From: Lee, Janet
`
`
`
`Sent: 8/1/2014 5:05:55 PM
`
`
`
`To: TTAB EFiling
`
`
`
`CC:
`
`
`
`Subject: U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 85783199 - NEIGHBORHOOD SHOWINGS - Timothy M. H -
`Request for Reconsideration Denied - Return to TTAB - Message 1 of 21
`
`
`
`*************************************************
`
`Attachment Information:
`
`Count: 5
`
`Files: neighborho-1.jpg, neighborho-2.jpg, neighborho-3.jpg, neighborho-4.jpg, 85783199.doc
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
`OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`*85783199*
`
`
`
`
`
`GENERAL TRADEMARK INFORMATION:
`
` U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 85783199
`
`
`
` MARK: NEIGHBORHOOD SHOWINGS
`
`
`
` CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS:
` TIMOTHY M HSIEH
`
` MH2 TECHNOLOGY LAW GROUP
`
` 1951 KIDWELL DRIVE SUITE 550
`
` TYSONS CORNER, VA 22182-3984
`
`http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/index.jsp
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` APPLICANT: Realvation Inc.
`
`
`
` CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO:
`
` Timothy M. H
`
` CORRESPONDENT E-MAIL ADDRESS:
`
` tim@mh2law.com
`
`REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED
`
`
`
`
`
`ISSUE/MAILING DATE: 8/1/2014
`
`
`
`

`
`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 January 7, 2014 is maintained and
`continue 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.
`
`
`
`Applicant’s mark is NEIGHBORHOOD SHOWING for “Providing real estate leads for prospective
`purchasers” in Class 035 and “Providing an Internet website portal offering information in the fields of
`real estate concerning the purchase and sale of new and resale homes and condos; Providing
`information in the field of real estate via the Internet” in Class 036.
`
`
`
`Applicant argues that the services do not involve neighborhoods and that the services do not involve
`“showing anything”. The examining attorney respectfully disagrees. The wording NEIGHBORHOOD
`means “a section lived in by neighbors and usually having distinguishing characteristics”. Please see
`attached dictionary definition from Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary, 11th Edition. The wording
`SHOWING, when used in connection with real estate, refers to a private or public tour of real estate
`being offered for sale. Please find attached five websites that show the wording SHOWING referring to
`tours of real estate property that are available for purchase, when used in connection with real estate
`related services. Further, please find attached evidence from the Internet that shows that real estate
`leads, listings and information are provided to supply information regarding the neighborhood of the
`property. Such information is also provided in order to conduct showings of such property for sale. The
`neighborhood of a particular property is often an important consideration in real estate purchasing.
`Finally, the services of “Providing information in the field of real estate via the Internet” are broad
`enough to include information about the surrounding neighborhood of the real estate property and also
`showing schedules.
`
`
`
`Applicant also argues that the mark is incongruous. The word “incongruous” means “not harmonious:
`incompatible” or “inconsistent within itself.” Please see attached dictionary definition from Merriam-
`Webster’s Online Dictionary, 11th Edition. The wording NEIGHBORHOOD and SHOWINGS are not
`incongruous because they are not incompatible with each other or create inconsistencies between
`them. When read together, consumers will understand that applicant’s services involve providing
`
`

`
`information or leads relating to the surrounding area of a real estate property and the showing of such
`property.
`
`
`
`Therefore, the applied-for mark is merely descriptive of the subject matter and the purpose of
`applicant’s services.
`
`
`
`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. See TMEP §715.04(a).
`
`
`
`/Janet Lee/
`
`Examining Attorney
`
`Law Office 102
`
`Phone: (571) 272-1053
`
`janet.lee@uspto.gov