UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE)In re Matter of: ))Applicant: Yigal Mesika )) APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TOMark: LOOPS ) OFFICE ACTION ISSUE/MAILING) DATE: 8/13/2008Serial No. 77458554 ))Examining Attorney: )Tracy Cross )Law Office 109 )I. INTRODUCTIONExamining Attorney, in response to your 8/13/08 Office Action, Applicanthereby requests reconsideration of the initial refusal to register the mark LOOPS.Applicant contends the mark is not descriptive or misdescriptive. However, evenif deemed so, Applicant contends that the mark has acquired distinctiveness,thus allowing it to proceed through the registration process. If after thisresponse, it is still determined that the mark is not registrable on the PrincipalRegister, Applicant hereby requests leave to amend the application for the markto be registered on the Supplemental Register. Finally, Applicant submits newspecimens in response to the Office Action. Applicant’s arguments are set forthbelow.1II.

1. Yigal Mesika Tarantula

APPLICANT’S MARK IS NOT DESCRIPTIVEApplicant requests that the initial refusal to register the mark LOOPS onthe Principal Register under §2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. 1052(e)(1)be reversed.

Applicant contends that the mark is not merely descriptive ordeceptively misdescriptive of the goods or services to which it relates.The determination of whether or not a mark is merely descriptive must be madein relation to the goods or services for which registration is sought, not in theabstract. This requires consideration of the context in which the mark is used orintended to be used in connection with those goods or services, and the possiblesignificance that the mark would have to the average purchaser of the goods orservices in the marketplace. See In re Omaha National Corp., 819 F.2d 1117, 2USPQ2d 1859 (Fed. 1987); In re Abcor Development Corp., 588 F.2d 811,200 USPQ 215 (C.C.P.A. 1978); In re Venture Lending Associates, 226 USPQ285 (TTAB 1985).In this case, Applicant’s use of the mark is for the sale of a popular pre-formed thread to perform magic tricks and DVDs showcasing/teaching the magictricks.

It’s not the selling of non functional loops, per se, but of a means toperform tricks which is made better because Applicant’s product is designed as itis. The types of tricks performed with Applicant’s product are commonlyperformed with elastic thread – sometimes pre-tied and most time not pre-tied.Many producers of similar products use terms like “Magic Knot” to describe theirproducts which perform the same or similar tricks as Applicant’s product.2Applicant’s product caters to a niche market of magicians and other consumersinterested in magic tricks. This product would only be available for sale in areasrelated to the field of magic. People interested in magic would understand themark LOOPS for what it stands for, magic tricks as popularized by Applicant andhis predecessor in interest Finn Jon (discussed further below).As such, Applicant maintains the argument that mark is not merelydescriptive and requests the mark be allowed to continue in the applicationprocess.III. APPLICANT’S MARK IS NOT MISDESCRIPTIVEApplicant contends that the mark it seeks to register, LOOPS, is notdeceptively misdesriptive.As explained in the case of In re Quady Winery Inc., 221 USPQ 1213,1214 (TTAB 1984):The test for deceptive misdescriptiveness has two parts. First it must bedetermined if the matter sought to be registered misdescribes the goods. In thematter at hand, the mark sought to be registered does not misdescribe thegoods.

Loop has many definitions. The one that most closely relates toApplicant’s mark is “1 a: a curving or doubling of a line so as to form a closed orpartly open curve within itself through which another line can be passed or intowhich a hook may be hooked b: such a fold of cord or ribbon serving as an3ornament” Merriam – Webster Dictionary. Applicant’s mark consists of loopsas a component of the magic trick and as such the mark is not a misdescription.Even assuming it were misdescribed, the mark must also be deceptive,that is, will anyone likely believe the misrepresentation. Gold Seal Co.

1955), aff’d sub nom. Johnson & Son v. Gold SealCo., 230 F.2d 832 (D.C. Cir.) (per curiam), cert.

Denied, 352 U.S. 829 (1956).Here, people within the magic field know what is meant when they see loop orloops. The mark has been around for over 22 years. As such, there is nomisrepresentation.Finally, a third question, used to distinguish between marks that aredeceptive under Section 2(a) and marks that are deceptively misdescriptiveunder Section 2(e)(1), is whether the misrepresentation would materially affectthe decision to purchase the goods.

