Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. htips://estta.uspto.gov
`
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`Filing date:
`
`ESTTA1523017
`03/09/2026
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Ex Parte Appeal -
`
`97772966
`
`Serial No.
`Appellant Silver & Silver, P.A.
`Applied for mark SILVER INJURY LAW WWW_.SILVERINJURYLAW.COM
`Correspondence DAVID P. LHOTA
`address LHOTA & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
`500 EAST BROWARD BOULEVARD
`SUITE 1710
`FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33394
`UNITED STATES
`Primary email: david.lhota@iplawyersusa.com
`Secondary email(s): dplhota@comcast.net
`954-848-2928
`Submission Appeal brief
`Attachments 160431702SILAppealBriefFiled.pdf(264770 bytes )
`
`Exhibit A.SilverInjuryLawWebPages.pdf(837044 bytes )
`Exhibit B.SilverLawGroupWebPages.pdf(1439169 bytes )
`
`Appealed class
`
`Class 045. First Use: None First Use In Commerce: None
`
`All goods and services in the class are appealed, namely: Providing legal ser-
`vices in the field of personal injury, car accidents, motorcycle accidents, truck
`accidents, wrongful death, bicycle accidents, boating accidents, criminal de-
`fense, DUI, injuries to children, dog bites, premises liability, slip and fall, work-
`place accidents, medical malpractice, catastrophic injuries, product liability
`
`Filer's name David P. Lhota
`Filer's emalil david.lhota@iplawyersusa.com
`Signature /David P. Lhota/
`
`Date
`
`03/09/2026
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Proceeding 97772966
`
`Applicant Silver & Silver, P.A.
`
`Applied for Mark | SILVER INJURY LAW WWW.SILVERINJURYLAW.COM
`Design Mark
`
`Correspondence | DAVID P. LHOTA
`
`Address LHOTA & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
`500 EAST BROWARD BLVD.
`SUITE 900
`FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33394
`
`Submission Appeal Brief
`
`Attachments Appeal Brief.pdf
`Exhibit A.pdf
`Exhibit B.pdf
`
`Filer’s Name
`
`David P. Lhota
`
`Filer’s Email
`
`david.lhota@iplawyersusa.com
`
`Signature
`
`/David P. Lhota/
`
`Date
`
`03/08/2026
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Serial No. 97772966
`
`Mark: SILVER INJURY LAW WWW.SILVERINJURYLAW.COM
`Design Mark
`
`Applicant: Silver & Silver, P.A.
`
`Examining Attorney: Jared M. Mason
`
`Attorney File No.: 16043.1702
`
`Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
`P.O. Box 1451
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1451
`
`EX PARTE APPEAL
`APPLICANT’S APPEAL BRIEF
`
`Applicant/Appellant submits this Appeal Brief in response to the Final Office
`action mailed May 14, 2025, and further to the TEAS Request for Reconsideration and
`Notice of Appeal filed November 14, 2025. Appellant requests consideration of this appeal
`
`by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INDEX OF CITATIONS ...t oo, 4
`PROSECUTION HISTORY ......oveeiiee oo, 5
`ARGUMENT ...ttt oo, 5
`SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL.......ovieiiitee oo 5
`I. THE STANDARD FOR EXAMINING LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION.............. 5
`1. NO LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION WITH CITED REGISTRATION................ 6
`
`A. Likelihood of Consumer Confusion Because the Marks are Dissimilar in Their
`Entireties as to Appearance, Sounds, Connotations and Commercial Impression....9
`
`B. Likelihood of Confusion Because of the Dissimilarity of Services in Which the
`
`Marks are USed. ... .....oiiniiii i 13
`C. Consumers Of Law Firms and Legal Counsel Are Sophisticated..................... 14
`III. CONCLUSION.. .. .ttt e 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`INDEX OF CITATIONS
`
`Cases:
`
`In re E.I. DuPont du Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 U.S.P.Q. 563
`
`(Gl P AL 1073 5,89
`Interstate Brands Corporation v. Celestrial Seasonings, Inc., 196 U.S.P.Q. 321 (TTAB
`1977) aff’'d 151 (C.C.P.A. 1979) .. 6
`HMH Publishing Co. v. Brincat, 183 U.S.P.Q. 141, 144 (9" Cir. 1974).................. 7
`
`Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Maier Brewing Co., 136 U.S.P.Q. 508, 517 (9" Cir.),
