SEO®

“Marketing services in the field of computers in the nature of providing marketing services for the benefit of others by compiling advertising campaigns, promotional services, and consulting for customers.”

SEARCH ENGINE OPTIMIZATION
“SEO TRADEMARK” 

SEO® VICTORY

USPTO APPLICATION 77171330 FOR THE MARK SEO,
HISTORY OF FILINGS, OPPOSITIONS, AND OTHER INFORMATION.

• Jason Gambert from here forward referred to as “Applicant” applied for a United States Trademark on May 02^nd 2007 for the Mark “SEO” in a class 35 trademark application.
• On the 15^th of August 2007 there was an “Office Action Outgoing” where the reviewing attorney Alyssa L. Palladino in case 77171330 from the USPTO refused the mark for multiple reasons including generic and descriptive reasons.
• On the 19^th of September Applicant amended the application taking out what was causing the alleged problems and made arguments in support of registration.
• Continuing from the 21^st of September on forward to the 26^th of September, Applicant files more filings giving additional responses and “Specimens” to satisfy the reviewing attorney’s requests for the registration of the mark SEO.
• October 1^st the examining attorney “Suspends” the application due to two other prior applications for a “Likelihood of Confusion” issue. Reviewing attorney maintains the other issues of being generic and descriptive.
• January 8^th 2008 another office action outgoing is sent after the disposition of the other two prior pending applications. The reviewing attorney maintains the issues of being generic and descriptive.  Applicant makes two responses to the reviewing attorney on the 9^th and 10^th of January 2008 in support of registration and argues in support of the mark SEO not being generic or descriptive.
• Reviewing attorney on the 14^th of January 2008 concurs with Applicant, but requests a proper “Specimen” according to the rules of the TMEP or Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure. (Applicant wins his arguments and is victorious against the reviewing attorney and the USPTO for the first time.)
• Applicant on the 15^th of January supplies the reviewing attorney an approved “Specimen” according to the rules and makes a response with arguments in support of registration.
• On the 5^th of March 2008 the reviewing attorney and the USPTO provide applicant with the official approval for publication by issuing a “Notice of Publication.”
• News breaks out on the entire internet of the trademark movement by a reporter and attorney Sarah Bird working for SeoMoz.com a few days before the issuance of the trademark on or around April 1^st 2008.
• Out of 2.5 million websites and countless firms and independents in the USA, only a select few file for “Extensions of Time” to file oppositions or actual oppositions.
• Opposition 91185383 Arteworks.biz with Matt Foster files his notice of Opposition on July 23^rd 2008. (Applicant wins against Arteworks.biz “Dismissed with Prejudice” 12/16/2009)
• Opposition 91183449 SeoMoz.com with Sarah Bird file their notice of Opposition on April 9^th 2008. (Applicant wins against SeoMoz.com “Dismissed with Prejudice” 08/27/2009)
• Opposition 91184116 JE Hochman and Associates files their Opposition on May 15^th 2008. (Applicant wins against JE Hochman and Associates “Dismissed with Prejudice” 09/17/2009)
• Opposition 91183740 Rhea Drysdale files her Opposition April 24^th 2008 late.
  Applicant loses to a trivial technicality and the board abandons the trademark “SEO” on 03/11/2010.
• The 22^nd of September 2010 the “Notice of Abandonment” is mailed to Applicant.
• Applicant receives a phone call from the Trademark issuing department from Charles Joiner in late August and starts the investigation of why. After receiving a call from Charles Joiner, Charles checked with the other division “The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board” and they barred him from issuing from the outcome of the late filing of case 91183740/Rhea Drysdale.

 This led Applicant to investigating further into the matter and has found the USPTO in direct violation to Applicants rights, and seen to be grossly negligent against Applicant…

(See Petition to Director filed on January 13^th 2011.)

• A “Request to make special” was filed from Applicant on 07^th of November 2010 requesting to “Reinstate the Trademark Due To an Office Error” by way of trademark law within the 60 days permitted from the “Notice of abandonment” to Applicant.
• An “Acknowledge of receipt” was sent to Applicant from the USPTO giving Applicant 30 days from January 07^th 2011 to file the filing requested and pay the required $100.00USD.
• January 11^th 2011 Ann Linnehan the “Interlocutory Attorney” files a “Boards Order” barring Applicant from filing any more filings. Due to Ann Linnehan and the Boards gross negligence the late filing was permitted and filed. This filing is currently “No Longer Available” and just further demonstrates the USPTO’s damages and occult like cover-ups toward Applicant. It is very clear the Applicant does not need to request permission to file the filing Applicant filed “Petition to the Director” from any interlocutory attorney.
• January 13^th 2011 the “Petition to the Director” was received from Applicant. (Within 30 Days)
• 06^th of April 2011 the “Petition Decision” was made and the Request for Reinstatement was “Denied as Untimely.” 
• August 2012 Jason Gambert obtains 5 agency employees testimonies in support of what the law states, one namely Montia Pressey Givens who sides with the truth and what the law states, admitting USPTO Guilt.
• August 2012 Jason Writes 3 demand letters to the USPTO by way of Montia Givens giving the USPTO one final chance to issue the property by September 17^th, advising her to forward the demands to the Director David Kappos himself for his decision.
• October 17th 2012 Gambert gives notice of complaint and claim to Department of Justice and United States Patent & Trademark Organization
• Currently seeking help with Justice and Issuance of my property I own by law the United States Trademark 77171330 for SEO.
• September 5th 2012 Gambert provides the USPTO Service Process
• September 20th 2012 Gambert reads the involved parties their rights.
• November 7th 2012 Gambert files one final “Request for Revival.”
• December 18th 2012 Revival is Denied The USPTO finds no “Basis.”

It is clear the basis is 1.) The Rule of Law 2.) Federal Statutes 3.) Internal Agency Laws & 4.) The United States Constitution 5th and 14th Amendments.

• Apr. 18, 2013 Request for Reinstatement Received
• SEO Trademark Owner Jason Gambert Notifies Congressional Relations
• 04/18/2013 GAMBERT SERVES THE DEMAND LETTERS
• 06/03/2013 BOARD’S COMMUNICATION NOTES THE “TERMINATION”
• GAMBERT NOTES FEDERAL LAW CONTINUING THE FIGHT 6/5/2013
• THREE MORE U.S. WITNESSES/VICTIMS COME FORWARD 06/12/2013

Every opposition including extensions of time was required to have been time barred by the laws that govern starting at 12:00am April 24^th 2008 in case 77171330 for the mark SEO†…

• Fellow peeps a whole lot has happened since then and now on ALL I.N. | CHECKMATE!

II.I.JI.S.C.I.E.N.C.E.II.I.JI.

II.I.JI.

JI.

I.

.