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 09/20/2020)
`
`Request for Reconsideration after Final Action
`
`The table below presents the data as entered.
`
`Input Field
`
`Entered
`
`SERIAL NUMBER
`
`87054820
`
`LAW OFFICE ASSIGNED
`
`LAW OFFICE 124
`
`MARK SECTION
`
`MARK
`
`https://tmng-al.uspto.gov/resting2/api/img/87054820/large
`
`LITERAL ELEMENT
`
`GUARANTEED RATE
`
`STANDARD CHARACTERS
`
`USPTO-GENERATED IMAGE
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`MARK STATEMENT
`
`ARGUMENT(S)
`
`The mark consists of standard characters, without claim to any particular font style, size or color.
`
`Please see the actual argument text attached within the Evidence section.
`
`EVIDENCE SECTION
`
`        EVIDENCE FILE NAME(S)
`
`       ORIGINAL PDF FILE
`
`evi_19294203253-20180419105426678229_._GUARANTEED_RATE_Request_for_Reconsideration.pdf
`
`       CONVERTED PDF FILE(S)
`       (87 pages)
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\870\548\87054820\xml6\RFR0002.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\870\548\87054820\xml6\RFR0003.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\870\548\87054820\xml6\RFR0004.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\870\548\87054820\xml6\RFR0005.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\870\548\87054820\xml6\RFR0006.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\870\548\87054820\xml6\RFR0007.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\870\548\87054820\xml6\RFR0008.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\870\548\87054820\xml6\RFR0009.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\870\548\87054820\xml6\RFR0010.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\870\548\87054820\xml6\RFR0011.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\870\548\87054820\xml6\RFR0012.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\870\548\87054820\xml6\RFR0013.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\870\548\87054820\xml6\RFR0014.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\870\548\87054820\xml6\RFR0015.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\870\548\87054820\xml6\RFR0016.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\870\548\87054820\xml6\RFR0017.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\870\548\87054820\xml6\RFR0018.JPG
`
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`