`cert. denied, 374 U.S. 380,37 U.S.P.Q. 913 (1963)...uevuiiiiiiiniiiiiieeiieeinennnnn, 7
`
`J.B. Williams Co. v. Le Conte Cosmetics, Inc., 186 U.S.P.Q. 317, 319 (9" Cir. 1975)....7
`
`Dreamworks Production Group, Inc. v. SKG Studio, 142 F.3d 1127, 1129
`
`(90 CE. 1998). ..o, 8
`FBIv. Societe: “M. Bril & Co.,” 172 USPQ 310 (T.T.AB. 1971)...ccooiiiiiiiii. 8
`Signetics Corp. v. Sigona, 212 U.S.P.Q. 318,320 (T.T.A.B. 1981)......ccceviiiiiiiia.n. 8
`
`In Kellogg Co. v. Pack’em Enterprises, Inc., -- F.2d --, 21 U.S.P.Q.2d 1142
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1000 )., 9
`In re National Novice Hockey League, Inc., 222 USPQ 638, 640 (TTAB 1984)......... 10
`In Re National Data Corporation, 753 F.2d 1056, 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1985)............... 10
`In Re Shell Oil Company, 992 F.2d 1204, 1206 (Fed. Cir. 1993)........coviiveinnn.... 10
`In re Best Products, Co., Inc. 231 USPQ 988 (TTAB 1986).........cvvvvvrvnnnn.n. 10,11
`Old Tyme Food, Inc. v. Roudy’s Inc., 961 F.2d 200, 203 (Fed. Cir. 1992)............... 10
`Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Elect. Corp.,287 F.2d 492 (2d Cir. 1961).................. 14
`Bristol-Myers Squibb, 973 F.2d 1033, 1046 (2d Cir. 1992)......ccviiiiiiiiiiiiinn .. 14
`Elizabeth Taylor Cosmetics, 673 F.Supp. 1238, 1247 (S.D.N.Y. 1987)......ccccoeeen.... 14
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PROSECUTION HISTORY
`
`Applicant filed the above noted application on January 30, 2023. A Non-Final
`Office Action issued on October 24, 2023, and the Response to Office Action was filed
`January 26, 2024. A Final Office Action reissued on May 14, 2025, and the Request for
`Reconsideration After Final Office Action was filed on November 14, 2025. Request for
`Reconsideration was Denied on December 5. 2025.
`ARGUMENT
`
`SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL
`
`Applicant hereby respectfully submits that the Examining Attorney’s position is
`not consistent with the principles of trademark law and Applicant therefore requests that
`the refusal be withdrawn for the following reasons:
`
`1. Applicant’s mark and Registrant’s mark differ in appearance, sound,
`connotation and commercial impression.
`
`2. The dissimilarity of the services in which the respective marks are used.
`
`3. The dissimilarity of trade channels.
`
`I THE STANDARD FOR EXAMINING LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
`
`Likelihood of confusion must be examined on a case-by-case basis and through the
`application of the factors set forth in /n re E.I. DuPont du Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357,
`177 U.S.P.Q. 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973). These factors are:
`
`(1) The similarity of the marks in appearance, sound, connotation and commercial
`impression;
`(2) The similarity of the goods or services in which the marks are used;
`
`(3) The similarity of trade channels;
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(4) The conditions under which consumers encounter the goods or services and the
`mark;
`
`(5) The strength of the prior user’s mark;
`
`(6) The number of similar marks in use;
`
`(7) Any actual confusion;
`
`(8) The length of time of any concurrent use without actual confusion;
`
`(9) The variety of goods in which the mark is used;
`
`(10) Any market interface or relationship between the senior and junior users of the
`mark;
`
`(11) The extent to which Applicant has a right to exclude others from the use of its
`mark on goods or services;
`
`(12) The extent of the potential for confusion; and
`
`(13) Any other probative facts relating to the use of the marks.
`
`When performing a Section 2(d) analysis, all the facts and circumstances bearing
`on the question of likelihood of confusion mut be considered. [Interstate Brands
`Corporation v. Celestrial Seasonings, Inc., 196 U.S.P.Q. 321 (TTAB 1977) aff’d 151
`(C.C.P.A. 1979). Applicant respectfully submits that, if the focus is properly placed on the
`relevant facts, the differences in the marks and legal services, the examiner should conclude
`that there is no likelihood of confusion.
