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

This is the October 2015 Edition of the TMEP

Previous: §714.05(c) | Next: §714.05(e)

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 in response to a final 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 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 in response to a final refusal under §2(d), 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.