Response To Office Action

I am writing in response to the Office Action dated June 20, 2009, written in
regard to the 1(a) application for the mark “Audrina Patridge,” Serial Number
77713387.

The Office Action contends that the specimen of record, a so-called “one
sheet,” advertising the applicant’s mark in conjunction with a film, merely identifies
the name ofa specific individual but does not otherwise function as a service mark
to identify and distinguish applicant’s services from those of others and to indicate
the source of applicant’s services.

I respectfully disagree with the examiner’s contentions and I offer the
following argument and evidence in support ofthe same:

In order to secure a registration, applicant must show that the mark in
question has been used in interstate commerce and functions as a service mark to
identify and distinguish applicant’s services from those of others and indicate the
source of applicant’s services. The specimen that was submitted is a one-sheet
advertisement of a film in which the main actors in the film are listed. Arguably,
there is no better or appropriate way for an individual to distinguish their services
from those of others and to indicate the source oftheir services as an actor, than to
include their name on a one—sheet advertising a film or television show. Pursuant to
Trademark Act Section 45, 15 U.S.C. Sec 1127; 37 C.F.R. Sec. 2.5(b) (2), a specimen
for a service mark must show use ofthe mark “in the sale or advertising of services.”
A one-sheet listing the actor’s name does precisely that; it advertises the individuals
services as an actor in that particular film.

In support of my assertions, I reference several other actors whose names
have received registrations using one-sheets as specimens that are no different than
the one submitted by the applicant:

In September of 2008, the actor Patrick Dempsey received a registration for
his name (Reg. 3508005). His specimen was a one-sheet for a movie which merely
listed his name amongst several of the other actors.

In November of 2009, the actor Robert Downey, Jr. received a registration for
his name (3705201). His specimen was also a one—sheet for the film the “Soloist”
which listed his name.

In November, 2006, the actor Hill Harper received a registration for her
name (3200951). Her specimen was no more than a resume listing the films and
television shows she had participated in.

In conclusion, the undersigned believes that the one—sheet that was
submitted in applicant’s application is no different or less compelling an indication
of the source of an actor’s services than the specimens submitted by other actors
who have secured registrations. It is with good reason that these other actors
received registrations. The submission ofa one-sheet identifies not only the
individual, but advertises that person’s services as an actor in conjunction with the
fim the one-sheet is advertising.

Respectfully Submitted,

/]onathan Pollack/