`
`II. NO LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION WITH CITED REGISTRATION
`
`The Examining Attorney has refused registration of Applicant’s SILVER INJURY
`LAW WWW.SILVERINJURYLAW.COM Design Mark, U.S. Ser. No. 97772966
`
`(“Applicant’s Mark™) in connection with “providing legal services in the field of personal
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`injury, car accidents, motorcycle accidents, truck accidents, wrongful death, bicycle
`accidents, boating accidents, criminal defense, DUI, injuries to children, dog bites,
`premises liability, slip and fall, workplace accidents, medical malpractice, catastrophic
`injuries, product liability” (“Applicant’s Personal Injury Legal Services”) on the grounds
`that Applicant’s Mark is likely to be confused with the registered mark for the SILVER
`LAW GROUP Mark, U.S. Registration No. 4364147 (“Cited Registration”) for “legal
`services” in securities fraud, financial fraud and investment fraud litigation (“Securities,
`Financial and Investment Fraud Legal Services”) as evidenced by their Specimens of Use
`on file in the Trademark Office. Applicant’s Mark for Applicant’s Personal Injury Legal
`Services is completely different in appearance, sound, connotation and commercial
`impression, legal services provided and trade channels from the Cited Registration which
`is used in connection with Securities, Financial and Investment Fraud Legal Services.
`Applicant submits the following arguments and evidence support its position that there is
`no likelihood of confusion between Applicant’s Mark and the Cited Registration.
`Applicant respectfully submits that there is no potential for confusion between
`Applicant’s Mark and the Cited Registration as the likelihood of confusion requires that
`confusion be probable and not simply possible. See, HMH Publishing Co. v. Brincat, 183
`U.S.P.Q. 141, 144 (9 Cir. 1974); Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Maier Brewing Co., 136
`U.S.P.Q. 508, 517 (9" Cir.), cert. denied, 374 U.S. 380, 37 U.S.P.Q. 913 (1963); J.B.
`Williams Co. v. Le Conte Cosmetics, Inc., 186 U.S.P.Q. 317, 319 (9" Cir. 1975).
`Additionally, “[t]he test for likelihood of confusion is whether a ‘reasonably prudent
`
`consumer’ in the marketplace is likely to be confused as to the origin of the goods or
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`services bearing one of the marks.” Dreamworks Production Group, Inc. v. SKG Studio,
`142 F.3d 1127, 1129 (9™ Cir. 1998).
`
`To determine if there is a likelihood of confusion , “[t]he issue is not whether the
`respective marks themselves, or the goods or services offered under the marks, are likely
`to be confused but, rather, whether there is a likelihood of confusion as to the source or
`sponsorship of the goods or services because of he marks used thereon.” TMEP § 1207.01
`(Jan. 2015). Thus, even in instances where the services at issue are similar or identical, a
`likelihood of confusion will only be found if the relevant purchasing public would
`mistakenly believe that the applicant’s and registrant’s services originate from the same
`source. See, FBIv. Societe: “M. Bril & Co.,” 172 USPQ 310 (T.T.A.B. 1971). Moreover,
`for a likelihood of confusion to exist, consumer confusion as to the source of the applicable
`goods or services must be likely, not simply possible. See, Signetics Corp. v. Sigona, 212
`U.S.P.Q. 318, 320 (T.T.A.B. 1981).
`
`The question of likelihood of confusion between marks is “not related to the nature
`of the mark but to the effects ‘when applied to the goods [or services] of the applicant.’
`The only relevant application is made in the marketplace. The words ‘when applied’ do
`not refer to a mental exercise, but to all of the known circumstances surrounding use of a
`mark.” In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1360-61 (C.C.P.A. 1973).
`In determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion, courts look to many factors, e.g.,
`the similarity or dissimilarity of the marks in their entireties as to appearance, sounds,
`connotation and commercial impression and the conditions under which buyers to whom
`
`sales are made, i.e., “impulse” vs “careful sophisticated purchase,” etc. /d. No single factor
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`is dispositive in all cases and “each [factor] may from case to case play a dominant role.”
`Id. at 1357.