In re House of Windsor, Inc., 221 USPQ53 (TTAB 1983). The name LOOPS does not affect the purchase of applicant’sproduct. Applicant’s product is purchased because of the goodwill he and hispredecessor have brought to the name. The fact that it may or may not be a loopis immaterial to a customer’s decision to purchase the product. What’s mostimportant is whether the product is nearly invisible and can perform magic tricks– typically street magic. The same tricks can be performed with Applicant’s loopshaped product or with thread that is tied into a loop.//////4IV. APPLICANT’S MARK HAS ACQUIRED DISTINCTIVENESSUNDER SECTION 2(f) AND QUALIFIES FOR REGISTRATIONAs an alternative basis for registration, Applicant is seeking registrationunder section 2(f) of the Trademark Act.

Applicant maintains that the mark isinherently distinctive and contends that even if the mark is considered to bedescriptive or deceptively misdescriptive pursuant to §2(e)(1) it may beregistrable under §2(f) upon a showing of acquired distinctiveness, or on theSupplemental Register. §§1052(f) and 1091.

The mark LOOPS hasacquired distinctiveness and is therefore registrable on the Principal Register.Applicant has herein submitted documents in support of his response showingthat the mark has been used — at the time of the Declaration — substantiallyexclusively and continuously in commerce for over 22 years.First, Applicant has submitted a Declaration from famed magician FinnJon, the predecessor in interest to the common law mark Loops. Jon beganusing the mark as early as 1986 and later transferred his interest to the mark toApplicant in 1998.

Yigal Mesika Tarantula

See Attachment A, Declaration of Finn Jon. Secondly,Applicant himself has used the mark since 1998, over 10 years. In combination,the mark has been used for over 22 years. See Attachment B, samples ofcatalogs and other advertisements indicating the various dates the mark wasdocumented as being in use in commerce by Applicant and/or his predecessor ininterest. It should be noted that Applicant’s original attorney did not availApplicant of the opportunity to allege the date of first use enjoyed by the5predecessor in interest. However, Applicant intends to amend his application toreflect that earlier use. Regardless, Applicant’s own use of the mark, more than5 years, qualifies it for consideration as having acquired distinctiveness.Applicant and various distributors have engaged in extensive sales,promotional and advertising expenditures over the course of the life of the brand.There are approximately 1000 magic shops around the world that do postings ontheir mailing lists and publish advertisements in magazines and websites for thepurpose of selling Loops.

Millions of dollars have been spent on marketing andadvertisement by distributors for the product in the years preceding theApplication and Applicant’s direct retail sales have amounted to approximately$1.5 million in the same period.Additionally, Applicant’s goods and services are directed to a focusedniche market of sophisticated individuals and companies that use his products.Such consumers are more likely to recognize that a term used in conjunction witha particular product or service is a trademark. Moreover, “it is only necessary toshow that a substantial segment of the relevant group of consumers made therequisite association between the product and the producer.”CentaurCommunications, Ltd. A/S/M Communications, Inc., 830 F.2d 1217, 4U.S.P.Q.2d 1541, 1544 (2d Cir. In this case, Applicant submits that thereis sufficient evidence that the particular consumers who buy his goods andservices make the association. See Attachment C which is a basic Googlesearch of the mark in conjunction with Applicant and Finn Jon (predecessor in6interest). Every result on the first page of the search regards the product and theproducer.Applicant has provided substantial evidence to demonstrate that the markhas acquired distinctiveness.

It is well established that an examining attorneyshould consider the following principal factors in deciding whether a mark hasacquired distinctiveness: (1) how long the applicant has used the mark; (2) thetype and amount of advertising of the mark; and (3) the applicant’s efforts toassociate the mark with the goods/services. See Ralston Purina Co. 129, 173 USPQ 820 (S.D.N.Y. 1972); TMEP SS 1212,1212.01 and 1212.06 et seq. Applicant has demonstrated that the mark hasbeen used in commerce for over 22 years.

From 1986 to 1997 the mark wasused by Finn Jon, Applicant’s predecessor in interest. Then, Applicant has usedthe mark from 1997 to present; several years more than the five-year threshold toshow prima facie evidence that the mark has acquired distinctiveness. SeeAttachment A.Applicant has also expended a substantial amount of resources toadvertise its product and to make it known among the relatively small group ofconsumers that buy his goods and services branded under the LOOPS mark.This advertising represents part of Applicant’s efforts to associate the mark withthe goods and services.