`

`I
`
`I \\TICRS\EXPORT17\IVIAGEOL T17\870\548\87054820\Xml6\RFR0019.JPG
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IVIAGEOL T 1 7\870\548\87054820\Xml6\RFR0020.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IVIAGEOL T17\870\548\87054820\Xml6\RFR0021.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IVIAGEOL T 1 7\870\548\87054820\Xml6\RFR0022.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IVIAGEOL T 1 7\870\548\87054820\Xml6\RFR0023 .1PG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IVIAGEOL T 1 7\870\548\87054820\Xml6\RFR0024.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IVIAGEOL T 1 7\870\548\87054820\Xml6\RFR0025 .1PG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IVIAGEOL T 1 7\870\548\87054820\Xml6\RFR0026.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IVIAGEOL T 1 7\870\548\87054820\Xml6\RFR0027.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IVIAGEOL T 1 7\870\548\87054820\Xml6\RFR0028 .1PG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IVIAGEOL T 1 7\870\548\87054820\Xml6\RFR0029.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IVIAGEOL T 1 7\870\548\87054820\Xml6\RFR0030.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IVIAGEOL T17\870\548\87054820\Xml6\RFR0031.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IVIAGEOL T 1 7\870\548\87054820\Xml6\RFR0032.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IVIAGEOL T 1 7\870\548\87054820\Xml6\RFR0033 .1PG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IVIAGEOL T 1 7\870\548\87054820\Xml6\RFR0034.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IVIAGEOL T 1 7\870\548\87054820\Xml6\RFR0035 .1PG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IVIAGEOL T 1 7\870\548\87054820\Xml6\RFR0036.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IVIAGEOL T 1 7\870\548\87054820\Xml6\RFR0037.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IVIAGEOL T17\870\548\87054820\Xml6\RFR003 8 .1PG
`
`
`
`
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IVIAGEOL T 1 7\870\548\87054820\Xml6\RFR0039.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IVIAGEOL T 1 7\870\548\87054820\Xml6\RFR0040.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IVIAGEOL T 1 7\870\548\87054820\Xml6\RFR0041 .1PG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IVIAGEOL T 1 7\870\548\87054820\Xml6\RFR0042.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IVIAGEOL T 1 7\870\548\87054820\Xml6\RFR0043 .1PG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IVIAGEOL T 1 7\870\548\87054820\Xml6\RFR0044.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IVIAGEOL T 1 7\870\548\87054820\Xml6\RFR0045 .1PG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IVIAGEOL T 1 7\870\548\87054820\Xml6\RFR0046.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IVIAGEOL T 1 7\870\548\87054820\Xml6\RFR0047.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IVIAGEOL T 1 7\870\548\87054820\Xml6\RFR0048 .1PG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IVIAGEOL T 1 7\870\548\87054820\Xml6\RFR0049.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IVIAGEOL T 1 7\870\548\87054820\Xml6\RFR0050.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IVIAGEOL T17\870\548\87054820\Xml6\RFR0051.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IVIAGEOL T 1 7\870\548\87054820\Xml6\RFR0052.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IVIAGEOL T 1 7\870\548\87054820\Xml6\RFR0053 .1PG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IVIAGEOL T 1 7\870\548\87054820\Xml6\RFR0054.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\870\548\87054820\xml6\RFR0019.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\870\548\87054820\xml6\RFR0020.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\870\548\87054820\xml6\RFR0021.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\870\548\87054820\xml6\RFR0022.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\870\548\87054820\xml6\RFR0023.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\870\548\87054820\xml6\RFR0024.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\870\548\87054820\xml6\RFR0025.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\870\548\87054820\xml6\RFR0026.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\870\548\87054820\xml6\RFR0027.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\870\548\87054820\xml6\RFR0028.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\870\548\87054820\xml6\RFR0029.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\870\548\87054820\xml6\RFR0030.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\870\548\87054820\xml6\RFR0031.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\870\548\87054820\xml6\RFR0032.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\870\548\87054820\xml6\RFR0033.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\870\548\87054820\xml6\RFR0034.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\870\548\87054820\xml6\RFR0035.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\870\548\87054820\xml6\RFR0036.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\870\548\87054820\xml6\RFR0037.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\870\548\87054820\xml6\RFR0038.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\870\548\87054820\xml6\RFR0039.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\870\548\87054820\xml6\RFR0040.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\870\548\87054820\xml6\RFR0041.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\870\548\87054820\xml6\RFR0042.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\870\548\87054820\xml6\RFR0043.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\870\548\87054820\xml6\RFR0044.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\870\548\87054820\xml6\RFR0045.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\870\548\87054820\xml6\RFR0046.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\870\548\87054820\xml6\RFR0047.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\870\548\87054820\xml6\RFR0048.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\870\548\87054820\xml6\RFR0049.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\870\548\87054820\xml6\RFR0050.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\870\548\87054820\xml6\RFR0051.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\870\548\87054820\xml6\RFR0052.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\870\548\87054820\xml6\RFR0053.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\870\548\87054820\xml6\RFR0054.JPG
`
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`

`

`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\870\548\87054820\xml6\RFR0055.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\870\548\87054820\xml6\RFR0056.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\870\548\87054820\xml6\RFR0057.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\870\548\87054820\xml6\RFR0058.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\870\548\87054820\xml6\RFR0059.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\870\548\87054820\xml6\RFR0060.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\870\548\87054820\xml6\RFR0061.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\870\548\87054820\xml6\RFR0062.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\870\548\87054820\xml6\RFR0063.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\870\548\87054820\xml6\RFR0064.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\870\548\87054820\xml6\RFR0065.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\870\548\87054820\xml6\RFR0066.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\870\548\87054820\xml6\RFR0067.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\870\548\87054820\xml6\RFR0068.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\870\548\87054820\xml6\RFR0069.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\870\548\87054820\xml6\RFR0070.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\870\548\87054820\xml6\RFR0071.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\870\548\87054820\xml6\RFR0072.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\870\548\87054820\xml6\RFR0073.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\870\548\87054820\xml6\RFR0074.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\870\548\87054820\xml6\RFR0075.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\870\548\87054820\xml6\RFR0076.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\870\548\87054820\xml6\RFR0077.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\870\548\87054820\xml6\RFR0078.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\870\548\87054820\xml6\RFR0079.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\870\548\87054820\xml6\RFR0080.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\870\548\87054820\xml6\RFR0081.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\870\548\87054820\xml6\RFR0082.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\870\548\87054820\xml6\RFR0083.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\870\548\87054820\xml6\RFR0084.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\870\548\87054820\xml6\RFR0085.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\870\548\87054820\xml6\RFR0086.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\870\548\87054820\xml6\RFR0087.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT17\IMAGEOUT17\870\548\87054820\xml6\RFR0088.JPG
`
`DESCRIPTION OF EVIDENCE FILE
`
`a pdf titled GUARANTEED RATE Request for Reconsideration
`
`SIGNATURE SECTION
`
`RESPONSE SIGNATURE
`
`/Rebecca Liebowitz/
`
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`       
`