`
`Here, application of the most relevant du Pont factors demonstrates that there is no
`likelihood of confusion between the Applicant’s Mark and the Cited Registration because
`(A) the dissimilarity of the Applicant’s Mark and the Cited Registration in their entireties
`as to appearance, sounds, connotation and commercial impression; (B) the dissimilarity of
`the legal services (personal injury vs securities and investment fraud) and (C) the
`dissimilarity of trade channels (victims of personal injury and financial fraud are simply
`not looking for the same type of law firms).
`
`A. No Likelihood of Consumer Confusion Because the Marks are Dissimilar
`
`in Their Entireties as to Appearance, Sounds, Connotations and
`Commercial Impression.
`
`Applicant’s Mark differs in appearance, sound, connotation and commercial
`impression when compared to the Cited Registration and is used in connection with
`completely different and unrelated legal services such that they do not reach out to or attract
`the same or same type of potential clients. The factors that are relevant to a determination
`of likelihood of confusion are set forth in /n re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d
`1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973), wherein the two most significant factors relied upon are the
`similarity or dissimilarity of the marks in their entireties as to appearance, sound,
`connotation and commercial impression and the similarity of the goods and channels of
`trade. The Federal Circuit has held that where the marks at issue are dissimilar, the first
`Du Pont factor may be dispositive of the likelihood of confusion issue. In Kellogg Co. v.
`Pack’em Enterprises, Inc., -- F.2d -- , 21 U.S.P.Q.2d 1142 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (held: TTAB
`
`correctly granted summary judgment that there is no likelihood of confusion between
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FROOT LOOPS and FROOTEE ICE). In ex parte examination, the issue of likelihood of
`confusion typically revolves around the similarity or dissimilarity of the marks and
`relatedness of the goods or services. See, TMEP 1207.01. The other Du Pont factors may
`be considered only if relevant evidence is contained in the record. See, In re National
`Novice Hockey League, Inc., 222 USPQ 638, 640 (TTAB 1984). Accordingly, differences
`in appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression between marks are
`sufficient to support a finding of no likelihood of confusion especially when used in
`connection with different services.
`
`The basic principle in determining confusion between marks is that marks must be
`compared in their entireties. It follows from that principle that likelihood of confusion
`cannot be predicated on dissection of a mark, that is, on only part of a mark. /n Re National
`Data Corporation, 753 F.2d 1056, 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Applicant’s mark must be
`considered in the way in which it is perceived by the relevant public and not considered
`after hyper-technical dissection. In Re Shell Oil Company, 992 F.2d 1204, 1206 (Fed. Cir.
`1993) (The marks must be considered in the way in which they are perceived by the
`relevant public); See, also In re Best Products, Co., Inc. 231 USPQ 988 (TTAB 1986)
`(BEST JEWELRY and design for retail jewelry store services held not likely to be
`confused with JEWELERS BEST for jewelry). Furthermore, phonetic similarity alone is
`insufficient to establish likelihood of confusion. See, Old Tyme Food, Inc. v. Roudy’s Inc.,
`961 F.2d 200, 203 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
`
`The Examining Attorney has refused registration based on a likelihood of confusion
`stating that Applicant’s Mark is likely to be confused with the Cited Registration. In the
`
`Office Action, the differences in the marks have not been given proper consideration and
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`weight. It is well established that marks must be compared in their entireties. The office
`action fails to attribute proper weight to the distinct differences in appearance and sound,
`as well as the commercial impression and message conveyed to consumers or potential
`consumers of Applicant’s services offered under Applicant’s Mark and the Cited
`Registration. The appearance, sound, sight, and commercial impression of Applicant’s
`Mark, when viewed in its entirety (giving fair weight to the significant contributions of its
`component parts), are dissimilar in appearance, sight, and commercial impression when
`compared to the Cited Registration. The mere fact that the marks share the common words
`“SILVER” and “LAW” does not automatically result in a likelihood of confusion, as the
`marks must be viewed in their entirety. While Applicant’s mark includes the words
`“SILVER” and “LAW? it also includes the term “INJURY” between “Silver” and “Law”
`
`as well as the domain name www.SilverlnjuryLaw.com and does not include the term
`
`“GROUP”. The most relevant and operative difference in the marks is the term “INJURY”
`in Applicant’s Mark wherein anyone looking for a law firm or attorney for a securities or
`fraud litigation or arbitration matter would intuitively if not instantly know that Applicant
`does not provide these financial related legal services and therefore would not think or be
`confused that Applicant’s law firm is related to or affiliated with the Cited Registration or
`Silver Law Group. See, In re Best Products, Co., Inc. 231 USPQ 988 (TTAB 1986)
`(BEST JEWELRY and design for retail jewelry store services held not likely to be
`confused with JEWELERS BEST for jewelry).