Applicant has submitted evidence showing that theseefforts have been successful. Documents submitted by Applicant show thatconsumers associate the mark with Applicant’s particular goods and services.7Allowing this application to proceed through the registration process,through this application, would also be consistent with the underlying policy ofSection 2(e)(1). The reason that descriptive terms are refused registration is thatterms that describe a quality of characteristic of the goods or services on whichthey are used must be left free for use by other makers of the same goods.Estate of P.D. Beckwith, Inc.

Commissioner of Patents, 252 U.S. 538 (1920).The Court of Customs and Patent Appeals stated that “for policy reasons,descriptive words must be left free for public use.” In re Colonial Stores, Inc.,157 U.S.P.Q. 382, 383 (C.C.P.A. If the mark in this application is allowedto be registered, this would merely provide Applicant with the exclusive right touse the term LOOPS as a trademark for his invisible elastic band magic trick andservices. Applicant would have the right to stop others’ infringing use of LOOPSas a trademark for their magic tricks and services and thus prevent them fromriding the coattails of Applicant’s success and stealing Applicant’s valuablegoodwill in this mark. Applicant would not have the right to prevent others fromusing the words “loop” or “loops” in a non-trademark, non-confusing manner.Section 33(b)(4) of the Lanham Act specifically provides a defense to a party whouses a term otherwise than as a mark fairly and in good faith only to describethe goods or services of such party.” 15 U.S.C.

S 1115(b)(4).Thus, Section 2(f) grants trademark owners exclusive rights to usedescriptive terms as trademarks if those terms have acquired secondarymeaning, while Section 33(b) allows other parties to use the same ordinary termsfairly, otherwise than as marks. Therefore, allowing registration of the mark8would not be allowing a monopoly on the term “loop” or “loops” as set forth in thelanguage of the Lanham Act.V. AMENDING APPLICATION TO SUPPLEMENTAL REGISTER TMEP §816If after this response, the Examining Attorney determines that the mark isnot registrable on the Principal Register, Applicant hereby requests leave toamend the application for the mark to be registered on the SupplementalRegister. Applicant requests that the Application be amended by requesting thatthe words “Principal Register” be changed to “Supplemental Register.”Certain marks that are not eligible for registration on the PrincipalRegister, but are capable of distinguishing an applicant’s goods or services, maybe registered on the Supplemental Register. Sections 23 through 28 of theTrademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §§1091 through 1096, provide for registration on theSupplemental Register. TMEP 801.02(b).

Based on the arguments set forthsupra, Applicant submits that his mark is eligible for registration on theSupplemental Register.VI. SUBSTITUTE SPECIMENWith respect to Class IC 009, Applicant submits a substitute specimenshowing the mark in use in commerce for the goods specified in the application.The substitute specimen was in use in commerce at least as early as the filingdate of the application. §2.59(a); TMEP §904.05. See Attachment D.9ATTACHMENT AUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE)In re Matter of: ))Applicant: Yigal Mesika )) APPLICANT’S ATTACHMENT TOMark: LOOPS ) RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION) ISSUE/MAILING DATE: 8/13/2008Serial No. 77458554 ))Examining Attorney: )Tracy CrossLaw Office 109DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF ACQUIRED DISTINCTIVENESSUNDER SECTION 2(f) IN SUPPORT OF APPLICANT’SRESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTIONI, Finn Jon, do say and declare:1. I hereby execute this declaration on behalf of Applicant.2. I am the predecessor in interest (title) to the common law markLOOPS.3.

The mark LOOPS had been used in commerce by me since on orabout July 1986 in France. In the United States, the mark was first used incommerce by me on or about September 1986.14. On or about June 25, 1998, I transferred my rights in LOOPS to Mr.Mesika in exchange for valuable consideration. I retained a license to use themark concurrently with the Applicant.5. The mark has become distinctive of the goods and services covered bythis application, through my substantially exclusive and continuous use incommerce for at least five (5) years immediately before the date this statement.TMEP 1212.05(d) In fact, I used the mark as described from 1986 to present,totaling twenty two (22) years.6. Additionally, I believe the mark has continued to be distinctive of thegoods and services covered by this application, through Mr.

