To:
`
`Subject:
`
`Sent:
`
`Sent As:
`
`Attachments:
`
`Panasonic Corporation (DCPTOTrademarkMail@hoganlovells.com)
`
`U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 88281362 - X - 1P3518.tba
`
`4/9/2019 4:14:30 PM
`
`ECOM103@USPTO.GOV
`
`Attachment - 1
`Attachment - 2
`Attachment - 3
`Attachment - 4
`Attachment - 5
`Attachment - 6
`Attachment - 7
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
`OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
`
`U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO.  
`88281362
`
`           
`
`MARK: X
`
`CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS:
`  
`       JULIA ANNE MATHESON
`  
`       HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
`         555 13TH STREET NW
`           WASHINGTON, DC 20004
`    
`   
`
`APPLICANT: Panasonic Corporation
`
`    
`
`*88281362*
`
`CLICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS
`LETTER:
`http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp
`
`VIEW YOUR APPLICATION FILE
`
`CORRESPONDENT’S
`
`REFERENCE/DOCKET NO:       
`
`  1P3518.tba
`CORRESPONDENT E-MAIL
`
`   
`
`ADDRESS:       
`
`DCPTOTrademarkMail@hoganlovells.com
`
`OFFICE ACTION
`
`STRICT DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER
`TO AVOID ABANDONMENT OF APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION, THE USPTO MUST RECEIVE APPLICANT’S
`COMPLETE RESPONSE TO THIS LETTER WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF THE ISSUE/MAILING DATE BELOW.   A RESPONSE
`TRANSMITTED THROUGH THE TRADEMARK ELECTRONIC APPLICATION SYSTEM (TEAS) MUST BE RECEIVED BEFORE
`MIDNIGHT EASTERN TIME OF THE LAST DAY OF THE RESPONSE PERIOD.
`
`ISSUE/MAILING DATE: 4/9/2019
`
`The referenced application and the preliminary amendment dated February 7, 2019 have been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining
`attorney.  The signed declaration and the amendment to the identification of goods and services set forth in the preliminary amendment are
`accepted.  Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issue(s) 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 as to the Specified Services Only
`Prior-Filed Application
`Identification of Goods and Services
`Multiple-Class Application – Advisory
`Option to Delete Dual Filing Bases
`
`SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION AS TO THE SPECIFIED
`
`SERVICES ONLY
`
`THIS PARTIAL REFUSAL APPLIES ONLY TO THE SERVICES SPECIFIED THEREIN
`
`Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 4427319.  Trademark
`Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registration.
`
`Applicant’s mark is X in design form for, in relevant part, “Advertising and publicity services; online advertising on a computer network; rental
`of advertising space; marketing research or analysis” in International Class 35.
`
`Registrant’s mark is X in design form for “Advertising services; Designing marketing campaigns for others; Business consultation services and
`business marketing services related to deliverability, workflow, marketing strategies, analytics and test strategies, and message design; promoting
`
`the goods and services of others by distributing advertising materials through a variety of methods” in International Class 35.   
`
`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 goods and/or 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).  Only those factors that are “relevant and of record” need be considered.   M2 Software, Inc. v. M2 Commc’ns, Inc. , 450 F.3d
`1378, 1382, 78 USPQ2d 1944, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Shen Mfg. Co. v. Ritz Hotel Ltd., 393 F.3d 1238, 1241, 73 USPQ2d 1350, 1353 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2004)); see In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC , 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1744 (TTAB 2018).  
`
`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 goods and/or 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 [or services] and differences in the
`marks.”); TMEP §1207.01.
`
`In this case, the following factors are the most relevant:  Similarity of the marks, relatedness of the services, and similarity of the trade channels
`of the services.
`
`SIMILARITY OF THE MARKS
`
`The applied-for mark and the registered mark are sufficiently similar to create a likelihood of confusion.
`
`Marks are compared in their entireties for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression.  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)); TMEP §1207.01(b)-(b)(v). 
`“Similarity in any one of these elements may be sufficient to find the marks confusingly similar.”   In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC , 126 USPQ2d
`1742, 1746 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Davia, 110 USPQ2d 1810, 1812 (TTAB 2014)); TMEP §1207.01(b).
`
`When the marks at issue are both design marks, similarity of the marks is determined primarily on the basis of visual similarity.  See, e.g.,
`Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Rose ‘Vear Enters. , 592 F.2d 1180, 1183, 201 USPQ 7, 9 (C.C.P.A. 1979) (quoting In re ATV Network
`Ltd., 552 F.2d 925, 929, 193 USPQ 331, 332 (C.C.P.A. 1977)); Ft. James Operating Co. v. Royal Paper Converting Inc., 83 USPQ2d 1624, 1628
`(TTAB 2007); TMEP §1207.01(c).  However, a side-by-side comparison is not the test.  See Grandpa Pidgeon’s of Mo., Inc. v. Borgsmiller , 477
`F.2d 586, 587, 177 USPQ 573, 574 (C.C.P.A. 1973).  When comparing design marks, the focus is on the overall commercial impression
`conveyed by such marks, not on specific differences.  See Grandpa Pidgeon’s of Mo., Inc. v. Borgsmiller , 477 F.2d at 587, 177 USPQ at 574; In
`
`  
` 
` 
` 
` 
`  
` 
` 
` 
`

`

`re Triple R Mfg. Corp., 168 USPQ 447, 448 (TTAB 1970); TMEP §1207.01(c).
`
`In the present case, both marks consist of a stylized letter “X” with shadowing details.   Further, the marks identify legally identical services. 
`Where the goods and/or services of an applicant and registrant are identical or virtually identical, the degree of similarity between the marks
`required to support a finding that confusion is likely declines.  See Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., __ F.3d __, 127 USPQ2d 1797, 1801 (Fed. Cir.
`2018) (quoting In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1363, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(b).  Thus, consumers will
`likely assume a connection between the parties because applicant’s and registrant’s design marks are visually similar and identify legally
`identical services.
`
`RELATEDNESS OF THE SERVICES
`
`Applicant has identified its services, in relevant part, as “Advertising and publicity services; online advertising on a computer network; rental of
`advertising space; marketing research or analysis” in International Class 35.
`
`Registrant has identified its services as “Advertising services; Designing marketing campaigns for others; Business consultation services and
`business marketing services related to deliverability, workflow, marketing strategies, analytics and test strategies, and message design; promoting
`the goods and services of others by distributing advertising materials through a variety of methods” in International Class 35.
`
`The goods and/or 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).
`
`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, the registration uses broad wording to describe “ Advertising services” , which presumably encompasses all services of the type
`described, including applicant’s more narrow “ online advertising on a computer network; rental of advertising space; marketing research or
`analysis” .  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).  Similarly, applicant’s broadly worded “Advertising and publicity services” encompasses registrant’s more narrow
`“Advertising services”.   Id.  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, the goods and/or services of the parties have no restrictions as to nature, type, channels of trade, or classes of purchasers and are
`“presumed to travel in the same channels of trade to the same class of purchasers.”   In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905,
`1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1268, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). 
`Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s services are related.
`
`Based on the foregoing, consumers encountering X & Design used for “Advertising and publicity services; online advertising on a computer
`network; rental of advertising space; marketing research or analysis”   and X & Design for “Advertising services; Designing marketing
`campaigns for others; Business consultation services and business marketing services related to deliverability, workflow, marketing strategies,
`analytics and test strategies, and message design; promoting the goods and services of others by distributing advertising materials through a
`variety of methods” are likely to be confused and mistakenly believe that the respective services emanate from a common source.
`
`Applicant may respond to the stated refusal by submitting evidence and arguments against the refusal.  In addition, applicant may respond by
`doing one of the following:
`
`(1)  Deleting the services to which the refusal pertains; or
`
`(2)  Filing a request to divide out the services that have not been refused registration, so that the mark may proceed toward publication for
`opposition for those goods or services to which the refusal does not pertain.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.87.  See generally TMEP §§1110 et seq.
`(regarding the requirements for filing a request to divide).  If applicant files a request to divide, then to avoid abandonment, applicant
`must also file a timely response to all outstanding issues in this Office action, including the refusal.  37 C.F.R. §2.87(e).
`
`PRIOR-FILED APPLICATION
`
` 
`  
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`  
` 
`

`

`The filing date of pending U.S. Application Serial No. 87045346 precedes applicant’s filing date.  See attached referenced application.  If the
`mark in the referenced application registers, applicant’s mark may be refused registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d) because of a
`likelihood of confusion between the two 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
`application.
`
`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 mark in the referenced application.  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.
`
`However, if applicant responds to the Section 2(d) Refusal, applicant must also respond to the requirement(s) set forth below.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS AND SERVICES
`
`The identification of goods and/or services contains parentheses.  Generally, applicants should not use parentheses and brackets in identifications
`in their applications so as to avoid confusion with the USPTO’s practice of using parentheses and brackets in registrations to indicate goods
`and/or services that have been deleted from registrations or in an affidavit of incontestability to indicate goods and/or services not claimed.  See
`TMEP §1402.12.   The only exception is that parenthetical information is permitted in identifications in an application if it serves to explain or
`translate the matter immediately preceding the parenthetical phrase in such a way that it does not affect the clarity or scope of the identification,
`e.g., “fried tofu pieces (abura-age).”   Id.
`
`Therefore, applicant must remove the parentheses from the identification and incorporate any parenthetical or bracketed information into the
`description of the goods and/or services.
`
`Further, the wording “electric therm pots” in the identification of goods and/or services appears to be misspelled and is thus indefinite; the
`spelling must be corrected or the wording further clarified.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01(a).  Suggestions documented below.
`
`Applicant is advised to delete or modify the duplicate entry in the identification of goods and/or services in International Class 42 for “testing or
`research on machines, apparatus and instruments.”   See generally TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.01(a).  If applicant does not respond to this issue, be
`advised that the USPTO will remove duplicate entries from the identification prior to registration.
`
`If modifying one of the duplicate entries, applicant may amend it to clarify or limit the goods and/or services, but not to broaden or expand the
`goods and/or services beyond those in the original application or as acceptably amended.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06.  Also,
`generally, any deleted goods and/or services may not later be reinserted.  TMEP §1402.07(e).
`
`In addition, particular wording in the identification of goods is indefinite and must be clarified because it does not clearly specify the nature of
`the goods.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.  Applicant must amend this wording to specify the common commercial or generic name
`of the goods.  See TMEP §1402.01.  If the goods have no common commercial or generic name, applicant must describe the product, its main
`purpose, and its intended uses.  See id.  Suggestions and further explanation detailed below.
`
`Particular wording in the identification of services is also indefinite and must be clarified because it does not clearly specify the nature of the
`services.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.  Applicant must amend this wording to specify the common commercial or generic name
`of the services.  See TMEP §1402.01.  If the services have no common commercial or generic name, applicant must describe or explain the
`nature of the services using clear and succinct language.  See id.  Suggestions and further explanation detailed below.
`
`  However, this term is generally not
`Further, applicant has included the term “and/or” or “or” in the identification of goods and/or services.
`accepted in identifications when (1) it is unclear whether applicant is using the mark, or intends to use the mark, on all the identified goods or
`services; (2) the nature of the goods and services is unclear; or (3) classification cannot be determined from such wording.  See TMEP
`§1402.03(a).  In this case, the wording “power distribution or control machines and apparatus” and “measuring or testing machines and
`
`instruments” in International Class 9 does not make clear what the goods are.   
`
`An application must specify, in an explicit manner, the particular goods or services on or in connection with which the applicant uses, or has a
`bona fide intention to use, the mark in commerce.  See 15 U.S.C. §1051(a)(2), (b)(2); 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.  Therefore,
`applicant should replace “and/or” or “or” with “and” in the identification of goods or services, if appropriate, or rewrite the identification with
`
` 
` 
`  
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`     
` 
` 
`

`

`the “and/or” or “or” deleted and the goods or services specified using definite and unambiguous language.
`
`Applicant must also clarify the wording “phase modifiers” in the identification of goods in International Class 9 because it is indefinite and too
`broad.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03.  This wording is indefinite because it does not make clear what the goods are. 
`Further, this wording could identify goods in more than one international class.  For example, “phase shifters for communications apparatus” are
`in International Class 9 and “phase shifters for musical instruments” are in International Class 15.   Suggestions documented below.
`
`The wording “electronic dictionaries” in the identification of goods in International Class 9 must also be clarified because it is indefinite and too
`broad.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03.  This wording is indefinite because it does not make clear what the goods and/or
`services are.  Further, this wording could identify goods and/or services in more than one international class.  For example, “downloadable
`electronic dictionaries” are in International Class 9 and “providing online non-downloadable electronic dictionaries” are in International Class
`41.  Suggestions documented below.
`
`The wording “cinematographic apparatus and instruments” in the identification of goods in International Class 9 must also be clarified because it
`is indefinite and too broad.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03.  This wording is indefinite because it does not make clear
`what the goods are.  Further, this wording could identify goods in more than one international class.  For example, “unexposed cinematographic
`film” are in International Class 2 and “apparatus for editing cinematographic film” are in International Class 9.   Suggestions documented below.
`
`The wording “optical machines and apparatus” in the identification of goods in International Class 9 must also be clarified because it is
`indefinite and too broad.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03.  This wording is indefinite because it does not make clear what
`the goods are.  Further, this wording could identify goods in more than one international class.  For example, machines for the production of
`optical lenses and replacement parts therefor” are in International Class 7 and “optical machines and apparatus, namely, optical code readers”
`are in International Class 9.  Suggestions documented below.
`
`The wording “electronic publications” in the identification of goods in International Class 9 must also be clarified because it is indefinite and too
`broad.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03.  This wording is indefinite because it does not clearly specify the nature of the
`publications and the subject matter of the publications.  Further, this wording could identify goods and/or services in more than one international
`class.  For example, “downloadable electronic publications in the nature of ebooks in the field of math and science” are in International Class 9
`and “providing a website feature non-downloadable publications in the nature of essays and articles in the field of math and science” are in
`International Class 42.  Suggestions documented below.
`
`The wording “LCD screen displays” in the identification of goods in International Class 9 must also be clarified because it is indefinite and too
`broad.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03.  This wording is indefinite because it does not make clear what the goods are. 
`Further, this wording could identify goods in more than one international class.  For example, “LCD large-screen displays” are in International
`Class 9 and “battery-powered computer games with LCD screen displays” are in International Class 28.   Suggestions documented below.
`
`The wording “air driers” in the identification of goods in International Class 11 must also be clarified because it is indefinite and too broad.   See
`37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03.  This wording is indefinite because it does not make clear what the goods are.  Further, this
`wording could identify goods in more than one international class.  For example, “recirculated air driers” are in International Class 7 and
`“electric air driers” are in International Class 11.   Suggestions documented below.
`
`The wording “electric blankets” in the identification of goods in International Class 11 must also be clarified because it is indefinite and too
`broad.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03.  This wording is indefinite because it does not make clear what the goods are. 
`Further, this wording could identify goods in more than one international class.  For example, “electric blankets for medical purposes” are in
`International Class 10 and “electric blankets for household purposes” are in International Class 11.   Suggestions documented below.
`
`The wording “kitchen worktops with integrated sinks for household purposes” in the identification of goods in International Class 11 must also
`be clarified because it is indefinite and too broad.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03.  This wording is indefinite because it
`does not make clear what the goods are.  Further, this wording could identify goods in more than one international class.  For example, “sinks
`integrated into kitchen worktopos” are in International Class 11 and “kitchen worktops with integrated sinks sold together as a unit” are in
`International Class 20.  Suggestions documented below.
`
`The wording “ventilation apparatus” in the identification of goods in International Class 11 must also be clarified because it is indefinite and too
`broad.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03.  This wording is indefinite because it does not make clear what the goods are. 
`Further, this wording could identify goods in more than one international class.  For example, “medical apparatus, namely, invasive and non-
`invasive ventilation apparatus and instruments” are in International Class 10 and “ventilation apparatus, namely, turbine ventilators”   are in
`International Class 11.  Suggestions documented below.
`
`The wording “commercial intermediation services” in the identification of services in International Class 35 must also be clarified because it is
`indefinite and too broad.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03.  This wording is indefinite because it does not make clear what
`
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`

`

`the services are.  Further, this wording could identify services in more than one international class.  For example, “Commercial intermediary
`services relating to the matching of potential private investors with entrepreneurs needing funding” are in International Class 35 and
`“Commercial business intermediary services in the nature of real estate brokerage” are in International Class 36.   Suggestions documented
`below.
`
`The activities identified as “retail services” in International Class 35 are indefinite and must be clarified because retail services could include a
`wide array of retail support services – from accounting to advertising and marketing services.   See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01,
`
`1402.11.  
`
`If applicant’s retail services involve retail stores or outlets (online or brick-and-mortar), or distributorships, applicant should amend the
`identification to specify (1) the nature of the retail activity provided (e.g., retail stores, retail distributorships, online retail outlets), and (2) the
`field or type of goods offered through those retail services, e.g., “retail online ordering services featuring bicycles,” “retail distributorships in the
`
`field of bicycles,” and “retail outlets featuring bicycles.”   See TMEP §§1301.01(a)(ii), 1402.11.  
`
`Similarly, the identification for “wholesale services” in International Class 35 is indefinite and must be clarified because it could include a wide
`array of services related to wholesaling – from accounting to advertising and marketing services.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01,
`
`1402.11.  
`
`Applicant must amend the identification to specify the nature of the wholesale activity that applicant provides (e.g., wholesale distributorships,
`wholesale services by direct solicitation by sales agents, or wholesale store services).  If the services are in the nature of wholesale stores, direct
`solicitation, or distributorships, the identification should also indicate the field or type of goods offered through the wholesale services, e.g.,
`“wholesale distributorships featuring {indicate specific field, e.g. auto parts, clothing},” “wholesale services by direct solicitation by sales
`agents in the field of {indicate specific field},” and “wholesale store services featuring {indicate specific field, e.g. auto parts, clothing,
`
`jewelry}.”   See TMEP §§1301.01(a)(ii), 1402.11.  
`
`The wording “agency services for the leasing or rental of buildings” in the identification of services in International Class 36 must also be
`clarified because it is indefinite and too broad.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03.  This wording is indefinite because it does
`not make clear what the services are.  Further, this wording could identify services in more than one international class.  For example,
`“advertising agency services, namely, real estate advertising services for the leasing or rental of buildings” are in International Class 35 and
`“real estate agency services for the leasing or rental of buildings” are in International Class 36.   Suggestions documented below.
`
`The wording “rental of buildings” in the identification of services in International Class 36 must also be clarified because it is indefinite and too
`broad.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03.  This wording is indefinite because it does not make clear what the services are. 
`Further, this wording could identify services in more than one international class.  For example, “rental of buildings for permanent occupancy”
`are in International Class 36 and “rental of portable buildings” are in International Class 43.   Suggestions documented below.
`
`The wording “agency services for the purchase or sale of buildings” in the identification of services in International Class 36 must also be
`clarified because it is indefinite and too broad.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03.  This wording is indefinite because it does
`not make clear what the services are.  Further, this wording could identify services in more than one international class.  For example,
`“advertising agency services, namely, real estate advertising services for the purchase or sale of buildings” are in International Class 35 and
`“real estate agency services for the purchase or sale of buildings” are in International Class 36.   Suggestions documented below.
`
`The wording “land management” in the identification of services in International Class 36 must also be clarified because it is indefinite and too
`broad.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03.  This wording is indefinite because it does not make clear what the services are. 
`Further, this wording could identify services in more than one international class.  For example, “business management services in the field of
`conserving and preserving land for hunting and fishing” are in International Class 35 and “land management, namely, real estate management of
`commercial properties and office buildings, rental properties, vacation homes” are in International Class 36.   Suggestions documented below.
`
`The wording “agency services for the leasing or rental of land” in the identification of services in International Class 36 must also be clarified
`because it is indefinite and too broad.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03.  This wording is indefinite because it does not
`make clear what the services are.  Further, this wording could identify services in more than one international class.  For example, “advertising
`agency services, namely, real estate advertising services for the leasing or rental of land” are in International Class 35 and “real estate agency
`services for the leasing or rental of land” are in International Class 36.   Suggestions documented below.
`
`The wording “purchase and sale of land” in the identification of services in International Class 36 must also be clarified because it is indefinite
`and too broad.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03.  This wording is indefinite because it does not make clear what the
`services are.  Further, this wording could identify services in more than one international class.  For example, “advertising agency services,
`namely, real estate advertising services for the purchase or sale of land” are in International Class 35 and “real estate agency services for the
`purchase or sale of land” are in International Class 36.   Suggestions documented below.
`
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`

`

`The wording “providing computer programs on data networks” in the identification of services in International Class 42 must also be clarified
`because it is indefinite and too broad.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03.  This wording is indefinite because it does not
`make clear what the goods and/or services are.  Further, this wording could identify goods and/or services in more than one international class. 
`For example, “computer programs, recorded, for use in electronic storage of data” are in International Class 9 and “Providing user access to
`computer programs in data networks” are in International Class 42.   Suggestions documented below.
`
`The wording “cloud computing services” in the identification of services in International Class 42 must also be clarified because it is indefinite
`and too broad.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03.  This wording is indefinite because the nature of the services is unclear. 
`Further, this wording could identify services in more than one international class.  For example, “Promoting the use of the security assurance best
`practices of others in the field of cloud computing” are in International Class 35 and “Consulting services in the field of cloud computing” are in
`International Class 42.  Suggestions documented below.
`
`The wording “surveying services” in the identification of services in International Class 42 must also be clarified because it is indefinite and too
`broad.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03.  This wording is indefinite because it does not make clear what the services are. 
`Further, this wording could identify services in more than one international class.  For example, “surveying services, namely, design of public
`opinion surveys” are in International Class 35 and “land surveying services” are in International Class 42.   Suggestions documented below.
`
`The wording “designing, other than for advertising purposes” in the identification of services in International Class 42 must also be clarified
`because it is indefinite and too broad.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.03.  This wording is indefinite because it does not
`make clear what the services are.  Further, this wording could identify services in more than one international class.  For example, “designing and
`developing insurance policies for others” are in International Class 36 and “designing and creating websites for others” are in International Class
`42.  Suggestions documented below.
`
`The wording “consultancy in the field of energy-saving” in the identification of services in International Class 42 must also be clarified because
`it is indefin