IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

Mark: ____

Date of Filing: February 17, 2017

Serial No.: ____

Applicant: _____

Examining Attorney: ___

Law Office: 117

Atty Docket: _______

RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION

Commissioner for Trademarks

Dear Sir:

This response is being submitted on or before November 17, 2017 in response to the Examining
Attorney’s Office Action dated May 17, 2017 with a six-month statutory period for response.
This response is therefore timely filed.

In response to the Office Action dated May 17, 2017, please enter the following:

Overview

The present Office Action has raised three issues, (a) Likelihood of confusion, and (b) Color
Clarification and Mark Description Amendment Requirements. These will be addressed in the
order presented in the action.

Refusal - Likelihood of Confusion under Section 2(d)

Applicant has carefully studied the office action mailed dated May 17, 2017 and this response to
the office action is believed to be fully responsive thereto.

The Examining Attorney has refused registration of Applicant's mark in Class 009 under the
Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d), on the grounds that Applicant's mark, ____,
when used on or in connection with the identified goods and services, is likely to be confused
with Registration No. ____ for _____ Applicant submits that registered owner of the cited mark
under Registration No. _____ is the USA based subsidiary of the Applicant herein and Letter of
consent from the Registrant is being filed along with response. In view of the same, the
Applicant requests that the § 2(d) objection be withdrawn because the goods and services under
respective marks originate from the same group entities and any confusion as to the source of
origin on the part of a prospective customer is unlikely.

Relatedness of Goods and Services

As already explained in the preceding paragraph of this reply under heading, Relatedness of
Goods and Services, in view of the relationship between the Applicant and the registrant and the
Letter of Consent issued by the Registrant, the refusal on grounds of relatedness of goods and
services is no longer tenable and needs to be withdrawn.

Color Clarification and Mark Description Amendment Requirements.

The Examining Attorney has refused the instant mark stating First, the drawing shows the mark
is in color, however, the application includes a statement that color is not claimed as a feature of
the mark and has directed Applicant to clarify whether color is in fact a part of the mark. The
Examining Attorney has also confirmed that the Applicant may amend the mark to delete color
and in that case, amendment to delete color from the mark would not be considered a material
alteration and is permitted. The Applicant affirms that color is not claimed as a part of the mark
and submits with this reply a fresh drawing of the subject mark depicting the mark only in black
and white and requests that the same may please be taken on records to replace the existing mark
in color.

Second, the Examining Attorney has objected on the ground that description of the mark uses
broad, vague language and has directed that the mark must include an accurate and concise
description that identifies all literary elements as well as design elements in the mark. In order to
comply with the requirement, the Applicant amends the description of the mark as follows:

“The mark consists of the wording “____” and “______” along with a butterfly design”.

Conclusion:

It is respectfully submitted all matters raised in the Official Action have been addressed and
remedied and that the application is in form for publication. Favorable action is respectfully
requested.

Should the Examining Attorney find the application to be other than in condition for publication,
the Examining Attorney is requested and encouraged to contact the undersigned at the email
address listed below to discuss any other changes deemed necessary in an effort to expedite the
prosecution of the present application.

Respectfully submitted,
 _____________________________
(Signature)

______________________________
(Print or Type Name and Position)

____________________________
(Date)

Email id: ___

The signatory has confirmed that he/she is not represented by either an authorized attorney or
Canadian attorney/agent, and that he/she is either (1) the applicant or (2) a person(s) with legal
authority to bind the applicant; and if an authorized U.S. attorney or Canadian attorney/agent
previously represented him/her in this matter, either he/she has filed a signed revocation of
power of attorney with the USPTO or the USPTO has granted the request of his/her prior
representative to withdraw.