PTO Form 1960 (Rev 9/2007)
`
`OMB No. 0651-0050 (Exp. 07/31/2017)
`
`Request for Reconsideration after Final Action
`
`The table below presents the data as entered.
`
`Entered
`
`Input Field
`
`SERIAL
`NUMBER
`
`LAW OFFICE
`ASSIGNED
`
`79119647
`
`LAW OFFICE 113
`
`MARK SECTION (no change)
`
`EVIDENCE SECTION
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)EVIDENCE FILE NAME(S)
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)ORIGINAL
`PDF FILE
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)CONVERTED
`PDF FILE(S)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(48 pages)
`
`evi_6384123133-
`123916997_._Argument_for_Response_to_Office_Action_for_2good_SN79119647.pdf
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\196\79119647\xml15\RFR0002.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\196\79119647\xml15\RFR0003.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\196\79119647\xml15\RFR0004.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\196\79119647\xml15\RFR0005.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\196\79119647\xml15\RFR0006.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\196\79119647\xml15\RFR0007.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\196\79119647\xml15\RFR0008.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\196\79119647\xml15\RFR0009.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\196\79119647\xml15\RFR0010.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\196\79119647\xml15\RFR0011.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\196\79119647\xml15\RFR0012.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\196\79119647\xml15\RFR0013.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\196\79119647\xml15\RFR0014.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\196\79119647\xml15\RFR0015.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\196\79119647\xml15\RFR0016.JPG
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`

`
`l
`
`| \\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\196\791 19647\Xm115\RFR0017.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\196\791 19647\Xm115\RFR0018.JPG
`
`| \\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\196\791 19647\Xm115\RFR0019.JPG
`| \\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\196\791 19647\Xm115\RFR0020.JPG
`| \\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\196\791 19647\Xm115\RFR0021 .JPG
`| \\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\196\791 19647\Xm115\RFR0022.JPG
`| \\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\196\791 19647\Xm115\RFR0023.JPG
`| \\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\196\791 19647\Xm115\RFR0024.JPG
`| \\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\196\791 19647\Xm115\RFR0025.JPG
`| \\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\196\791 19647\Xm115\RFR0026.JPG
`| \\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\196\791 19647\Xm115\RFR0027.JPG
`l \\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\196\791 19647\Xm115\RFR0028.JPG
`| \\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\196\791 19647\Xm115\RFR0029.JPG
`l \\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\196\791 19647\Xm115\RFR0030.JPG
`| \\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\196\791 19647\Xm115\RFR0031.JPG
`l \\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\196\791 19647\Xm115\RFR0032.JPG
`| \\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\196\791 19647\Xm115\RFR0033.JPG
`l \\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\196\791 19647\Xm115\RFR0034.JPG
`| \\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\196\791 19647\Xm115\RFR0035.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\196\791 19647\Xm1 15\RFR0036.JPG
`
`| \\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\196\791 19647\Xm115\RFR0037.JPG
`| \\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\196\791 19647\Xm115\RFR0038.JPG
`| \\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\196\791 19647\Xm115\RFR0039.JPG
`| \\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\196\791 19647\Xm115\RFR0040.JPG
`| \\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\196\791 19647\Xm115\RFR0041 .JPG
`| \\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\196\791 19647\Xm115\RFR0042.JPG
`| \\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\196\791 19647\Xm115\RFR0043.JPG
`| \\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\196\791 19647\Xm115\RFR0044.JPG
`| \\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\196\791 19647\Xm115\RFR0045.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\196\79119647\xml15\RFR0017.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\196\79119647\xml15\RFR0018.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\196\79119647\xml15\RFR0019.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\196\79119647\xml15\RFR0020.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\196\79119647\xml15\RFR0021.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\196\79119647\xml15\RFR0022.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\196\79119647\xml15\RFR0023.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\196\79119647\xml15\RFR0024.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\196\79119647\xml15\RFR0025.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\196\79119647\xml15\RFR0026.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\196\79119647\xml15\RFR0027.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\196\79119647\xml15\RFR0028.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\196\79119647\xml15\RFR0029.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\196\79119647\xml15\RFR0030.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\196\79119647\xml15\RFR0031.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\196\79119647\xml15\RFR0032.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\196\79119647\xml15\RFR0033.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\196\79119647\xml15\RFR0034.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\196\79119647\xml15\RFR0035.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\196\79119647\xml15\RFR0036.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\196\79119647\xml15\RFR0037.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\196\79119647\xml15\RFR0038.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\196\79119647\xml15\RFR0039.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\196\79119647\xml15\RFR0040.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\196\79119647\xml15\RFR0041.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\196\79119647\xml15\RFR0042.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\196\79119647\xml15\RFR0043.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\196\79119647\xml15\RFR0044.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\196\79119647\xml15\RFR0045.JPG
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`