Mesika’ssubstantially exclusive and continuous use in commerce for at least five (5) yearsimmediately before the date of this statement TMEP 1212.05(d). Upon mytransfer of the rights to Loops to Mr. Mesika, it is my belief that he has since usedthe mark for the ten (10) years preceding this statement.7. Based on the prolonged use of this mark by both me and Mr.

Mesika, Ibelieve that the LOOPS mark has become a well known trademark to consumersof the goods and services covered by this application and that such personsunderstand that it is a mark of Applicant. TMEP 1212.06(a)////2ATTACHMENT BATTACHMENT CLoops Yigal Mesika – Google Search Page 1 of 2Web Images Maps News Shopping Gmail more? Sign inGoogleAdvanced SearchLoops Yigal Mesika Search PreferencesWeb Shopping Video Results 1 – 10 of about 17,200 for Loops Yigal Mesika.

(0.06 seconds)Shopping results for Loops Yigal Mesika Sponsored Links$9.95 – WizardLoopsHeadquarters Yigal Mesika at AmazonLow prices on yigal mesika.Loops by Yigal Mesika (4 PACKS of$28.80 – Tops Magic Shop Free Shipping on qualified ordersFive)Amazon.comLoops Vol. 2 (Deluxe 2 DVD $38.95 – WizardSet) by Headquarters Loops Yigal MesikaThe Source for Magic Tricks & PropsLoops by Yigal Mesika Watch Demos.

Free S&H.From talented Israeli magician Yigal Mesika comes one of the most www.magicproshop.compowerful utility gimmicks ever invented. UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE)In re Matter of: ))Applicant: Yigal Mesika )) APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TOMark: LOOPS ) OFFICE ACTION ISSUE/MAILING) DATE: 8/13/2008Serial No.

77458554 ))Examining Attorney: )Tracy Cross )Law Office 109 )I. INTRODUCTIONExamining Attorney, in response to your 8/13/08 Office Action, Applicanthereby requests reconsideration of the initial refusal to register the mark LOOPS.Applicant contends the mark is not descriptive or misdescriptive. However, evenif deemed so, Applicant contends that the mark has acquired distinctiveness,thus allowing it to proceed through the registration process. If after thisresponse, it is still determined that the mark is not registrable on the PrincipalRegister, Applicant hereby requests leave to amend the application for the markto be registered on the Supplemental Register. Finally, Applicant submits newspecimens in response to the Office Action. Applicant’s arguments are set forthbelow.1II. APPLICANT’S MARK IS NOT DESCRIPTIVEApplicant requests that the initial refusal to register the mark LOOPS onthe Principal Register under §2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C.

1052(e)(1)be reversed. Applicant contends that the mark is not merely descriptive ordeceptively misdescriptive of the goods or services to which it relates.The determination of whether or not a mark is merely descriptive must be madein relation to the goods or services for which registration is sought, not in theabstract. This requires consideration of the context in which the mark is used orintended to be used in connection with those goods or services, and the possiblesignificance that the mark would have to the average purchaser of the goods orservices in the marketplace. See In re Omaha National Corp., 819 F.2d 1117, 2USPQ2d 1859 (Fed. 1987); In re Abcor Development Corp., 588 F.2d 811,200 USPQ 215 (C.C.P.A.

1978); In re Venture Lending Associates, 226 USPQ285 (TTAB 1985).In this case, Applicant’s use of the mark is for the sale of a popular pre-formed thread to perform magic tricks and DVDs showcasing/teaching the magictricks. It’s not the selling of non functional loops, per se, but of a means toperform tricks which is made better because Applicant’s product is designed as itis. The types of tricks performed with Applicant’s product are commonlyperformed with elastic thread – sometimes pre-tied and most time not pre-tied.Many producers of similar products use terms like “Magic Knot” to describe theirproducts which perform the same or similar tricks as Applicant’s product.2Applicant’s product caters to a niche market of magicians and other consumersinterested in magic tricks. This product would only be available for sale in areasrelated to the field of magic. People interested in magic would understand themark LOOPS for what it stands for, magic tricks as popularized by Applicant andhis predecessor in interest Finn Jon (discussed further below).As such, Applicant maintains the argument that mark is not merelydescriptive and requests the mark be allowed to continue in the applicationprocess.III. APPLICANT’S MARK IS NOT MISDESCRIPTIVEApplicant contends that the mark it seeks to register, LOOPS, is notdeceptively misdesriptive.As explained in the case of In re Quady Winery Inc., 221 USPQ 1213,1214 (TTAB 1984):The test for deceptive misdescriptiveness has two parts.

