Responding to a 2(d) office action requires a well-structured argument that addresses the examining attorney’s concerns. This can involve demonstrating that the marks are not as similar as perceived, the goods/services are distinct, or that the channels of trade are different. It’s essential to provide evidence, such as consumer affidavits, market research, or other relevant materials, to support your arguments. A knowledgeable trademark attorney can significantly increase the chances of a successful response.

Yes, many applicants successfully overcome likelihood of confusion refusals. The key is to present compelling evidence and arguments that address the USPTO’s concerns. This might involve showing that the marks, when viewed in their entireties, create different commercial impressions, or that the cited registration is weak due to the existence of similar marks for related goods/services.

The timeline varies based on the complexity of the action. However, we prioritize timely and effective responses. However, note you have a limited time to respond, so don’t wait until the last minute to file your response. 

We have a very high success rate for marks we file because we guide clients from the beginning on the likelihood they will prevail. When it comes to applications from other attorneys or those that client filed themselves, we have to evaluate the level of confusion, the strength of the cited marks, the similarity of the goods and services, and the possibility of canceling the conflicting marks.