`
`In addition to Applicant’s Mark including profoundly different and distinguishing
`
`terms, Applicant’s Mark comprises a design mark. Applicant’s Mark as follows:
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[ L',h SILVER INJURY Law
`
`includes the scales of justice in white in a red box and the words SILVER INJURY LAW
`in white over a white line and www.SilverInjuryLaw.com in white letters below the white
`line which are in a white outlined box over a black background. See, Exhibit A. Applicant’s
`Mark has a distinct look and feel which identifies and differentiates if from other law firms,
`including the Cited Registration. Meanwhile, a review of the website for the Cited
`Registration, as shown in Exhibit B, and specimens filed in the Trademark Office to obtain
`the Cited Registration shows that it has its own unique design and look, apart from the
`
`words, as follows:
`
`§SILVER
`
`LAW GROUP
`While the Cited Registration is registered as a word mark its specimens of use on file in
`the U.S. Trademark Office show it’s use as the above design mark in connection strictly
`with securities and investment fraud. Consumers will readily and instantly see when
`visiting the Cited Registration and Applicant’s Mark websites, which anyone looking for
`an attorney or law firm would do, and immediately know that they are two different and
`distinct law firms practicing in completely different and unrelated areas of law as evidenced
`by Applicant’s Mark, the Cited Registration, and Exhibits A and B. Accordingly,
`
`Applicant’s Mark is clearly different in appearance, sound, connotation and commercial
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`impression from and certainly not confusingly similar to the Cited Registration such that
`consumers are not likely to be confused.
`
`B. No Likelihood of Confusion Because of the Dissimilarity of Services in
`Which the Marks are Used.
`
`Applicant respectively submits that proper consideration was not given to the
`differences in services offered under Applicant’s Mark and the Cited Registration.
`Applicant’s Mark is used in connection with “providing legal services in the field
`of personal injury, car accidents, motorcycle accidents, truck accidents, wrongful death,
`bicycle accidents, boating accidents, criminal defense, DUI, injuries to children, dog bites,
`premises liability, slip and fall, workplace accidents, medical malpractice, catastrophic
`injuries, product liability.” See, Exhibit A. That is, the legal services offered under
`Applicant’s Mark are strictly for personal injury including wrongful death and product
`liability as shown in Exhibit A. In fact, Applicant’s Mark indicates and connotes a law firm
`that focuses on and solely provides legal services for personal injury by virtue of the terms
`“Injury Law” and domain name which is supported by its website at
`
`www.silverinjurylaw.com and Exhibit A. Meanwhile, the Cited Registration is registered
`
`in connection with “legal services” but are limited to securities, investment and financial
`fraud arbitration and litigation legal matters as shown in Exhibit B, the specimens of use
`filed by registrant in the U.S. Trademark Office and advertisement on the Cited
`Registration website. A review of their respective websites shown at Exhibit A and Exhibit
`B instantly eliminates, avoids or obviates any likelihood of confusion or potential for
`likelihood of confusion.
`
`Moreover, it’s safe to assume that potential clients looking for legal representation
`
`are sophisticated consumers and do not hire a lawyer or law firm merely by a review of
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`their name or trademarks, but only after thoroughly reviewing and investigating the lawyer,
`law firm and legal services and expertise and receiving initial consultations. The
`Applicant’s Mark and Cited Registration identify law firms that simply do not reach out to
`or attract the same, similar or same type of clients. They operate in completely different
`and unrelated legal arenas and spheres. Accordingly, the completely different and
`unrelated legal services offered under Applicant’s Mark and the Cited Registration is
`another reason Applicant respectfully submits that registration of the Applicant’s Mark is
`not likely to cause confusion, mistake or deceive as to the source of legal services when
`compared to the Cited Registration. Applicant respectfully traverses this rejection and
`requests reconsideration.
`
`C. Consumers Of Law Firms and Legal Counsel Are Sophisticated.