`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\196\79119647\xml15\RFR0046.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\196\79119647\xml15\RFR0047.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\196\79119647\xml15\RFR0048.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\791\196\79119647\xml15\RFR0049.JPG
`
`DESCRIPTION
`OF EVIDENCE
`FILE
`
`Please see the actual argument text attached within the Evidence section
`
`SIGNATURE SECTION
`
`RESPONSE
`SIGNATURE
`
`SIGNATORY'S
`NAME
`
`SIGNATORY'S
`POSITION
`
`SIGNATORY'S
`PHONE
`NUMBER
`
`/Joseph F. Schmidt/
`
`Joseph F. Schmidt
`
`Attorney of record, Illinois bar member
`
`312-836-4178
`
`DATE SIGNED
`
`07/31/2014
`
`AUTHORIZED
`SIGNATORY
`
`CONCURRENT
`APPEAL
`NOTICE FILED
`
`YES
`
`NO
`
`FILING INFORMATION SECTION
`
`SUBMIT DATE
`
`Thu Jul 31 13:05:17 EDT 2014
`
`TEAS STAMP
`
`USPTO/RFR-63.84.123.133-2
`0140731130517296685-79119
`647-50043ecd1762ed2b442f7
`b497a05eb4a2f36e4e3f6efb3
`a208e1ab9149f4f3668-N/A-N
`/A-20140731123916997972
`
`PTO Form 1960 (Rev 9/2007)
`
`OMB No. 0651-0050 (Exp. 07/31/2017)
`
`Request for Reconsideration after Final Action
`To the Commissioner for Trademarks:
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`

`
`Application serial no. 79119647 has been amended as follows:
`
`EVIDENCE
`Evidence in the nature of Please see the actual argument text attached within the Evidence section has
`been attached.
`Original PDF file:
`evi_6384123133-123916997_._Argument_for_Response_to_Office_Action_for_2good_SN79119647.pdf
`Converted PDF file(s) ( 48 pages)
`Evidence-1
`Evidence-2
`Evidence-3
`Evidence-4
`Evidence-5
`Evidence-6
`Evidence-7
`Evidence-8
`Evidence-9
`Evidence-10
`Evidence-11
`Evidence-12
`Evidence-13
`Evidence-14
`Evidence-15
`Evidence-16
`Evidence-17
`Evidence-18
`Evidence-19
`Evidence-20
`Evidence-21
`Evidence-22
`Evidence-23
`Evidence-24
`Evidence-25
`Evidence-26
`Evidence-27
`Evidence-28
`Evidence-29
`Evidence-30
`Evidence-31
`Evidence-32
`Evidence-33
`Evidence-34
`Evidence-35
`Evidence-36
`Evidence-37
`Evidence-38
`Evidence-39
`Evidence-40
`
`