`

`SIGNATORY'S NAME
`
`Rebecca Liebowitz
`
`SIGNATORY'S POSITION
`
`Attorney of record, D.C./VA bar member
`
`SIGNATORY'S PHONE NUMBER
`
`202-344-4976
`
`DATE SIGNED
`
`04/19/2018
`
`AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
`
`CONCURRENT APPEAL NOTICE
`FILED
`
`YES
`
`NO
`
`FILING INFORMATION SECTION
`
`SUBMIT DATE
`
`Thu Apr 19 11:09:18 EDT 2018
`
`TEAS STAMP
`
`USPTO/RFR-XXX.XX.XXX.XXX-
`20180419110918458770-8705
`4820-510ca43863dbcfe2db2e
`bcfbe22f0ab865c9d0e38cc98
`e88687f82844ade5cddb-N/A-
`N/A-20180419105426678229
`
`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 09/20/2020)
`
`Request for Reconsideration after Final Action
`To the Commissioner for Trademarks:
`
`Application serial no. 87054820 GUARANTEED RATE(Standard Characters, see https://tmng-al.uspto.gov/resting2/api/img/87054820/large)
`has been amended as follows:
`
`ARGUMENT(S)
`In response to the substantive refusal(s), please note the following:
`
`Please see the actual argument text attached within the Evidence section.
`
`EVIDENCE
`Evidence in the nature of a pdf titled GUARANTEED RATE Request for Reconsideration has been attached.
`Original PDF file:
`evi_19294203253-20180419105426678229_._GUARANTEED_RATE_Request_for_Reconsideration.pdf
`Converted PDF file(s) ( 87 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- 1 8
`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-3 1
`Evidence-32
`Evidence-33
`Evidence-34
`Evidence-35
`Evidence-36
`Evidence-37
`Evidence-3 8
`Evidence-39
`Evidence-40
`Evidence-41
`Evidence-42
`Evidence-43
`Evidence-44
`Evidence-45
`Evidence-46
`Evidence-47
`Evidence-48
`Evidence-49
`Evidence-50
`Evidence-5 1
`Evidence-52
`Evidence-53
`Evidence-54
`Evidence-55
`Evidence-56
`Evidence-57
`Evidence-5 8
`Evidence-59
`Evidence-60
`Evidence-61
`Evidence-62
`Evidence-63
`Evidence-64
`Evidence-65
`Evidence-66
`Evidence-67
`Evidence-68
`Evidence-69
`Evidence-70
`Evidence-71
`Evidence-72
`Evidence-73
`
`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
`Evidence-49
`Evidence-50
`Evidence-51
`Evidence-52
`Evidence-53
`Evidence-54
`Evidence-55
`Evidence-56
`Evidence-57
`Evidence-58
`Evidence-59
`Evidence-60
`Evidence-61
`Evidence-62
`Evidence-63
`Evidence-64
`Evidence-65
`Evidence-66
`Evidence-67
`Evidence-68
`Evidence-69
`Evidence-70
`Evidence-71
`Evidence-72
`Evidence-73
`
`

`

`Evidence-74
`Evidence-75
`Evidence-76
`Evidence-77
`Evidence-78
`Evidence-79
`Evidence-80
`Evidence-81
`Evidence-82
`Evidence-83
`Evidence-84
`Evidence-85
`Evidence-86
`Evidence-87
`
`SIGNATURE(S)
`Request for Reconsideration Signature
`Signature: /Rebecca Liebowitz/     Date: 04/19/2018
`Signatory's Name: Rebecca Liebowitz
`Signatory's Position: Attorney of record, D.C./VA bar member
`
`Signatory's Phone Number: 202-344-4976
`
`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 not filing a Notice of Appeal in conjunction with this Request for Reconsideration.
`
`Serial Number: 87054820
`Internet Transmission Date: Thu Apr 19 11:09:18 EDT 2018
`TEAS Stamp: USPTO/RFR-XXX.XX.XXX.XXX-201804191109184
`58770-87054820-510ca43863dbcfe2db2ebcfbe
`22f0ab865c9d0e38cc98e88687f82844ade5cddb
`-N/A-N/A-20180419105426678229
`
`        
`

