To:
`
`Subject:
`
`Sent:
`
`Sent As:
`
`Attachments:
`
`EDGE Games Inc (edgegames@gmail.com)
`
`U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 97064385 - EDGE - EDGE42
`
`January 05, 2022 09:30:26 PM
`
`ecom121@uspto.gov
`
`Attachment - 1
`Attachment - 2
`Attachment - 3
`Attachment - 4
`Attachment - 5
`Attachment - 6
`Attachment - 7
`Attachment - 8
`Attachment - 9
`Attachment - 10
`Attachment - 11
`Attachment - 12
`Attachment - 13
`Attachment - 14
`Attachment - 15
`Attachment - 16
`Attachment - 17
`Attachment - 18
`Attachment - 19
`Attachment - 20
`Attachment - 21
`Attachment - 22
`Attachment - 23
`Attachment - 24
`Attachment - 25
`Attachment - 26
`Attachment - 27
`Attachment - 28
`Attachment - 29
`Attachment - 30
`Attachment - 31
`Attachment - 32
`Attachment - 33
`Attachment - 34
`Attachment - 35
`Attachment - 36
`Attachment - 37
`Attachment - 38
`Attachment - 39
`Attachment - 40
`Attachment - 41
`Attachment - 42
`Attachment - 43
`Attachment - 44
`
`

`

`Attachment - 45
`Attachment - 46
`Attachment - 47
`Attachment - 48
`Attachment - 49
`Attachment - 50
`Attachment - 51
`Attachment - 52
`Attachment - 53
`Attachment - 54
`Attachment - 55
`Attachment - 56
`Attachment - 57
`Attachment - 58
`Attachment - 59
`Attachment - 60
`Attachment - 61
`Attachment - 62
`Attachment - 63
`Attachment - 64
`Attachment - 65
`Attachment - 66
`Attachment - 67
`Attachment - 68
`Attachment - 69
`Attachment - 70
`Attachment - 71
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
`Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
`
`U.S. Application
`Serial No. 97064385
`
`Mark:   EDGE
`
`Correspondence
`Address: 
`EDGE GAMES INC
`STE 171
`530 SOUTH LAKE
`AVENUE 171
`PASADENA, CA
`91101
`
`     
`    
`  
`
`Applicant:   EDGE
`Games Inc
`
`    
`
`Reference/Docket No.
`EDGE42
`
`Correspondence
`
`Email Address:  
`
`edgegames@gmail.com
`
` 
` 
` 
` 
`

`

`The USPTO must receive applicant’s response to this letter within six months of the issue date below or the application will be abandoned. 
`Respond using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS).   A link to the appropriate TEAS response form appears at the end of this
`
`NONFINAL OFFICE ACTION
`
`Office action.   
`
`Issue date:  January 05, 2022
`
`The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney.  Applicant must respond timely and completely to
`the issues below.  15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(a), 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.
`
`SUMMARY OF ISSUES:
`Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion
`Advisory – Prior-Filed Application
`Sections 1 and 45 Refusal – Specimen Refusal
`
`SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
`
`Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 2920266, 4269583,
`and 4269587.  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registrations.
`
`Applicant’s mark is EDGE (in standard character form) for “Smartphone software design; Updating of computer software; Designing and
`developing computer game software and video game software for use with computers, video game program systems and computer networks.”
`
`Registration No. 2920266’s mark is EDGE (in typed drawing form) for “computer systems and software design for others working in an office
`environment; computer consultation, namely, provide assistance to customers in the selection of computer systems and computer software for use
`in office automation; maintenance of office computer software.”
`
`Registration No. 4269583’s mark is EDGE (in stylized character and design form) for the relevant services: “Computer software design.”
`
`Registration No. 4269587’s mark is EDGE (in standard character form) for the relevant services: “Computer software design.”
`
`Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that is so similar to a registered mark that it is likely consumers would be
`confused, mistaken, or deceived as to the commercial source of the services of the parties.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).  Likelihood of confusion is
`determined on a case-by-case basis by applying the factors set forth in In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ
`563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973) (called the “ du Pont factors”).   In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1322, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1747 (Fed. Cir.
`2017).  Any evidence of record related to those factors need be considered; however, “not all of the DuPont factors are relevant or of similar
`weight in every case.”   In re Guild Mortg. Co., 912 F.3d 1376, 1379, 129 USPQ2d 1160, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting In re Dixie Rests., Inc.,
`105 F.3d 1405, 1406, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).
`
`Although not all du Pont factors may be relevant, there are generally two key considerations in any likelihood of confusion analysis:  (1) the
`similarities between the compared marks and (2) the relatedness of the compared services.  See In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d at 1322, 123
`USPQ2d at 1747 (quoting Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc. , 308 F.3d 1156, 1164-65, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2002));
`Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co., 544 F.2d 1098, 1103, 192 USPQ 24, 29 (C.C.P.A. 1976) (“The fundamental inquiry mandated
`by [Section] 2(d) goes to the cumulative effect of differences in the essential characteristics of the goods [and services] and differences in the
`
`marks.”); TMEP §1207.01.   
`
`SIMILARITY OF THE MARKS
`
`In a likelihood of confusion determination, the marks in their entireties are compared for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and
`commercial impression.  In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1323, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Stone Lion Capital Partners,
`LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 1321, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot
`Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1371, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 2005)); In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476
`
`F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973); TMEP §1207.01(b)-(b)(v).  
`
`In the present case, applicant’s mark is EDGE and registrants’ marks are EDGE.  These marks are identical in appearance, sound, and meaning,
`
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`

