throbber
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`ESTTA711014
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`11/25/2015
`
`Filing date:
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`86366618
`Abbott Law Chartered
`BATTLEBORNIP.COM
`ERIC L. ABBOTT
`ABBOTT LAW CHARTERED
`6900 WESTCLIFF DR STE 511
`LAS VEGAS, NV 89145-0198
`UNITED STATES
`ela@battlebornip.com
`Appeal Brief
`applicantsbriefsn86366618.pdf(427788 bytes )
`Eric L Abbott
`ela@battlebornip.com
`/Eric L Abbott/
`11/25/2015
`
`Proceeding
`Applicant
`Applied for Mark
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Submission
`Attachments
`Filer's Name
`Filer's e-mail
`Signature
`Date
`
`

`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Serial No:
`
`Mark:
`
`Applicant:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 86366618
`
` battlebornip.com
`
` Abbott Law Chartered
`
`Examining Attorney: Lauren E. Burke, Law Office 106
`
`EX PARTE APPEAL
`
`APPLICANT’S BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`Applicant’s Brief- Ex Parte Appeal: SN 86366618 1 | P a g e
`
`
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INDEX OF CITED CASES……………………………………………………………………3
`
`INDEX OF STATUTES AND OTHER AUTHORITIES…………………………………….3
`
`DESCRIPTION OF THE RECORD………………………………………………………..4-6
`
`A. Prosecution History……………………………………………………………….4
`
`B. Examining Attorney’s Evidence………………………………………………..4-5
`
`C. Applicant’s Evidence……………………………………………………………..6
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES……………………………………………………………..6
`
`RECITATION OF THE FACTS……………………………………………………………..7-8
`
`ARGUMENT………………………………………………………………………………... 8-16
`
`A. Legal Standard…………………………………………………………………...8-9
`
`B. Analysis- Dissimilarity…………………………………………………………10-14
`
`C. Analysis- The examiner has not met the required burden of proof in
`
`concluding that the services are related……………………………………14-15
`
`D. Analysis- The letters “ip” is a double entendre and is thus at a minimum
`
`suggestive………………………………………………………………………15-16
`
`SUMMARY…………………………………………………………………………………...16
`
`
`
`
`
`Applicant’s Brief- Ex Parte Appeal: SN 86366618 2 | P a g e
`
`
`
`

`
`INDEX OF CITED CASES
`
`Application of E.I. DuPont DeNewmours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361; 177 U.S.P.Q 563,
`
`567 (C.C.P.A. 1973)………………………………………………………………………….9
`
`Armstar Corp. v. Domino’s Pizza, Inc., 615 F.2d 252, 259-260; 205 U.S.P.Q. 969, 975
`
`(5th Cir. 1980)……………………………………………………………………………11-12
`
`Bass Pro Trademarks LLC v. Sportsman’s Warehouse, Inc., 89 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1844, 1857
`
`(TTAB 2008)………………………………………………………………………………….11
`
`Champagne Louis Roderer S.A. v. Delicato Vineyards, 148 F.3d 1373, 1375; 47
`
`U.S.P.Q. 1459, 1460 (Fed. Cir. 1998)……………………………………………………..9
`
`In re 1st USA Realty Professionals, Inc., 84 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1581, 1586 (TTAB
`
`2007)………………………………………………………………………………………….10
`
`In re Broadway Chicken., Inc., 38 U.S.P.Q. 1559, 1565 (TTAB 1982)………………...11
`
`In re Fox, 702 F.3d 633, 637; 105 U.S.P.Q.2d 1247, 1251 (Fed. Cir. 2012)………….15
`
`In re Princeton Tectronics, Inc., 95 U.S.P.Q.2d 1509, 1512 (TTAB 2010)…………….14
`
`Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc. v. Ocean Garden Products, Inc., 223 U.S.P.Q. 1027,
`
`1029- 1030 (TTAB 1984)…………………………………………………………………14-15
`
`INDEX OF STATUTES AND OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Trademark Act Section 2d, 15 U.S.C. § 1062(b)…………………………………………..4
`
`TMEP 1213.05(c)……………………………………………………………………………..15
`
`
`
`Applicant’s Brief- Ex Parte Appeal: SN 86366618 3 | P a g e
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`COMES NOW, the Applicant, Abbott Law Chartered, by Counsel, and hereby
`
`respectfully appeals the Examining Attorney’s refusal to register the mark
`
`BATTLEBORNIP.COM.
`
`DESCRIPTION OF THE RECORD
`
`A. PROSECUTION HISTORY
`
`
`
`The BATTLEBORNIP.COM Application (“Application”) was initially refused on
`
`December 2, 2014 in a non-final Office Action based on the Trademark Act Section 2d,
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1062(b). Applicant filed a response to the Office Action on February 6,
`
`2015. On March 30, 2015, the Examining Attorney issued a final Office Action.
`
`Applicant filed a Notice of Appeal on September 28, 2015.
`
`B. EXAMINING ATTORNEY’S EVIDENCE
`
`December 2, 2014 Office Action
`
`1. BATTLE BORN INJURY LAWYERS and design U.S. Registration Number
`
`4604101 (“CITED MARK”). In the registration, the CITED MARK is described as
`
`follows: “[t]he mark consists of a silver and gold ram head, which can also be
`
`seen as a silver ram head colliding with a gold ram head, with silver “BATTLE”
`
`and gold “BORN” immediately below the ram(s); the wording “INJURY
`
`LAWYERS” appears in grey below the larger wording “BATTLE BORN”; the
`
`entirety of the mark appears on a black background, which is not mark of the
`
`mark.”
`
`2. A quotation from www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/ip showing that the
`
`letters “IP” has two potential meanings: intellectual property or internet protocol.
`
`Applicant’s Brief- Ex Parte Appeal: SN 86366618 4 | P a g e
`
`
`
`