`

`Mark: GUARANTEED RATE
`
`Serial No.: 87/054,820
`
`Request for Reconsideration
`
`The Examiner has issued a final refusal of the above-referenced mark on the basis that it is
`
`descriptive and merely informational. The Examiner has refused the acquired distinctiveness
`claim made by Applicant.
`
`In support of the refusals, the Examiner has provided various types of evidence and has raised a
`number of arguments. Applicant respectfully submits that the Examiner" 5 basis for the refusal is
`insufficient. Specifically, the Examiner’s evidence is not probative that the mark is merely
`informational. Further, Applicant’s evidence of acquired distinctiveness, contrary to the
`Examiner’s contentions. shows an association between the mark and Applicant.
`
`Applicant has addressed the Examiner’s points below.
`
`I.
`
`
`Merely Informational Refusal
`
`The Examiner has argued that the mark is merely informational and therefore fails to function as
`a mark. In particular. the Examiner asserts that the applied-for mark is commonly used in the
`mortgage industry to indicate that a company provides a particular mortgage interest or loan rate
`for a specific term or period of time.
`
`As explained in more detail below, the Examiner’s deteimination is not supported by the
`evidence. First. the relevant consuming public will perceive the applied-for mark as a
`designation for Applicant. This prevents it from being merely informational. Second, the
`Examiner’s evidence is not probative of the merely informational refusal.
`
`A. The mark is associated with Applicant
`
`“The critical inquiry in determining whether a designation functions as a mark is how the
`designation would be perceived by the relevant public.” (In re Eagle Crest Inc. 96 USPQ2d
`1227, 1228 (TTAB 2010)).
`
`In this case, the evidence is clear that the mark would be perceived by the relevant public as a
`source-identifying trademark for Applicant. Per the USPTO’s Examination Guide 02-17 on
`Merely Infbmiational Matter, to overcome a merely informational refusal the applicant must
`show that the wording would be perceived as a mark. The guide elaborates that to do this, “the
`applicant must provide evidence that the relevant consumers recognize the matter as a source
`indicator that distinguishes the applicant’s goods or services from those of others.” Examination
`Guide 02-17, pg. 12 (July 2017).
`
`Further, the case law on merely informational marks establishes that evidence of the mark’s use
`is relevant to show how the public would perceive the mark. See In re Volvo (jars ofNorfh
`America, Inc, 46 USPQ2d 1455, 1459 (TTAB 1997) (“In order to assess the commercial impact
`
`

`

`created by the designation involved here, we look to the specimens and other materials which
`show how the mark is actually used in the marketplace”); App/icafion ofoandard Oil Company,
`275 F.2d 945, 947 n.2 (CCPA l960) (“It is not intended to suggest that the words would not be
`registrable under Section 2(f) if the Commissioner were convinced. that they had, by usage,
`acquired a secondary meaning, but, as has been pointed out, it is not contended that they have
`and the record contains no evidence to that effect”). Particularly, in In re Volvo Cars ofNorrh
`America, Inc, the Board. noted that the applicant had not provided evidence to indicate that the
`purchasing public recognized the applied-for mark as a source indicator. This omission was
`central to the determination that the mark was merely informational.
`
`In this case, Applicant has ample evidence showing that consumers associate the applied-for
`mark with it. In addition to the evidence previously submitted with Applicant’s Declaration of
`Acquired Distinctiveness, Applicant submits herewith the supplementaiy evidence listed below.
`
`0 Exhibit A 7 Screenshots from Zillow.com showing consumer reviews for Guaranteed
`Rate. As the screenshots show, Guaranteed Rate has been reviewed 5577 times.
`
`0 Exhibit B — Screenshots from lendingtreecom showing that Guaranteed Rate has been
`reviewed 935 times.
`
`0 Exhibit C — Screenshots from bankratecom showing that Guaranteed Rate has been
`reviewed 225 times.
`Exhibit D i 2018 Review of Guaranteed Rate from Nerdwallet
`
`Exhibit E 7 Review of Guaranteed Rate from consumersadvocate.org.
`Exhibit F 7 Review of Guaranteed Rate from Value Penguin.
`Exhibit G 7 Google search results for “Guaranteed Rate,” pages 1-3
`Exhibit H 7 Screenshot of Top Mortgage Lender Rankings from Scotsman Guide
`Exhibit I — Article from Mediapost Agency Daily about Applicant’s Super Bowl
`commercial
`
`0 Exhibit J 4 Article from chicagoagentmagazine.com naming Applicant 20 l 6 “Lender of
`the Year”
`
`0 Exhibit K iArticle from chicagoagentmagazine.com naming Applicant 201 l “Lender of
`the Year”
`
`0 Exhibit L 7 Wikipedia entry for Guaranteed Rate
`0 Exhibit M 7 Screenshot from Applicant’s Twitter account showing 4,542 followers
`0 Exhibit N 7 Screenshot from Applicant” s Facebook account showing 68,762 “likes” and
`66,954 follows
`
`0 Exhibit 0 7 Screenshot from Applicant’s Instagram account showing it has 1,456
`followers
`
`0 Exhibit P 7 Screenshot from Applicant’s YouTube page showing 273 subscribers, l.23l
`views for its “Guaranteed Rate - About Us” video and hundreds of views for Applicant’s
`other commercials
`
`0 Exhibit Q 7 Screenshots from the Inc. Magazine website showing Applicant’s placement
`in the Inc. 5000 in 2015, which ranks the fastest growing private firms in America. These
`screenshots show that Applicant was ranked eveiy year from 2008-2015.
`
`