`
`Evidence-41
`Evidence-42
`Evidence-43
`Evidence-44
`Evidence-45
`Evidence-46
`Evidence-47
`Evidence-48
`
`SIGNATURE(S)
`Request for Reconsideration Signature
`Signature: /Joseph F. Schmidt/(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)Date: 07/31/2014
`Signatory's Name: Joseph F. Schmidt
`Signatory's Position: Attorney of record, Illinois bar member
`
`Signatory's Phone Number: 312-836-4178
`
`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 attorney or an associate thereof; and to
`the best of his/her knowledge, if prior to his/her appointment another U.S. attorney or a Canadian
`attorney/agent not currently associated with his/her 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 not filing a Notice of Appeal in conjunction with this Request for Reconsideration.
`
`Serial Number: 79119647
`Internet Transmission Date: Thu Jul 31 13:05:17 EDT 2014
`TEAS Stamp: USPTO/RFR-63.84.123.133-2014073113051729
`6685-79119647-50043ecd1762ed2b442f7b497a
`05eb4a2f36e4e3f6efb3a208e1ab9149f4f3668-
`N/A-N/A-20140731123916997972
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`

`
`Mark: 2good
`Serial No. 79/ 1 19,647
`
`In response to the Office Action of February 4, 2014, applicant requests that
`
`the
`
`examining attorney reconsider and withdraw the Section 2(d) refusal based on Reg. No.
`
`4,235,722 (the ‘"722 Reg"), for at least the following reasons:
`
`1.
`
`The marks are so dissimilar in their entireties as to appearance, connotation,
`
`and commercial impression that there is no likelihood of confusion.
`
`It is respectfillly submitted that the examining attorney has erred in finding these two
`
`marks to be sufficiently similar to create a likelihood of confusion based primarily on similarity
`
`in sound. The drawings of the two marks appear below. The cited mark:
`
`Applicant's mark:
`
`2good
`
`In terms of Visual differences, the differences are many and striking, and the combination
`
`of differences is so great as to be a dominant factor in finding that the marks are not confusingly
`
`similar. First, the cited mark has a highly unusual bottom—to—top vertical presentation of its
`
`textual matter. This is quite dissimilar from the horizontal presentation of the text in applicant's
`
`mark. Second, the marks further are Visually dissimilar insofar as the textual element in the cited
`
`mark is presented in a completely different font from applicant's mark. The different fonts create
`
`

`
`Mark: 2good
`Serial No. 79/ 1 19,647
`
`different visual impressions. The cited mark has a thin line modern look and applicant's mark
`
`has a more traditional look. Moreover, the cited mark has an upper case letter "G" and
`
`applicant's mark has a lowercase " g" with a stylized font lower portion. Where, as here, the
`
`marks are in a stylized form and not standard character form, these visual differences must be
`
`considered in analyzing similarity of the marks, and are a basis for finding that the marks are not
`
`confusingly similar. Third, the marks also are visually distinguished by the numeral "2" used in
`
`applicant's mark, as contrasted to the word "Too" presented in upper and lower case within the
`
`cited mark. Thus, the initial textual element encountered by the prospective purchaser is quite
`
`dissimilar in visual impact when the purchaser views the respective marks. Fourth, the marks
`
`also are visually distinct by reason of the square design element incorporated in the cited mark.
`
`There is no corresponding or similar design element in applicant's mark. The multiple and
`
`significant visual differences are sufficient to support a finding that the marks are not confusing
`
`similar.
`
`Applicant also respectfully submits that the examining attorney has erred in finding the
`
`marks similar in their entirety as to connotation. The different initial elements of each mark have
`
`different meanings which creates a different connotation. The textual element of applicant's
`
`mark starts with the number "2" and suggests something to do with the number 2, e. g., an
`
`amount, 2 things, a pair, or possibly to buy, try or eat 2 in relation to candy bars. There are
`
`multiple connotations.
`
`In contrast, the textual element of the registered mark starts with the
`
`word "Too" which has nothing to do with numbers and has a specific dictionary meaning of:
`
`Too:
`
`: BESIDES, ALSO <sell the house and furniture too>
`
`:
`
`to an excessive degree : EXCESSIVELY <too large a house for us>
`
`2 a
`
`b :
`
`to such a degree as to be regrettable <this time he has gone too far>
`
`c : VERY <didn't seem too interested>
`
`

