uspto refuses apple s ipad mini trademark application

62
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO) OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 85780375 MARK: IPAD MINI *85780375* CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: THOMAS R. LA PERLE APPLE INC. 1 INFINITE LOOP CUPERTINO, CA 95014-2083 CLICK HERE TO RESPOND TO http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/re APPLICANT: Apple Inc. CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO : N/A CORRESPONDENT E-MAIL ADDRESS: 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. ISSUE/MAILING DATE: The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney. 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 that applicant must address: Section 2(e)(1) descriptiveness refusal Specimen refusal SEARCH OF OFFICE’S DATABASE OF MARKS The trademark examining attorney has searched the Office’s database of registered and pending marks and has found no similar registered mark that would bar registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d). TMEP §704.02; see 15 U.S.C. §1052(d). However, marks in prior-filed pending applications may present a bar to registration of applicant’s mark. ADVISORY: PRIOR-FILED APPLICATIONS The filing dates of pending U.S. Application Serial Nos. 77913563, 77927446, 77932051, 77932073, 77982320, 77982321, 85014225 and 85014233, precede applicant’s filing date. See attached referenced

Upload: stevenmusil

Post on 12-Apr-2015

69.785 views

Category:

Documents


2 download

DESCRIPTION

Trademark application refused

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: USPTO Refuses Apple s iPad Mini Trademark Application

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION

     U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 85780375     MARK: IPAD MINI 

         

*85780375*    CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS:          THOMAS R. LA PERLE          APPLE INC.          1 INFINITE LOOP          CUPERTINO, CA 95014-2083          

 CLICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER:http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp

  

 

    APPLICANT: Apple Inc. 

  

    CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO :            N/A    CORRESPONDENT E-MAIL ADDRESS:           

 

  

OFFICE ACTION 

STRICT DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTERTO AVOID ABANDONMENT OF APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION, THE USPTOMUST RECEIVE APPLICANT’S COMPLETE RESPONSE TO THIS LETTER WITHIN 6 MONTHSOF THE ISSUE/MAILING DATE BELOW. ISSUE/MAILING DATE: The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney.  Applicantmust 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 that applicant must address:

Section 2(e)(1) descriptiveness refusalSpecimen refusal

 SEARCH OF OFFICE’S DATABASE OF MARKS The trademark examining attorney has searched the Office’s database of registered and pending marksand has found no similar registered mark that would bar registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d). TMEP §704.02; see 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).  However, marks in prior-filed pending applications may presenta bar to registration of applicant’s mark.

ADVISORY: PRIOR-FILED APPLICATIONS The filing dates of pending U.S. Application Serial Nos. 77913563, 77927446, 77932051, 77932073,77982320, 77982321, 85014225 and 85014233, precede applicant’s filing date.  See attached referenced

Page 2: USPTO Refuses Apple s iPad Mini Trademark Application

applications.  If the marks in the referenced applications register, applicant’s mark may be refusedregistration under Trademark Act Section 2(d) because of a likelihood of confusion between these marks. See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §§1208 et seq.  Therefore, upon receipt of applicant’sresponse to this Office action, action on this application may be suspended pending final disposition of theearlier-filed referenced applications. In response to this Office action, applicant may present arguments in support of registration by addressingthe issue of the potential conflict between applicant’s mark and the marks in the referenced applications. Applicant’s election not to submit arguments at this time in no way limits applicant’s right to address thisissue later if a refusal under Section 2(d) issues. Applicant must respond to the following: 