`

`“and have the potential to be used . . . in exactly the same manner.”   In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 116 USPQ2d 1406, 1411 (TTAB 2015), aff’d, 866
`F.3d 1315, 123 USPQ2d 1744 (Fed. Cir. 2017).  Additionally, because they are identical, these marks are likely to engender the same connotation
`and overall commercial impression when considered in connection with applicant’s and registrant’s respective goods and/or services.
`  Id.
`
`Although Registration No. 4269583’s mark is in stylized characters and design elements, these elements are less significant when comparing the
`marks. Although marks are compared in their entireties, one feature of a mark may be more significant or dominant in creating a commercial
`impression.  See In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1305, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re Dixie Rests., 105 F.3d
`1405, 1407, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533-34 (Fed. Cir. 1997)); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii).  Greater weight is often given to this dominant feature
`when determining whether marks are confusingly similar.  See In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d at 1305, 128 USPQ2d at 1050 (citing In re
`Dixie Rests., 105 F.3d at 1407, 41 USPQ2d at 1533-34).
`
`When evaluating a composite mark consisting of words and a design, the word portion is normally accorded greater weight because it is likely to
`make a greater impression upon purchasers, be remembered by them, and be used by them to refer to or request the goods and/or services.  In re
`Aquitaine Wine USA, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1181, 1184 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908
`(Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii).  Thus, although marks must be compared in their entireties, the word portion is often considered the
`dominant feature and is accorded greater weight in determining whether marks are confusingly similar, even where the word portion has been
`disclaimed.  In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d at 1366-67, 101 USPQ2d at 1911 (citing Giant Food, Inc. v. Nation’s Foodservice, Inc. , 710 F.2d 1565,
`1570-71, 218 USPQ2d 390, 395 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).
`
`Although Registration No. 4269583’s mark is in stylized characters, applicant’s mark is in standard characters, which may be displayed in any
`lettering style; the rights reside in the wording or other literal element and not in any particular display or rendition.  See In re Viterra Inc., 671
`F.3d 1358, 1363, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1909 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342, 1348, 94 USPQ2d 1257, 1260 (Fed. Cir.
`2010); 37 C.F.R. §2.52(a); TMEP §1207.01(c)(iii).  Thus, a mark presented in stylized characters and/or with a design element generally will not
`avoid likelihood of confusion with a mark in typed or standard characters because the word portion could be presented in the same manner of
`display.  See, e.g., In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d at 1363, 101 USPQ2d at 1909; Squirtco v. Tomy Corp., 697 F.2d 1038, 1041, 216 USPQ 937, 939
`(Fed. Cir. 1983) (stating that “the argument concerning a difference in type style is not viable where one party asserts rights in no particular
`display”).
`
`Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the marks are confusingly similar for purposes of a Section 2(d) analysis.
`
`SIMILARITY AND RELATEDNESS OF THE SERVICES
`
`The services are compared to determine whether they are similar, commercially related, or travel in the same trade channels.  See Coach Servs.,
`Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369-71, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722-23 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc. ,
`308 F.3d 1156, 1165, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2002); TMEP §§1207.01, 1207.01(a)(vi).
`
`The compared services need not be identical or even competitive to find a likelihood of confusion.  See On-line Careline Inc. v. Am. Online Inc.,
`229 F.3d 1080, 1086, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1475 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Recot, Inc. v. Becton, 214 F.3d 1322, 1329, 54 USPQ2d 1894, 1898 (Fed. Cir.
`2000); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).  They need only be “related in some manner and/or if the circumstances surrounding their marketing are such that
`they could give rise to the mistaken belief that [the services] emanate from the same source.”   Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668
`F.3d 1356, 1369, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting 7-Eleven Inc. v. Wechsler, 83 USPQ2d 1715, 1724 (TTAB 2007)); TMEP
`§1207.01(a)(i).
`
`Applicant identifies its services as “Smartphone software design; Updating of computer software; Designing and developing computer game
`software and video game software for use with computers, video game program systems and computer networks.”
`
`Registration No. 2920266 identifies its services as “computer systems and software design for others working in an office environment;
`computer consultation, namely, provide assistance to customers in the selection of computer systems and computer software for use in office
`automation; maintenance of office computer software.”
`
`Registration No. 4269583 identifies its relevant services as “Computer software design.”
`
`Registration No. 4269587 identifies its relevant services as “Computer software design.”
`
`Determining likelihood of confusion is based on the description of the goods and/or services stated in the application and registration at issue, not
`on extrinsic evidence of actual use.  See In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1307, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1052 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re
`
`i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1325, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1749 (Fed. Cir. 2017)).   
`
`In this case, Registration Nos. 4269583 and 4269587 use broad wording to describe their computer software design services, which presumably
`encompasses all services of the type described, including applicant’s more narrow smartphone software design and game software design.   See,
`
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`