`
`Applicant respectively submits that proper consideration was not given to the
`sophisticated consumer test. The consumers looking for legal representation exercise a
`high level or degree of care, investigation and consideration when selecting a law firm or
`lawyer. Courts have found that sophisticated buyers, such as those looking for expertise
`or interest in a specific area, are less likely to be confused by similarities in marks.
`Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Elect. Corp., 287 F.2d 492 (2d Cir. 1961). The more
`sophisticated the ordinary purchaser of a product or service is, the less likely it is that the
`use of similar marks or trade dress will lead to confusion. Bristol-Myers Squibb, 973 F.2d
`1033, 1046 (2d Cir. 1992). While generalizations about broad groups of people are always
`open to dispute, it has been acknowledged and indisputable that people looking to hire and
`retain a law firm exercise a much higher degree of care and investigation than consumers
`
`of ordinary products or services. Elizabeth Taylor Cosmetics, 673 F.Supp. 1238, 1247
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(S.D.N.Y. 1987). Anyone looking for a law firm or attorney has a specific legal need and
`researches those firms and attorneys that offer a particular type of legal service and spend
`great time and effort in investigating and finding a law firm or lawyer that meets their
`specific legal need. A person injured in an accident or because of another’s negligence
`looks for a personal injury attorney such as a law firm operating under the Applicant’s
`Mark. Someone that has suffered a financial loss due to investment, financial or securities
`fraud looks to retain a law firm or attorney that specializes in investment, financial and
`securities fraud legal matters such as a law firm operating under the Cited Registration. No
`such person would be confused by two law firms specializing in completely different types
`of law simply because they share one common name and term, such as “Silver” and “Law.”
`Many law firms include a same last name, such as “Smith”, and the term “Law”, such that
`two law firms having one such name and term in common does not necessarily result in
`confusion or likelihood of confusion especially when the law firms practice completely
`different and unrelated areas of law and never results in confusion once the firms are
`investigated. Given the degree of care, investigation and discretion exercised when looking
`to retain a law firm for a specific legal need, potential clients or consumers for legal
`services are not likely to be confused by marks that are different in their entirety even
`though they have a similar term such as those appearing in Applicant’s Mark and the Cited
`Registration. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that registration of the
`Applicant’s Mark is not likely to cause confusion, mistake or deceive as to the source of
`its personal injury legal services when compared to the Cited Registration. Applicant
`
`respectfully traverses this rejection and requests reconsideration.
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`Based on the foregoing, Applicant respectfully submits that there is no likelihood
`
`of confusion between Applicant’s Mark and the Cited Registration such that the examining
`
`attorney’s final rejection should be reversed.
`
`Date: March 9, 2026
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /David P. Lhota/s
`
`16
`
`David P. Lhota
`
`Attorney for Applicant
`
`Lhota & Associates, P.A.
`
`500 East Broward Boulevard
`
`Suite 900
`
`Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33394
`
`Tel: (954) 848-2928
`
`Fax: (954) 848-2801
`Email: david.lhota@iplawyersusa.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`v njury Law - Since x =+ - o X
`& O Micosoft Office Ho.. & Sign-in |USPTO #5 About ICPR4 - Stre... ) United States Patent MX™ Merchant Paradise Bank > Home B Access My Account.. B) Dell @ Pem Roof To G
`
`CAR ACGIDENT LAWYERS
`
`About Us Attorneys Practice Areas Injuries Accident Types Monthly Newsletter Blog (561) 279-3911 Get Help Now
`
`Silver Injury Law
`
`Car Accident Lawyers Near You
`
`< CLICK HERE TO CONTACT US
`
`How can we help you?
`
`AVAILABLE 24/7
`- - A g 53 AM
`8 P Type heretosearch " o -~ 3 & E e e 7 Gl LTl ;;9,12025 B
`
`v PR Ssilverinjury Law - Since 1993 -0 x <= - o X
`
`517( SiLvER INJURY LAwW
`
`CAR ACCIDENT LAWYERS
`
`About Us Attorneys Practice Areas Injuries Accident Types Monthly Newsletter Blog (561) 279-3911 Get Help Now
`
`Auto Accident
`Attorneys
`
`Motorcycle Accident
`Attorneys
`
`® Truck Accident ®
`1 V —r l u r aw
`Wrongful Death
`Pedestrian Accidents
`
`Car Acc: swesem yers Near You
`
`Personal injury
`
`Boating Accidents
`2
`€ CLICKH Child Injury
`
`Dog Bite
`
`Premises Liability
`
`Slip And Fall How can we help you?