`
`Mark: Zgood
`Serial No. 79/ 1 19,647
`
`SO 2d <"I didn't do it." "You did too.">
`
`3 :
`
`"Too." Merriam— Webster. com. Merriam—Webster, n.d. Web. 22 July 2014.
`
`<http://Wvvw.merriam-Webster.con1/dictionary/too>.
`
`The term "Too" is immediately followed in the registered mark by the term "Good,"
`
`which has the ordinary dictionary meaning of:
`
`Good:
`
`(1) : of a favorable character or tendency <good news> (2) : EOIINTIEIIL, EERTILE
`
`1 a
`
`<good land> (3) :
`
`IIANDSOME, ATTRACTIVE <good looks>
`
`b (1) : SUITABLE, EIT <good to eat> (2) : free from injury or disease <one good
`
`arrn> (3) : not depreciated <bad money drives out good> (4) : commercially
`
`sound <a good risk> (5) :
`
`that can be relied on <good for another year>
`
`<good for a hundred d0llars> <always good for a laugh> (6) : PROEITABLE,
`
`ADVANTAOEOU5 <made a very good deal>
`
`AGREEABLE, PLEASANT <had a good time> (2) : SALUTARY, WHOLESOME
`
`<good for a cold> (3) : AIVIIISING, CLEVER <a good joke>
`
`of a noticeably large size or quantity : CONSIDERAELE <Won by a good
`
`margin> <a good bit of the time> (2) : FULL <Waited a good hour> (3) —
`
`used as an intensive <a good many of us>
`
`WELL-EOUNDED, COGENT <good reasons> (2) : TRUE <holds good for society
`
`at 1arge> (3) : deserving of respect : HONORABLE <in good standing> (4)
`
`:
`
`legally Valid or effectual <good title>
`
`f (I) : ADEQUATE, SATISFACTORY <good care> —often used in faint praise <his
`
`serve is only good — Frank Deford> (2) : conforming to a standard <good
`
`English> (3) : CHOICE, DISCRIMINATING <good taste> (4) : containing less
`
`fat and being less tender than higher grades —used of meat and especially of
`
`beef
`
`

`
`<a good person) <g-00d conduct)
`
`<g-00d intentions)
`
`Mark: Zgood
`Serial No. 79/ 1 19,647
`
`:
`
`:
`
`2 a
`
`b ; UPPER-CLASS <a good family>
`
`C :
`
`<a good doctor)
`
`of (I) : LOYAL <a good party man> <a good Catholic> (2) : CLOSE <a good friend>
`
`e : free from infirmity or sorrow <I feel good>
`
`"Good." Merriam- Webster. com. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 23 July 2014.
`<http ://www.merriarn-Webster. com/dictionary/good>.
`
`Thus, the textual element of the registered mark conveys the meaning of "also good,"
`
`"excessively good," "very good," or "so good", and creates a very different connotation than the
`
`number 2. The initial component of each of these marks, therefore, is quite different and distinct
`
`in terms of meaning and connotation.
`
`It is further submitted that the examining attorney has erred in finding that the respective
`
`marks are so similar in their entirety as to commercial impression as to yield a likelihood of
`
`confusion. The unusual and distinctive bottom—to—top vertical presentation of all of the textual
`
`elements of the registered mark, within its square design, creates a different commercial
`
`impression from that of applicant's mark having a horizontal presentation; the textual elements
`
`run in different directions, and thus distinguish the commercial
`
`impression made by the
`
`respective marks. The textual elements are presented in different fonts. The textual element
`
`"good" of applicant's mark is presented entirely in lowercase lettering in a font quite dissimilar
`
`from the upper and lower case font presentation of the registered mark. When properly viewed
`
`in their entireties, the respective marks create very different commercial impressions.
`
`As to the examining attorney's arguments based on the similarity of sound when
`
`pronouncing the textual elements of these marks, it is respectfully submitted that the analysis
`
`ignores market realities. It is submitted that the goods listed in the '722 Reg and applicant's goods
`
`

