Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
Patent and Trademark Office (P.T.O.)
RE: TRADEMARK APPLICATION OF GTE EDUCATION
SERVICES
93-284
November 4, 1994
*1 Petition Filed: June 16, 1993
For: CA.SCHOOLCOM
Serial No. 74/118,792
Filing Date: November 28, 1990
Philip G. Hampton, II
Assistant Commissioner for Trademarks
On Petition
GTE Education Services
has petitioned the Commissioner to reverse the Examining
Attorney's action holding the above application to be abandoned for failure to
file a proper response to an Office Action. Trademark Rule 2.146(a)(3) provides
authority for the requested review.
FACTS
The subject application
was filed on November 28, 1990, for "educational services, namely
electronic bulletin boards, databases, conferencing systems and network
services." In an Office Action dated March 25, 1991, the Examining
Attorney indicated that, among other things, the application identified
services that spanned three International Classes and that the specimens did
not support "educational services" in International Class 41.
Petitioner timely
responded to the Office Action by, among other things, submitting fees for two
additional classes. No substitute specimens were submitted for the Class 41
services, although Petitioner stated that "[a] diligent search is in
progress to locate suitable specimens which will be provided to the Trademarks
[sic] Office upon locating. Concurrently, Applicant is endeavoring to ascertain
the dates of first use for the additional classes and will provide this
information with its further submission."
In a letter dated January
13, 1992, the Examining Attorney held the specimen refusal final, and also made
the requirement for clarification of the recitation
of services in Class 41 final. [FN1] On July 13, 1992, Petitioner submitted
substitute verified specimens for Class 41, and also clarified the wording of
the services in this class.
On August 26, 1992, the
Examining Attorney, construing the July 13, 1992, response as a request for
reconsideration of the final refusal issued in January of 1992, accepted the
amendment to the recitation of services, and indicated the following:
In a reference to the
substitute specimens, the request for reconsideration is DENIED. The FINAL
requirement for substitute specimens ... is continued for the reasons stated
previously as well as those set forth below.
Applicant's recitation
is for educational services. Educational services are considered activities
involving the provision of courses, workshops, and the like in specified
fields.... Applicant's specimens of record clearly indicate the services are on
line computer services.... There is no indication that applicant conducts
training workshops, classes or advises. Therefore, the specimens of record do
not show use of the mark in reference to the specified services.
The application was
declared abandoned on June 2, 1993, with an effective abandonment date of July
14, 1992, for failure to respond to the final Office Action dated January 13,
1993, within six months of the mailing date. This petition followed.
*2 Petitioner argues that it responded to the final Office Action
by submitting a response within the six-month period on July 13, 1993, and thus
the abandonment was in error in should be withdrawn. [FN2]
DECISION
Trademark Rule
2.146(a)(3) permits the Commissioner to invoke his supervisory authority in
appropriate circumstances. However, the Commissioner will reverse the action of
an Examining Attorney only where there has been a clear error or abuse of
discretion. In re Richards-Wilcox Manufacturing Co., 181 USPQ 735 (Comm'r
Pats.1974); Ex parte Peerless Confection Co., 142 USPQ 278 (Comm'r Pats.1964).
No clear error or abuse of discretion has occurred in the instant case.
Trademark Rule 2.64(a)
states that an applicant's response to a final Office Action is limited to
either (1) an appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (Board), (2)
compliance with any requirement, or (3) a petition to the Commissioner, if
permitted by Trademark Rule 2.63(b). According to Trademark Rule 2.64(b), an
applicant may request reconsideration after final action within the time period
for response, however, this will not stay the time for filing an appeal to the
Board. [FN3] If the request for reconsideration is not persuasive, and the time
for appeal has passed, the application is abandoned. TMEP §
1105.04(f)
Any paper filed after
final action containing new amendments, new evidence or new arguments is
construed as a request for reconsideration. TMEP § 1110. Sections 11105.04(f) and 1110 of the Trademark Manual of
Examining Procedure (TMEP) explain the procedure to be followed by an Examining
Attorney when a request for reconsideration is filed after a final refusal has
issued. Generally, where an Applicant presents amendments, evidence or
arguments which fail to raise any new issue or which are not significantly
different from previously submitted material, an Examining Attorney should deny
the request, maintain any final refusals and requirements, and advise the
Applicant of the status of the case, e.g., whether the application is
abandoned, or being sent to the Board for institution of an ex parte appeal. If
no new issue or evidence is presented in the request, no notice of appeal has
been timely filed, and the six month period to respond to the final action has
expired, then the application will be deemed abandoned. [FN4]
In the present case, the
Examining Attorney properly determined that no new issue had been raised,
"denied" the request and "continued" the final refusal due
to inadequate specimens for Class 41, because the substitute specimens
submitted with the request were deficient for the same reason as the original
specimens. [FN5] No six month response clause appeared in the Office Action.
Although anupdate of the status of the application was omitted from the denial of the request, the Applicant was on notice
that the application would abandon inasmuch as no appeal was filed during the
specified time period after issuance of the final action. See Trademark Rules
2.64(b) and 2.142(a).
*3 Thus the
Examining Attorney substantially complied with the established examining
procedure outlined in the TMEP for requests for reconsideration in this
instance, and no clear error or abuse of discretion can be said to have
occurred.
Accordingly, the petition
is denied. The application will remain abandoned.
FN1. There was no mention in the final refusal of the requirement
that applicant submit verified dates of use for the three classes.
FN2. It is unclear from the petition whether Petitioner received
the August 26, 1992 Office Action which maintained the final requirement for
substitute specimens.
FN3. An appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board from an
Examining Attorney's final action must be filed within six months from the date
of the final action. 37 C.F.R. §
2.142(a).
FN4. The procedure set forth in the TMEP for requests for
reconsideration above is somewhat
inconsistent with actual trademark examining practice. Although both TMEP
sections insist that a request for reconsideration is a filing that is either
"granted" or "denied" by an Examining Attorney. In all
cases it appears that a request is "granted," i.e., the evidence
contained therein is always reviewed by the Examining Attorney so long as the
request is timely filed. The only issue in question is whether or not, after
reviewing the evidence or arguments submitted in the request, the Examining
Attorney will restate the final refusal with the same six month response period
in place, or withdraw the finality and issue a new action, with a new response
period (because a new issue has been raised). These two TMEP sections are
currently under review for the next revision of the TMEP.
FN5. Although the Examining Attorney used the rather ambiguous
term "continued" to refer to the maintaining of the final specimen
refusal, there is no doubt that this wording was intended to inform the
Petitioner that the final refusal was being adhered to and that the substitute
specimens were still unacceptable.
34 U.S.P.Q.2d 1478
END OF DOCUMENT