When a Nonfinal Refusal Turns Into a Final Action


Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure April 2017

TMEP 714    Final Action

37 C.F.R. §2.63(b)  Final refusal or requirement.

Upon review of a response, the examining attorney may state that the refusal(s) to register, or the requirement(s), is final.

(1) If the examining attorney issues a final action that maintains any substantive refusal(s) to register, the applicant may respond by timely filing: (i) a request for reconsideration under paragraph (b)(3) of this section that seeks to overcome any substantive refusal(s) to register, and comply with any outstanding requirement(s), maintained in the final action; or (ii) an appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board under §§ 2.141 and 2.142.

(2) If the examining attorney issues a final action that contains no substantive refusals to register, but maintains any requirement(s), the applicant may respond by timely filing: (i) a request for reconsideration under paragraph (b)(3) of this section that seeks to comply with any outstanding requirement(s) maintained in the final action; (ii) an appeal of the requirement(s) to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board under §§ 2.141 and 2.142; or (iii) a petition to the Director under § 2.146 to review the requirement(s), if the subject matter of the requirement(s) is procedural, and therefore appropriate for petition.

(3) Prior to the expiration of the time for filing an appeal or a petition, the applicant may file a request for reconsideration of the final action that seeks to overcome any substantive refusal(s) and/or comply with any outstanding requirement(s). Filing a request for reconsideration does not stay or extend the time for filing an appeal or petition. The Office will enter amendments accompanying requests for reconsideration after final action if the amendments comply with the rules of practice in trademark cases and the Act.

(4) Filing a request for reconsideration that does not result in the withdrawal of all refusals and requirements, without the filing of a timely appeal or petition, will result in abandonment of the application for incomplete response, pursuant to § 2.65(a).


TMEP 714.01    Not Permissible on First Action

A first action by an examining attorney may not be a final action.  An applicant is entitled to at least one opportunity to reply to any refusal(s) or requirement(s) raised by the examining attorney.


TMEP 714.02    Not Permissible on Suspension

A letter of suspension cannot be made final.  See TMEP §§716–716.06 regarding suspension.


TMEP 714.03    When Final Action is Appropriate

Final action is appropriate when a clear issue has been developed between the examining attorney and the applicant, i.e., the examining attorney has previously raised all outstanding issues and the applicant has had an opportunity to respond to them.


For a second action to be made final, all substantive refusals or requirements must have been made in the first action.  No refusal or requirement may be made final, even if it is a repeated refusal or requirement, unless the entire action is made final.  Thus, if the examining attorney makes a new refusal or requirement in a second or subsequent action, any previously issued refusals or repeated requirements may not be made final, but instead should be maintained.

In an application with a claim of priority based on §44(d) in which the applicant has indicated an intent to rely on §44(e) as a basis for registration, the examining attorney may not issue a final action until the applicant submits a copy of the foreign registration.  When the application is otherwise in condition for final refusal, the examining attorney must suspend action on the application pending receipt of a copy of the foreign registration.  The notice of suspension must indicate all outstanding refusals or requirements that will be made final upon receipt of the foreign registration if no new issues are raised.   See TMEP §§716.02(b), 1003.04(a), (b).


Second actions should be final actions whenever possible.  While an applicant is entitled to a full and fair hearing, it is in the public interest that prosecution be limited to as few actions as is consistent with proper examination.  Neither the Act nor the rules of practice give an applicant the right to an extended prosecution.

See TMEP §§714.05–714.05(f) for further discussion of when an examining attorney should issue a nonfinal action rather than a final action, and TMEP §714.06 regarding final actions that are premature.


714.04    Form of the Final Action

When making an action final, the examining attorney must restate any substantive refusals or requirements that remain outstanding, and must cite the rule(s) and/or statute(s) that provide the basis for these refusals or requirements.  The examining attorney should place all evidence in support of his or her refusal in the record at the time the final action is issued.


The final action should include a clear and unequivocal statement that the refusal or requirement is final.  When there is more than one ground set out as the basis for the final action, the action may begin or conclude with a paragraph containing wording such as "This action is made FINAL" or "This is a FINAL action," which covers all grounds.

The final action must also mention any refusals or requirements that have been obviated, withdrawn, or satisfied.   See TMEP §713.02.


The examining attorney must include a statement that the only proper response to a final action is an appeal to the Board (or a petition to the Director, if permitted under 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b)(2) ), or compliance with the outstanding requirement(s).  37 C.F.R. §2.63(b)(1)-(2).