`
`Mark: 2good
`Serial No. 79/ 1 19,647
`
`are the type of goods which are predominantly purchased by a purchaser selecting the goods by
`
`hand from shelves in retail stores, or online, not by verbally asking a sales clerk to obtain the
`
`goods. Under these purchasing circumstances, pronunciation of the marks is not likely to be
`
`involved in the purchasing process and has little practical relevance. The examiner finds that the
`
`"literal portions of the marks are essentially phonetic equivalents and thus sound similar."
`
`However, when goods are seldom purchased by vocal selection, the sound factor should not be
`
`as heavily weighed as the visual factor. See La Maur Inc. v Revlon Inc. 245 F. Supp. 839, 146
`
`U.S.P.Q. 654 (D. Minn. 1965) (phonetic similarity not so important where goods sold in self-
`
`service store rather than by verbal request to sales clerk).
`
`In analyzing the similarities between the two marks, the overall impression created by the
`
`marks must be considered and not merely individual features. General Mills Inc. v. Kellogg Co.
`
`3 U.S.P.Q.2d 1442, 1445 (8th Cir. 1987). Rather than reviewing the marks in their entireties, the
`
`examining attorney has dissected the registered mark to excise out any non—similar elements, such
`
`as the square design and vertical text presentation,
`
`in order to compare the remainder and
`
`conclude it is confirsingly similar to applicant's mark. All components must be given appropriate
`
`weight.
`
`In re Hearst Corp., 25 U.S.P.Q.2d 1238, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 1992). The differences in
`
`appearance, connotation and overall impression far outweigh the similarity in sound, especially
`
`when considering the non—verbal purchasing process. When correctly viewed in their entireties,
`
`applicant's mark is not likely to cause confusion with the registered mark. Therefore,
`
`it is
`
`respectfully submitted that the 2(d) refusal should be withdrawn.
`
`2.
`
`The Cited Mark is Entitled to Only a Narrow Scope of Protection.
`
`The scope of protection given marks is on a continuum from broad to narrow protection
`
`depending on the nature of the mark. Where a mark is weak, it should be accorded only a
`
`narrow scope of protection, not a broad or normal scope. Drackett Company v. H. Kohnstarnm
`
`& Co., 407 F.2d 1399 (1969). The cited mark is weak for two reasons. First, it is suggestive and
`
`laudatory. Second, the cited mark is weak because of the common use and registration of the
`
`

`
`Mark: 2good
`Serial No. 79/ 1 19,647
`
`terms in the cited mark. The differences in appearance, connotation and commercial impression
`
`between the cited mark and applicant's mark are so significant here that applicant's mark is easily
`
`distinguishable from the cited mark and, therefore, falls outside the scope of protection that
`
`should be given to the cited mark.
`
`(a)
`
`The cited mark is weak because it is highly suggestive and laudatory
`
`and, therefore, should be given only a narrow scope of protection.
`
`The ordinary dictionary meanings of the terms "Too" and "Good" in the registered mark
`
`are set forth in Section 1 above. As applied to the relevant goods, the textual elements of the
`
`registered mark are self—laudatory and, thus, highly suggestive.
`
`In fact, the word "good" in the
`
`cited mark is highly suggestive, if not descriptive, in relation to food products, and in which
`
`applicant can have no exclusive right. Therefore, the cited mark is highly suggestive and weak,
`
`and entitled only to a narrow scope of protection. "The scope of protection afforded such highly
`
`suggestive marks is necessarily narrow...
`
`. Drackett Company v. H. Kohnstamm & Co., 407
`
`F.2d 1399 (CCPA 1969) (Two six letter marks each containing the word "dust" for products for
`
`disposing of dust do not so resemble each other as to be likely to cause confusion). When
`
`considering the factors in assessing likelihood of confusion, the relative strength or weakness of
`
`a mark is an important factor. Philip Morris, Inc. v. Midwest Tobacco, Inc., 9 U.S.P.Q.2d 1210
`
`(E.D. Va. 1988), and for this application,
`
`it should be a dominant and controlling factor in
`
`finding no likelihood of confirsion. Moreover, unlike a situation involving an arbitrary or
`
`fanciful mark, the addition of other matter to a laudatory, highly suggestive word may be
`
`enough to distinguish it from another mark. In re Hartz Hotel Services Inc. 102 U.S.P.Q. 2d
`
`1150 (TTAB 2012); 2012 WL 1193704 at p. 4.
`
`In re Hunke & Jocheim, 185 U.S.P.Q. 188, 189
`
`(TTAB 1975). The use of the number "2" in applicant's mark and all of the other differences
`
`pointed out above are sufficient to put applicant's mark outside the narrow scope of protection
`
`to be given the weak cited mark.
`
`