`
`3. The following internet sites and trademark registrations of marks related to legal
`
`services (allegedly showing that the services of the Application and the CITED
`
`MARK are related):
`
`a. Design mark Registration No. 3246176.
`
`b. M P Murphy & Powell Attorneys at Law and design mark Registration
`
`No. 4349691.
`
`c. Liga Legal word mark Registration No. 4486158.
`
`d. Biker Chick Lawyer word mark Registration No. 4488205.
`
`e. Whatever You’re Facing We Have Your Back word mark Registration
`
`No. 4555574.
`
`f. Website for Clark Law Firm.
`
`g. Website for Francis Law Firm.
`
`h. Website for Tucker IP.
`
`March 30, 2015 Office Action
`
`1. The following internet sites and trademark registrations of marks related to
`
`legal services (allegedly showing that the services of the Application and the
`
`CITED MARK are related):
`
`a. I.P. Avengers word mark Registration No. 4576150.
`
`b. R C P design mark Registration No. 4501155.
`
`c. JetSet word mark Registration No. 4617278.
`
`d. JM and design mark Registration No. 4691892.
`
`e. Ardent Law Group word mark Registration No. 4695433.
`
`f. Choquette and Hart website.
`
`Applicant’s Brief- Ex Parte Appeal: SN 86366618 5 | P a g e
`
`
`
`

`
`g. Callahan and Blaine website.
`
`h. Wharton, Aldhizer and Weaver website.
`
`C. APPLICANT’S EVIDENCE
`
`February 6, 2015 Response to Office Action
`
`1. First Declaration of Eric L. Abbott (“Applicant’s First Dec”)- Evidence of use of the
`
`unregistered mark “battlebornlaw.com” for legal services from prior to the
`
`use/filing date of the CITED MARK to February 4, 2015.
`
`2. Second Declaration of Eric L. Abbott (“Applicant’s Second Dec”)- Evidence of
`
`the fact that there are over a 100 entities in the State of Nevada with the words
`
`“battle born” in their name.
`
`3. Third Declaration of Eric L. Abbott (“Applicant’s Third Dec”)- Evidence of 41
`
`entities in the State of Nevada with the name “battle born” in the yellow pages.
`
`4. Fourth Declaration of Eric L. Abbott (“Applicant’s Fourth Dec”)- Evidence of 8
`
`USPTO trademark registrations besides the CITED MARK .
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
`
`A. ISSUE #1- ARE THE APPLICATION AND THE CITED MARK DISSIMILAR?
`
`B. ISSUE #2- HAS THE EXAMINING ATTORNEY MET THEIR REQUIRED
`
`BURDEN OF PROOF IN CONCLUDING THAT THE SERVICES ARE
`
`RELATED BETWEEN THE APPLICATION AND THE CITED MARK?
`
`C. ISSUE #3- ARE THE LETTERS “IP” A DOUBLE ENTENDRE AND THUS AT
`
`A MINIMUM SUGGESTIVE?
`
`
`
`Applicant’s Brief- Ex Parte Appeal: SN 86366618 6 | P a g e
`
`
`
`