A final action must include a six-month response clause ( see TMEP §705.08) so that is it clear that the applicant must file a timely response to avoid abandonment of the application.


TMEP 714.05    Delineating New Issues Requiring Issuance of Nonfinal Action

It is sometimes difficult to determine what constitutes a new issue requiring a new nonfinal action, rather than a final action, after receipt of a response.  See TMEP §§714.05(a) – 714.05(f) regarding the propriety of issuing a final action in specific situations, and TMEP §§715.03(b) and 715.04(b) regarding new issues presented in a request for reconsideration of an examining attorney’s final action.


In a §66(a) application, the Madrid Processing Unit should be notified if a new issue is raised. See TMEP §1904.03(a). However, the examining attorney cannot issue a new refusal more than 18 months after the date on which the IB forwards the request for an extension of protection to the USPTO.   See TMEP §1904.03(a).


TMEP 714.05(a)    Unacceptable Amendment Proposed By Applicant

If an applicant submits an unacceptable amendment in response to a refusal or requirement issued by the examining attorney, the amendment generally does not raise a new issue.

If the applicant submits an amendment that is not offered in response to a refusal or requirement, and the amendment is not acceptable, the examining attorney generally must issue a new nonfinal action with a six-month response clause, addressing the issues raised by the amendment and continuing all other refusals and requirements.  The following are examples of amendments that would require a new nonfinal action:

(1) Amendments to the drawing, unless the examining attorney had previously required that the drawing be amended or the amendment is acceptable and does not raise other issues;

(2) Amendments to the drawing that materially alter the mark, if the examining attorney had required a new drawing because the original drawing was of poor quality that could not be reproduced, but had not previously raised the issue of material alteration. See TMEP § 714.05(c) regarding advisory statements;

(3) Amendments to the Supplemental Register and amendments to assert acquired distinctiveness under 15 U.S.C. §1052(f),  unless the amendment overcomes an outstanding refusal or requirement or is irrelevant to an outstanding refusal (see TMEP § 714.05(a)(i)).


The following are examples of amendments that do not require a new nonfinal action:

(1) An amendment to disclaim the entire mark, which never raises a new issue because an entire mark may not be disclaimed. See TMEP § 1213.06.

(2) An amendment withdrawing a prior amendment that was submitted in response to a refusal or requirement made by the examining attorney in an Office action (e.g., an amendment to the Supplemental Register or disclaimer) does not raise a new issue.


Moreover, evidence or amendments that are merely cumulative and are not significantly different from material previously submitted do not raise a new issue that requires the examining attorney to issue a nonfinal action.   See In re GTE Educ. Servs., 34 USPQ2d 1478, 1480 (Comm’r Pats. 1994) (finding examining attorney properly determined that no new issue had been raised in request for reconsideration of final refusal based on inadequate specimens, because the substitute specimens submitted with the request were deficient for same reason as the original specimens).


TMEP 714.05(a)(i)    Amendment to Supplemental Register or Submission of Claim of Acquired Distinctiveness

If registration is refused under §2(e)(1), §2(e)(2), or §2(e)(4), of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §§1052(e)(1), 1052(e)(2), 1052(e)(4), or on grounds pertaining to other non-inherently distinctive subject matter (e.g., product or container configurations ( see TMEP §1202.02(b)(i), (ii)), color marks ( see TMEP §1202.05(a)), or marks that comprise matter that is purely ornamental ( see TMEP §1202.03)), an amendment to the Supplemental Register or to claim acquired distinctiveness under 15 U.S.C. §1052(f)  generally presents a new issue.  This is true even if the examining attorney previously issued an advisory statement indicating that the examining attorney believed the mark to be unregistrable on the Supplemental Register or under §2(f).


If the examining attorney determines that the amendment does not overcome the refusal, the examining attorney should issue a new nonfinal refusal of registration with a six-month response clause.