`

`0 Exhibit R i Webpages from the Chicago Tribune naming Applicant a Top Work Place in
`2017. These webpages also show that Applicant was named as a Top Work Place in
`2010, 2012, 2013. 2014, 2015 and 2016 as well.
`
`0 Exhibit S 7 Webpage for GUARANTEED RATE FIELD
`0 Exhibit T 7 Chicago Tribune article regarding renaming of Chicago White Sox stadium
`to GUARANTEED RATE FIELD
`
`0 Exhibit U — Wikipedia page for “List of current Major League Baseball stadiums”
`
`Exhibits A-C include consumer reviews. They show that Applicant has been the subject of a
`significant amount of consumer reviews over several real estate or lending-related websites.
`When consumers review a company, they need to identify it by name in order to have it posted to
`the correct page on the review website. If the applied-for mark failed to function as a mark and
`was not a recognized brand, then consumers would not have been able to identify applicant in a
`review. Yet, Applicant has been reviewed almost 8,000 times.
`
`Further, consumers write reviews with the intent that others will search the name of the reviewed
`
`company and read the input. If consumers did not believe that Guaranteed Rate was source-
`identifying for Applicant, they would have no reason to write a review identifying the company
`as Guaranteed Rate. Therefore, Exhibits A-C show direct evidence that consumers associate
`
`Guaranteed Rate with Applicant.
`
`The same reasoning regarding consumer reviews applies to the reviews in Exhibits D-F. These
`reviews come from websites that consumers look to as resources for navigating financial
`questions and decisions. If the websites in question did not believe that GUARANTEED RATE
`was source identifying for Applicant, they would not have written a review for Guaranteed Rate.
`Consumers looking for resources about home buying will read the reviews in Exhibits D-F and
`they will associate the GUARANTEED RATE mark with Applicant because the mark is used in
`a review about a particular mortgage provider.
`
`Exhibit G shows the first three pages of Google results for the term “guaranteed rate.” Applicant
`is the subject of all twenty— seven non-ad results. None of the results show an informational use
`of the term. This evidence shows that GUARANTEED RATE is associated exclusively with
`Applicant when viewing the top search engine results for the term.
`
`Exhibit H comes from a mortgage originator industry resource called Scotsman Guide. It shows
`the most recent rankings. Applicant is the fifth largest mortgage lender in terms of overall
`volume. This information puts Applicant’s previously-submitted revenues into context. Namely,
`it shows Applicant’s dominance in the mortgage field. Of the seventy-five mortgage companies
`included in the rankings, only four had higher volume than Applicant. Applicant would not have
`achieved this placement if consumers were unable to perceive its name as a trademark. Clearly.
`consumers recognize Applicant as a leading company in the mortgage industry.
`
`Exhibit 1 is an article about Applicant’s 2016 Super Bowl commercial. Given the popularity of
`the Super Bowl, it is likely that Applicant’s ad was viewed by millions. Thus. this evidence
`suggests that a large number of consumers heard or saw the mark in an advertisement associated
`with Applicant.
`
`