`
`RECITATION OF THE FACTS
`
`1. The CITED MARK was filed on June 19, 2013 and first used in commerce on
`
`March 16, 2013. See CITED MARK attached to the December 2, 2014 Office
`
`Action.
`
`2. The services for the CITED MARK are the following in Class 45: Legal consulting
`
`services in the field of personal injury; Litigation services. See CITED MARK
`
`attached to December 2, 2014 Office Action.
`
`3. In the CITED MARK, the gold and silver rams head is approximately 1 5/16
`
`inches in height while the words “Battle Born Injury Lawyers” is 13/16 inches in
`
`height or 60% of the size of the gold and silver rams head. See CITED Mark
`
`attached to the December 2, 2014 Office Action.
`
`4. The Application’s services are for: “providing customized documentation,
`
`information, counseling, advice and consultation services in all areas of business
`
`law and intellectual property.” See Application filed on August 14, 2014.
`
`5. The Application is for the word mark “BATTLEBORNIP.COM” and does not
`
`contain any designs, including but not limited to any animals such as a ram. See
`
`Application filed on August 14, 2014.
`
`6. The unregistered mark BATTLEBORNLAW.COM has been used since at least
`
`2007 through at least February of 2015. See Applicant’s First Dec in the
`
`February 6, 2015 Response to Office Action.
`
`7. There are over a 100 entities in the State of Nevada with the words “Battle Born”
`
`in their company name. See Applicant’s Second Dec in the February 6, 2015
`
`Response to Office Action.
`
`Applicant’s Brief- Ex Parte Appeal: SN 86366618 7 | P a g e
`
`
`
`

`
`8. There are 41 businesses with the words “Battle Born” in their name throughout
`
`the State of Nevada listed in the yellow pages. See Applicant’s Third Dec in the
`
`February 6, 2015 Response to Office Action.
`
`9. “IP” has two meanings: internet protocol and intellectual property. See
`
`December 2, 2014 Office Action.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`A. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`The thirteen factors to be considered in a likelihood of confusion analysis
`
`are as follows:
`
`“1. The similarity or dissimilarity of the marks in their entireties as to
`
`appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression.
`
`2. The similarity or dissimilarity and nature of the goods or services as
`
`described in an application or registration or in connection with which a
`
`prior mark is in use.
`
`3. The similarity or dissimilarity of established, likely-to-continue trade
`
`channels.
`
`4. The conditions under which and buyers to whom sales are made, i.e.
`
`“impulse” vs. careful, sophisticated purchasing.
`
` 5. The fame of the prior mark (sales, advertising, length of use).
`
` 6. The number and nature of similar marks in use on similar goods.
`
` 7. The nature and extent of any actual confusion.
`
` 8. The length of time during and conditions under which there has been
`
`concurrent use without evidence of actual confusion.
`
`Applicant’s Brief- Ex Parte Appeal: SN 86366618 8 | P a g e
`
`
`
`

`
` 9. The variety of goods on which a mark is or is not used (house mark, “
`
`
`
`family” mark, product mark).
`
`10. The market interface between applicant and the owner of a prior
`
`mark:
`
` (a) a mere “consent” to register or use.
`
` (b) agreement provisions designed to preclude confusion, i.e. limitations
`
`on continued use of the marks by each party.
`
`(c) assignment of mark, application, registration and good will of the
`
`related business.
`
`(d) laches and estoppel attributable to owner of prior mark and indicative
`
`of lack of confusion.
`
`11. The extent to which applicant has a right to exclude others from use of
`
`its mark on its goods.
`
`12. The extent of potential confusion, i.e., whether de minimis or
`
`substantial.
`
` 13. Any other established fact probative of the effect of use.”
`
`See Application of E.I. DuPont DeNewmours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361
`
`177 U.S.P.Q. 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973).
`
`“[T]hat one DuPont factor may be dispositive in a likelihood of confusion analysis,
`
`especially when that single factor is the dissimilarity of the marks.” See Champagne
`
`Louis Roderer S.A. v. Delicato Vineyards, 148 F3d 1373, 1375;47 U.S.P.Q. 1459, 1460
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1998).
`
`
`
`Applicant’s Brief- Ex Parte Appeal: SN 86366618 9 | P a g e
`
`
`
`