First it must bedetermined if the matter sought to be registered misdescribes the goods. In thematter at hand, the mark sought to be registered does not misdescribe thegoods.

Loop has many definitions. The one that most closely relates toApplicant’s mark is “1 a: a curving or doubling of a line so as to form a closed orpartly open curve within itself through which another line can be passed or intowhich a hook may be hooked b: such a fold of cord or ribbon serving as an3ornament” Merriam – Webster Dictionary. Applicant’s mark consists of loopsas a component of the magic trick and as such the mark is not a misdescription.Even assuming it were misdescribed, the mark must also be deceptive,that is, will anyone likely believe the misrepresentation. Gold Seal Co. 1955), aff’d sub nom. Johnson & Son v.

Gold SealCo., 230 F.2d 832 (D.C. Cir.) (per curiam), cert. Denied, 352 U.S.

829 (1956).Here, people within the magic field know what is meant when they see loop orloops. The mark has been around for over 22 years. As such, there is nomisrepresentation.Finally, a third question, used to distinguish between marks that aredeceptive under Section 2(a) and marks that are deceptively misdescriptiveunder Section 2(e)(1), is whether the misrepresentation would materially affectthe decision to purchase the goods. In re House of Windsor, Inc., 221 USPQ53 (TTAB 1983). The name LOOPS does not affect the purchase of applicant’sproduct. Applicant’s product is purchased because of the goodwill he and hispredecessor have brought to the name.

The fact that it may or may not be a loopis immaterial to a customer’s decision to purchase the product. What’s mostimportant is whether the product is nearly invisible and can perform magic tricks– typically street magic. The same tricks can be performed with Applicant’s loopshaped product or with thread that is tied into a loop.//////4IV. APPLICANT’S MARK HAS ACQUIRED DISTINCTIVENESSUNDER SECTION 2(f) AND QUALIFIES FOR REGISTRATIONAs an alternative basis for registration, Applicant is seeking registrationunder section 2(f) of the Trademark Act. Applicant maintains that the mark isinherently distinctive and contends that even if the mark is considered to bedescriptive or deceptively misdescriptive pursuant to §2(e)(1) it may beregistrable under §2(f) upon a showing of acquired distinctiveness, or on theSupplemental Register. §§1052(f) and 1091. The mark LOOPS hasacquired distinctiveness and is therefore registrable on the Principal Register.Applicant has herein submitted documents in support of his response showingthat the mark has been used — at the time of the Declaration — substantiallyexclusively and continuously in commerce for over 22 years.First, Applicant has submitted a Declaration from famed magician FinnJon, the predecessor in interest to the common law mark Loops.

Jon beganusing the mark as early as 1986 and later transferred his interest to the mark toApplicant in 1998. See Attachment A, Declaration of Finn Jon. Secondly,Applicant himself has used the mark since 1998, over 10 years.

In combination,the mark has been used for over 22 years. See Attachment B, samples ofcatalogs and other advertisements indicating the various dates the mark wasdocumented as being in use in commerce by Applicant and/or his predecessor ininterest. It should be noted that Applicant’s original attorney did not availApplicant of the opportunity to allege the date of first use enjoyed by the5predecessor in interest. However, Applicant intends to amend his application toreflect that earlier use. Regardless, Applicant’s own use of the mark, more than5 years, qualifies it for consideration as having acquired distinctiveness.Applicant and various distributors have engaged in extensive sales,promotional and advertising expenditures over the course of the life of the brand.There are approximately 1000 magic shops around the world that do postings ontheir mailing lists and publish advertisements in magazines and websites for thepurpose of selling Loops.

