Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Intellectual Property Law Blogs -> The TTABlog

Intellectual Property Law

: The TTABlog

TTAB Affirms Refusal: Applicant Failed to Comply with Rule 2.61(b) Requirement for Additional Specimens

Pursuant to Rule 2.61(b), Examining Attorney Y.I. Lee required that pro se Applicant Kent G. Anderson provide additional specimens for his class 1 and class 3 goods because of the wide range of unrelated articles listed in his application. Anderson didn't. Ms. Lee refused registration. Anderson Appealed. He lost. In re Anderson, Serial No. 76497832 (August 4, 2009) [not precedential].Anderson sought to register the mark TOMORROW for, inter alia, photographic chemicals, unprocessed artificial resins and plastics used in agriculture, manure, and food preservative compositions in class 1; and for more than 100 items in class 3, including after-shave gel, baby oil, boot cream, dish detergents, and grooming preparations for pets. The Examining Attorney rejected Anderson's specimens as inadequate to show use of the mark with the identified goods, and she also required that Anderson submit additional specimens because "the listed Class 1 goods and Class 3 goods, as recited in the Statement of Use, are long and contain numerous unrelated goods...continue to full post

Full post as published by The TTABlog on August 17, 2009 (boomark / email).