So, they make a claim i'm having trouble substantiating (but may or may not be true, of course :P).
They state the PTO has a problem with fiftythree's mark, but actually, the PTO approved it for publication (yes, after some discussion).
It was published for opposition (IE the PTO approved it)
A request for extension of time to oppose has been filed.
But it hasn't been "refused", or else it would not have issued to the stage it did.
I can see some correspondence going back and forth with the USPTO, which i imagine related to figure53 in some way, but hard to say.
Despite claims otherwise, the goods/services this mark applies to is still the same on the approved mark:
"Computer hardware design; computer software design for use in graphics, namely, software for use in writing on smart phones and tablets with either a stylus or a finger; technical support services, namely, troubleshooting of computer software problems; updating and maintenance of computer software"
and
"Computer graphics software for mobile applications, namely, software for use in writing on smart phones and tablets with either a stylus or a finger"
SO i have trouble with the "USPTO thought it was confusing and refused it". From what i can see,t hat did not happen.
Also note as of right now, nobody owns a trademark on "paper", though FiftyThree applied for a mark on 1/28/2014, citing use back to 2012.
Figure53's claim is that FiftyThree's original application was not
"Computer hardware design; computer software design for use in graphics, namely, software for use in writing on smart phones and tablets with either a stylus or a finger; technical support services, namely, troubleshooting of computer software problems; updating and maintenance of computer software"
But in fact:
"Computer graphics software; computer hardware and computer programs for the integration of text, audio, graphics, still images and moving pictures into an interactive delivery for multimedia applications; computer software to enhance the audio-visual capabilities of multimedia applications, namely, for the integration of text, audio, graphics, still images, and moving pictures."
Edit: Removing my original comment because I was reading the PTO's site backwards. Note that document #1 is the most recent while #20 is the first chronologically.
The "technical support services" part is also problematic, because it's so general in scope as to cover all software companies that support their products (as Figure 53 does).
They state the PTO has a problem with fiftythree's mark, but actually, the PTO approved it for publication (yes, after some discussion). It was published for opposition (IE the PTO approved it) A request for extension of time to oppose has been filed.
But it hasn't been "refused", or else it would not have issued to the stage it did.
I can see some correspondence going back and forth with the USPTO, which i imagine related to figure53 in some way, but hard to say.
Despite claims otherwise, the goods/services this mark applies to is still the same on the approved mark:
"Computer hardware design; computer software design for use in graphics, namely, software for use in writing on smart phones and tablets with either a stylus or a finger; technical support services, namely, troubleshooting of computer software problems; updating and maintenance of computer software"
and "Computer graphics software for mobile applications, namely, software for use in writing on smart phones and tablets with either a stylus or a finger"
SO i have trouble with the "USPTO thought it was confusing and refused it". From what i can see,t hat did not happen.
Also note as of right now, nobody owns a trademark on "paper", though FiftyThree applied for a mark on 1/28/2014, citing use back to 2012.