`

`Exhibit J is an article from Chicago Agent Magazine naming Applicant as the 2016 “Lender of
`the Year.” This industry recognition is important for consumers who are researching potential
`lenders. Therefore, Exhibit J suggests that consumers are likely to be familiar with Applicant’s
`accolades under the applied-for mark. and will therefore associate Applicant with the applied-for
`mark. Exhibit K is another article from Chicago Agent Magazine naming Applicant as the 201 l
`“Lender of the Year.” This indicates longstanding industry recognition, which translates to
`consumers associating the mark with Applicant.
`
`Exhibit L shows the Wikipedia entry for GUARANTEED RATE. As the Examiner can see. this
`entry refers to Applicant. Further. it does not show disambiguation for the term
`“GUARANTEED RATE.” Given the sole presence of Applicant in the Wikipedia entry for
`GUARANTEED RATE, consumers will associate the mark with Applicant. The absence of an
`informational entry for GUARANTEED RATE suggests that the term is not informational.
`
`Exhibits M-P show Applicant’s presence in various social media platforms. These exhibits
`demonstrate Applicant’s extensive marketing efforts as well as its substantial number of
`followers among consumers. Further. the fact that consumers have been able to identify
`Applicant via social media shows an association between the applied-for mark and Applicant.
`
`Exhibit Q shows that Applicant was honored in the Inc. 5000 over multiple years. This
`recognition demonstrates Applicant’s meteoric success over a period of several years and
`demonstrates recognition in the business field generally.
`
`Exhibit R demonstrates Applicant’s reputation as a top workplace. This indicates additional
`recognition for Applicant in the business field.
`
`Exhibit S shows the webpage for GUARANTEED RATE FIELD. the baseball stadium for the
`Chicago \Vhite Sox Major League Baseball Team. As part ofits marketing efforts. Applicant
`purchased the naming rights for the White Sox stadium in 2016. The article included in Exhibit T
`shows early reaction to the renaming. including a focus on the GUARANTEED RATE name.
`
`The use of Applicant’s name for an MLB stadium is an unmistakably high-profile marketing
`effort that is specifically directed to pushing recognition for the GUARANTEED RATE name.
`As one of only thirty baseball stadium names. the GUARANTEED RATE FIELD name holds a
`place of incredible prominence among consumers.
`
`Further. consumers are accustomed to seeing brand names used as stadium names. Exhibit U is a
`Wikipedia article listing the MLB stadiums. Of the thirty stadiums. nineteen are named for
`companies. Thus. consumers viewing GUARANTEED RATE FIELD will understand that
`GUARANTEED RATE is a brand.
`
`The foregoing evidence shows that the applied-for mark would be perceived by the relevant
`public as Applicant’s name. Because of this. the mark is not merely informational. Consumers
`seeing the mark will associate it with Applicant rather than the informational meaning the
`Examiner claims it has.
`
`

`

`B. The Examiner’s evidence is insufficient to show that the mark is merely informational
`
`A refusal that a mark is merely informational must be supported by evidence. In particular, this
`evidence should show that the temi would be perceived by the relevant public merely as
`informational matter.
`
`The Examiner’s evidence falls short in several respects. First, most of the evidence the Examiner
`submitted does not show the GUARANTEED RATE applied-for mark at all. Second. the
`evidence in the Examiner’s informational refusals is inconsistent as to what GUARANTEED
`
`RATE means. Third. prior case law on informational marks required substantial evidence of the
`same phrase; there is not substantial evidence of use of GUARANTEED RATE. Fourth, the
`Examiner’s evidence indicates that the concept she believes “guaranteed rate” refers to actually
`has a different name that is well-established in the industry. Fifth, the third party registrations the
`Examiner submitted are not typical of the financial category and have no probative value. Sixth.
`the evidence does not show common use of the GUARANTEED RATE wording in the mortgage
`industry.
`
`i. The majority of the Examiner’s evidence does not show the phrase “GUARANTEED
`RATE”
`
`In support of the merely informational re fusal in the Office Action of March 14. 2017, the
`Examiner submitted a number of web pages allegedly showing informational use of the phrase
`GUARANTEED RATE. Applicant pointed out that the evidence submitted did not show the
`phrase GUARANTEED RATE. The Examiner responded in the Office Action of October 23
`with additional evidence of third-party use of the words “guaranteed” and/or “rate” and also
`made the point that relevant evidence could show “the same or similar wording” commonly used
`in an informational manner.1
`
`In many cases. the Examiner’s additional evidence does not show the phrase GUARANTEED
`RATE at all. Rather, it shows the phrases “guaranteed interest rate,” “guaranteed mortgage rate”
`“rate guarantee," “cannot be guaranteed,” “nothing is guaranteed,” “no surprises guarantee,” “is
`your interest rate guaranteed?” “a lender can quote you an interest rate but not ‘guarantee’ that
`low rate,” “unbelievable interest rate was not guaranteed.” “interest rate is guaranteed for that
`period of time.” “requires lenders to disclose whether the interest rate is “locked” or guaranteed
`and for what period oftime.” “but not tell you that the interest rate is not guaranteed,” “We can
`not and do not guarantee the applicability or accuracy in regards to your individual
`circumstances.”
`
`It is clear on the face of many of these phrases (“cannot be guaranteed,” “nothing is guaranteed.”
`“no surprises guarantee,” “We can not and do not guarantee the applicability or accuracy in
`regards to your individual circumstances”) that they are so far removed from the applied-for
`mark that they cannot be fairly considered even similar to the mark.
`
`1 \Vhile the Examing Attorney argues that Applicant also makes informational use of GUARANTEED RATE. there is no evtdence to support this
`contention.
`
`