`
`Workplace Accident
`p: ¥ Injury AVAILABLE 24/7
`
`8 O Type heretosearch R D - 3 3 L O @& @ HistoricMomentsan.. A & & W @ ;;Ez:zt B
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v B8 Avout Us - Silver Injury Law x 4+
`
`& © Microsoft Office Ho
`
`Stre United States MX™ Merchant
`
`CAR ACGIDENT LAWYERS
`
`Attorneys Practice Areas Injuries Accident Types Monthly Newsletter Blog (561) 279-3911 Get Help Now
`
`About Silver Injury Law
`
`Click Here for a Free Case Review
`
`How can we help you? b
`
`£ Silver Injury Law | Commercial
`Share (2
`
`= . . ~ R 11:56 AM
`& O Type hereto search " o - 3 3 £ 0 ; O B0F Partlysunny A O & W ) . B
`v B Avout Us - Sitver Injury Law x '+ - o X
`¢« O M httg verinjurylal r-firm,
`
`@ & Micosoft Office Ho Q Sign-in |USPTO %5 About ICPR 4
`
`Bank > ¥
`
`EA Access
`
`About Us Attorneys
`
`ident Types Monthly Newsletter Blog
`
`Since 1993. people throughout South Florida have been turning to the law firm of Silver Injury
`Law for guidance during some of the most difficult times of their lives. With a primary focus
`on personal injury cases, our attorneys have successfully represented victims in a broad
`range of cases. including auto accidents, slip-and-fall injuries and wrongful death claims,
`among others.
`
`Our firm was founded on the principles of providing outstanding service to every client and an unwavering commitment to obtaining a positive
`result in every case. We know that no two cases are alike and that no single approach will work for every client. When you choose Silver Injury
`Law we will take the time to gain a complete understanding of your case and build a customized solution designed specifically to
`accommodate your unique needs
`
`Representing Clients in Boca Raton, Boynton
`Beach, Wellington and Throughout South Florida
`
`How can we help you?
`
`\We ninderstand how averwhelmina it can be tn face comnlex leaal issiies in the aftermath of a seriniis accident \We will take the hurden of the
`
`8 O Typeheretos T 7' - ‘ & a e ° 7 7] o\ 80°F Partlysunny A~ O & w 0 e B
`
`3/9/2026
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v B Avout Us - Sitver Injury Law x '+ V%
`
`4-Swe. Q United States
`
`About Us Attorneys ctice Areas
`
`Blog (561) 279-3911 Get Help Now
`
`We understand how overwhelming it can be to face complex legal issues in the aftermath of a serious accident. We will take the burden of the
`legal issues off your shoulders so you can focus on your recovery. We will deal directly with the insurance company representatives and work to
`negotiate a favorable settlement on your behalf. If the insurance company refuses to negotiate in good faith, we will not hesitate to take your
`case to court
`
`We pride ourselves on the level of service we provide to each client. We take a team approach to every case in pursuit of the most beneficial
`possible outcome. We level the playing field between injury victims and insurance companies, We are your advocate, and you can count on us
`to do everything possible to protect your interests,
`
`Talk To One Of Our Lawyers About Your Legal Needs
`
`To schedule a free initial consultation about your personal injury claim, contact our principal office in Boca Raton. You can reach us by phone
`
`at 5¢
`
`279-3911 or email-us 24/7. We are also available for consultations in Boynton Beach
`
`All personal injury cases are accepted on a contingency fee basis. You will not pay attorney fees unless we obtain compensation for you
`
`How can we help you? e
`
`@
`o
`- 0 . . . Vs e 11:59 AM
`@ O Type here to searct " o - 3 3 £ 0 3 A BOF Partlysunny A B & w oD o B
`v PR Ssilverinjury Law - Since 1993 -0 x <= - o X
`&« = @ update - D
`
`tent MX™ Merchant Paradise Bank > Home [E} Access My Account Flpel @F
`
`nit Performance.
