`
`
`
`ey
`
`
`
`
`
`Jennifer Krisp, Interlocutory Attorney:
`
`On January 11, 2017, the parties filed a stipulated proposed amendment to
`
`application Serial No. 86838605, and withdrawal without prejudice of the opposition
`
`contingent upon entry of the amendments.
`
`Amended Filing Basis
`
`Applicants move to amend the filing basis of the application from a use-based
`
`application under Trademark Act Section 1(a), to an intent-to-use basis under
`
`Trademark Act Section 1(b). Applicants’ declaration in support of their motion to
`
`amend the filing basis complies with Trademark Rules 2.20 and 2.34(a)(2).
`
`Accordingly, Applicants’ amendment to the filing basis is approved.
`
`A change in the filing basis of an application after publication requires
`
`republication of the application. Accordingly, upon the submission of an appropriate
`
`response to this order, as allowed below, which addresses the deficiency noted herein,
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
`P.O. Box 1451
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1451
`General Contact Number: 571-272-8500
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mailed: January 17, 2017
`
`Opposition No. 91229805
`
`Los Angeles Dodgers LLC
`
`v.
`
`
`Diamond Munoz and Eric Munoz
`
`
`
`Opposition No. 91229805
`
`and termination of this proceeding, the application will be forwarded to republication
`
`for opposition purposes. See Trademark Rule 2.35(b)(2).
`
`Amended Drawing
`
`By the proposed amendment, Applicants seek to amend the drawing of the mark:
`
`From:
`
`To:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` A
`
` proposed amendment to any application or registration that is the subject of an
`
`inter partes proceeding must comply with all applicable rules and statutory
`
`provisions, including Trademark Rule 2.52, which requires “a clear drawing of the
`
`mark.” Here, the proposed amended drawing is not acceptable because the digitized
`
`image of the mark is unclear with respect to the wording, and thus does not show the
`
`mark with sufficient clarity. See Trademark Rules 2.53(c) and 2.54(e); TMEP
`
`807.04(a) and 807.05(c).
`
`The Board finds that the amendment to the drawing does not materially alter the
`
`mark, and acknowledges that Opposer consents thereto. However, the Board cannot
`
`approve and enter the amendments absent an acceptable clear drawing of the mark
`
`pursuant to Trademark Rule 2.52.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Opposition No. 91229805
`
`
`Amended Description of the Mark
`
`Applicants also seek to amend the description of the mark:
`
`From: The mark consists of "LA" in stylized overlapping letters inside of a
`silhouette of an eagle with spread wings. Beneath the eagle, the words "LIBERTY
`APPAREL" are written in small letters.
`
`To: The mark consists of "LA" in stylized letters inside of a silhouette of an eagle
`with spread wings. Beneath the eagle, the words "LIBERTY APPAREL" are
`written in small letters.
`
`
`The amended description of the mark is acceptable.
`
`Denial and Suspension
`
`In view of the finding of deficiency in the drawing of the mark, the motion to
`
`amend is denied without prejudice. The present drawing, that is, the drawing prior
`
`to the filing of the motion to amend, remains operative for purposes of future
`
`amendment.
`
`Inasmuch as the filing of the proposed amendment indicates to the Board that the
`
`parties are making efforts to settle this matter, proceedings are suspended, and the
`
`parties are allowed until thirty days from the mailing date of this order to file a
`
`revised motion to amend which addresses the deficiency in the drawing noted herein.
`
`If no response to this order is received, the Board will resume proceedings and reset
`
`dates, and the opposition will go forward on the present application.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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