SECTION 2(e)(1) REFUSAL - MERELY DESCRIPTIVE

Registration is refused because the applied-for mark merely describes a feature or characteristic ofapplicant’s goods.   Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); see TMEP §§1209.01(b),1209.03 et seq. A mark is merely descriptive if it describes an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature,purpose, or use of an applicant’s goods and/or services.  TMEP §1209.01(b); see In re Steelbuilding.com,415 F.3d 1293, 1297, 75 USPQ2d 1420, 1421 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Gyulay, 820 F.2d 1216, 1217-18, 3USPQ2d 1009, 1009-10 (Fed. Cir. 1987).  Applicant has applied to register the mark IPAD MINI for “handheld mobile digital electronic devicecomprising a tablet computer, electronic book and periodical reader, digital audio and video player,camera, electronic personal organizer, personal digital assistant, electronic calendar, and mapping andglobal positioning system (GPS) device, and capable of providing access to the Internet and sending,receiving, and storing messages and other data”. The term “IPAD” is descriptive when applied to applicant’s goods because the prefix “I” denotes“internet.” According to the attached evidence, the letter “ i” or “I” used as a prefix and would beunderstood by the purchasing public to refer to the Internet when used in relation to Internet-relatedproducts or services.  Applicant’s goods are identified as “capable of providing access to the Internet”. When a mark consists of this prefix coupled with a descriptive word or term for Internet-related goodsand/or services, then the entire mark may be considered merely descriptive.  See In re Zanova, Inc., 59USPQ2d 1300, 1304 (TTAB 2000) (holding ITOOL merely descriptive of computer software for use increating web pages, and custom designing websites for others); TMEP §1209.03(d). The term “PAD” is also descriptive of the applied for goods. The term “pad” refers to a “pad computer”or “internet pad device”, terms used synonymously to refer to tablet computers, or “a complete computercontained in a touch screen.” Please see the attached dictionary definition. In addition, the attachedexcerpts from third party websites show descriptive use of the term “pad” in connection with tabletcomputers. This marketplace evidence shows that the term “pad” would be perceived by consumers asdescriptive of “pad computers” with internet and interactive capability. Applicant’s goods are identifiedas “a handheld digital mobile electronic device comprising tablet computer”. The determination of whether a mark is merely descriptive is made in relation to an applicant’s goodsand/or services, not in the abstract.  DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., ___ F.3d ___,

Page 3: USPTO Refuses Apple s iPad Mini Trademark Application

103 USPQ2d 1753, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re The Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297,1300, 102 USPQ2d 1217, 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2012); TMEP §1209.01(b); see, e.g., In re Polo Int’l Inc. , 51USPQ2d 1061, 1062-63 (TTAB 1999) (finding DOC in DOC-CONTROL would refer to the“documents” managed by applicant’s software rather than the term “doctor” shown in a dictionarydefinition); In re Digital Research Inc., 4 USPQ2d 1242, 1243-44 (TTAB 1987) (finding CONCURRENTPC-DOS and CONCURRENT DOS merely descriptive of “computer programs recorded on disk” wherethe relevant trade used the denomination “concurrent” as a descriptor of a particular type of operatingsystem).  “Whether consumers could guess what the product [or service] is from consideration of the mark alone isnot the test.”   In re Am. Greetings Corp., 226 USPQ 365, 366 (TTAB 1985). The term “MINI” in the applied for mark is also descriptive of a feature of applicant’s product.Specifically, the attached evidence shows this wording means “something that is distinctively smaller thanother members of its type or class”.  See attached definition. The word “mini” has been held merelydescriptive of goods that are produced and sold in miniature form.  See Gen. Mills, Inc. v. K-Mar Foods,Inc., 207 USPQ 510 (TTAB 1980) (holding MINI MEAL merely descriptive of concentrated nutritionally-complete food bars); In re Occidental Petroleum Corp., 193 USPQ 732 (TTAB 1977) (holding MINIPELLETS merely descriptive of pelleted fertilizer). The examining attorney has also attached evidence from an internet search showing third party descriptiveuse of the term “mini” to describe the small size of various handheld digital devices. See attachedevidence. Therefore, the wording merely describes a feature of applicant’s goods, namely, a small sizedhandheld tablet computer. As demonstrated, applicant’s mark comprises a combination of descriptive terms. Generally, if theindividual components of a mark retain their descriptive meaning in relation to the goods and/or services,the combination results in a composite mark that is itself descriptive and not registrable.  In re PhoseonTech., Inc., 103 USPQ2d 1822, 1823 (TTAB 2012); TMEP §1209.03(d); see, e.g., In re King KoilLicensing Co., 79 USPQ2d 1048, 1052 (TTAB 2006) (holding THE BREATHABLE MATTRESS merelydescriptive of beds, mattresses, box springs, and pillows where the evidence showed that the term“BREATHABLE” retained its ordinary dictionary meaning when combined with the term“MATTRESS” and the resulting combination was used in the relevant industry in a descriptive sense); Inre Associated Theatre Clubs Co., 9 USPQ2d 1660, 1663 (TTAB 1988) (holding GROUP SALES BOXOFFICE merely descriptive of theater ticket sales services because such wording “is nothing more than acombination of the two common descriptive terms most applicable to applicant’s services which incombination achieve no different status but remain a common descriptive compound expression”).   Only where the combination of descriptive terms creates a unitary mark with a unique, incongruous, orotherwise nondescriptive meaning in relation to the goods and/or services is the combined markregistrable.  See In re Colonial Stores, Inc., 394 F.2d 549, 551, 157 USPQ 382, 384 (C.C.P.A. 1968). In this case, both the individual components and the composite result are descriptive of applicant’s goodsand do not create a unique, incongruous, or non-descriptive meaning in relation to the goods being smallhandheld mobile devices comprising tablet computers capable of providing internet access. Therefore, themark is merely descriptive of a feature or characteristic of the goods and registration is refused underSection 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act. SECTION 2(f) IN PART 

