Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number.
`PTO Form 1960 (Rev 10/2011)
`
`OMB No. 0651-0050 (Exp 07/31/2017)
`
`Request for Reconsideration after Final Action
`
`Input Field
`
`SERIAL NUMBER
`
`LAW OFFICE ASSIGNED
`
`MARK SECTION
`
`MARK FILE NAME
`
`LITERAL ELEMENT
`
`STANDARD CHARACTERS
`
`USPTO-GENERATED IMAGE
`
`ARGUMENT(S)
`
`Legal argument is attached.
`
`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)(4 pages)
`
`(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)(4 pages)
`
`The table below presents the data as entered.
`
`Entered
`
`86481412
`
`LAW OFFICE 101
`
`http://tmng-al.uspto.gov/resting2/api/img/86481412/large
`
`EAZY BBQ
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`evi_216759226-20160422140027119789_._EAZY_BBQ_argument.pdf
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\864\814\86481412\xml9\RFR0002.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\864\814\86481412\xml9\RFR0003.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\864\814\86481412\xml9\RFR0004.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\864\814\86481412\xml9\RFR0005.JPG
`
`evi_216759226-20160422140027119789_._EASYPEEL.pdf
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\864\814\86481412\xml9\RFR0006.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\864\814\86481412\xml9\RFR0007.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\864\814\86481412\xml9\RFR0008.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\864\814\86481412\xml9\RFR0009.JPG
`
`DESCRIPTION OF EVIDENCE FILE
`
`legal argument and pages from the TESS database
`
`SIGNATURE SECTION
`
`RESPONSE SIGNATURE
`
`SIGNATORY'S NAME
`
`SIGNATORY'S POSITION
`
`SIGNATORY'S PHONE NUMBER
`
`DATE SIGNED
`
`AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
`
`CONCURRENT APPEAL NOTICE FILED
`
`/ft/
`
`Frank Terranella
`
`Attorney for owner, NY Bar member
`
`2129499022
`
`04/22/2016
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`

`
`FILING INFORMATION SECTION
`
`SUBMIT DATE
`
`TEAS STAMP
`
`Fri Apr 22 14:16:05 EDT 2016
`
`USPTO/RFR-XXX.XX.XX.XX-20
`160422141605195072-864814
`12-550d869b9957ff384b0347
`b546ee72678f2e82ce1396bf7
`ab44e2d27f93f3b279c-N/A-N
`/A-20160422140027119789
`
`Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number.
`PTO Form 1960 (Rev 10/2011)
`
`OMB No. 0651-0050 (Exp 07/31/2017)
`
`Request for Reconsideration after Final Action
`To the Commissioner for Trademarks:
`
`Application serial no. 86481412(cid:160)EAZY BBQ (Stylized and/or with Design, see http://tmng-al.uspto.gov/resting2/api/img/86481412/large) has
`been amended as follows:
`
`ARGUMENT(S)
`In response to the substantive refusal(s), please note the following:
`
`Legal argument is attached.
`
`EVIDENCE
`Evidence in the nature of legal argument and pages from the TESS database has been attached.
`Original PDF file:
`evi_216759226-20160422140027119789_._EAZY_BBQ_argument.pdf
`Converted PDF file(s) ( 4 pages)
`Evidence-1
`Evidence-2
`Evidence-3
`Evidence-4
`Original PDF file:
`evi_216759226-20160422140027119789_._EASYPEEL.pdf
`Converted PDF file(s) ( 4 pages)
`Evidence-1
`Evidence-2
`Evidence-3
`Evidence-4
`
`SIGNATURE(S)
`Request for Reconsideration Signature
`Signature: /ft/(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)Date: 04/22/2016
`Signatory's Name: Frank Terranella
`Signatory's Position: Attorney for owner, NY Bar member
`
`Signatory's Phone Number: 2129499022
`
`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 owner's/holder'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 owner/holder in this matter: (1) the owner/holder 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 owner/holder has filed a power of attorney appointing him/her in this matter; or (4) the owner's/holder'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: 86481412
`Internet Transmission Date: Fri Apr 22 14:16:05 EDT 2016
`TEAS Stamp: USPTO/RFR-XXX.XX.XX.XX-20160422141605195
`072-86481412-550d869b9957ff384b0347b546e
`e72678f2e82ce1396bf7ab44e2d27f93f3b279c-
`N/A-N/A-20160422140027119789
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`

