Medical Marijuana Inc (MJNA)

[Jungle_Trader]

"One of my former dysfunctional employee’s, Clifford Perry, had his boyfriend hire Epstein & Epstein to file the LETTER OF PROTEST. This is NOT right."



SERIAL NUMBER
77900965
LAW OFFICE ASSIGNED LAW OFFICE 108
MARK SECTION (no change)
ARGUMENT(S)
Date: September 05, 2010



United States Patent & Trademark Office

Examining Attorney

John S. Yard

Law Office 115

[phone]



Dear Examining Attorney Yard,



Please accept this cover letter as my response to your office action dated 04/25/2010 concerning my pending service mark application “THE KING OF POT” with serial #-77/900,965.

With respect, I need to know why the registered mark THE KING OF CANNABIS was NOT cited during the initial examination.

Further, why did it take a LETTER OF PROTEST to change the results of this initial examination?



(1) I herein DISAGREE with your statement: “previous allowance count has been withdrawn” and I also DISAGREE with the “NEW ISSUE”-section 2(D) REUSAL.



(2) I also DISAGREE with your statement: “the following issue not previously raised by the examining attorney has been noted through routine administrative review”.



(3) I DO AGREE with: Date: March 24, 2010; an initial examination was conducted by the examining attorney and found:

OFFICE SEARCH: The examining attorney has searched the Office’s database of registered and pending marks and has found no conflicting marks that would bar registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d). 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); TMEP §704.02.

I accepted these comments because I agree there are NO conflicting marks.



(4) I ALSO AGREED with the AMENDMENT:

The identification of goods is amended to read as follows: “Business consultation services in the field of marijuana, hemp and medical marijuana.” See TMEP §§1402.01, 1402.01(e).



(5) I FURTHER AGREED with:

The following disclaimer statement is added to the record: No claim is made to the exclusive right to use “POT” apart from the mark as shown.





Page 1 of 3



Word Mark
THE KING OF CANNABIS

Goods and Services
IC 025. US 022 039. G & S: Clothing, namely, shirts, shorts, trousers, dresses and skirts; footwear, headwear

IC 035. US 100 101 102. G & S: Advertising; business management; business administration; office functions, retail store services featuring clothing, smokers articles, jewelry, gardening suppliers, furniture, kitchenware, picture postcards and posters

IC 043. US 100 101. G & S: Restaurant services for providing food and drink




(6) I did a search to see if the owner/applicant of “THE KING OF CANNABIS” is, or has been, actively selling clothing in the USA in IC class #25 and could NOT find anything.

All I did find was A SEED BANK.

If “THE KING OF CANNABIS” is selling “Marijuana seeds and/or importing said seeds into the USA then they have a BIG problem; especially with the interstate commerce sale of seeds.

Please show me on the internet, or anyplace in the USA, where “THE KING OF CANNABIS” is advertising and selling, in IC #25: “clothing, namely, shirts, shorts, trousers, dresses and skirts; footwear, headwear” or the like?

I also did NOT find any active services on the internet or rendered in the USA in IC #35: “Advertising; business management; business administration; office functions, retail store services featuring clothing, smokers articles, jewelry, gardening suppliers, furniture, kitchenware, picture postcards and posters”

Please show me on the internet, or in the USA, where “THE KING OF CANNABIS” is rendering the service in IC #43: “Restaurant services for providing food and drink”.

The applicant ONLY sells Marijuana seeds. Their website does NOT show anything for sale other than seeds.

I am under the impression in order to receive Federal protection in the USA the BRAND NAME had to be ACTIVELY in use within the USA and Interstate commerce had to be claimed with a date of first use.

Please explain the answers to my points of interest?



(7) Please keep in mind I have the COMMON LAW RIGHTS for the use of my BRAND NAME “The King of Pot” dating back to January 01, 1978.



(8) I also DISAGREE with the LETTER OF PROTEST that was filed on April 20, 2010 wherein Attorney Epstein stated: “the proposed mark is inherently descriptive”.

If THE KING OF POT is inherently descriptive; surely THE KING OF CANNABIS is also!





Page 2 of 3





One of my former dysfunctional employee’s, Clifford Perry, had his boyfriend hire Epstein & Epstein to file the LETTER OF PROTEST. This is NOT right.



(9) I further DISAGREE with the examiners statement: “The following issue not previously raised by the examining attorney has been noted through routine administrative review and is now raised for the first time.”

The examiner reviewed the original application and set the publication of the mark and then allowed the PROTEST. This is NOT fair. The protester should have waited until the 30 day PUBLICATION period like everybody else.



(10) I further DISAGREE with the examiners statement: “likelihood of confusion”. There is NO likelihood of confusion. Phonically the word POT and CANNABIS do NOT sound the same.



(11) I DISAGREE with the examiners statement: “The terms POT and CANNABIS each connote marijuana”. Both are used in the field of marijuana and BOTH were DISCLAIMED in their applications. So what we are really dealing with is the first three words of both BRAND NAMES: “The King of”. There are other marks using “The King of”

Further; the statement: “likely that a potential consumer would be confused or mistaken or deceived as to the source of the goods and/or services” is not agreed with.

As already mentioned, the CANNABIS application does NOT show any use of their mark in the USA. My mark is constantly in the news and advertised here in the USA. I see NO way a consumer could be confused as the CANNABIS application is NOT using their trade or service mark BRAND NAME here in the USA.



(12) I further DISAGREE with your statement: “similarity of the marks, similarity of the goods and/or services, and similarity of trade channels of the goods and/or services”. There are NO similarities as the CANNABIS owner is NOT using their BRAND NAME mark here in the USA.

Having answered to all of the examiners points I herein respectively will consider my original application be amended to SUPPLEMENTAL register.

Thanks for your help with my application.



Kindest regards,

Bruce Perlowin
705 N. State St. # 664
Ukiah, CA 95482-3407
Phone Number: [phone]



http://tmportal.uspto.gov/external/portal/tow?SRCH=Y&isSubmitted=true&details=&SELECT=US+Serial+No&TEXT=77900965#