Millions of dollars have been spent on marketing andadvertisement by distributors for the product in the years preceding theApplication and Applicant’s direct retail sales have amounted to approximately$1.5 million in the same period.Additionally, Applicant’s goods and services are directed to a focusedniche market of sophisticated individuals and companies that use his products.Such consumers are more likely to recognize that a term used in conjunction witha particular product or service is a trademark. Moreover, “it is only necessary toshow that a substantial segment of the relevant group of consumers made therequisite association between the product and the producer.”CentaurCommunications, Ltd.

A/S/M Communications, Inc., 830 F.2d 1217, 4U.S.P.Q.2d 1541, 1544 (2d Cir. In this case, Applicant submits that thereis sufficient evidence that the particular consumers who buy his goods andservices make the association. See Attachment C which is a basic Googlesearch of the mark in conjunction with Applicant and Finn Jon (predecessor in6interest). Every result on the first page of the search regards the product and theproducer.Applicant has provided substantial evidence to demonstrate that the markhas acquired distinctiveness. It is well established that an examining attorneyshould consider the following principal factors in deciding whether a mark hasacquired distinctiveness: (1) how long the applicant has used the mark; (2) thetype and amount of advertising of the mark; and (3) the applicant’s efforts toassociate the mark with the goods/services.

See Ralston Purina Co. 129, 173 USPQ 820 (S.D.N.Y. 1972); TMEP SS 1212,1212.01 and 1212.06 et seq. Applicant has demonstrated that the mark hasbeen used in commerce for over 22 years.

From 1986 to 1997 the mark wasused by Finn Jon, Applicant’s predecessor in interest. Then, Applicant has usedthe mark from 1997 to present; several years more than the five-year threshold toshow prima facie evidence that the mark has acquired distinctiveness. SeeAttachment A.Applicant has also expended a substantial amount of resources toadvertise its product and to make it known among the relatively small group ofconsumers that buy his goods and services branded under the LOOPS mark.This advertising represents part of Applicant’s efforts to associate the mark withthe goods and services. Applicant has submitted evidence showing that theseefforts have been successful. Documents submitted by Applicant show thatconsumers associate the mark with Applicant’s particular goods and services.7Allowing this application to proceed through the registration process,through this application, would also be consistent with the underlying policy ofSection 2(e)(1). The reason that descriptive terms are refused registration is thatterms that describe a quality of characteristic of the goods or services on whichthey are used must be left free for use by other makers of the same goods.Estate of P.D. Beckwith, Inc.

Commissioner of Patents, 252 U.S. 538 (1920).The Court of Customs and Patent Appeals stated that “for policy reasons,descriptive words must be left free for public use.” In re Colonial Stores, Inc.,157 U.S.P.Q. 382, 383 (C.C.P.A. If the mark in this application is allowedto be registered, this would merely provide Applicant with the exclusive right touse the term LOOPS as a trademark for his invisible elastic band magic trick andservices. Applicant would have the right to stop others’ infringing use of LOOPSas a trademark for their magic tricks and services and thus prevent them fromriding the coattails of Applicant’s success and stealing Applicant’s valuablegoodwill in this mark.

Applicant would not have the right to prevent others fromusing the words “loop” or “loops” in a non-trademark, non-confusing manner.Section 33(b)(4) of the Lanham Act specifically provides a defense to a party whouses a term otherwise than as a mark fairly and in good faith only to describethe goods or services of such party.” 15 U.S.C. S 1115(b)(4).Thus, Section 2(f) grants trademark owners exclusive rights to usedescriptive terms as trademarks if those terms have acquired secondarymeaning, while Section 33(b) allows other parties to use the same ordinary termsfairly, otherwise than as marks. Therefore, allowing registration of the mark8would not be allowing a monopoly on the term “loop” or “loops” as set forth in thelanguage of the Lanham Act.V.

AMENDING APPLICATION TO SUPPLEMENTAL REGISTER TMEP §816If after this response, the Examining Attorney determines that the mark isnot registrable on the Principal Register, Applicant hereby requests leave toamend the application for the mark to be registered on the SupplementalRegister. Applicant requests that the Application be amended by requesting thatthe words “Principal Register” be changed to “Supplemental Register.”Certain marks that are not eligible for registration on the PrincipalRegister, but are capable of distinguishing an applicant’s goods or services, maybe registered on the Supplemental Register. Sections 23 through 28 of theTrademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §§1091 through 1096, provide for registration on theSupplemental Register. TMEP 801.02(b). Based on the arguments set forthsupra, Applicant submits that his mark is eligible for registration on theSupplemental Register.VI.