`
`Mark: 2good
`Serial No. 79/ 1 19,647
`
`(b)
`
`The cited mark is weak because of the common use and registration of
`
`"TOO GOOD" for similar or related goods and, therefore, should be given only a narrow
`
`scope of protection.
`
`Offered herewith as evidence of a large number of similar marks in use on similar goods
`
`are Exhibit A and Exhibit B. Exhibit A consists of printouts of web pages showing that many
`
`different entities use "Too Good" as trademarks, trade names, brand names, or titles of food or
`
`food related items, including, but not limited to:
`
`"Richards TOO GOOD BBQ Sauce", "TOO
`
`GOOD BAKED CHICKEN", "TOO GOOD GOURMET", "TOO GOOD TO BE GLUTEN
`
`FREE", "WHEY TOO GOOD BROWNIE MIX", and others. Exhibit B consists of TESS
`
`database records showing that many different entities have applied for or registered marks that
`
`contain the textual element "Too Good" as applied to foods or food related goods or services.
`
`This is persuasive evidence that when a purchaser sees "TOO GOOD" they are unlikely to
`
`associate it with a single source.
`
`Where, as here, the cited mark is weak, consumer confusion is unlikely because the
`
`mark's components are so widely used that the public can easily distinguish slight differences in
`
`the marks,
`
`even
`
`if
`
`the goods
`
`are
`
`related. General Mills
`
`Inc.
`
`v. Kellogg Co.,
`
`3 U.S.P.Q.2d 1442, 1445 (8th Cir. 1987). When the only similarity between the marks is
`
`a widely used Word, consumers will look to the remainder of the marks as the distinguishing
`
`features. Taco Time h1t'l
`
`Inc. V. Taco Town Inc. 217 U.S.P.Q. 268 (TTAB 1982) (TACO
`
`TOWN held not confilsingly similar to TACO TIME for identical goods).
`
`In Lucky Stores, Inc.
`
`v. Red And White Foundation 145 U.S.P.Q. 47 (TTAB 1965), the Board found there was no
`
`likelihood of confusion between the mark LUCKY for grocery store services and the mark
`
`LUCKY DOLLAR for identical services. Due to the weak nature of the mark "Lucky", use of the
`
`word "Dollar" along with "Lucky", was sufficient to alleviate confusion. See General Mills
`
`Inc.
`
`v. Kellogg Co., 3 U.S.P.Q.2d 1442, 1445 (8th Cir. 1987) (no likelihood of confusion between the
`
`marks APPLE RAISIN CRISP and OATMEAL RAISIN CRISP, both for breakfast cereals);
`
`

