|
|
Post by careful2invest on Dec 5, 2016 0:27:47 GMT -5
For some reason, I was unable to vote on that survey,
But my vote too, is no.
Not because I hold any inside information, or that I am clairvoyant, Simply that I feel like, for whatever reason, taxes, new beginnings, whatever the case may be,
We will not hear anything from RLS until 2017.
Nothing from MNKD either until 2017 that will move the MNKD pps! And I have a feeling that it will all hit at once, News about RLS, AFREZZA, VDEX, etc.
Crushing the shorts!
MNKD has been very quiet, yet, when they speak, they give the feeling that they have the situation under control.
They do not seem too concerned about running out of cash, nor being delisted from Nasdaq.
Maybe I am wishfully thinking, wildly dreaming or maybe I am delusional, but then again, maybe I'm right...
Time will tell!
Or maybe, It's the Bourbon that I've been sipping on tonight...
Whichever the case...
GLTA TRUE LONGS!
Have a great week!
|
|
|
|
Post by MnkdWASmyRtrmntPlan on Dec 5, 2016 8:06:32 GMT -5
In Nate's just released Inter-Issue Commentary, he mentioned that we are due what he suspects will be a small-to-moderate milestone from RLS "sometime soon", and there is a chance that with that payment there will be an opportunity for the company to more openly discuss the relationship and what it might mean to shareholders.
Current status:
38% Yes
62% No
16 Votes
4 days left
|
|
|
|
Post by mango on Dec 23, 2016 16:05:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by bradleysbest on Dec 23, 2016 17:05:17 GMT -5
The plot thickens but I would not expect anything less.... Buckle up & hold the F on!
|
|
|
|
Post by LosingMyBullishness on Dec 23, 2016 18:28:04 GMT -5
The plot thickens but I would not expect anything less.... Buckle up & hold the F on! What plot? |
|
|
|
Post by uvula on Dec 23, 2016 19:11:50 GMT -5
I hope MNKD isn't counting on meaningful milestone payments from a company that can't even get a trademark registered properly.
|
|
|
|
Post by sportsrancho on Dec 23, 2016 19:15:45 GMT -5
The plot thickens but I would not expect anything less.... Buckle up & hold the F on! What plot? Its kinda like you're reading this interesting 600 page novel and you only get one chapter a week sent to your inbox. |
|
|
|
Post by bradleysbest on Dec 23, 2016 19:29:25 GMT -5
The plot as in who is RLS & why can't they properly register their trademark? Simply crazy being a MNKD investor....
|
|
|
|
Post by nylefty on Dec 23, 2016 19:34:16 GMT -5
I hope MNKD isn't counting on meaningful milestone payments from a company that can't even get a trademark registered properly. How would you suggest they register it "properly?" Make a big contribution to an influential senator who can put pressure on the USPTO? |
|
|
|
Post by LosingMyBullishness on Dec 23, 2016 19:49:25 GMT -5
I hope MNKD isn't counting on meaningful milestone payments from a company that can't even get a trademark registered properly. How would you suggest they register it "properly?" Make a big contribution to an influential senator who can put pressure on the USPTO? Registering a trademark is really no rocket science. I did it myself recently as I did not want to spend money on attorneys for some simple procedure. Someone screwed it up. Either by setting up a name that is too common or by doing some stupid mistake. |
|
|
|
Post by slugworth008 on Dec 23, 2016 19:51:30 GMT -5
The plot as in who is RLS & why can't they properly register their trademark? Simply crazy being a MNKD investor.... Perhaps they have been too busy testing technosphere delivered cannabis ? |
|
|
|
Post by LosingMyBullishness on Dec 23, 2016 19:51:50 GMT -5
How would you suggest they register it "properly?" Make a big contribution to an influential senator who can put pressure on the USPTO? Registering a trademark is really no rocket science. I did it myself recently as I did not want to spend money on attorneys for some simple procedure. Someone screwed it up. Either by setting up a name that is too common or by doing some stupid mistake. RLS really believed that they can register 'Receptor' as trademark? Hilarious. |
|
|
|
Post by bradleysbest on Dec 23, 2016 20:04:44 GMT -5
I'm hoping for a lot , especially the share price going up! 🙏🏻
|
|
|
|
Post by nylefty on Dec 23, 2016 20:19:01 GMT -5
Registering a trademark is really no rocket science. I did it myself recently as I did not want to spend money on attorneys for some simple procedure. Someone screwed it up. Either by setting up a name that is too common or by doing some stupid mistake. RLS really believed that they can register 'Receptor' as trademark? Hilarious. In case anybody is wondering why common words such as Apple, Time, and Shell can be trademarked here's a good explanation: secureyourtrademark.com/can-you-trademark/common-words-phrases/ |
|
|
|
Post by mango on Dec 23, 2016 20:29:04 GMT -5
This is from the actual examiner's response:
TRADEMARK ACT §2(e)(1) REFUSAL – MARK IS MERELY DESCRIPTIVE/FINAL
The refusal to register the applied-for mark, RECEPTOR LIFE SCIENCES, because it merely describes a feature, characteristic, purpose and field of use of applicant’s services; i.e., scientific and medical research and information, and pharmaceutical products, is MAINTAINED and made FINAL. Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); see TMEP §§1209.01(b), 1209.03 et seq. NOTE: All evidence previously provided is incorporated herein.