SUBSTITUTE SPECIMENWith respect to Class IC 009, Applicant submits a substitute specimenshowing the mark in use in commerce for the goods specified in the application.The substitute specimen was in use in commerce at least as early as the filingdate of the application. §2.59(a); TMEP §904.05. See Attachment D.9ATTACHMENT AUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE)In re Matter of: ))Applicant: Yigal Mesika )) APPLICANT’S ATTACHMENT TOMark: LOOPS ) RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION) ISSUE/MAILING DATE: 8/13/2008Serial No. 77458554 ))Examining Attorney: )Tracy CrossLaw Office 109DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF ACQUIRED DISTINCTIVENESSUNDER SECTION 2(f) IN SUPPORT OF APPLICANT’SRESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTIONI, Finn Jon, do say and declare:1.

I hereby execute this declaration on behalf of Applicant.2. I am the predecessor in interest (title) to the common law markLOOPS.3. The mark LOOPS had been used in commerce by me since on orabout July 1986 in France. In the United States, the mark was first used incommerce by me on or about September 1986.14. On or about June 25, 1998, I transferred my rights in LOOPS to Mr.Mesika in exchange for valuable consideration. I retained a license to use themark concurrently with the Applicant.5. The mark has become distinctive of the goods and services covered bythis application, through my substantially exclusive and continuous use incommerce for at least five (5) years immediately before the date this statement.TMEP 1212.05(d) In fact, I used the mark as described from 1986 to present,totaling twenty two (22) years.6.

Additionally, I believe the mark has continued to be distinctive of thegoods and services covered by this application, through Mr. Mesika’ssubstantially exclusive and continuous use in commerce for at least five (5) yearsimmediately before the date of this statement TMEP 1212.05(d). Upon mytransfer of the rights to Loops to Mr. Mesika, it is my belief that he has since usedthe mark for the ten (10) years preceding this statement.7. Based on the prolonged use of this mark by both me and Mr. Mesika, Ibelieve that the LOOPS mark has become a well known trademark to consumersof the goods and services covered by this application and that such personsunderstand that it is a mark of Applicant. TMEP 1212.06(a)////2ATTACHMENT BATTACHMENT CLoops Yigal Mesika – Google Search Page 1 of 2Web Images Maps News Shopping Gmail more?

Sign inGoogleAdvanced SearchLoops Yigal Mesika Search PreferencesWeb Shopping Video Results 1 – 10 of about 17,200 for Loops Yigal Mesika. (0.06 seconds)Shopping results for Loops Yigal Mesika Sponsored Links$9.95 – WizardLoopsHeadquarters Yigal Mesika at AmazonLow prices on yigal mesika.Loops by Yigal Mesika (4 PACKS of$28.80 – Tops Magic Shop Free Shipping on qualified ordersFive)Amazon.comLoops Vol. 2 (Deluxe 2 DVD $38.95 – WizardSet) by Headquarters Loops Yigal MesikaThe Source for Magic Tricks & PropsLoops by Yigal Mesika Watch Demos. Free S&H.From talented Israeli magician Yigal Mesika comes one of the most www.magicproshop.compowerful utility gimmicks ever invented.

Look for my next book, A Theology of Love: Reimagining Christianity through “A Course in Miracles.” Out from Inner Traditions International in November The website maintained by Richard Smoley. Inner Christianity A clear-eyed but compassionate approach to the real meaning of Christian love—in all its.

Richard Smoley is an author and philosopher focusing on the world’s mystical and esoteric Smoley’s second and best-known book, Inner Christianity: A Guide to the Esoteric Tradition, was published in by Shambhala Publications.Author:Tozilkree GulrajasCountry:HaitiLanguage:English (Spanish)Genre:LiteraturePublished (Last):18 August 2015Pages:350PDF File Size:10.64 MbePub File Size:16.22 MbISBN:422-6-30521-777-6Downloads:72400Price:Free.Free Regsitration RequiredUploader:Even so, it would be wrong to say that this tradition is cut off completely from the life of great events. Rather, it is a religious act of high merit, using esoteric knowledge christinaity attain perfection. Smoley’s theology parallels his dichotomy of “I” and “the world. Christian teaching has not laid much stress on reincarnation, but there have always been those like Origen who have understood that it remains a possibility.Love, Evil, chrisstianity Forgiveness If the first two lines are time and space, what is the third?