In an application based on §1(b), the applicant may respond to one of the refusals listed above by filing an allegation of use that complies with the minimum requirements of 37 C.F.R. §2.76(c)  or 37 C.F.R. §2.88(c), together with an amendment to the Supplemental Register or an amendment seeking registration under §2(f). If such an amendment could overcome the refusal, but the allegation of use fails to establish use of the mark in commerce or, in combination with other evidence of record, fails to demonstrate use of the subject matter as a mark, the examining attorney must issue a new nonfinal action refusing registration. See TMEP §904.07(a), (b). The examining attorney must also advise the applicant as follows:

If the applicant submitted an amendment to the Supplemental Register, the examining attorney must advise the applicant that: (1) the amendment to the Supplemental Register is acceptable; (2) the refusal is moot; and (3) if the applicant amends the application back to §1(b) in response to the new refusal, the amendment to the Supplemental Register must also be withdrawn and the original refusal will be reinstated or made final, as appropriate. See TMEP §816.04 regarding responses requesting registration on the Supplemental Register in the alternative. See TMEP §§714.05(a), 715.03(a)(ii)(A), and 715.04(a) regarding withdrawal of a prior amendment submitted in a request for reconsideration.


If the applicant submitted an amendment seeking registration under §2(f), the examining attorney must advise the applicant that: (1) the amendment to §2(f) is acceptable, (2) the refusal is moot, and (3) if the §2(f) amendment is based solely on five years’ use and the applicant amends the application back to §1(b) in response to the new refusal, the §2(f) amendment must also be withdrawn and the original refusal will be reinstated or made final, as appropriate. See TMEP §1212.02(c) regarding responses seeking registration under §2(f) in the alternative. See TMEP §§714.05(a), 715.03(a)(ii)(A), and 715.04(a) regarding withdrawal of a prior amendment submitted in a request for reconsideration.


However, if the applicant responds to one of the refusals listed above by submitting an amendment to the Supplemental Register, but does not concurrently file an allegation of use that complies with the minimum requirements of 37 C.F.R. §2.76(c)  or 37 C.F.R. §2.88(c), the examining attorney must refuse registration under §23 of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §1091,  on the ground that the mark is not in lawful use in commerce. See 37 C.F.R. §2.75(b); TMEP §1102.03. If the applicant responds to the refusal by filing a proper allegation of use, the examining attorney will proceed as noted above.


See TMEP §816.04 regarding refusal of registration after an amendment to the Supplemental Register, TMEP §1212.02(h) regarding refusal of registration after an applicant submits a claim of acquired distinctiveness under §2(f), and TMEP §1212.09(a) regarding a §2(f) claim in a §1(b) application based on prior use.

If an amendment to the Supplemental Register or to claim acquired distinctiveness under §2(f) is irrelevant to the outstanding refusal(s), and there are otherwise no new issues, the examining attorney may issue a final action.  For example, if registration is refused under Trademark Act §2(a), §2(b), §2(c), §2(d), §2(e)(3), or §2(e)(5), an amendment to the Supplemental Register or a claim of distinctiveness under §2(f) does not raise a new issue and does not preclude the examining attorney from issuing a final refusal.   See In re Juleigh Jeans Sportswear, Inc., 24 USPQ2d 1694, 1696 (TTAB 1992) (noting that an amendment to the Supplemental Register in response to a §2(a) refusal does not raise a new issue).  Note, however, that if an applicant responds to a functionality refusal under §2(e)(5) by submitting an amendment seeking registration on the Supplemental Register that is not made in the alternative, the associated nondistinctiveness refusal must be withdrawn and the functionality refusal must be maintained and made final, if appropriate, under §23(c). See In re Heatcon, Inc., 116 USPQ2d 1366, 1370 (TTAB 2015) (noting that § 23(c) is the statutory authority governing a functionality refusal on the Supplemental Register).


In a §66(a) application, an amendment to the Supplemental Register does not raise a new issue, because a mark in a §66(a) application is not eligible for registration on the Supplemental Register.   See 15 U.S.C. §1141h(a)(4).  Thus, an amendment to the Supplemental Register cannot overcome the refusal.


See TMEP §§ 715.03(b) and 715.04(b) regarding new issues presented in a request for reconsideration of an examining attorney’s final action.


TMEP 714.05(a)(ii)    Amendment of Identification of Goods/Services

If the applicant responds to a nonfinal Office action requiring an amendment to the identification of goods/services, and the examining attorney determines that the identification is still unacceptable, generally the examining attorney must issue a final requirement to amend the identification of goods/services.  There are only two exceptions to this rule:

(1) If the amended identification is broader in scope than the original identification, and the prior Office action failed to advise the applicant that amendments broadening the identification are prohibited under 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a), the examining attorney may not issue a final Office action.