Page 4: USPTO Refuses Apple s iPad Mini Trademark Application

If applicant believes that a portion of the mark has acquired distinctiveness, applicant may amend theapplication to add a claim of acquired distinctiveness as to that portion under Trademark Act Section 2(f). See 15 U.S.C. §1052(f); TMEP §1212.02(f)(i).   Evidence in support of this claim may consist of a claim of ownership of one or more prior registrationson the Principal Register of that portion of the mark for goods and/or services that are the same as orrelated to those named in the pending application.  TMEP §1212.02(f)(i); see 37 C.F.R. §2.41(b).  To doso, applicant must submit the following statement, if accurate:  “ The wording IPAD in the mark hasbecome distinctive of the goods as evidenced by ownership of U.S. Registration No. 3776575 on thePrincipal Register for the same mark for related goods.”   TMEP §1212.04(e).

 ADVISORY: DISCLAIMER REQUIRED Applicant is advised that, if the application is amended to seek registration on the Principal Register underTrademark Act Section 2(f) in part, applicant must disclaim the descriptive wording “MINI” apart fromthe mark as shown because it merely describes a characteristic or feature of applicant’s goods.   See 15U.S.C. §§1052(e)(1), 1056(a); DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., ___ F.3d ___, 103USPQ2d 1753, 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 1173, 71USPQ2d 1370, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004)); In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293, 1297, 75 USPQ2d 1420,1421 (Fed. Cir. 2005).  If applicant is relying on ownership of U.S. Registration No. 3776575 on thePrincipal Register for the same mark for related goods as the basis of a Section 2(f) in part claim, pleasenote that the registration does not include the term “MINI”, and therefore, this term must still bedisclaimed as being merely descriptive of a feature of the goods. An applicant may not claim exclusive rights to terms or designs that others may need to use to describe orshow their goods or services in the marketplace.  See Dena Corp. v. Belvedere Int’l, Inc. , 950 F.2d 1555,1560, 21 USPQ2d 1047, 1051 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Aug. Storck KG, 218 USPQ 823, 825 (TTAB 1983). A disclaimer does not affect the appearance of the mark; that is, a disclaimer does not physically removethe disclaimed matter from the mark.  TMEP §§1213, 1213.10.  If applicant does not provide a required disclaimer, the USPTO may refuse to register the entire mark.  SeeIn re Stereotaxis Inc., 429 F.3d 1039, 1041, 77 USPQ2d 1087, 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2005); TMEP§1213.01(b). Applicant should submit a disclaimer in the following standardized format: 