`
`Likelihood of Confusion
`
`The Examiner cites Registration No. 3285971 as blocking this application;
`
`however, the applicant believes that the Examiner intended to cite Registration
`
`No. 3295871 for EZBBQ.
`
`The applicant has previously noted that
`
`the blocking registration is
`
`descriptive as evidenced by its registration on the Supplemental Register. A
`
`narrower scope of protection is due Supplemental Register registrations than for
`
`distinctive marks on the Principal Register. See Palm Bay Imports, Inc. V.
`
`l/euve
`
`Olicquot Ponsardin Mainson Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1373, 73
`
`U.S.P.Q.2d 1689,1693 (Fed. Cir. 2005) and In re Hunke & Jochhe/‘m, 185
`
`U.S.P.Q. 188, 189 'l'l'AB 1975).
`
`By this reduced standard of protection, the marks are not confusingly
`
`similar because the applicant's distinctive design and use of color makes a
`
`distinct commercial impression from the registered mark.
`
`The applicant has also previously argued that the term EZ appearing in the
`
`registered mark is extremely diluted and has limited trademark value.
`
`In addition to
`
`the three EZ/EASY marks already cited,
`
`the applicant notes two co-existing
`
`registrations of EASY PEEL (Reg. No. 3411212) and EASYPEEL (Reg. No.
`
`4915441), both claiming stationery goods in class 16. These marks have been
`
`deemed sufficiently distinctive from one another to co-exist on the registry for
`
`similar goods. And their registration on the Supplemental Register is further
`
`evidence of the lack of distinctiveness of EASY in its various forms. The large
`
`number of EZ/EASY marks on the registry simply means that each of them is given
`
`a narrow ambit of protection.
`
`In these cases, buyers differentiate between the various marks by looking at
`
`the mark as a whole. Buyers do not assume that the maker of one EZ/EASY
`
`product makes a different product. The applicant submits that just as the registered
`
`marks co-exist on the registry for specific goods, the applicant’s mark may similarly
`
`co-exist. This is particularly true in this case where the applicant uses an unusual
`
`and distinctive form of EASY, changing the S to a distinctive Z and adding color and
`
`

`
`design at the top of the
`
`These differences will not be lost on consumers in this
`
`crowded market of EASY/EZ marks.
`
`In conclusion, the differences in the marks assure that there will be no
`
`likelihood of confusion as to the source of the Applicant's goods. Accordingly,
`
`there should be no refusal to register under Section 2(d).
`
`The Mark is Not Merely Descriptive
`
`The Examiner refuses registration on the assertion that the mark “merely
`
`describes the purpose and function of applicant's goods” (Lanham Act Section
`
`2(e)(1))-
`
`A term is merely descriptive of goods or services within the meaning of
`
`Section 2(e)(1) if
`
`it forthwith conveys an immediate idea of an ingredient,
`
`quality, characteristic, feature, function, purpose or use of the goods or services.
`
`In re Chamber of Commerce of the U.$., 675 F.3d 1297, 102 USPQ2d 1217,
`
`1219 (Fed. Cir. 2012). See also, In re Gyu/ay, 820 F.2d 1216, 3 USPQ2d 1009
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1987). Whether a mark or a component of a mark is merely descriptive
`
`is determined in relation to the goods or services for which registration is sought
`
`and the context in which the term is used, not in the abstract or on the basis of
`
`guesswork. In re Abcor Development Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 200 USPQ 215, 218
`
`(CCPA 1978); In re Remac/e, 66 USPQ2d 1222, 1224 (TFAB 2002). A term need
`
`not immediately convey an idea of each and every specific feature of the goods
`
`or services in order to be considered merely descriptive;
`
`it
`
`is enough if
`
`it
`
`describes one significant attribute, function or property of them. See In re
`
`Gyu/ay, 3 USPQ2d at 1010; In re H.U.D.D.L.E., 216 USPQ 358 ('|'|'AB 1982); In
`
`re MB/lssociates, 180 USPQ 338 ('I‘I'AB 1973).
`
`This requires consideration of the context in which the mark is used or
`
`intended to be used in connection with those goods or services, and the possible
`
`significance that the mark would have to the average purchaser of the goods or
`
`services in the marketplace. See In re Chamber of Commerce of the U..S'., 102
`
`USPQ2d at 1219; In re BayerAktienge5e//scha/t, 488 F.3d 960, 82 USPQ2d 1828,
`
`