`
`CAR ACCIDENT LAWYERS
`
`About Us Attorneys Practice Areas Injuries Accident Types Monthly Newsletter Blog (561) 279-3911 Get Help Now
`
`Back Injuries
`
`Brain And Spinal Cord
`Injury
`
`® Burn Injury
`Silver 1-—> 'y Law
`Car Accident Lz :::::s ar You
`
`Orthopedic Injury
`
`Spinal Cord Injury
`
`4 CLICK HERE TO CONTA(Q
`
`Whiplash Injury
`
`How can we help you?
`
`dent-in AVAILABLE 24/7
`& O Typeheretos T 2 -~ 3 & ! e Q @# AT W SO R
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v Injury Law - Since x 4+ - o X
`& C @ O hp o
`© 6 Micosoft Office Ho 1 ICPR 4 - Stre. United States MX™ Merchant
`
`CAR ACGIDENT LAWYERS
`
`About Us Attorneys Practice Areas Injuries Accident Types Monthly Newsletter Blog (561) 279-3911 Get Help Now
`
`Commercial Vehicle
`Accident
`
`Drunk Driving
`Accidents
`
`Fatal Motor Vehicle
`
`Silver Inj =~ Law
`
`Lyft Accident
`
`Car Accident Lawye revensccens
`
`Rollover Accidents
`
`T-Bone Accidents
`
`< CLICK HERE TO CONTACT US
`
`Texting And Driving
`Accidents
`
`Uber Accident Lawyer
`
`How can we help you?
`
`f g AVAILABLE 24/7
`8 O Type hereto search 2 oD =~ [ -] G e ° 3 o\ 80°F Partlysunny A~ O & w d) i B
`
`3/9/2026
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT B
`
`v $ Securities Arbitration Lawyer [Stc X ==
`
`‘www silverlaw.c
`
`2 © Microsoft Office Ho. Q sign-in |
`
`MX™ Merchant N Paradise Bank > Home [ Access My Account £ petl
`
`A National Securities Arbitration & Investment Fraud Law
`
`Contact Us for A Free Consultation
`lL[ATN\/C'REO[L}’ (800) 975-4345
`
`)
`9
`Home Profile Securities Arbitration Investment Fraud Litigation Verdicts & Settlements Media & News Blogs Espafol e&ielagity
`
`Securities &
`Investment Fraud
`Attorneys
`
`Our lawyers work with investors
`to recover losses caused by
`securities and investment fraud or
`stockbroker misconduct.
`
`& START CHAT
`
`CONTACT US NOW
`
`For a Free Consultation
`
`g oerecosern 4L B S @ LC O W 2 wr vy A 6N w oo 25
`
`v $ Securities Arbitration Lawyer [Stc X ==
`
`& C @ | O httpsy/wwwsilverlaw.com
`
`2 © Microsoft Office Ho. Q sign-in |
`
`Q United States Patent. MX™ Merchant ™ Paradise Bank > Home [ Access My Account.. ) Dell @ Permit Performance... @ Home - Re
`
`» Q Contact Us for A Free Consultation
`3SILVER (800) 975-4345 l
`
`Home Profile Securities Arbitration Investment Fraud Litigation Verdicts & Settlements Media & News Blogs Espafol Je&ielagity
`
`70 44 25 9.1 7.9 1
`
`g
`304
`3] MILLION MILLION MILLION MILLION MILLION MILLION
`b= Recovery for Recovery for Ponzi Recovery Against FINRA Arbitration Securities Securities
`x Investment Fraud Scheme Victims National Award Against Arbitration Award Arbitration Award
`& Brokerage Firm Brokerage Firm Against for Elder Financial
`) Stockbroker Fraud
`@
`Episode 69: Will the phrase 'ESG' .
`Scott Silver interviewed on
`The Investment News Podcast
`=
`D
`
`88 O Type here to search ¥ o -~ 3 & 3 £ ° 5 {0 DanohertobiyMasi. A G & W @ ;;:;/52:;2 B
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v § Securities Arbitration Lawyer | Stc X 4= = o X
`
`& C @ | O https//wwwsilverlaw.com D @ - O
`@ € Microsoft Office Ho.. & Sign-in |USPTO 5 About ICPR4 ~Stre... ) United States Patent.. MX™ Merchant - ™ Paradise Bank > Home [E Access My Account.. ) Dell @ Permit Performance... @ Home - Roof To Go...
`A National
`» S“_VER Contact Us for A Free Consultation
`> VA= (800) 975-4345 l
`
`Home Profile