(2) If the amended identification sets forth goods/services in multiple classes, but the applicant has not submitted all the requirements for a multiple-class application (e.g. , specimens and fees for all classes), and the prior Office action failed to advise the applicant that the missing elements were required, the examining attorney may not issue a final Office action.  See TMEP §§1403–1403.01 regarding the requirements for multiple-class applications.

If the examining attorney issues a nonfinal action requiring amendment of the identification because it is indefinite, and the applicant responds with an amended identification that is definite, but is otherwise unacceptable (e.g., because it includes a registered trademark or service mark ( see TMEP §1402.09)), this is not considered a new issue, and the examining attorney must issue a final Office action requiring amendment of the identification.


However, if the examining attorney issues a finalaction requiring amendment of the identification because it is indefinite, and the applicant responds with an amended identification that is definite but is otherwise unacceptable (e.g., because it includes a registered mark), the examining attorney should treat the response as incomplete, and grant the applicant additional time to cure this deficiency, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §2.65(a)(2).  See TMEP §718.03(b) for further information about granting an applicant additional time to perfect an incomplete response.   Examining attorneys are encouraged to try to resolve these issues by examiner’s amendment.  


TMEP 714.05(b)    Section 2(d) Refusal Based on Earlier-Filed Application that Has Matured Into Registration

The examining attorney must issue a new nonfinal action when first refusing registration under §2(d) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §1052(d), as to an earlier-filed application that has registered, even if the applicant had been advised of the existence of the earlier-filed application in a prior Office action. See TMEP §716.02(c) regarding procedure when application is suspended pending the disposition of more than one earlier-filed conflicting application.

In a §66(a) application, a new nonfinal refusal under §2(d) may be issued more than 18 months after the date on which the IB forwards the request for extension of protection to the USPTO, provided that the USPTO had notified the IB of the conflicting application prior to expiration of the 18-month period. See TMEP §1904.03(b).


TMEP 714.05(c)    Advisory Statement Cannot Serve as Foundation for Final Refusal or Requirement

Except as provided in TMEP §714.05(a)(ii), an advisory statement in an Office action indicating that a refusal or requirement will be issued if specified circumstances arise cannot serve as the foundation for issuing a final requirement or refusal in the next action.  To establish the foundation for issuing a final refusal or requirement in the next Office action, an initial requirement or refusal must relate to matter that is of record at the time of the action.

In addition, a mere advisory statement made in an Office action is not subject to appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board by the applicant. In re Harley 119 USPQ2d 1755, 1757 (TTAB 2016) ("An advisory statement made by an examining attorney indicating that a refusal or requirement may issue if specified circumstances arise is not a refusal to register, let alone a final refusal to register, and is therefore not subject to appeal.").


TMEP 714.05(d)    Submission of Consent Agreement or Assertion of Unity of Control in Response to §2(d) Refusal Consent Agreement.  

If an applicant files a consent agreement in response to a nonfinal refusal under §2(d) of the Trademark Act, and the examining attorney finds the consent agreement insufficient to overcome the refusal, the examining attorney should issue a final refusal, assuming the application is otherwise in condition for final refusal.  

If an applicant files an executed consent agreement for the first time in response to a final refusal under §2(d) of the Trademark Act, no appeal has been filed, and the examining attorney finds the consent agreement insufficient to overcome the refusal, the examining attorney should issue a new final refusal, i.e., an "Examiner’s Subsequent Final Refusal," with a six-month response clause.  However, the examining attorney should not issue a subsequent final refusal if the applicant merely states that it is negotiating a consent agreement.


Assertion of Unity of Control.  If an applicant asserts unity of control ( see TMEP §1201.07) in response to a nonfinal refusal under §2(d), and the examining attorney determines that unity of control has not been established, the examining attorney should issue a final refusal, assuming that the application is otherwise in condition for final refusal.  

If an applicant asserts unity of control for the first time in response to a final refusal under §2(d), no appeal has been filed, and the examining attorney determines that unity of control has not been established, the examining attorney should issue an "Examiner’s Subsequent Final Refusal," with a six-month response clause.  

See TMEP §715.04(b) regarding the proper action when a request for consideration presents a new issue or new evidence and a notice of appeal has been filed.