`
`Mark: 2good
`Serial No. 79/ 1 19,647
`
`Interstate Brands Corp. v. Celestial Seasonings Inc. 576 F.2d 926, 928 (CCPA 1978) (RED
`
`ZINGERS held distinguishable from ZINGERS); King Candy Co. V. Eunice King's Kitchen
`
`I14, 182 U.S.P.Q. 108 (CCPA I974) (KING'S used on candy distinguishable from MISS
`
`KING'S used on cakes). "[O]ther words or designs play a significant role in creating the
`
`commercial impression of each mark." In re 1776 223 U.S.P.Q. at 187. In fact, where marks
`
`contain common terms, purchasers are more likely to rely on the non-common portion of each
`
`mark. In re Bed & Breakfast Registry 229 U.S.P.Q. 818, 819 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Based on this
`
`additional evidence, the cited mark should be afforded only a narrow scope of protection and
`
`applicant's mark falls outside of that scope.
`
`3.
`
`The prior responses in this application are incorporated by reference, as they
`
`are considered to remain fully applicable to the pending rejection.
`
`The arguments and evidence submitted in Applicant's prior responses in this application
`
`are herein incorporated by reference. Such arguments and evidence are considered to remain
`
`applicable to the analysis herein, and are not repeated in this response for the sake of brevity.
`
`This response is made Without waiver or prejudice as to any of the arguments and evidence
`
`previously presented, all of which are hereby expressly reserved for the purposes of appeal.
`
`Conclusion-
`
`For the foregoing reasons, the refusal to register under Section 2(d) should be withdrawn.
`
`130069 7_3
`
`

`
`Mark: Zgood
`Serial No. 79/119,647
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`WEB PAGES
`
`

`
`Richard's Too Good BBQ Sauces Recalled for Botulism Risk... Page 1 of 2
`
`JULY 23, 2014
`
`POSTS
`
`COMMENTS
`
`Food Poisoning Bulletin
`
`Home
`
`About
`
`Contact
`
`Need a Lawyer?
`
`Recalls
`You are here: Home I News I Richard's Too Good BBQ Sauces Recalled for Botulism Risk
`
`Food Safely
`
`O“-'tb"33k5
`
`NEWS
`
`Search this website
`
`
`
`Richard’s Too Good BBQ Sauces Recalled for Botulism Risk
`June 25, 2014 by Carla Gillespie
`Leave a Comment
`
`Richard's Rubs & Seasonings is recalling Richard s Too Good BBQ sauce. Richards Too Good Hot
`Sauce and Richard‘s Too Good Teriyakl Sauce for possible botullsm risk. Botulism is ai potentially fatal
`foodborne illness.
`
`The sauces were improperly processed and have the potential to be contaminated with Clostridium
`botulinum, a nerve toxin which can cause ootulism Botulism. which causes paralysis, cannot be spread
`from person to person. Symptoms. which usually develop within i2 to 36 hours of exposure. include
`double vision. blurred vision, drooping eyelids. slurred speech. difliculty swallowing, dry mouth. and
`muscle weakness beginning with facial muscles and moving down. Respiratory failure occurs when it
`reaches the muscle groups that control lung function. Anyone who ate one of the sauces and is
`experiencing symptoms should seek medical hetp immediately.
`
`The recalled sauces, packaged in 12 oz tall glass bottles with metal screw caps and black heat resistant
`tamper seals, were sold in western Washington grocery stores and butcher shops in Kitsap, Snohomish
`and King counties. They were distributed up to the date of June ‘i7, 2014.
`
`Share this:
`
`.1 Email
`
`Iii Print
`
`3*Goog|e
`
`!'Twltter 2
`
`f Facebook 4
`
`in Llnkedln Q Plnteresi
`
`t Tumblr
`
`".-7- More
`
`Filed Under. News, Recalls
`
`Tagged With Botulisrn. Clostridiurri botulinuni
`
`Speak Your Mind
`
`By submitting a comment, you are contacting Pritzkerolsen, P A An attorney may contact you to ask it you would like a free consultation regarding your loodborne
`illness
`
`latest+news
`
`Cyclospora Cases Reported In
`Maine. Texas
`Schwebei Witriraws Baked Goods on
`Listeria Concern
`Three States File Lawsuits Against
`5-Hour Energy Maker
`Consumers Advocates Try to Stop
`Filthy Chicken Rule
`Listeria Fruit Recall Includes Whoie
`Foods. Cub, Aldi. Kroger and More
`
`St’:
`Contact
`Pritziiertilsen
`attomeys
`about your
`food
`poisoning
`
`email+updates
`Enter your email address..
`
`recent+outbreaks
`
`Salmonella and Campylobacter at
`the University ol Tennessee
`Chattanooga
`Salmonella Outbreak at Big Tirri’s in
`St. Petersourg, Florida
`Hepatitis A Outbreak Linked to
`Townsend Farms Frozen Berries
`Cyclscspora Outbreak Update
`Burma Superstar E. coll Outbreak
`Frederico‘s E. coli Outbreak in
`Arizona
`
`about+us
`Our editor. Linda
`Larsen, has written
`28 cook books.
`She worked for the
`Pillsbury company
`
`http://foodpoisoningbulletin.com/2014/richards-too-good-bbq-... 7/23/2014
`
`