`

`e.g., In re Solid State Design Inc., 125 USPQ2d 1409, 1412-15 (TTAB 2018); Sw. Mgmt., Inc. v. Ocinomled, Ltd., 115 USPQ2d 1007, 1025
`(TTAB 2015).  Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s services are legally identical.
`  See, e.g., In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 127 USPQ2d 1627, 1629
`(TTAB 2018) (citing Tuxedo Monopoly, Inc. v. Gen. Mills Fun Grp., Inc., 648 F.2d 1335, 1336, 209 USPQ 986, 988 (C.C.P.A. 1981); Inter
`IKEA Sys. B.V. v. Akea, LLC, 110 USPQ2d 1734, 1745 (TTAB 2014); Baseball Am. Inc. v. Powerplay Sports Ltd., 71 USPQ2d 1844, 1847 n.9
`(TTAB 2004)).
`
`Additionally, applicant’s and registrants’ services are closely related because it is common for entities that provide computer services such as
`design and update services to also provide software design, computer consultation, and software maintenance services. The attached Internet
`evidence consists of webpages from Chetu, Intellectsoft, NTT Data, and Science Soft.  This evidence establishes that the same entity commonly
`provides the relevant services and markets the services under the same mark, that the relevant services are provided through the same trade
`channels and used by the same classes of consumers in the same fields of use, and that the services are similar or complementary in terms of
`purpose or function. Specifically, the evidence shows that it is common for entities to provide software development, software design, and
`software maintenance services and market these services under the same mark such that consumer encountering these services under similar
`marks are likely to believe they emanate from the same source. Therefore, applicant’s and registrants’ services are considered related for
`likelihood of confusion purposes.  See, e.g., In re Davey Prods. Pty Ltd., 92 USPQ2d 1198, 1202-04 (TTAB 2009); In re Toshiba Med. Sys.
`Corp., 91 USPQ2d 1266, 1268-69, 1271-72 (TTAB 2009).
`
`The relatedness of applicant’s and registrant’s services establishes a likelihood of confusion. Therefore, registration must be refused under
`Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.
`
`ADVISORY – PRIOR-FILED APPLICATION
`
`The filing dates of pending U.S. Application Serial Nos. 86491036, 88506022, and 90226272 precede applicant’s filing date.  See attached
`referenced applications.  If one or more of the marks in the referenced applications register, applicant’s mark may be refused registration under
`Trademark Act Section 2(d) because of a likelihood of confusion with the registered marks.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP
`§§1208 et seq.  Therefore, upon receipt of applicant’s response to this Office action, action on this application may be suspended pending final
`disposition of the earlier-filed referenced applications.
`
`In response to this Office action, applicant may present arguments in support of registration by addressing the issue of the potential conflict
`between applicant’s mark and the marks in the referenced applications.  Applicant’s election not to submit arguments at this time in no way
`limits applicant’s right to address this issue later if a refusal under Section 2(d) issues.
`
`Applicant should note the following additional ground for refusal.
`
`SECTIONS 1 AND 45 REFUSAL – SPECIMEN REFUSAL
`
`Specimen does not show direct association between mark and services.  Registration is refused because the specimen does not show a direct
`association between the mark and the services and fails to show the applied-for mark as actually used in commerce with the identified services in
`International Class 042.  Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127; 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a), (b)(2); TMEP §§904,
`904.07(a), 1301.04(f)(ii), (g)(i).  An application based on Trademark Act Section 1(a) must include a specimen showing the applied-for mark as
`actually used in commerce for each international class of services identified in the application or amendment to allege use.  15 U.S.C.
`
`§1051(a)(1); 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a).  
`
`When determining whether a mark is used in connection with the services in the application, a key consideration is the perception of the user.  In
`re JobDiva, Inc., 843 F.3d 936, 942, 121 USPQ2d 1122, 1126 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing Lens.com, Inc. v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc., 686 F.3d 1376,
`1381-82, 103 USPQ2d 1672, 1676 (Fed Cir. 2012)).  A specimen must show the mark used in a way that would create in the minds of potential
`consumers a sufficient nexus or direct association between the mark and the services being offered.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.56(b)(2); In re Universal
`
`Oil Prods. Co., 476 F.2d 653, 655, 177 USPQ2d 456, 457 (C.C.P.A. 1973); TMEP §1301.04(f)(ii).  
`
`To show a direct association, specimens consisting of advertising or promotional materials must (1) explicitly reference the services and (2) show
`the mark used to identify the services and their source.  In re The Cardio Grp., LLC, 2019 USPQ2d 227232, at *2 (TTAB 2019) (quoting In re
`WAY Media, LLC, 118 USPQ2d 1697, 1698 (TTAB 2016)); TMEP §1301.04(f)(ii).  Although the exact nature of the services does not need to be
`specified in the specimen, there must be something that creates in the mind of the purchaser an association between the mark and the services.  In
`
`re Adair, 45 USPQ2d 1211, 1215 (TTAB 1997) (quoting In re Johnson Controls Inc., 33 USPQ2d 1318, 1320 (TTAB 1994)).  
`
`In the present case, the specimen does not show a direct association between the mark and services. Specifically, applicant describes its services
`
` 
` 
`   
` 
` 
` 
`   
` 
`