No claim is made to the exclusive right to use “MINI” apart from the mark as shown. For an overview of disclaimers and instructions on how to satisfy this disclaimer requirement using theTrademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, please go tohttp://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/law/disclaimer.jsp. Please note the additional ground of refusal: SPECIMEN REFUSAL The web catalog or web page specimen is not acceptable to show trademark use as a display associatedwith the goods because it fails to include a picture or a sufficient textual description of the goods insufficiently close proximity to the necessary ordering information/a weblink for ordering the goods, and

Page 5: USPTO Refuses Apple s iPad Mini Trademark Application

thus, appears to be mere advertising material.  See In re Sones, 590 F.3d 1282, 1286-89, 93 USPQ2d 1118,1122-24 (Fed. Cir. 2009); In re Azteca Sys., Inc., 102 USPQ2d 1955, 1957 (TTAB 2012); In re GenitopeCorp., 78 USPQ2d 1819, 1822 (TTAB 2006); TMEP §904.03(h), (i); cf. Lands’ End, Inc. v. Manbeck,797 F. Supp. 511, 513-14, 24 USPQ2d 1314, 1316 (E.D. Va. 1992).   The mark and picture of the goodson the specimen are not sufficiently proximate to the “buy now” tab, and it is thus unclear whatconsumers would be purchasing by clicking on this tab. Advertising material, which merely tells prospective purchasers about the goods or promotes the sale ofthe goods, is generally not acceptable as a specimen to show trademark use in connection with goods.  SeeIn re Genitope Corp., 78 USPQ2d at 1822; In re MediaShare Corp., 43 USPQ2d 1304, 1307 (TTAB1997); TMEP §904.04(b), (c). However, a web catalog, web page, or similar specimen, which is otherwise a form of advertising, isacceptable to show trademark use as a display associated with the goods if it includes (1) a picture of therelevant goods or a textual description that identifies the actual features or inherent characteristics of thegoods such that the goods are recognizable, (2) the mark appearing sufficiently near the picture or textualdescription of the goods so as to associate the mark with the goods, and (3) information necessary to orderthe goods (e.g., an order form or offer to accept orders via phone or e-mail) or a visible weblink to orderthe goods.  See In re Sones, 590 F.3d at 1286-89, 93 USPQ2d at 1122-24; In re Genitope Corp., 78USPQ2d at 1822; TMEP §904.03(h), (i); cf. Lands’ End, Inc. v. Manbeck, 797 F. Supp. at 513-14, 24USPQ2d at 1316.  Without this information, the specimen is mere advertising and is not acceptable toshow use in commerce for goods.  See, e.g., In re Osterberg, 83 USPQ2d 1220, 1222-24 (TTAB 2007); Inre Genitope Corp., 78 USPQ2d at 1822. An application based on Trademark Act Section 1(a) must include a specimen showing the applied-formark in use in commerce for each class of goods.  Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051,1127; 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a).  Section 45 requires use of the mark“on the goods or their containers or the displays associated therewith or on the tags or labels affixedthereto.”   15 U.S.C. §1127; see 37 C.F.R. §2.56(b)(1); TMEP §§904.03, 904.04(b), (c). Therefore, applicant must submit the following: 

(1)  A substitute specimen showing the mark in use in commerce for each class of goods specifiedin the application.

 (2)  The following statement, verified with an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R.§2.20:  “ The substitute specimen was in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date ofthe application.”   37 C.F.R. §2.59(a); TMEP §904.05; see 37 C.F.R. §2.193(e)(1).  If submittinga substitute specimen requires an amendment to the dates of use, applicant must also verify theamended dates.  37 C.F.R. §2.71(c); TMEP §904.05.

