The last bullet point states: • Webpage is not acceptable for goods given the presence of third party goods and marks therefor (e.g., “Cuisinart” and “Polo by Ralph Lauren”). The reason the webpage is not acceptable for goods is not because third party marks appear on the page, but because Macy's is not, in fact, the source of the goods shown. This should be revised to something like "webpage is not acceptable for goods ...more »
Webpage Specimens as Displays Associated With the Goods
The final bullet point reads: • If the proposed mark were “T.Markey Your Clothing Emporium” (as it appears in the upper left corner), the webpage would not be acceptable for goods because of the proximity and association of the other marks with the goods (i.e., “Teeyak” and “Keeping you cozy.”). Why does the "proximity and association of other marks with the goods" preclude the company's name in the upper left-hand corner ...more »
An example with no other issues other than the mark "is not associated with the goods" should be used. Because this specimen also fails with regard to "ordering information" it is not a good example.