From: Castro, Giancarlo
`
`
`
`Sent: 7/26/2013 8:19:26 PM
`
`
`
`To: TTAB EFiling
`
`
`
`CC:
`
`
`
`Subject: U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 85327107 - UNBREAKABLE - 29510 - Request for
`Reconsideration Denied - Return to TTAB
`
`
`
`*************************************************
`
`Attachment Information:
`
`Count: 1
`
`Files: 85327107.doc
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
`OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`*85327107*
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 85327107
`
`
`
` MARK: UNBREAKABLE
`
`
`
` CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS:
` AMY COHEN HELLER
`
` SCHIFF HARDIN LLP
`
` 233 SOUTH WACKER DRIVESUITE 6600
`
`GENERAL TRADEMARK INFORMATION:
`
` CHICAGO, IL 60606-0079
`
`http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/index.jsp
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` APPLICANT: Walter Meier (Manufacturing) Inc.
`
`
`
` CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO:
`
` 29510
`
` CORRESPONDENT E-MAIL ADDRESS:
`
` trademarks@schiffhardin.com
`
`REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED
`
`
`
`
`
`ISSUE/MAILING DATE: 7/26/2013
`
`
`
`

`
`The trademark examining attorney has carefully reviewed applicant’s request for reconsideration and is
`denying the request for the reasons stated below. See 37 C.F.R. §2.64(b); TMEP §§715.03(a)(2)(B),
`(a)(2)(E), 715.04(a). The refusal made final in the Office action dated November 28, 2012 is maintained
`and continues to be final. See TMEP §§715.03(a)(2)(B), (a)(2)(E), 715.04(a).
`
`
`
`In the present case, applicant’s request has not resolved all the outstanding issue(s), nor does it raise a
`new issue or provide any new or compelling evidence with regard to the outstanding issue(s) in the final
`Office action. In addition, applicant’s analysis and arguments are not persuasive nor do they shed new
`light on the issues. Accordingly, the request is denied.
`
`
`
`The filing of a request for reconsideration does not extend the time for filing a proper response to a final
`Office action or an appeal with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (Board), which runs from the date
`the final Office action was issued/mailed. See 37 C.F.R. §2.64(b); TMEP §715.03, (a)(2)(B), (a)(2)(E), (c).
`
`
`
`If time remains in the six-month response period to the final Office action, applicant has the
`remainder of the response period to comply with and/or overcome any outstanding final
`requirement(s) and/or refusal(s) and/or
`to file an appeal with
`the Board.
` TMEP
`§715.03(a)(2)(B), (c). However, if applicant has already filed a timely notice of appeal with the
`Board, the Board will be notified to resume the appeal when the time for responding to the final
`Office action has expired. See TMEP §715.04(a).
`Mark is Merely Descriptive – Supplemental Register Suggested
`
`The applied-for mark has been refused registration on the Principal Register because it is considered
`merely descriptive. Applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in
`support of registration and/or by amending the application to seek registration on the Supplemental
`Register. See 15 U.S.C. §1091; 37 C.F.R. §§2.47, 2.75(a); TMEP §§801.02(b), 816. Amending to the
`Supplemental Register does not preclude applicant from submitting evidence and arguments against the
`refusal(s). TMEP §816.04.
`
`
`
`

`
`/Giancarlo Castro/
`
`Giancarlo Castro
`
`Examining Attorney
`
`Law Office 110
`
`571-272-9357
`
`giancarlo.castro@uspto.gov