`

`as “Smartphone software design; Updating of computer software; Designing and developing computer game software and video game software
`for use with computers, video game program systems and computer networks.” However, the screenshot merely shows the applied-for mark on a
`blank screen and does not directly show that applicant designs, updates, or develops software for others. Thus, the specimen is not acceptable.
`
`Examples of specimens.  Specimens for services must show a direct association between the mark and the services and include:   (1) copies of
`advertising and marketing material, (2) a photograph of business signage or billboards, or (3) materials showing the mark in the sale, rendering,
`or advertising of the services.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.56(b)(2), (c); TMEP §1301.04(a), (h)(iv)(C).  Any webpage printout or screenshot submitted as a
`specimen must include the webpage’s URL and the date it was accessed or printed on the specimen itself, within the TEAS form that submits the
`specimen, or in a verified statement under 37 C.F.R. §2.20 or 28 U.S.C. §1746 in a later-filed response.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.56(c); TMEP
`§§904.03(i), 1301.04(a).
`
`Response options.  Applicant may respond to this refusal by satisfying one of the following for each applicable international class:
`
`(1)      
`
`Submit a different specimen (a verified “substitute” specimen ) that (a) was in actual use in commerce at least as early as the filing
`date of the application or prior to the filing of an amendment to allege use and (b) shows the mark in actual use in commerce for
`the services identified in the application or amendment to allege use.  A “verified substitute specimen” is a specimen that is
`accompanied by the following statement made in a signed affidavit or supported by a declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20:  “The
`substitute (or new, or originally submitted, if appropriate) specimen(s) was/were in use in commerce at least as early as the filing
`date of the application or prior to the filing of the amendment to allege use.”   The substitute specimen cannot be accepted without
`this statement.
`
`(2)      
`
`Amend the filing basis to intent to use under Section 1(b) (which includes withdrawing an amendment to allege use, if one was
`filed), as no specimen is required before publication.  This option will later necessitate additional fee(s) and filing requirements,
`including a specimen.
`
`For an overview of the response options referenced above and instructions on how to satisfy these options using the online Trademark Electronic
`Application System (TEAS) form, see the Specimen webpage.
`
`If submitting a substitute specimen requires an amendment to the dates of use, applicant must verify the amended dates with an affidavit or
`signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20.  37 C.F.R. §2.71(c); TMEP §904.05; see 37 C.F.R. §2.193(e)(1).  For more information about dates of
`use and instructions for amending them using the online Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), see the Dates of Use webpage.
`
`How to submit a verified specimen. 
`After opening the appropriate TEAS response form, answer “Yes” to form wizard question #2, click “Continue,” and provide the following for
`each relevant class for which a specimen is being submitted:
`(1)      
`Under the heading “Classification and Listing of Goods/Services/Collective Membership Organization,” check the box next to the
`following statement:  “Check here to modify the current classification number; listing of goods/services/the nature of the collective
`membership organization; dates of use; and/or filing basis; or to submit a substitute specimen, a foreign registration certificate, or proof of
`renewal of a foreign registration.  If not checked, the changes will be ignored.”;