`
`B. ANALYSIS- DISSMILARITY
`
`1. Introduction
`
`The Application does not have a ram’s head and does not have any reference to
`
`any animal. The CITED MARK’s dominant feature is the ram’s head. Further, the use
`
`in both marks of the phrase “Battle Born” does not support the Examining Attorney’s
`
`conclusion of likelihood of confusion since the phrase “Battle Born” lacks distinctiveness
`
`through its common use as a mark.
`
`2. The CITED MARK’s Dominant Feature is the Ram’s Head
`
`The Examining Attorney’s December 2, 2014 Office Action concluded that the
`
`words “Battle Born” were the dominant feature of the CITED MARK (which is a
`
`composite mark). To determine whether the design or the wording of a composite mark
`
`is dominant, the TTAB has looked at whether: (1) The design is background material;
`
`and (2) The design has a separate connotation or makes a separate impression. See In
`
`re 1st USA Realty Professionals, Inc., 84 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1581, 1586 (TTAB 2007). In the
`
`1st USA case, the cited mark had 1st USA imprinted over stars. The TTAB held that: “a
`
`stars motif is often associated with the United States, the stars design tends to simply
`
`reinforce the components USA in Application….” Id.
`
`In the CITED MARK, the gold and silver ram head appears above the words and
`
`is thus not background material. See CITED MARK attached to the December 2, 2014
`
`Office Action. Also, in both Office Actions, the Examining Attorney failed to present any
`
`evidence in any of the Office Actions that the gold and silver ram head relates to the
`
`words “Battle Born”. The connection between a gold and silver ram head and “Battle
`
`Born” is not clear from the cited mark. Certainly, if the design in the cited mark
`
`Applicant’s Brief- Ex Parte Appeal: SN 86366618 10 | P a g e
`
`

`
`contained swords or firearms, then such a hypothetical design would reinforce the
`
`words “Battle Born”.
`
`In this analysis, the size and placement of the design versus the words is an
`
`important part of the analysis. In concluding that the Bass Pro Shops logo was the
`
`dominant element of composite mark, the TTAB looked at how the words in the
`
`composite mark were below the logo and smaller. See Bass Pro Trademarks LLC v.
`
`Sportsman’s Warehouse, Inc., 89 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1844, 1857 (TTAB 2008).
`
`Here, in the CITED MARK, the ram’s head appears above the phrase “BATTLE
`
`BORN INJURY LAWYERS” and these words are smaller than the ram’s head logo.
`
`See CITED MARK attached to the December 2, 2014 Office Action. The words
`
`“BATTLE BORN” are approximately 13/16 inches in height, while the gold and silver
`
`ram head is approximately 1 5/16 inches in height. See CITED MARK attached to the
`
`December 2, 2014 Office Action. Thus, in terms of height, the words “Battle Born” is
`
`approximately 60% of the size of the gold and silver ram head. Also, the gold and silver
`
`ram head is at the top of the mark- the first thing that a consumer will see (most
`
`consumers read from top to bottom).
`
`Therefore, the dominant feature of the CITED MARK is the ram’s head.
`
`3. The words “Battle Born” Lack Distinctiveness
`
`As will be shown below, “Battle Born” is commonly used and weak. Where a
`
`component is commonly used and weak, consumers are likely to look to “other
`
`elements of the marks as a means of distinguishing the source of goods or services in
`
`the field.” See In re Broadway Chicken., Inc., 38 U.S.P.Q. 1559, 1565 (TTAB 1982).
`
`Applicant’s Brief- Ex Parte Appeal: SN 86366618 11 | P a g e
`
`

