`
`DATE:(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) March 09, 2016
`
`TO:(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) Examining Attorney
`
`FROM:(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) Dawnmarie D. Sanok
`Attorney Advisor
`Office of the Deputy Commissioner
`for Trademark Examination Policy
`
`(cid:160) (cid:160)
`SUBJECT:(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) Letter of protest concerning U.S. Application Serial No. 86/849734
`For the mark BHV
`
`A letter of protest filed before publication has been accepted because the evidence submitted by the protester is relevant and may support a
`reasonable ground for refusal appropriate in ex parte examination.(cid:160) TMEP §1715.02.(cid:160) Therefore, you must consider the following and make an
`independent determination whether to issue a requirement or refusal based on the objections raised in the letter of protest:
`
`Possible likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d) with the following registration:
`
`(cid:160)U
`
`.S. Registration No. 4411080 for the mark BHFV.
`
`(cid:160)P
`
`lease see a copy of the registration in XSearch database.
`
`NOTE:(cid:160) The acceptance of a letter of protest filed before publication is not a legal determination by the USPTO of registrability, nor is it meant
`to compromise the integrity of the ex parte examination process.(cid:160) It merely serves to bring the submitted evidence to the attention of the
`
`examining attorney, who determines whether a refusal or requirement should be raised or ultimately made final.(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)
`

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ ChargeStill 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.
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.

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