`Attach specimen under “Specimen File” (attachment may not exceed 5 megabytes);
`Describe in the box below that location what the attached specimen consists of;
`Check the box below the specimen description next to the following statement (to ensure that the declaration language is inserted into the
`form): “The substitute (or new, or originally submitted, if appropriate) specimen(s) was/were in use in commerce at least as early as the
`filing date of the application” [for an application based on Section 1(a), Use in Commerce] OR “The substitute (or new, or originally
`submitted, if appropriate) specimen(s) was/were in use in commerce prior either to the filing of the Amendment to Allege Use or
`expiration of the filing deadline for filing a Statement of Use” [for an application based on Section 1(b) Intent-to-Use].; and 
`Follow the instructions within the form for signing.  The form will require two signatures:  one in the “Declaration Signature” section
`and one in the “Response Signature” section.
`
`(2)      
`(3)      
`(4)      
`
`(5)      
`
`Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support
`of registration.
`
`RESPONSE GUIDELINES
`
`For this application to proceed, applicant must explicitly address each refusal and/or requirement in this Office action.  For a refusal, applicant
`may provide written arguments and evidence against the refusal, and may have other response options if specified above.  For a requirement,
`applicant should set forth the changes or statements.  Please see “ Responding to Office Actions” and the informational video “Response to
`Office Action” for more information and tips on responding.
`
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`   
` 
`

`

`Because of the legal technicalities and strict deadlines of the trademark application process, applicant is encouraged to hire a private attorney who
`specializes in trademark matters to assist in this process.  The assigned trademark examining attorney can provide only limited assistance
`explaining the content of an Office action and the application process.  USPTO staff cannot provide legal advice or statements about an
`
`applicant’s legal rights.   TMEP §§705.02, 709.06.  See Hiring a U.S.-licensed trademark attorney for more information.  
`
`Please note that foreign attorneys, other than duly authorized Canadian attorneys, are not permitted to represent applicants before the USPTO. 
`See 37 C.F.R. §§2.17(e), 11.14(c), (e); TMEP §602.03-.03(c).  The only attorneys who may practice before the USPTO in trademark matters are
`(1) attorneys in good standing with a bar of the highest court of any U.S. state, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and other U.S.
`commonwealths/territories; and (2) duly authorized Canadian agents/attorneys.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.17(e), 11.14(a), (c); TMEP §602.
`
`How to respond.   Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action.         
`
`/Peter Dang/
`Trademark Examining Attorney
`Law Office 121
`(571) 270-1998
`peter.dang@uspto.gov
`
`RESPONSE GUIDANCE
`Missing the response deadline to this letter will cause the application to abandon.   A response or notice of appeal must be received by
`the USPTO before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period.   TEAS and ESTTA maintenance or unforeseen
`
`circumstances could affect an applicant’s ability to timely respond.   
`
`Responses signed by an unauthorized party are not accepted and can cause the application to abandon.  If applicant does not have an
`attorney, the response must be signed by the individual applicant, all joint applicants, or someone with legal authority to bind a juristic
`applicant.  If applicant has an attorney, the response must be signed by the attorney.
`
`If needed, find contact information for the supervisor of the office or unit listed in the signature block.
`
` 
` 
`   
` 
` 
`