`
`“The greater the number of identical or more or less similar trade-marks already
`
`in use on different kinds of goods, the less is the likelihood of confusion.” See Armstar
`
`Corp. v. Domino’s Pizza, Inc., 615 F.2d 252, 259-260; 205 U.S.P.Q. 969, 975 (5th Cir.
`
`1980) (quoting from comment g of the Restatement of Torts § 729 (1938)). “Another
`
`indication of distinctiveness in a trademark consisting of a word singly or in conjunction
`
`with another is the frequency of prior use of the word in other marks, particularly in the
`
`same field of merchandise or service.” See Pizzeria Uno Corp. v. Temple, 224 U.S.P.Q
`
`185, 190 (4th Cir. 1984).
`
`“[B]attlebornlaw.com” has been a service mark used in the context of legal
`
`services (including litigation services) in at least the State of Nevada since at least
`
`2007. See Applicant’s First Dec Attached to the February 6, 2015 Response and
`
`associated internet printouts related to Martin and Allison.
`
`There are over a 100 entities in the State of Nevada with the words “Battle Born”
`
`in their company name. See Applicant’s First Dec attached to the February 6, 2015
`
`Response and the internet printout from the Nevada Secretary of State.
`
`For service marks, evidence of use of marks in the yellow pages “carries the
`
`presumption that the service mark is being used by third-parties in connection with the
`
`offering of the advertised services.” See Lloyd’s Food Products, Inc. v. Eli’s, Inc., 987
`
`F.2d 766, 768; 25 U.S.P.Q 2d 2027, 2029 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
`
`On the yellowpages.com website there are the following numbers of companies
`
`with the words “Battle Born” in their name: 15 companies listed as near Las Vegas, NV;
`
`22 companies listed as near Reno, NV; 4 companies listed as near Ely, NV. See
`
`Applicant’s Third Dec Attached to the February 6, 2015 Response and the internet
`
`Applicant’s Brief- Ex Parte Appeal: SN 86366618 12 | P a g e
`
`

`
`printout from yellowpages.com. The services listed in yellowpages.com include the
`
`following: bird barriers; survival products and supplies; home improvements; martial arts
`
`instruction; excavation contractors; trucking; electricians; real estate agents; gunsmiths;
`
`handyman services; civil engineers; health clubs; sports and entertainment centers;
`
`tattoos; body piercing; real estate inspection; insurance; general contractors; landscape
`
`contractors; tree service; carpet and rug cleaners; and advertising agencies. See
`
`Applicant’s Third Dec Attached to the February 6, 2015 Response and the internet
`
`printout from yellowpages.com.
`
`Excluding the CITED MARK, the following trademarks with the words “Battle
`
`Born” are registered on the principal register of the United States Patent and Trademark
`
`Office (not owned by the owner of the CITED MARK):
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`“Battle Born” in class 25. Registration No. 4674065.
`
`“Battle Born Distributing” in class 35. Registration No. 2611716.
`
`“Battle Born” in class 32. Registration No. 4240320.
`
`“Battle Born and design” in class 13. Registration No. 4406504.
`
`“BattleBorn” in class 9. Registration No. 4289161.
`
`“Battle Born Guns by U.S. Firearms Academy and design” in class 40.
`
`Registration No. 4112410.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`“Battle Born” in classes 13 and 40. Registration No. 4112409.
`
`Heli 1 Corp Battle Born in class 39. Registration No. 3334189.
`
`See Applicant’s Fourth Dec attached to the February 6, 2015 Response and the
`
`registration printouts from the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`website.
`
`Applicant’s Brief- Ex Parte Appeal: SN 86366618 13 | P a g e
`
`