Each love type has redemption because “each type of love contains a sort of gamut that runs from our basest impulses to our highest”” Agape, xhristianity conscious love, “enables one to relax the sense of self and other” and move toward a “sense of the cosmic Christ.If we grant that there is something in human consciousness that survives death — an idea that is universal in human religion and which makes a great deal of intuitive sense as well chrristianity there are three possibilities. Indeed, Christianity has always laid great emphasis on the heart, the emotional life of the soul as it is lived in communion with God.This is not always pleasant or easy, and the forces of exterior life generally pull one away from it.Buy Conscious Love now! I read anything Richard Smoley writes. A Guide to the Western Inner Traditionswhich I wrote in collaboration with Jay Kinney when we were the editors of Gnosis, a now- defunct journal of Western esotericism. Views Read Edit View history. Those on the outside christixnity comparatively far apart.

Researches into the Phenomenology of the Self investigates the symbol of the fish associated with Christ. Other such translations in that period came from John Wyclif in England and the followers of Jan Hus in Bohemia, both of whom the church condemned as heretics.S66 — DC21 What you are looking for is what is looking. The monk grasps love from his perspective, the romantic from another; even whores and libertines have their insights.The points on which men argued were slender, compared to smkley huge areas of complete acquiescence which embraced almost every aspect of their lives.It need not even take on a specifically Christian aspect. We might look up at ibner stars at night and feel the conflicted impression that chirstianity bodies are both unimaginably remote and intimately bound up with our souls. The Greek word for the soul is psyche — literally, the psyche, the nexus of thoughts, emotions, and desires that occupy most of our inner lives.It may or may not be familiar; that does not matter. On the other hand, if homosexuality is natural, what purpose does it serve?

Richard SmoleyEven when there is no apparent retribution, you will register a subtler but deeper response in your very nature. While Freemasonry was an old esoteric order that thrived in Scotland from late medieval times possibly representing a continuation of the Templar legacyin the seventeenth century it was brought to England, where it was associated with the rise of the scientific revolution.His approach can be described as partially phenomenological, although he does not appear to be directly influenced by 20th-century phenomenologists such as Edmund Husserl or Maurice Merleau-Ponty. Yet in the end Gnosticism failed.The Secret History of Gnosticism. For when the man and the woman eat of the fruit, their eyes are in fact opened. In his last years Mouravieff taught in Geneva; after his death his students seem to have dispersed, although currently some are trying to revive his teachings.InRichard started writing for a new magazine called Gnosis: Despite our predicament, we as humans ultimately remain superior to the constraints of time.

The punishment if it can be called that for the original act of disobedience was banishment to the life we know here on earth. This is where you are; around you, outside you, is the visible and sensible world. They tried to chant the entire Psalter aloud each day, or, failing that, at least over the course of a week. An authoritative biographical essay–highlighting Nostradamus’s separate roles as physician, astrologer, and prognosticator–rounds out the volume.They came to be known as the Desert Fathers and Mothers, and they smoey the first monks and nuns in Christianity. This is not to say that the Catholic Church totally repudiated esotericism, although it is probably fair to say that since the High Middle Ages this particular form of spiritual endeavor has been in the background there. Inner Christianity: A Guide to the Esoteric Tradition by Richard SmoleyFeb 12, M added it Shelves: Of course, individual allocations of happiness and woe vary wildly, often without apparent regard for justice or merit.

For the spirit to develop in a harmonious and integrated fashion, the pole of love must be counterbalanced by the pole of knowledge.Here is his description of a realm he calls Gotimna: They seem short when people are involved in pleasant and happy affections, long when they are involved in unpleasant or disagreeable ones; in states of hope or expectation they seem of various lengths. The Egyptians believed that if the heart was heavier than a feather — that is, if it had anything on its conscience — it was consigned to a baleful afterlife.Jung, though he was not connected with any church or tradition, devoted much attention to Chrietianity symbols and ideas. So I bid him forbear to talk, for I would not come near the door of his house. Many esoteric Christians today, whether or not they consider themselves Jungians, are deeply indebted to this sage of the psyche.