`

`The phrase that appeared most often in the Examiner’s evidence was “guaranteed interest rate”
`or “guaranteed mortgage rate.” These phrases are not merely a similar phrase to the applied-for
`mark. Rather, these phrases include “interest” or “mortgage” to communicate what type of
`specific rate is guaranteed. Without these words, Applicant’s mark has a different meaning and is
`ambiguous. For instance, GUARANTEED RATE could mean that Applicant guarantees that it
`has the lowest available rates.
`
`The Examiner showed the phrase GUARANTEED RATE in four instances. These phrases
`included two uses of “in order to receive a guaranteed rate,” and one example each of
`“satisfaction guaranteed rate,” and “can’t provide guaranteed. rate projections.”
`
`The use of“satisfaction guaranteed rate” is inapplicable because the phrase is saying that the
`consumer’s satisfaction will be guaranteed, rather than the rate. This leaves only three examples
`of the phrase “GUARANTEED RATE” being used in a mortgage context. Given the vast
`mortgage and lending industry, this represents a de minimus number.
`
`Because the Examiner’s evidence of the use of GUARANTEED RATE is so minimal, it does not
`show that the consuming public assigns a merely informational meaning to the applied-for mark.
`
`ii.
`
`The Examiner’s evidence is inconsistent with respect to what GUARANTEED RATE
`means
`
`Applicant notes that between the Office Actions of March 14, 2017 and October 23. 2017, the
`Examiner has submitted evidence purporting to show two different allegedly informational
`meanings of GUARANTEED RATE.
`
`In the Office Action of March 14, 2017, the Examiner argued that the applied-for mark was
`“widely used in the industry to indicate a company that promises to deliver or provide a
`particular interest rate.” (Office Action of March 14. 2017, pg. 2). In support of this argument.
`the Examiner included a number of sources that used the words “guarantee” and/or “rate” or a
`variation thereof in connection with promises to provide the lowest rates or give the consumer
`some fomi of compensation if their rate was not the lowest. These examples included the
`following:
`
`0
`
`0
`
`Front Street Mortgage states. "We are offering the best rate guarantee if we are presented
`with a Competitor's quote".
`In connection with their mortgages. Lake Michigan Credit Union states they ”will match
`any legitimate competitor's offer, or credit the borrower $300 ofclosing costs. Our low
`rate guarantee cannot be combined with any other offer."
`0 Resource Financial states in its "Rate Guarantee" section. "We believe so strongly in our
`ability to find you the lowest rate with the best tenns that we will beat any lender's price
`or pay you $300. "
`
`In most cases, the Examiner’s evidence from the Office Action of March 14, 2017 corresponded
`to a rate matching program whereby the lender gives the consumer some form of remuneration if
`
`

`

`the lender does not have the lowest rate. However, some of the evidence showed a different
`
`meaning, such as a program to waive certain fees (idealhomeloans.com).
`
`In the Office Action of October 23, 2017, the Examiner states that the applied-for mark “is
`commonly used by those in applicant’s particular trade or industry to indicate that a company
`provides a specified mortgage interest rate that is guaranteed for the term of the contract or
`loan.” However, the evidence the Examiner provided in support of this office action was directed
`for the most part to rate l