`
`Here are some of the goods and services that are listed in these “Battle Born”
`
`registrations: over twenty different types of articles of clothing; wholesale distributorship
`
`services; beer; guns; computers; and helicopter charter services. See Applicant’s Fourth
`
`Dec attached to the February 6, 2015 Response and the registration printouts from the
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office website.
`
`The mere fact that the CITTED MARK and the Application have some similarities
`
`is an insufficient basis to support an allegation of likelihood of confusion when the
`
`shared element is so weak. This factor clearly indicates that confusion between the
`
`respective marks is not likely.
`
`C. ANALYSIS- THE EXAMINER HAS NOT MET THE REQUIRED BURDEN OF
`
`PROOF IN CONCLUDING THAT THE SERVICES ARE RELATED
`
`The TTAB has held that the examiner has the burden to make a prima facie
`
`showing that goods are related. See In re Princeton Tectronics, Inc., 95 U.S.P.Q.2d
`
`1509, 1512 (TTAB 2010). Both Office Action’s analysis focused on how the services
`
`listed under the Application and the services in the cited mark can be sold by the same
`
`law firm or “emanate from a single source”. Just as McDonald’s sells salads, breakfast
`
`burritos, fish sandwiches and hamburgers, some law firms will both sell litigation
`
`services and intellectual property services. The Applicant does not dispute these facts.
`
`The issue is that the Examining Attorney did not perform the proper comparison
`
`between the services in the Application and the services in the CITED MARK.
`
`It is common knowledge that food stores sell both seafood and cranberry juice-
`
`arguably the same channels of trade. However, the TTAB, when faced with potentially
`
`similar marks for these types of goods, as part of the TTAB’s finding of likely no
`
`Applicant’s Brief- Ex Parte Appeal: SN 86366618 14 | P a g e
`
`

`
`confusion, the TTAB looked at the comparison of the goods themselves (applicant’s
`
`seafood goods versus the opposer’s fruit, preserves, condiment and bakery products).
`
`See Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc. v. Ocean Garden Products, Inc., 223 U.S.P.Q.
`
`1027, 1029- 1030 (TTAB 1984).
`
`Both Office Actions did not perform the required comparison of the services listed
`
`in the CITED MARK and the Application. The CITED MARK’s services are limited to:
`
`“[l]egal consulting services in the field of personal injury; Litigation services.” The
`
`Application’s services do not include services related to personal injury or litigation.
`
`Therefore, the services are not related.
`
`D. ANALYSIS- THE LETTERS “IP” IS A DOUBLE ENTENDRE AND IS THUS
`
`AT A MINIMUM SUGGESTIVE
`
`TMEP 1213.05(c) states in pertinent part:
`
`“A “double entendre” is a word or expression capable of more than one
`
`interpretation. For trademark purposes, a “double entendre” is an expression
`
`that has a double connotation or significance as applied to the goods or
`
`services. The mark that comprises the “double entendre” will not be refused
`
`registration as merely descriptive if one of its meanings is not merely
`
`descriptive in relation to the goods or services.”
`
`A “double entendre” is entitled to a “presumption of registrability” under TMEP
`
`1213.05(c). See In re Fox, 702 F.3d 633, 637; 105 U.S.P.Q.2d 1247, 1251 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2012).
`
`Applicant’s Brief- Ex Parte Appeal: SN 86366618 15 | P a g e
`
`

`
`Here, according to the Collins Dictionary excerpt submitted with the December 2,
`
`2014 Office Action, “IP” can mean intellectual property or internet protocol. “Internet
`
`protocol” is clearly NOT descriptive of the legal services listed in the Applicant’s
`
`application under class 45. “Internet protocol” relates to a certain type of computer
`
`code. In the Office Actions, the Examining Attorney failed to provide any evidence that
`
`“internet protocol” is descriptive of the Application’s mark’s services. Therefore, “IP” is
`
`at minimum suggestive and not descriptive. Registrability of the Application is thus
`
`presumed.
`
`SUMMARY
`
`In view of the foregoing, it is respectfully submitted there is no likelihood of
`
`confusion between CITED MARK and the Application. The dominant feature of the
`
`CITED MARK is the ram’s head design. The Application’s proposed mark does not
`
`have any design nor any reference to any animals. Also, the letters “IP” added to
`
`battlebornip.com makes the Application suggestive. Therefore, it is respectfully
`
`requested that the Application be approved for publication.
`
`Dated this 25th day of November, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Eric L Abbott/
`Eric L. Abbott
`Abbott Law Chartered
`6900 Westcliff Drive, Suite 511
`Las Vegas, NV 89145
`TEL: (702) 431-5800
`Attorney for Applicant
`
`
`
`Applicant’s Brief- Ex Parte Appeal: SN 86366618 16 | P a g e

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket