IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE · This communication responds to the Office Action emailed on March 29, 2010 in ... Law Office 103 Serial No. 77/897,771 ... UNITED

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

In re Trademark Application of

Greenhouse Capital Management, LLC

Trademark Attorney: Margaret Power

Serial No: 77/897,771 Law Office: 103 Attorney Docket Number 278‐2002‐US

Filed: December 21, 2009

Mark:

Commissioner for Trademarks P.O. Box 1451 Alexandria, VA 22313‐145

RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION

This communication responds to the Office Action emailed on March 29, 2010 in

which the Examining Attorney refused registration of Applicant’s stylized

GREENHOUSE CAPTIAL PARTNERS mark on the grounds of an alleged likelihood of

confusion with U.S. Registration No. 3,214,428 for GREENHOUSE. Applicant

respectfully disagrees that there is any likelihood of confusion and requests that the

Examining Attorney reconsider the refusal and consider Applicant’s response below. In

addition, the Examining Attorney has requested that Applicant enter a disclaimer of

CAPITAL PARTNERS and inquired into the significance of GREENHOUSE , both of

which Applicant has also addressed in this response.

ANALYSIS

I. APPLICANT’S GREENHOUSE CAPTIAL PARTNERS MARK DOES NOT

CREATE A LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION WITH THE CITED MARK

Applicant respectfully submits that there is no likelihood of confusion between

Applicant’s stylized GREENHOUSE CAPTIAL PARTNERS mark and the mark in the

cited registration due to (1) the cited Registrant’s previous consent to an identical mark

1

Trademark Attorney: Margaret Power Law Office 103

Serial No. 77/897,771

2

for identical services; (2) the crowded field of marks consisting of or containing the term

GREENHOUSE; (2) the dissimilarity of the marks in terms of sight, sound, and meaning

and commercial impression; and (3) the dissimilarity of Applicant’s and Registrant’s

services.

A. The Owner of the Cited Registration Has Previously Consented to the Registration of an Identical Mark in Connection with Identical Services

The cited trademark registration for GREENHOUSE already co‐exists on the

Principal Register with a trademark that is far more similar than Applicant’s stylized

GREENHOUSE CAPTIAL PARTNERS mark. Specifically, when the owner of cited

Registration No. 3,214,428 filed its application to register GREENHOUSE in connection

with “branding, marketing and advertising services, namely, consulting others in

creating corporate and brand identities; advertising services, namely promoting the

goods and services of others associated with particular brands; and strategic business

planning,” the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued a December 15, 2004 Office

Action refusing registration pursuant to §2(d) of the Lanham Act on the grounds of a

likelihood of confusion with prior Registration No. 2,851,454 for THE GREENHOUSE in

connection with “business marketing consulting services and advertising services,

namely, creating corporate and brand identity for others.” See Exhibit A, which is a

copy of the December 15, 2004 Office Action.

In response to the December 15, 2005 Office Action, the owner of the cited

trademark registration submitted a consent agreement between it and the owner of

Registration No. 2,851,454. See Exhibit B, which is a copy of the consent agreement

submitted by the cited registrant. In paragraph 3 of that consent agreement, the owner

of the cited registrant admits that it did not believe there was any likelihood of

confusion between the two marks. Id. Because consent agreements must be given great

weight in determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion, the U.S. Patent and


Serial No. 77/897,771

3

Trademark Office withdrew the refusal against the cited registration. Amalgamated Bank

of New York v. Amalgamated Trust & Savings Bank, 842 F.2d 1270 (Fed. Cir. 1988);

TMEP § 1207.01(d)(viii) (the examining attorney should not substitute his own

judgment regarding likelihood of confusion for the judgment of the real parties in

interest).

Likewise, in the instant case, Applicant respectfully requests that the Examining

Attorney give great weight to the fact that the cited registrant has previously judged

there to be no confusion between its GREEN HOUSE mark and a prior registered mark

for GREENHOUSE for identical services. If, according the cited registrant, there is no

likelihood of confusion between those marks, which are identical except for the article

THE, then there is definitely no likelihood of confusion between the cited registration

for GREENHOUSE and Applicant’s stylized GREENHOUSE CAPTIAL PARTNERS

mark. Unlike Registration No. 2,851,454 for THE GREENHOUSE, Applicant’s mark

contains the additional words “CAPITAL PARTNERS,” which serve to distinguish the

marks much more than the common article “THE.” Moreover, Applicant’s mark is

stylized, containing a color claim of the color green in connection with the term GREEN

in GREENHOUSE. Finally, cited Registration No. 3,214,428 for GREENHOUSE and

Registration No. 2,851,454 for THE GREENHOUSE were both for identical services.

Unlike Registration No. 2,851,454, Applicant does not provide advertising service but

rather venture capital services. Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that if

Registration No. 3,214,428 for GREENHOUSE can co‐exist with Registration No.

2,851,454 for THE GREENHOUSE on the Principal Register, then Registration No.

3,214,428 for GREENHOUSE can also co‐exist with Applicant’s much more dissimilar

and distinguishable stylized GREENHOUSE CAPTIAL PARTNERS mark.

B. GREENHOUSE is part of a crowded field that obviates any likelihood of


Serial No. 77/897,771

4

confusion

When a mark exists in a crowded field, the public is presumed to be able to

distinguish the mark from other marks that may have only minor differences. King

Candy Co. v. Eunice King’s Kitchen Inc., 182 U.S.P.Q. 108 (C.C.P.A. 1974) (“confusion is

unlikely because the marks are … so widely used that the public easily distinguishes

slight differences in the marks as well as differences in the goods …”); Jupiter Hosting

Inc. v. Jupitermedia Corp., 76 U.S.P.Q.2d 1042 (N.D. Cal. 2004); In re Hamilton Bank, 222

U.S.P.Q. 174, 179 (T.T.A.B. 1984). Pursuant to In re E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co., the

“number and nature of similar marks in use on similar goods” must be taken into

account when determining whether a likelihood of confusion exists. 476 F.2d 1357

(C.C.P.A. 1973).

In the instant case, the term GREENHOUSE is part of a crowded field for a wide

variety of goods and services. In this regard, a search of the PTO’s records discloses

over 50 live trademark registrations for marks containing the term GREENHOUSE:

Trademark Goods/Services Registration No.GPC GREENHOUSE

PRODUCE COMPANY Distributorship services 3,608,922

GREENHOUSE Computer software and services 3,401,910 GREENHOUSE Online journals and blogs 3,398,566

HYDRO GREENHOUSE Vivarium 3,089,992 GREENHOUSE RECORDS Audio and video goods 3,132,997 BIG TOM GREENHOUSE Fresh tomatoes 3,255,063 EL ROSAL GREENHOUSE

PRODUCTS Fresh fruits 3,226,816

RED‐SUN GREENHOUSE TOMATOES

Fresh tomatoes 3,175,539

KINGDOM FRESH GREENHOUSE

Live animals 3,331,154

THE GREENHOUSE Health spa services 3,035,818 GARDNER’S GREENHOUSE Cosmetics 2,992,442


Serial No. 77/897,771

5

GREENHOUSE Wholesale distributorship services

2,926,409

NATIONAL GREENHOUSE COMPANY

Metal framed enclosures 2,987,284

GLOBAL GREENHOUSE LIGHTING

Lights, fans, and exhaust systems 3,717,992

GREENHOUSE Cleaning agents 3,811,548 ANSI ACCREDITED

PROGRAM GREENHOUSE GAS VALIDATION AND

VERIFICATION

Greenhouse gas validation and verification

3,802,257

ANSI ACCREDITED PROGRAM GREENHOUSE GAS VALIDATION AND

VERIFICATION

Greenhouse gas verification 3,802,256

GREENHOUSE Online retail store services 3,789,197 CERTIFIED

GREENHOUSE.COM NORTH AMERICAN

GREENHOUSE HOTHOUSE VEGETABLE GROWERS

Fruits, vegetables, produce 3,772,619

GREENHOUSE Management of database content 3,704,678 THE GREENHOUSE

TAVERN Restaurant 3,691,830

GREENHOUSEMEGASTORE Online retail store services 3,610,682 FROM OUR GREENHOUSE TO YOUR GREEN HOME

Live flowers and plants 3,672,069

GREENHOUSE Personal recruitment services and employment agencies

3,697,786

GREENHOUSE Cleaning services 3,732,409 GARLAND GREENHOUSE Coatings, paints, building

products 3,828,759

GARLAND GREENHOUSE Coatings, paints, building products

3,828,758

GREENHOUSE Entertainment services 3,803,609 GREENHOUSE Entertainment services 3,796,362 WINDOWSILL Planters 3,553,980


Serial No. 77/897,771

6

GREENHOUSE JIFFY PROFESSIONAL

GREENHOUSE Planters 3,546,816

THE GREENHOUSE GAS PROTOCOL

Electronic publications 3,548,517

GREENHOUSE MALL Retail store services 3,484,219 GREENHOUSE GROWER Printed periodicals 3,457,481 PROJECT GREENHOUSE Educational services 3,578,418 YOUR BACK‐OF‐THE‐HOUSE GREENHOUSE

Fresh fruits and vegetables 3,528,131

GREENHOUSE Entertainment services 3,528,085 THE GREENHOUSE MALL Retail store services 2,876,659

GREENHOUSE Paper towels 3,652,980 GREENHOUSE Restaurant services 3,506,843

THE GREENHOUSE Advertising services 2,851,454 GREENHOUSE Fiberglass 3,330,066 GREENHOUSE Wholesale distributor of toys 3,080,130 GREENHOUSE Advertising services 3,214,428 GREENHOUSE Educational publications 2,914,826 GREENHOUSE Conducting workshops 3,190,389

THE ASPEN PROJECT RESEARCH GREENHOUSE

Promoting public awareness 3,090,568

ETI’S GREENHOUSE GOLD Landscape products 2,598,448 GREENHOUSE Providing vocational education 2,240,703

NGMA NATIONAL GREENHOUSE

MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION

Educational services 2,194,751

GREENHOUSE PRODUCT NEWS

Business magazine 2,218,990

AMERICAN HARVEST GREENHOUSE

Prefabricated greenhouses 2,325,284

COLORADO GREENHOUSE QUALITY HYDROPONIC

PRODUCE

Agricultural products 2,082,994

OLIVER’S GREENHOUSE COLLECTION

Artificial trees 1,715,990


Serial No. 77/897,771

7

NORTHERN LIGHT GREENHOUSE

Home greenhouses 1,682,967

GREENHOUSE GROWER Monthly magazine 1,281,086 TEXAS GREENHOUSE

COMPANY Distributorship services 1,268,282

THE GREENHOUSE Health and beauty resort services 938,313

See Exhibit C (registration certificates of the marks listed above). The above chart does

not even include pending applications for marks that contain the term GREENHOUSE,

nor does it include the numerous common law trademark uses in the marketplace of

marks containing the term GREENHOUSE.

Accordingly, because the term GREENHOUSE is part of a crowded field of

marks for a wide variety of goods and services, the purchasing public is aware of the

existence and use of multiple marks containing the term GREENHOUSE. Applicant’s

stylized GREENHOUSE CAPTIAL PARTNERS mark is more distinguishable from the

cited registration than many of the already co‐existing GREENHOUSE marks. In sum,

consumers are conditioned to distinguish even slight differences between such marks in

a crowded field, and there is no likelihood of confusion between Applicant’s stylized

GREENHOUSE CAPTIAL PARTNERS mark and the cited GREENHOUSE mark.

C. Applicant’s mark is sufficiently dissimilar from the cited mark to obviate

any likelihood of confusion

Because the purchasing public is familiar with a variety of GREENHOUSE

marks, the differences between Applicant’s mark and the cited mark suffice to avoid

any likelihood of confusion. In order to determine whether there is a likelihood of

confusion due to the similarity of the marks, the marks must be compared in terms of

sight, sound, and meaning. T.M.E.P. § 1207.01(b)(i). Specifically, the Examining

Attorney should not split marks into their component parts and then compare the parts

of the marks to determine the likelihood of confusion. Little Caesar Enterprises v. Pizza


Serial No. 77/897,771

8

Caesar, 834 F.2d 568, 571 (6th Cir. 1987).

While two marks may share a common word, courts have held that the inclusion

of additional words is sufficient to avoid a likelihood of confusion. Inc. Publ. Corp. v.

Manhattan Magazine, 616 F. Supp. 370, 379–80 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) (holding MANHATTAN

INC. not confusingly similar to INC. because the longer word “Manhattan exercises a

visual dominance”); Express Lane Limited Partnership v. Harold Scott Lanes, 1990 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 16606, *11–12 (E.D. Wash. 1990) (holding that the inclusion of the additional

words MUFFLER & BRAKE reduced the similarity in appearance between EXPRESS

LANE and EXPRESS LANE MUFFLER & BRAKE); First Sav. Bank v. First Bank Sys., 101

F.3d 645, 653 (10th Cir. 1996) (holding that FIRSTBANK and FIRSTBANK SYSTEM are

not phonetically similar due to the inclusion of the additional word SYSTEM); In re Bed

& Breakfast Registry, 791 f.2D 157 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (holding BED & BREAKFAST

REGISTRY and BED & BREAKFAST INTERNATIONAL not confusingly similar).

In the instant case, there is no likelihood of confusion between Applicant’s mark

and the cited mark because (1) Applicant’s mark contains the additional words

CAPITAL PARTNERS and a stylized color design that is not contained in the cited

mark; (2) Applicant’s mark is pronounced differently from the cited mark;

(3) Applicant’s mark conveys a different meaning from the cited mark; and (4) overall

Applicant’s mark has a commercial impression that is separate and distinct from the

commercial impression of the cited mark. These differences are immediately apparent

when viewing the marks in question:

APPLICANT’S MARK

CITED REGISTRATION NO. 3,214,428 GREENHOUSE

With regard to sight or appearance, Applicant’s mark is visually different from


Serial No. 77/897,771

9

the cited mark. In this regard, Applicant’s mark contains the additional words

CAPITAL PARTNERS. The cited mark does not contain the words CAPITAL or

PARTNERS or any similar terms. In addition, Applicant’s mark is stylized with a color

claim. The term GREEN in GREENHOUSE is depicted in the color green, the entire

mark is in lower case with the additional words CAPITAL PARTNERS located

underneath the word GREENHOUSE. Therefore, while the marks admittedly share the

common term GREENHOUSE, Applicant respectfully submits that—in light of the

crowded field of GREENHOUSE marks—the instant case is analogous to the numerous

cases cited above in which the courts have held that the inclusion of an additional

words and/or a stylized design is sufficient to avoid a likelihood of confusion even

when two marks may share a common term.

With regard to sound or pronunciation, Applicant’s mark and the cited mark are

pronounced differently. The difference in pronunciation is obviously due to the

additional words CAPITAL PARTNERS contained in Applicant’s mark, which are not

contained in the cited mark. Therefore, upon hearing Applicant’s mark and the cited

mark, the purchasing public is not likely to be confused.

With regard to meaning or connotation, Applicant’s mark and the cited mark do

not impart the same meaning in the minds of consumers. By virtue of the additional

words CAPITAL PARTNERS, Applicant’s mark suggests its services relate to capital

funding. In fact, this is exactly why the Examining Attorney has requested that

Applicant disclaim CAPITAL PARTNERS. This connotation is not imparted by the

cited mark. The cited mark is simply GREENHOUSE and the term standing by itself is

too vague to convey anything concrete; most likely, to the extent it conveys a meaning,

the meaning conveyed would be the ordinary meaning of the term GREENHOUSE: a

structure used for cultivating plants. Such a meaning is clearly distinguishable from the


Serial No. 77/897,771

10

meaning imparted by Applicant’s mark. Accordingly, Applicant’s mark and the cited

mark have clearly different meanings that obviate any likelihood of confusion.

Finally, Applicant’s mark creates a commercial impression that is separate and

different from any commercial impression conveyed by the cited mark. This overall

different commercial impression is due to the differences in appearance, sound, and

meaning between the marks discussed in the preceding paragraphs. For all of the

foregoing reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that the different commercial

impression of the marks obviate any likelihood of confusion.

D. Applicant’s services are sufficiently different from Registrant’s services to

obviate any likelihood of confusion

Applicant’s venture capital services are sufficiently distinguishable from

Registrants’ branding and advertising services to avoid any likelihood of confusion. If

the goods and services offered are dissimilar, then there is less likelihood of confusion.

TMEP § 1207. Where goods or services are noncompeting, the degree of trademark

similarity needed to establish likelihood of confusion is increased. TMEP

§ 1207.01(a)(i). In fact, when the goods and services are sufficiently dissimilar, even

identical marks may not cause confusion. Id.

In the instant case, Applicant’s venture capital services are distinguishable from

the branding and advertising services in the cited registration, especially in light of the

existence of a crowded field for marks containing the term GREENHOUSE. In this

regard, Applicant’s services and the services listed in the cited registration are listed

below.

APPLICANT’S GOODS

Venture capital advisory services; venture capital funding services to emerging and start‐up companies; venture capital services, namely, providing financing to emerging and start‐up companies, in International Class 36

GOODS IN Branding, marketing and advertising services, namely


Serial No. 77/897,771

11

CITED REGISTRATION NO. 3,214,428

consulting others in creating corporate and brand identities; advertising services, namely promoting the goods and services of others associated with particular brands; and strategic business planning, in International Class 35

With regard to U.S. Registration No. 3,214,428, the services listed in the

registration are branding, marketing, and advertising services, not venture capital

services. While Applicant notes that the Examining Attorney argues that some

companies offer both venture capital services and branding and advertising services,

this is not such a situation. Applicant does not provide branding and advertising

services, and Registrant does not provide venture capital services. Moreover, the fact

that some persons or entities may provide both venture capital and branding and

advertising services is less relevant in the instant case because the marks at issue are not

identical and there is a crowded field of GREENHOUSE marks.

Simply put, a start‐up company in need of funding cannot get seed stage capital

from Registrant. Applicant provides start‐ups with investment funding ranging from

$250,000 to $1 million. Its clients are necessarily sophisticated and will not confuse a

venture capital company with an advertising company. The services that Applicant

and Registrant provide are so disparate no likelihood of confusion is possible.

Given the crowded field of GREENHOUSE marks, Applicant respectfully

submits that these additional differences in the parties’ respective services are more

than sufficient to obviate any likelihood of confusion.

II. DISCLAIMER

The Examining Attorney has requested that Applicant disclaim the term

CAPITAL PARTNERS. Accordingly, Applicant has entered the requested disclaimer in

the TEAS online response form.

III. SIGNIFICANCE

Finally, the Examining Attorney has inquired whether the term GREENHOUSE


Serial No. 77/897,771

12

has any significance in the financial or venture capital industries. GREENHOUSE has

no significance in the industry, and Applicant has responded accordingly in the TEAS

online response form.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, and for all the foregoing reasons, Applicant respectfully submits

that its application is now in proper form for registration and should be approved for

publication, and such action is requested.

Respectfully submitted,

Date: September 28, 2010 By:

Bruno TarabichiOWENS TARABICHI LLP 111 N. Market St., Suite 730 San Jose, California 95113 Tel. (408) 298‐8204 Fax (408) 521‐2203 [email protected] Attorneys for Applicant

mailto:[email protected]


Serial No. 77/897,771

13

EXHIBIT A

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE SERIAL NO: 76/393247 APPLICANT: Greenhouse, LLC

*76393247* CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS:

KEITH J. BERETS COOLEY GODWARD LLP 380 INTERLOCKEN CRESCENT SUITE 900 BROOMFIELD, CO 80021-8023

RETURN ADDRESS: Commissioner for TrademarksP.O. Box 1451Alexandria, VA 22313-1451

MARK: GREENHOUSE

CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: 300468-201 CORRESPONDENT EMAIL ADDRESS:

Please provide in all correspondence: 1. Filing date, serial number, mark and applicant's name.2. Date of this Office Action.3. Examining Attorney's name and Law Office number.

4. Your telephone number and e-mailaddress.

OFFICE ACTION TO AVOID ABANDONMENT, WE MUST RECEIVE A PROPER RESPONSE TO THIS OFFICEACTION WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF OUR MAILING OR E-MAILING DATE. Serial Number 76/393247 On 3/11/03, action on this application was suspended pending the disposition of Application Serial No.76391062. The referenced pending application has since registered. Therefore, registration is nowrefused as follows. Note: Previously cited U.S. Registration Numbers 2023013 and 2023018 were bothcancelled on 9/20/03.

Refusal – Section 2(d)

The examining attorney refuses registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d),because the applicant’s mark, when used on or in connection with the identified goods/services, soresembles the marks in U.S. Registration No. 2851454 as to be likely to cause confusion, or to causemistake, or to deceive. TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the enclosed registration. The examining attorney must analyze each case in two steps to determine whether there is a likelihood ofconfusion. First, the examining attorney must look at the marks themselves for similarities in appearance,

sound, connotation and commercial impression. In re E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357,177 USPQ 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973). Second, the examining attorney must compare the goods or services todetermine if they are related or if the activities surrounding their marketing are such that confusion as toorigin is likely. In re August Storck KG, 218 USPQ 823 (TTAB 1983); In re International Telephone andTelegraph Corp., 197 USPQ 910 (TTAB 1978); Guardian Products Co., v. Scott Paper Co., 200 USPQ738 (TTAB 1978). TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. Applicant has applied to register the mark GREENHOUSE for “branding, marketing and advertisingservices, namely consulting others in creating corporate and brand identities; advertising services, namelypromoting the goods and services of others associated with particular brands; and strategic businessplanning.” The registrant owns the mark THE GREENHOUSE and design for “business marketing consultingservices and advertising services, namely, creating corporate and brand identity for others.” With respect to the first step in the likelihood of confusion analysis, the literal portions of both marks arevirtually identical, namely, GREENHOUSE. Although registrant’s mark also contains a design element,when a mark consists of a word portion and a design portion, the word portion is more likely to beimpressed upon a purchaser’s memory and to be used in calling for the goods or services. Therefore, theword portion, namely, GREENHOUSE, is controlling in determining likelihood of confusion. In reDakin’s Miniatures Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593, 1596 (TTAB 1999); In re Appetito Provisions Co., 3 USPQ2d1553 (TTAB 1987); Amoco Oil Co. v. Amerco, Inc., 192 USPQ 729 (TTAB 1976); TMEP §1207.01(c)(ii). With respect to the second step in the likelihood of confusion analysis, the services of both parties involveconsulting in connection with brand identity, and advertising services. The goods/services of the partiesneed not be identical or directly competitive to find a likelihood of confusion. They need only be relatedin some manner, or the conditions surrounding their marketing be such, that they could be encountered bythe same purchasers under circumstances that could give rise to the mistaken belief that the goods/servicescome from a common source. In re Martin’s Famous Pastry Shoppe, Inc., 748 F.2d 1565, 223 USPQ1289 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65 (TTAB 1985); In re Rexel Inc., 223USPQ 830 (TTAB 1984); Guardian Products Co., Inc. v. Scott Paper Co., 200 USPQ 738 (TTAB 1978);In re International Telephone & Telegraph Corp., 197 USPQ 910 (TTAB 1978). TMEP §1207.01(a)(i). The examining attorney must resolve any doubt as to the issue of likelihood of confusion in favor of theregistrants and against the applicant who has a legal duty to select a mark which is totally dissimilar totrademarks already being used. Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Warner?Lambert Co., 203 USPQ 191 (TTAB1979). Although the examining attorney has refused registration, the applicant may respond to the refusal toregister by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.

Telephone Encouraged for Clarification

If the applicant has any questions or needs assistance in responding to this Office action, please telephonethe assigned examining attorney.

NOTICE: TRADEMARK OPERATION RELOCATION The Trademark Operation has relocated to Alexandria, Virginia. Effective October 4, 2004, allTrademark-related paper mail (except documents sent to the Assignment Services Division forrecordation, certain documents filed under the Madrid Protocol, and requests for copies of trademarkdocuments) must be sent to: Commissioner for TrademarksP.O. Box 1451Alexandria, VA 22313-1451 Applicants, attorneys and other Trademark customers are strongly encouraged to correspond with theUSPTO online via the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), athttp://www.uspto.gov/teas/index.html.

/David Elton/Examining AttorneyLaw Office 106Phone: 571 272-9317Fax: 571 273-9106

How to respond to this Office Action: You may respond formally using the Office's Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS)Response to Office Action form (visit http://eteas.uspto.gov/V2.0/oa242/WIZARD.htm and follow theinstructions therein, but you must wait until at least 72 hours after receipt if the office action issued via e-mail). PLEASE NOTE: Responses to Office Actions on applications filed under the Madrid Protocol(Section 66(a)) CANNOT currently be filed via TEAS.

To respond formally via regular mail, your response should be sent to the mailing Return Address listedabove and include the serial number, law office and examining attorney’s name on the upper right cornerof each page of your response. To check the status of your application at any time, visit the Office’s Trademark Applications andRegistrations Retrieval (TARR) system at http://tarr.uspto.gov/ For general and other useful information about trademarks, you are encouraged to visit the Office’s website at http://www.uspto.gov/main/trademarks.htm FOR INQUIRIES OR QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS OFFICE ACTION, PLEASE CONTACT THEASSIGNED EXAMINING ATTORNEY.


Serial No. 77/897,771

14

EXHIBIT B

PTO Form 1957 (Rev 9/2005)

OMB No. 0651-0050 (Exp. 04/2009)

Response to Office Action

The table below presents the data as entered.Input Field Entered

SERIAL NUMBER 76393247

LAW OFFICE ASSIGNED LAW OFFICE 106

MARK SECTION (no change)

ARGUMENT(S)

This application was suspended pending the outcome of Cancellation No. 92044639 (the"Cancellation"), which involved the mark cited in an office action for this application. Theparties executed a Consent to Register and Coexistence Agreement, dated as of February 21, 2006, acopy of which is attached hereto (the "Consent Agreement"). The parties then filed a Withdrawl ofCancellation Petition on February 28, 2006 and the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board dismissed theCancellation on March 27, 2006.

Based on the dismissal of the Cancellation, applicant Greenhouse, LLC (the "Applicant"), herebyrequests that the suspension of this application be lifted. In addition, the Applicant requests that theExaminer withdraw the prior objection to this application, which was based on Section 2(d) of theTrademark Act, based on consideration of the Consent Agreement. TMEP § 1207.01(d)(viii). TheApplicant submits that the application is proper for registration and respectfully requests that theapplication be forwarded for publication.

EVIDENCE SECTION

EVIDENCE FILE NAME(S)

ORIGINAL PDF FILEevi_209120212130-103628844_._Consent_to_Register___Coexistence_Agmt.pdf

CONVERTED PDF FILE(S)

(21 pages)\\TICRS\EXPORT4\IMAGEOUT4\763\932\76393247\xml2\RO A0002.JPG

\\TICRS\EXPORT4\IMAGEOUT4\763\932\76393247\xml2\RO A0003.JPG



\\TICRS\EXPORT4\IMAGEOUT4

\763\932\76393247\xml2\RO A0006.JPG

















DESCRIPTION OF EVIDENCE FILE Consent to Register and Coexistence Agreement

SIGNATURE SECTION

RESPONSE SIGNATURE /Lisa Koenig/

SIGNATORY'S NAME Lisa Koenig

SIGNATORY'S POSITION Attorney

DATE SIGNED 08/21/2006

AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY YES

FILING INFORMATION SECTION

SUBMIT DATE Mon Aug 21 10:41:18 EDT 2006

TEAS STAMP

USPTO/ROA-209.120.212.130-20060821104118601897-76393247-3405f4fc1af0e1eeaf629f4c9d4a1e6ad-N/A-N/A-20060821103628844419

PTO Form 1957 (Rev 9/2005)

OMB No. 0651-0050 (Exp. 04/2009)

Response to Office ActionTo the Commissioner for Trademarks:

Application serial no. 76393247 has been amended as follows:Argument(s)In response to the substantive refusal(s), please note the following:

This application was suspended pending the outcome of Cancellation No. 92044639 (the "Cancellation"),which involved the mark cited in an office action for this application. The parties executed a Consent toRegister and Coexistence Agreement, dated as of February 21, 2006, a copy of which is attached hereto(the "Consent Agreement"). The parties then filed a Withdrawl of Cancellation Petition on February 28,2006 and the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board dismissed the Cancellation on March 27, 2006.

Based on the dismissal of the Cancellation, applicant Greenhouse, LLC (the "Applicant"), hereby requeststhat the suspension of this application be lifted. In addition, the Applicant requests that the Examinerwithdraw the prior objection to this application, which was based on Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act,based on consideration of the Consent Agreement. TMEP § 1207.01(d)(viii). The Applicant submitsthat the application is proper for registration and respectfully requests that the application be forwarded forpublication.

EvidenceEvidence in the nature of Consent to Register and Coexistence Agreement has been attached.Original PDF file:evi_209120212130-103628844_._Consent_to_Register___Coexistence_Agmt.pdfConverted PDF file(s) (21 pages)Evidence-1Evidence-2Evidence-3Evidence-4Evidence-5Evidence-6Evidence-7Evidence-8Evidence-9Evidence-10Evidence-11Evidence-12Evidence-13Evidence-14Evidence-15Evidence-16Evidence-17Evidence-18Evidence-19Evidence-20Evidence-21

Response SignatureSignature: /Lisa Koenig/ Date: 08/21/2006Signatory's Name: Lisa KoenigSignatory's Position: Attorney

Serial Number: 76393247Internet Transmission Date: Mon Aug 21 10:41:18 EDT 2006TEAS Stamp: USPTO/ROA-209.120.212.130-20060821104118601897-76393247-3405f4fc1af0e1eeaf629f4c9d4a1e6ad-N/A-N/A-20060821103628844419


Serial No. 77/897,771

15

EXHIBIT C

Documents

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE · This communication responds to the Office Action emailed on March 29, 2010 in ... Law Office 103 Serial No. 77/897,771 ... UNITED