 Examples of specimens for goods are tags, labels, instruction manuals, containers, or photographs thatshow the mark on the actual goods or packaging.  See TMEP §§904.03 et seq. If applicant cannot satisfy the above requirements, applicant may amend the application from a use incommerce basis under Section 1(a) to an intent to use basis under Section 1(b), for which no specimen isrequired.  See TMEP §806.03(c).  However, if applicant amends the basis to Section 1(b), registration willnot be granted until applicant later amends the application back to use in commerce by filing an acceptableallegation of use with a proper specimen.  See 15 U.S.C. §1051(c), (d); 37 C.F.R. §§2.76, 2.88; TMEP

Page 6: USPTO Refuses Apple s iPad Mini Trademark Application

§1103.  To amend to Section 1(b), applicant must submit the following statement, verified with an affidavit orsigned declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20:  “ Applicant has had a bona fide intention to use the mark incommerce on or in connection with the goods listed in the application as of the filing date of theapplication.”   37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(2); TMEP §806.01(b); see 15 U.S.C. §1051(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.35(b)(1),2.193(e)(1). Pending receipt of a proper response, registration is refused because the specimen does not show theapplied-for mark in use in commerce as a trademark.  Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C.§§1051, 1127; 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a). Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusals bysubmitting evidence and arguments in support of registration. DECLARATION FOR SPECIMEN To submit a verified substitute specimen online via the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS),applicant should do the following:  (1) answer “yes” to the TEAS response form wizard question to“submit a new or substitute specimen;” (2) attach a jpg or pdf file of the substitute specimen; (3) selectthe statement that “The substitute specimen(s) was in use in commerce at least as early as the filing dateof the application.”; and (4) sign personally or enter personally his/her electronic signature, name inprinted or typed form, and date after the declaration at the end of the TEAS response form.  See 37 C.F.R.§§2.59(a), 2.193(a), (c)-(d), (e)(1); TMEP §§611.01(c), 804.01(b).  Please note that these steps appear ondifferent pages of the TEAS response form.  If applicant experiences difficulty in submitting the required substitute specimen, supporting statementand/or declaration, please e-mail [email protected] for technical assistance regarding the TEAS responseform.  If applicant has questions regarding this Office action, please telephone or e-mail the assigned trademarkexamining attorney.  All relevant e-mail communications will be placed in the official application record;however, an e-mail communication will not be accepted as a response to this Office action and will notextend the deadline for filing a proper response.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05. Further, although the trademark examining attorney may provide additional explanation pertaining to therefusal(s) and/or requirement(s) in this Office action, the trademark examining attorney may not providelegal advice or statements about applicant’s rights.  See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06. 

/Lee-Anne Berns/Examining AttorneyLaw Office [email protected]

 TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER:  Go to http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp.  Pleasewait 48-72 hours from the issue/mailing date before using the Trademark Electronic Application System(TEAS), to allow for necessary system updates of the application.  For technical assistance with onlineforms, e-mail [email protected].  For questions about the Office action itself, please contact the assigned

Page 7: USPTO Refuses Apple s iPad Mini Trademark Application

trademark examining attorney.  E-mail communications will not be accepted as responses to Officeactions; therefore, do not respond to this Office action by e-mail. All informal e-mail communications relevant to this application will be placed in the officialapplication record. WHO MUST SIGN THE RESPONSE:  It must be personally signed by an individual applicant orsomeone with legal authority to bind an applicant (i.e., a corporate officer, a general partner, all jointapplicants).  If an applicant is represented by an attorney, the attorney must sign the response.  PERIODICALLY CHECK THE STATUS OF THE APPLICATION:  To ensure that applicant doesnot miss crucial deadlines or official notices, check the status of the application every three to four monthsusing the Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) system at http://tsdr.uspto.gov/.  Please keepa copy of the TSDR status screen.  If the status shows no change for more than six months, contact theTrademark Assistance Center by e-mail at [email protected] or call 1-800-786-9199.  For more information on checking status, see http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/process/status/. TO UPDATE CORRESPONDENCE/E-MAIL ADDRESS:  Use the TEAS form athttp://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/correspondence.jsp.  

Page 8: USPTO Refuses Apple s iPad Mini Trademark Application
Page 9: USPTO Refuses Apple s iPad Mini Trademark Application
Page 10: USPTO Refuses Apple s iPad Mini Trademark Application
Page 11: USPTO Refuses Apple s iPad Mini Trademark Application
Page 12: USPTO Refuses Apple s iPad Mini Trademark Application
Page 13: USPTO Refuses Apple s iPad Mini Trademark Application
Page 14: USPTO Refuses Apple s iPad Mini Trademark Application
Page 15: USPTO Refuses Apple s iPad Mini Trademark Application
Page 16: USPTO Refuses Apple s iPad Mini Trademark Application
Page 17: USPTO Refuses Apple s iPad Mini Trademark Application
Page 18: USPTO Refuses Apple s iPad Mini Trademark Application
Page 19: USPTO Refuses Apple s iPad Mini Trademark Application
Page 20: USPTO Refuses Apple s iPad Mini Trademark Application
Page 21: USPTO Refuses Apple s iPad Mini Trademark Application
Page 22: USPTO Refuses Apple s iPad Mini Trademark Application
Page 23: USPTO Refuses Apple s iPad Mini Trademark Application
Page 24: USPTO Refuses Apple s iPad Mini Trademark Application
Page 25: USPTO Refuses Apple s iPad Mini Trademark Application
Page 26: USPTO Refuses Apple s iPad Mini Trademark Application
Page 27: USPTO Refuses Apple s iPad Mini Trademark Application
Page 28: USPTO Refuses Apple s iPad Mini Trademark Application
Page 29: USPTO Refuses Apple s iPad Mini Trademark Application
Page 30: USPTO Refuses Apple s iPad Mini Trademark Application
Page 31: USPTO Refuses Apple s iPad Mini Trademark Application
Page 32: USPTO Refuses Apple s iPad Mini Trademark Application
Page 33: USPTO Refuses Apple s iPad Mini Trademark Application
Page 34: USPTO Refuses Apple s iPad Mini Trademark Application
Page 35: USPTO Refuses Apple s iPad Mini Trademark Application
Page 36: USPTO Refuses Apple s iPad Mini Trademark Application
Page 37: USPTO Refuses Apple s iPad Mini Trademark Application
Page 38: USPTO Refuses Apple s iPad Mini Trademark Application
Page 39: USPTO Refuses Apple s iPad Mini Trademark Application
Page 40: USPTO Refuses Apple s iPad Mini Trademark Application
Page 41: USPTO Refuses Apple s iPad Mini Trademark Application
Page 42: USPTO Refuses Apple s iPad Mini Trademark Application
Page 43: USPTO Refuses Apple s iPad Mini Trademark Application
Page 44: USPTO Refuses Apple s iPad Mini Trademark Application
Page 45: USPTO Refuses Apple s iPad Mini Trademark Application
Page 46: USPTO Refuses Apple s iPad Mini Trademark Application
Page 47: USPTO Refuses Apple s iPad Mini Trademark Application
Page 48: USPTO Refuses Apple s iPad Mini Trademark Application
Page 49: USPTO Refuses Apple s iPad Mini Trademark Application
Page 50: USPTO Refuses Apple s iPad Mini Trademark Application
Page 51: USPTO Refuses Apple s iPad Mini Trademark Application
Page 52: USPTO Refuses Apple s iPad Mini Trademark Application
Page 53: USPTO Refuses Apple s iPad Mini Trademark Application
Page 54: USPTO Refuses Apple s iPad Mini Trademark Application
Page 55: USPTO Refuses Apple s iPad Mini Trademark Application
Page 56: USPTO Refuses Apple s iPad Mini Trademark Application
Page 57: USPTO Refuses Apple s iPad Mini Trademark Application
Page 58: USPTO Refuses Apple s iPad Mini Trademark Application
Page 59: USPTO Refuses Apple s iPad Mini Trademark Application
Page 60: USPTO Refuses Apple s iPad Mini Trademark Application
Page 61: USPTO Refuses Apple s iPad Mini Trademark Application
Page 62: USPTO Refuses Apple s iPad Mini Trademark Application