`
`1831 (Fed. Cir. 2007); In re Abcor Dev. Corp., 200 USPQ at 218; In re Venture
`
`Lending Assocs, 226 USPQ 285 ('I‘l'AB 1985). The question is not whether
`
`someone presented only with the mark could guess the products or activities
`
`listed in the description of goods or services. Rather, the question is whether
`
`someone who knows what the products or services are will understand the mark
`
`to convey information about them. Du0Pro5$ Meditec/7 Corp.
`
`l/. Inviro Med.
`
`Devices, 1121., 695 F.3d 1247, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting
`
`In re Tower Tech, Inc., 64 USPQ2d 1314, 1316-1317 (TFAB 2002). See also In
`
`re Patent& Trademark Services Inc., 49 USPQ2d 1537, 1539 ('l'|'AB 1998); In re
`
`Home Bu/iders Association of Greenv/7/e, 18 USPQ2d 1313, 1317 ('I'I'A8 1990); In
`
`re American Greetings Corp., 226 USPQ 365, 366 ('I'I'AB 1985).
`
`When two or more merely descriptive terms are combined,
`
`the
`
`determination of whether the composite mark also has a merely descriptive
`
`significance turns on the question of whether the combination of terms evokes a
`
`new and unique commercial
`
`impression. If each component retains its merely
`
`descriptive significance in relation to the goods or services, the combination
`
`results in a composite that is itself merely descriptive. In re Oppedanl & Larson
`
`LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 71 USPQ2d 1370, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting Estate of
`
`RB. Beckwit/7, Inc. V. Commissioner, 252 U.S. 538, 543 (1920). See also In re
`
`Tower Tech, Inc., 64 USPQ2d at 1318 (SMAR'I'I'OWER merely descriptive of
`
`commercial and industrial cooling towers);
`
`In re Sun Microsystems Inc., 59
`
`USPQ2d 1084 (TFAB 2001)
`
`(AGENTBEANS merely descriptive of computer
`
`programs for use in developing and deploying application programs);
`
`In re
`
`Putman Pub//sning co., 39 USPQ2d 2021 ('|'|'AB 1996)
`
`(FOOD & BEVERAGE
`
`ONLINE merely descriptive of news and information services in the food
`
`processing industry). However, a mark comprising a combination of merely
`
`descriptive components is registrable if the combination of terms creates a
`
`unitary mark with a unique, non—descriptive meaning, or if the composite has a
`
`unique or incongruous meaning as applied to the goods or services. See In re
`
`Colonial Stores Inc., 394 F.2d 549, 157 USPQ 382 (CCPA 1968) (SUGAR & SPICE
`
`

`
`for “bakery products”); In re 5/7ui.'z‘s, 217 USPQ 363 ('I'I'AB 1983) (SNO-RAKE for
`
`“a snow removal hand tool having a handle with a snow—removing head at one
`
`end, the head being of solid uninterrupted construction without prongs”).
`
`Thus, we must consider the issue of descriptiveness by looking at the
`
`mark in its entirety. “On the other hand, if one must exercise mature thought or
`
`follow a multi—stage reasoning process in order to determine what product or
`
`service characteristics the term indicates, the term is suggestive rather than
`
`merely descriptive.” In re Tennis in me Round; Inc, 199 USPQ 496, 498 (TFAB
`
`1978). See also, In re 5/wits, 217 USPQ at 364-65; In re Universal Water
`
`Systems, Inc., 209 USPQ 165, 166 ('I'I'AB 1980). In this regard, “incongruity is
`
`one of the accepted guideposts in the evolved set of legal principles for
`
`discriminating the suggestive from the descriptive mark.” In re Shun‘; 217 USPQ
`
`at 365. See also In re Tennis in the Round, Ina, 199 USPQ at 498 (the
`
`association of applicant's mark TENNIS IN THE ROUND with the phrase “theater-
`
`in—the—round” creates an incongruity because applicant's services do not involve
`
`a
`
`tennis court
`
`in
`
`the middle of an auditorium). On the spectrum of
`
`distinctiveness, the dividing line between merely descriptive and suggestive is a
`
`fine one. In re Gyu/ay, 3 USPQ2d at 1010. See also In re Recovery, Inc, 196
`
`USPQ 830, 831 ('|'|'AB 1977).
`
`In the case at hand, the applicant uses color and a design over the "Y" to
`
`assure that
`
`the mark is not merely descriptive. The combination of the
`
`unconventional spelling of EASY, the ha|f—red, ha|f—b|ack wording of the mark and
`
`the distinctive flame design coming from the "Y" assure that the applicant's mark
`
`is not merely descriptive. It contains non-descriptive elements as well that make
`
`the mark suggestive rather than merely descriptive. As such the refusal under
`
`Section2(e)(1) should be withdrawn.
`
`