As explained initially, a mark is merely descriptive if it describes an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose or use of the specified goods and/or services. TMEP §1209.01(b); see In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293, 1297, 75 USPQ2d 1420, 1421 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Gyulay, 820 F.2d 1216, 1217-18, 3 USPQ2d 1009, 1010 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
It is important to note that the determination of whether a mark is merely descriptive is made in relation to an applicant’s goods and/or services, not in the abstract. DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1254, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re The Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 1300, 102 USPQ2d 1217, 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2012); TMEP §1209.01(b); see, e.g ., In re Polo Int’l Inc. , 51 USPQ2d 1061, 1062-63 (TTAB 1999) (finding DOC in DOC-CONTROL would refer to the “documents” managed by applicant’s software rather than the term “doctor” shown in a dictionary definition); In re Digital Research Inc. , 4 USPQ2d 1242, 1243-44 (TTAB 1987) (finding CONCURRENT PC-DOS and CONCURRENT DOS merely descriptive of “computer programs recorded on disk” where the relevant trade used the denomination “concurrent” as a descriptor of a particular type of operating system).
Please note that “whether consumers could guess what the product [or service] is from consideration of the mark alone is not the test.” In re Am. Greetings Corp., 226 USPQ 365, 366 (TTAB 1985). The question is not whether someone presented only with the mark could guess what the goods and/or services are, but “whether someone who knows what the goods and [/or] services are will understand the mark to convey information about them.” DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1254, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Tower Tech, Inc., 64 USPQ2d 1314, 1316-17 (TTAB 2002)); In re Franklin Cnty. Historical Soc’y, 104 USPQ2d 1085, 1087 (TTAB 2012).
The applicant has argued that there are “a variety of ways RECEPTOR is used in a variety of fields,” and includes a dictionary definition (“noun; biology; a nerve ending that reacts to a change, such as heat or cold in the body by sending a message to the central nervous system”), not supported by extrinsic evidence, that is essentially the same as one provided by the examining attorney in support of the refusal (see below). The applicant’s additional definition further emphasizes the direct relationship between the term “receptor” and its use in the applicant’s field of life sciences. Further, even were the applicant’s definition to be distinct as to use in a field other than that of the applicant, as noted above, descriptiveness is considered in relation to the relevant goods and/or services. DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1254, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “That a term may have other meanings in different contexts is not controlling.” In re Franklin Cnty. Historical Soc’y, 104 USPQ2d 1085, 1087 (TTAB 2012) (citing In re Bright-Crest, Ltd., 204 USPQ 591, 593 (TTAB 1979)); TMEP §1209.03(e).
Along with the applicant’s definition, the previously provided dictionary definitions of “receptor” (“a nerve ending that senses changes in light, temperature, pressure, etc., and causes the body to react in a particular way; a cell or group of cells that receives stimuli; a chemical group or molecule (as a protein) on the cell surface or in the cell interior that has an affinity for a specific chemical group, molecule, or virus; a cellular entity (as a beta-receptor or alpha- receptor) that is a postulated intermediary between a chemical agent (as a neurohormone) acting on nervous tissue and the physiological or pharmacological response,” Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary) and “life sciences” (“a branch of science (as biology, medicine, and sometimes anthropology or sociology) that deals with living organisms and life processes,” Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary), and the additional online usage examples also provided previously, demonstrate that the term “receptor” is commonly used to reference goods and services in the medical, scientific and pharmaceutical industries and fields to refer to types of cells that are the subject of the goods or services. Please note that additional examples of use of the term “receptor” in the medical and scientific research fields are attached.
The wording “life sciences” merely indicates the industry/field in which the applicant operates, making this wording descriptive of applicant as the source of relevant goods and services. The applicant’s identification of services indicates that it is providing scientific, medical and pharmaceutical goods and services that may be understood to act on the types of cells known as receptors.
The registrability of a mark created by combining only descriptive words depends on whether a new and different commercial impression is created, and/or the mark created imparts an incongruous meaning as used in connection with the services. TMEP §1209.03(d); e.g., In re Copytele, Inc., 31 USPQ2d 1540, 1542 (TTAB 1994); In re Associated Theatre Clubs, 9 USPQ2d at 1662.
Where, as in this case, the commercial impression created by the combination of the descriptive terms is one that is immediately understandable as descriptive of the goods and services, and there is no incongruity in the meaning within the relevant context, the mark is merely descriptive, and the refusal to register is now made FINAL.
|
|