`

`Print: Jan 5, 2022
`
`75029556
`
`DESIGN MARK
`
`Serial Number
`75029556
`
`Status
`REGISTERED AND RENEWED
`
`Word Mark
`EDGE
`
`Standard Character Mark
`No
`
`Registration Number
`2970266
`
`Date Registered
`2005/01/25
`
`Type of Mark
`SERVICE MARK
`
`Register
`PRINCIPAL
`
`Mark Drawing Code
`(1) TYPED DRAWING
`
`Owner
`EDGE SYSTEMS, LLC LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY ILLINOIS 357271 West Ave.,
`Suite 200 Warrenville ILLINOIS 695553254
`
`Goods/Services
`G6 & &: computer
`100 101.
`US
`If 042.
`Class Status -- ACTIVE.
`systems and software design for others working in an office
`environment; camputer consultation, namely, provide assistance ta
`customers in the selection of computer systems and computer software
`for use in office automation: maintenance of office computer software.
`First Use: 1985/01/30. First Use In Commerce: 1985/01/30.
`
`Filing Date
`1995/12/08
`
`Examining Attorney
`MCMORROW, JANICE L.
`
`Attorney of Record
`Michael J. Weins
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`Print: Jan 5, 2022
`
`85494926
`
`DESIGN MARK
`
`Serial Number
`85494926
`
`& 15-ACCEPTED AND ACKNOWLEDGED
`
`Status
`SECTION €
`
`Word Mark
`EDGE
`
`Standard Character Mark
`No
`
`Registration Number
`4769583
`
`Date Registered
`2013/01/01
`
`Type of Mark
`TRADEMARK; SERVICE MARK
`
`Register
`PRINCIPAL
`
`Mark Drawing Code
`(3) DESIGN PLUS WORDS, LETTERS AND/OR NUMBERS
`
`Owner
`INC. CORPORATION VIRGINIA 120 TREDEGAR STREET
`DOMINION ENERGY,
`RICHMOND VIRGINIA 23219
`
`Goods/Services
`G&G & 8:
`O21 0235 O26 036 O38.
`US
`If 009.
`Glass Status -- ACTIVE.
`Process control system, namely, hardware and software used to monitor
`the status of and adjust power generation and electrical distribution
`on a power grid; Software for use in smart grid and other electric
`utility applications from production through consumption, namely, for
`providing electrical energy management systems,
`integration and
`Management of utility energy assets for electrical generation,
`renewable energy generation,
`tranemission, storage, distribution and
`consumption, energy load management and control, energy demand
`Management and cantrol, electrical consumption monitoring and control,
`electric grid monitoring and control; computer, communications and
`sensor hardware and electrical grid devices for use in smart grid and
`other electric utility applications from production through
`integration
`consumption, namely, electrical energy management systems,
`and management of utility energy aseete for electrical generation,
`renewable energy generation,
`transmission, storage, distribution and
`consumption, energy load management and control, energy demand
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`Print: Jan 5, 2022
`
`85494926
`
`Ianagement and control, electrical consumption monitoring and control,
`electric grid monitoring and control. First Use: 2012/01/24. First
`Use In Commerce: 2012/01/24.
`
`Goods/Services
`6 & 8: Utility
`100 105.
`UB
`IC 039,
`Class Status -- ACTIVE.
`services, namely, electricity power grid load shifting;
`technical
`
`consulting services in the field of electrical power distribution.
`Firat Use: 2012/01/24. Firat Use In Commerce: 2012/01/24,
`
`
`
`
`
`Goods/Services
`6 & 8: Engineering
`100 101.
`UB
`IC 042,
`Class Statue -- ACTIVE.
`consulting services in the fields of electrical power distribution
`sy¥stem infrastructures for micro grids, smart grids, and mission
`eritical facilities; technical consulting, analysis, data conversion
`of electronic information, design, and engineering in the field of
`electrical power distribution system infrastructures; computer
`software design; Systems integration services in the nature of
`designing, developing,
`implementing, and maintaining smart grid and
`other electric, gas and water utility computer software applications,
`computer consulting and computer eysetems analysis regarding smart grid
`and other electric, gas and water utility computer software
`applications for electric, water and gas utilities, energy service
`providers and energy consumers; operation of amart grid energy
`transmission, distribution and consumption software application
`eyetems and networks for others, namely, for electric utilities,
`energy service providers and energy consumers. Firat Use: 2012/01/24,
`First Use In Commerce: 2012/01/24.
`
`Description of Mark
`The mark consists of the word “edge™ with a parallelogram running
`through the "6G" and final "EE".
`
`Colors Claimed
`Calor is not claimed as a feature of the mark.
`
`Filing Date
`2011/12/14
`
`Examining Attorney
`PERRY, KIMBERLY
`
`Attorney of Record
`Mary D. Baril
`
`

