently won a claim against the NIH concerning an HPV vaccine but now he's eager to be on the
`government’s side. The firm’s payday will depend, in part, on how litigious the NIH is. “I've been involved in
`interferences where the other side gives up right away,” he said. “Or it could be a very closely fought, hard fought
`fight.”
`The NIH sent out its request for proposals in Aril 2007 and asked firms to send thousands of pages of paperwork
`as part of the two~year application process artner John Kilyk Jr., whose firm has worked with the NIH
`for nearly 20 years, said the process was “just over the top. It was the biggest RFP we’ve ever responded to.”
`Kilyk is currently representing the NIH in a case where both the agency and New York University laid claim to the
`patent on an AIDS test kit He said the usu