`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Applicant
`
`Serial No.
`
`Mark
`
`Examining
`Attorney
`
`Law Office
`
`:
`
`1
`
`;
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`Matsushita Electric Corporation of America
`
`76/509,713
`
`9,
`
`IDEAS FOR LIFE & Design
`
`“Express Mail" mailing label No.2 J-:L99_e3&a.J.aeaus___
`Date of Deposit:mm
`i hereby certify that this paper or fee is being deposited
`to Addressee" service under 37 CFR 1.10 on the date
`with the United States Postal Service “Express Mail Post Office
`indicated above and is addressed to the Commissioner for
`Trademarks, 2900 Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 222026513.
`Name:
`-
`_g
`
`Signature:
`
`Patty Evanko
`
`1 12
`
`BOX RESPONSE - NO FEE
`Commissioner for Trademarks
`
`2900 Crystal Drive
`Arlington, Virginia 22202-3514
`
`Commissioner for Trademarks:
`
`RESPONSE
`
`Applicant submits this response to the Office Action of August 27, 2003.
`
`THERE IS NO LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
`BETWEEN APPLICANT’ S MARK AND THE CITED APPLICATION
`
`Applicant responds herein to the Examining Attorney’s advice that there may
`
`be a likelihood of confusion between Applicant’s Mark and the mark contained in pending
`
`Application Serial No. 76,502,203 for the mark PANASONIC IDEAS FOR LIFE covering a
`
`variety of goods and services in classes 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 20, 35, 37, 41 and 42 (the
`
`“Cited Application”) which may result in a refusal to register App1icant’s Mark if the Cited
`
`Application matures into registration.
`
`2.506202.
`
`ll||||||||lll|l||l||||ll|l||\|l|||||||l|||l|||||l
`
`1 0-24-2003
`u.s. Patients! TMOYCITM Mail Rcptm #11
`
`
`
`Applicant submits that there is no likelihood of confusion between its mark
`
`and the Cited Application since Applicant is a wholly owned subsidiary of the owner of the
`
`Cited Application.
`
`The Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure provides, in relevant part,
`
`that , “if the applicant or the applicant’s attorney represents that either the applicant or the
`
`registrant owns all of the other entity, and there is no contradictory evidence, then the
`
`examining attorney should conclude that there is unity of control, a single source and no
`
`likelihood of confusion.” T.M.E.P. § l201.07(b) (i). The Trademark Manual specifically
`
`indicates that this provision applies to “a corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary.” I_cl.
`
`In the instant case, the Cited Application is owned by Matsushita Electric
`
`Industrial Co., Ltd., and Applicant, Matsushjta Electric Corporation of America, is a wholly
`
`owned subsidiary of Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. Accordingly, there is unity of
`
`control between Applicant and the owner of the Cited Application, the two entities will be
`
`viewed as a single source, and, consequently, there is no likelihood of confusion.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`AMSTER, ROTHSTEIN 8: EBENSTEIN LLP
`
`Attorneys for Applicant
`90 Park Avenue
`
`New York, New York 10016
`(212) 336-8000
`
`Dated:
`
`New York, New York
`October 23, 2003
`
`By:
`
`6 0019/
`ster
`Morton
`Holly Pekowsky
`
`2506202
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still 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