TMEP 714.05(e)    Submission of Substitute Specimen in Response to Refusal for Failure to Show Use of the Mark in Commerce

If the applicant responds to an Office action refusing registration by submitting a substitute specimen that does not show use of the mark in commerce for the same or a different "use-in-commerce" reason, the examining attorney must issue a final refusal because the substitute specimen does not present a new issue. See TMEP §904.07(b).


If an applicant submits a substitute specimen in response to a nonfinal refusal for failure to show use of the mark in commerce, and unlike in the original specimen, the mark on the substitute specimen now does not agree with the mark on the drawing ( see TMEP §807.12), but the specimen would otherwise be acceptable to show use in commerce in connection with the goods/services, the examining attorney may allow the applicant to amend the drawing if such an amendment would not constitute a material alteration of the mark.  If any remaining issues can be handled by examiner’s amendment, and the mark is a standard character mark, the examining attorney may give the applicant the option to amend the drawing by examiner’s amendment.  If not, the examining attorney must issue a final refusal that also gives the applicant the option to overcome the refusal by submitting a substitute drawing.

If an amendment of the drawing would be a material alteration, the examining attorney must issue a final refusal, assuming the application is otherwise in condition for final refusal, because the substitute specimen does not present a new issue.  

See TMEP §904.07(a) for further information about refusal of registration because the specimen does not show the mark used in commerce.


TMEP 714.05(f)    Submission of Substitute Specimen in Response to Refusal for Failure to Show the Applied-For Mark Functioning as a Mark

Because the examining attorney has advised the applicant of the appropriate response options, which may include the general requirements for a substitute specimen, if the applicant responds to a failure-to-function refusal by submitting a specimen that does not show the mark in commerce for a reason such as those set out in TMEP §904.07(a), the examining attorney must issue a final refusal, as no new issue is presented. By contrast, if the applicant responds to the Office action refusing registration by submitting a substitute specimen that reflects failure to function as a mark for a different substantive reason, such as the examples listed in TMEP §904.07(b), the examining attorney must issue a new nonfinal Office action because the substitute specimen presents a new issue.


If an applicant submits a substitute specimen in response to a nonfinal refusal for failure to show the applied-for mark functioning as a mark, and unlike in the original specimen, the mark on the substitute specimen now does not agree with the mark on the drawing ( see TMEP §807.12), but the specimen would otherwise be acceptable to identify the goods/services of the applicant and indicate the source of those goods/services, the examining attorney may allow the applicant to amend the drawing if such an amendment would not constitute a material alteration of the mark.  If any remaining issues can be handled by examiner’s amendment, and the mark is a standard character mark, the examining attorney may give the applicant the option to amend the drawing by examiner’s amendment.  If not, the examining attorney must issue a final refusal that also gives the applicant the option to overcome the refusal by submitting a substitute drawing.


If an amendment of the drawing would be a material alteration, the examining attorney must issue a final refusal, assuming the application is otherwise in condition for final refusal, because the substitute specimen does not present a new issue.  

See TMEP §904.07(b) for further information about refusal of registration because the specimen does not show the applied-for mark functioning as a mark.


TMEP 714.06    Applicant’s Recourse When Final Action is Premature

If an applicant believes that a refusal to register or a requirement has been made final prematurely, the applicant must raise the issue while the application is still pending before the examining attorney.  It is not a ground for appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. TBMP §1201.02.  The applicant may raise the matter by filing a request for reconsideration with the examining attorney, or by contacting the managing attorney or senior attorney in the examining attorney’s law office.  If the examining attorney does not withdraw the final action, the applicant may file a petition to the Director under 37 C.F.R. §2.146.  See TMEP Chapter 1700 regarding petitions.


If, on request for reconsideration, the examining attorney finds the final action to have been premature, the examining attorney should issue a new nonfinal action with a six-month response clause.


Not Just Patents ® and Aim Higher® are federally registered trademarks of Not Just Patents LLC for Legal Services.


Call 1-651-500-7590 or email WP@NJP.legal for Responses to Office Actions; File or Defend an Opposition or Cancellation; Trademark Searches and Applications; Send or Respond to Cease and Desist Letters.

For more information from Not Just Patents, see our other sites:      

Steps to a Patent    How to Patent An Invention

Should I Get A Trademark or Patent?