`
`412212016
`
`Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS)
`
`United States t"atent and Trademark Office
`
`Home I Site Inriex I Srsarch I FAQ I ti-;io.~;:«;.'zry I 6-Euifies I i.‘:onii;4(:tr;. I r:e§:s;aa;§ri::.es I ofiiiz rilerit.-3 I Nevrr. I Heir:
`
`Trademarks > Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS)
`
`TESS was last updated on Fri Apr 22 03:21:03 EDT 2016
`
`ri-.55»:-mil.-.
`
`S"lRUt'r’l'UR€il'J '3r.ARCI—l0G
`
`HELP
`
`rltawtiarn
`FIRST 0°C
`“ Logout Please logout when you are done to release system resources allocated for you.
`
`I
`
`;
`
`1
`
`I
`
`.1
`
`on Wire _ ; Record 7 out of 149
`
`return to TESS)
`
`( Use the "Back" button of the Internet Browser to
`
`EASYPEEL
`
`Word Mark
`
`Goods and
`Services
`
`Standard
`Characters Claimed
`
`EASYPEEL
`
`IC 016. US 002 005 022 023 029 O37 O38 050. G & S: adhesive tapes for household and stationery
`uses. FIRST USE: 20151119. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20151119
`
`IC 017. US O01 O05 012 013 035 050. G & S: adhesive tapes for commercial and industrial uses.
`FIRST USE: 20151119. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20151119
`
`Mark Drawing Code (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
`Serial Number
`86354855
`
`Filing Date
`Current Basis
`
`August 1, 2014
`1A
`
`Original Filing
`Basis
`
`1B
`
`Date Amended to
`
`Current Register
`
`December 1, 2015
`
`Registration
`Number
`
`4915441
`
`Registration Date March 8, 2016
`
`Owner
`
`(REGISTRANT) Shurtape Technologies, LLC LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY NORTH CAROLINA
`1712 Eighth Street Drive, SE Hickory NORTH CAROLINA 28601
`Attorney of Record Karl S. Sawyer, Jr.
`Type of Mark
`TRADEMARK
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL
`Register
`htlp:I/tmSearch.Uspto.govlbinlgate.exe?I=doc&staIa=4808:6zp91w.4.T
`
`

`
`4/22/2016
`
`Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS)
`
`LivelDead Indicator LIVE
`
`SEW00 %
`Fm.=s'tD<>c PREVDIJC NEXTDOC
`
`|.HOME | SITEINDEXI SEARCH I GBUSINESS I HELP I PRIVACY POLICY
`
`http:/Itmsearch.uspto.govIbinfgate.exe?f=doc&state=4808:6zp91w.4.7
`
`

`
`4/22/2016
`
`Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS)
`
`United States l3at:ent and ‘Trademark Gffice
`
`Home I Site Index I Search I FAQ I (E.loss<;L=aI‘y I Guides I tinmfacts I ckmsincms I (‘.812 alerts I News I ‘Hot in
`
`Trademarks > Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS)
`
`TESS was last updated on Fri Apr 22 03:21:03 EDT 2016
`
`NEWUEEH
`
`SW<*'W-'0
`
`SWCHOG
`
`“M j
`
`] Logout lP|ease Iogout when you are done to release system resources allocated for you.
`
`l%*a“.lL:s:At=l
`
`'
`
`_
`
`=
`
`Record 92 out of149
`
`T
`TSDR
`I
`return to TESS)
`
`( Use the "Back" button of the Internet Browser to
`
`EASY PEEL
`
`Word Mark
`
`EASY PEEL
`
`Goods and
`Services
`
`Standard
`Characters
`claimed
`
`Mark
`
`Drawing
`Code
`
`Serial
`Number
`
`IC 016. US 002 005 022 023 029 037 038 050. G & S: Business cards; greeting cards; postcards; note
`cards; cardboard packaging; cardboard inserts for apparel; stickers in sheet or roll form; paper tags; seals
`for mailing. FIRST USE: 20021127. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20030109
`
`(4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
`
`77315044
`
`1A
`
`Filing Date October 26, 2007
`Current
`Basis
`Original
`Filing Basis ‘A
`Date
`A
`d dt
`cmfgme
`Register
`
`° February 6,2008
`
`Registration 3411212
`Number
`
`Registration
`
`_
`April 8. 2008
`
`htlp:iitmsearch.uspto.govIbin/gate.exe?f=doc&state=4B08:6zp91w.4.92
`
`

`
`4/2212018
`
`Date
`
`Owner
`
`Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS)
`
`(REGISTRANT) Avery Dennison Corporation CORPORATION DELAWARE 150 North Orange Grove
`Boulevard Pasadena CALIFORNIA 911033596
`
`(LAST LISTED OWNER) CCL LABEL, INC. CORPORATION MICHIGAN 161 WORCESTER ROAD
`FRAMINGHAM MASSACHUSETTS 01701
`
`A“'9"'“°"‘ ASSIGNMENT RECORDED
`Recorded
`
`Attorney of
`Record
`
`Todd A. Benni
`
`Type of
`Mark
`Register
`Affidavit
`Text
`
`TRADEMARK
`SUPPLEMENTAL
`
`SECT 3 (6-YR).
`
`LiveIDead
`Indicator
`
`LIVE
`
`=‘vTfi"-J’-WE“ vlnrc-ow SWWOG
`
`HEN’ 1
`
`I.HOME I SITE INDEX| SEARCH I GBUSINESS I HELP | PRIVACY POLICY
`
`httptlltm sea rch.uspto.go\/fbir:/gate .exe?f=doc&state=4BUB :6zp9‘I w.4.92