714.05(d) Submission of Consent Agreement or Assertion of Unity of Control in Response to §2(d) Refusal
Consent Agreement. If an applicant files a consent agreement in response to a nonfinal refusal under §2(d) of the Trademark Act, and the examining attorney finds the consent agreement insufficient to overcome the refusal, the examining attorney should issue a final refusal, assuming the application is otherwise in condition for final refusal.
If an applicant files an executed consent agreement in response to a final refusal under §2(d) of the Trademark Act, and the examining attorney finds the consent agreement insufficient to overcome the refusal, the examining attorney should issue a new final refusal, i.e., an "Examiner’s Subsequent Final Refusal," with a six-month response clause. However, the examining attorney should not issue a subsequent final refusal if the applicant merely states that it is negotiating a consent agreement.
Assertion of Unity of Control. If an applicant asserts unity of control (see TMEP §1201.07) in response to a nonfinal refusal under §2(d), and the examining attorney determines that unity of control has not been established, the examining attorney should issue a final refusal, assuming that the application is otherwise in condition for final refusal.
If an applicant asserts unity of control in response to a final refusal under §2(d), and the examining attorney determines that unity of control has not been established, the examining attorney should issue an "Examiner’s Subsequent Final Refusal," with a six-month response clause.