Trademark e Search    Strong Trademark     Enforcing Trade Names

Common Law Trademarks  Trademark Goodwill   Abandoned Trademarks

Chart of Patent vs. Trade Secret

Patent or Trademark Assignments

Trademark Disclaimers   Trademark Dilution     TSDR Status Descriptors

Oppose or Cancel? Examples of Disclaimers  Business Cease and Desist

Patent, Trademark & Copyright Inventory Forms

Verify a Trademark  Be First To File    How to Trademark Search

Are You a Content Provider-How to Pick an ID  Specimens: webpages

How to Keep A Trade Secret

State & Federal Trade Secret Laws

Using Slogans (Taglines), Model Numbers as Trademarks

Which format? When Should I  Use Standard Characters?

Opposition Pleadings    UDRP Elements    


Oppositions-The Underdog    Misc Changes to TTAB Rules 2017

How To Answer A Trademark Cease and Desist Letter

Converting Provisional to Nonprovisional Patent Application (or claiming benefit of)

Trademark Refusals    Does not Function as a Mark Refusals

Insurance Extension  Advantages of ®  ApplyTM.com

How to Respond to Office Actions  Final Refusal

What is a Compact Patent Prosecution?

Acceptable Specimen       Supplemental Register   $224 Statement of Use

How To Show Acquired Distinctiveness Under 2(f)

Trademark-Request for Reconsideration

Why Not Just Patents? Functional Trademarks   How to Trademark     

What Does ‘Use in Commerce’ Mean?    

Grounds for Opposition & Cancellation     Cease and Desist Letter

Trademark Incontestability  TTAB Manual (TBMP)

Valid/Invalid Use of Trademarks     Trademark Searching

TTAB/TBMP Discovery Conferences & Stipulations

TBMP 113 Service of TTAB Documents  TBMP 309 Standing

Examples and General Rules for Likelihood of Confusion

USPTO Search Method for Likelihood of Confusion

Examples of Refusals for Likelihood of Confusion   DuPont Factors

What are Dead or Abandoned Trademarks?

 Can I Use An Abandoned Trademark?

Color as Trade Dress  3D Marks as Trade Dress  

Can I Abandon a Trademark During An Opposition?

Differences between TEAS and TEAS plus  

How do I Know If Someone Has Filed for An Extension of Time to Oppose?

Ornamental Refusal  Standard TTAB Protective Order

SCAM Letters Surname Refusal


What Does Published for Opposition Mean?

What to Discuss in the Discovery Conference

Descriptive Trademarks Trademark2e.com  

Likelihood of Confusion 2d  TMOG Trademark Tuesday

Acquired Distinctiveness  2(f) or 2(f) in part

Merely Descriptive Trademarks  

Merely Descriptive Refusals

ID of Goods and Services see also Headings (list) of International Trademark Classes

Register a Trademark-Step by Step  

Protect Business Goodwill Extension of Time to Oppose

Geographically Descriptive or Deceptive

Change of Address with the TTAB using ESTTA

Likelihood of confusion-Circuit Court tests

Pseudo Marks    How to Reply to Cease and Desist Letter

Not Just Patents Often Represents the Underdog

 Overcome Merely Descriptive Refusal   Overcome Likelihood Confusion

Protecting Trademark Rights (Common Law)

Steps in a Trademark Opposition Process   

Section 2(d) Refusals   FilingforTrademark.com

Zombie Trademark  

What is the Difference between Principal & Supplemental Register?

Typical Brand Name Refusals  What is a Family of Marks? What If Someone Files An Opposition Against My Trademark?

How to Respond Office Actions  

DIY Overcoming Descriptive Refusals

Trademark Steps Trademark Registration Answers TESS  

Trademark Searching Using TESS  Trademark Search Tips

Trademark Clearance Search   DIY Trademark Strategies

Published for Opposition     What is Discoverable in a TTAB Proceeding?

Counterclaims and Affirmative Defenses


©2008-2017 All Rights Reserved. Not Just Patents LLC, PO Box 18716, Minneapolis, MN 55418.

Call: 1-651-500-7590 or email: WP@NJP.legal. This site is for informational purposes only and is provided without warranties, express or implied, regarding the information's accuracy, timeliness, or completeness and does not constitute legal advice. No attorney/client relationship exists without a written contract between Not Just Patents LLC and its client. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Privacy Policy Contact Us

 

FinalRefusal.com


Not Just Patents®

Aim Higher® Facts Matter

Not Just Patents® LLC

PO Box 18716

Minneapolis, MN 55418

1-651-500-7590

WP@NJP.legal