`

`
`
`

`

`Print: Jan 5, 2022
`
`85496193
`
`DESIGN MARK
`
`Serial Number
`85496133
`
`& 15-ACCEPTED AND ACKNOWLEDGED
`
`Status
`SECTION €
`
`Word Mark
`EDGE
`
`Standard Character Mark
`Yes
`
`Registration Number
`42769587
`
`Date Registered
`2013/01/01
`
`Type of Mark
`TRADEMARK; SERVICE MARK
`
`Register
`PRINCIPAL
`
`Mark Drawing Code
`(4)
`STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
`
`Owner
`INC. CORPORATION VIRGINIA 120 TREDEGAR STREET
`DOMINION ENERGY,
`RICHMOND VIRGINIA 23219
`
`Goods/Services
`G&G & 8:
`O21 0235 O26 036 O38.
`US
`If 009.
`Glass Status -- ACTIVE.
`Process control system, namely, hardware and software used to monitor
`the status of and adjust power generation and electrical distribution
`on a power grid; Software for use in smart grid and other electric
`utility applications from production through consumption, namely, for
`providing electrical energy management systems,
`integration and
`Management of utility energy assets for electrical generation,
`renewable energy generation,
`tranemission, storage, distribution and
`consumption, energy load management and control, energy demand
`Management and cantrol, electrical consumption monitoring and control,
`electric grid monitoring and control; computer, communications and
`sensor hardware and electrical grid devices for use in smart grid and
`other electric utility applications from production through
`integration
`consumption, namely, electrical energy management systems,
`and management of utility energy aseete for electrical generation,
`renewable energy generation,
`transmission, storage, distribution and
`consumption, energy load management and control, energy demand
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`Print: Jan 5, 2022
`
`85496193
`
`Ianagement and control, electrical consumption monitoring and control,
`electric grid monitoring and control. First Use: 2012/01/24. First
`Use In Commerce: 2012/01/24.
`
`Goods/Services
`6 & 8: Utility
`100 105.
`UB
`IC 039,
`Class Status -- ACTIVE.
`services, namely, electricity power grid load shifting;
`technical
`
`consulting services in the field of electrical power distribution.
`Firat Use: 2012/01/24. Firat Use In Commerce: 2012/01/24,
`
`
`
`
`
`Goods/Services
`6 & 8: Engineering
`100 101.
`UB
`IC 042,
`Class Statue -- ACTIVE.
`consulting services in the fields of electrical power distribution
`sy¥stem infrastructures for micro grids, smart grids, and mission
`eritical facilities; technical consulting, analysis, data conversion
`of electronic information, design, and engineering in the field of
`electrical power distribution system infrastructures; computer
`software design; Systems integration services in the nature of
`designing, developing,
`implementing, and maintaining smart grid and
`other electric, gas and water utility computer software applications,
`computer consulting and computer eysetems analysis regarding smart grid
`and other electric, gas and water utility computer software
`applications for electric, water and gas utilities, energy service
`providers and energy consumers; operation of amart grid energy
`transmission, distribution and consumption software application
`eyetems and networks for others, namely, for electric utilities,
`energy service providers and energy consumers. Firat Use: 2012/01/24,
`First Use In Commerce: 2012/01/24.
`
`Filing Date
`2011/12/15
`
`Examining Attorney
`PERRY, KIMBERLY
`
`Attorney of Record
`Mary DO. Baril
`
`

`

`

`

`C aet|
`
`World-Class Software Solutions
`
`Let