`
`Richard's Too Good BBQ Sauces Recalled for Botulism Risk... Page 2 of 2
`
`in their test Kitchens and for the
`Pillsbury Bake-Oil. She holds a
`degree with High Distinction in Food
`Science from the University of
`Minnesota.
`Read More >>
`
`Fred Prltzker is a
`food safely
`advocate and
`attorney. He
`represenls people
`‘
`sickened by contaminated food.
`Read more >>
`
`Contact Fred Here
`
`Return to top ofpage
`
`Copyright © 2012 ‘ Priizkerolsen. F.A., Plaza Seven, Suite 2950, 45 South Seventh Street, Minneapolis, MN 55402 - Sitemap
`
`Home -About - Siie Map - Contact Us -
`I:
`
`http://foodpoisoningbulletin.com/2014/richards-too-good-bbq-... 7/23/2014
`
`

`
`Too Good Baked Chicken | Soul Food Cookbook, Soul Food
`
`Page 1 of 4
`
`Add/Update a Recipe and Comments
`
`Terms of Use and Copyright
`
`Advertise here
`
`Get the Banner for your site
`
`Soul Food Cookbook, Soul Food Recipes
`Soul Food is a tasteful delight for all to enjoy. The Soul Food Cookbook is a collective cookbook of Recipes, for
`all to enjoy culinary delights born from the Black/African American,jamaican and Caribbean cultures. Many
`are easy to use.
`
`G|uten—Free Bouillon
`O masselcom
`Gourmet Ingredients Taste Greatl Delicious Gluten—Free Recipes.
`
`Barbecue
`Salad
`
`Beans
`Seafood
`
`Beet
`Soup
`
`Bread
`Beverages
`Starch
`Vegetables
`
`Chicken
`
`Desserts
`
`Gumbo
`
`Low Carb Recipes
`
`Pork
`
`Poultry
`
`Recipes
`
`Ribs
`
`Too Good Baked Chicken
`Posted on December 30, 2013 by soul-food-recipes
`
`Ingredients:
`
`chicken pieces (white, dark, or mixed)
`1 can of cream of mushroom soup
`1 package of onion— mushroom dry soup mix (Lipton’sa
`soup mix has better taste orjust onion mix)
`1 & 1/2 cups of milk (whole milk gives the best taste)
`
`Utensils Needed:
`
`baking pan (deep enough to hold a whole chicken)
`mixing bowl
`
`Instructions:
`
`Preheat the oven to 350 F.
`
`Spread the onion soup mix over the bottom of the pan.
`Make sure the mix is spread evenly.
`Wash and then place the chicken in the pan, on top of the
`onion mix.
`
`In the mixing bowl, mix the cream of mushroom soup and
`the milk. Mix it well so there are no lumps.
`Pour the mixture over the chicken and place it in the
`oven.
`
`Cook at 350 degrees F for 30 minutes and then turn the
`chicken over and cook for another 30 minutes, or until the
`chicken is done and the gravy is brown.
`
`Note: Serve it hot. It tastes very good with rice or
`mashed potatoes. Y