In the rare situation where the identification is indefinite, and there appear to be no goods/services that are within the scope of the identification as presently worded that are properly classified in the indicated class, the examining attorney must nevertheless require the applicant to submit an acceptably definite identification. To be acceptable, any submitted amendment must be within the scope of the wording of the original goods/services.

The examining attorney should explain that they are unable to suggest substitute wording. The examining attorney may offer the applicant the option of deleting the unacceptable language from the application, but must not issue a requirement for the applicant to do so.

Examples:

1. The services are identified as "food services" in Class 36. The identification is too broad to be acceptable, yet does not encompass any services that currently would be properly classified in Class 36, as restaurant services and other similar food and beverage services are in Class 43. The examining attorney need not make any suggestions as to acceptable wording, but must require the applicant to amend the recitation within the scope of services properly classified in Class 36 in accordance with the current edition of the Nice Agreement, and notify the Administrator of the serial number.
2. The goods are identified as "engine pumps" in Class 12. The identification is too broad to be acceptable, yet does not encompass any goods that currently would be properly classified in Class 12, as water and oil pumps for land vehicle engines are in Class 7. The examining attorney need not make any suggestions as to acceptable wording, but must require the applicant to amend the identification within the scope of goods properly classified in Class 12 in accordance with the current edition of the Nice Agreement, and notify the Administrator of the serial number.

If it appears that there is an error in classification, the examining attorney may suggest the applicant contact the IB to request correction of or a limitation to the international registration. The USPTO will not suspend prosecution of the application unless the applicant requests suspension in a timely response to an Office action and supports the request with a copy of the request for correction or request to record a limitation filed with the IB. See TMEP §716.02(g). The applicant may also appeal the final identification requirement to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board or petition the Director under 37 C.F.R. §2.146 to review the requirement, if permitted by 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b)(2). See TMEP §1501.01 regarding appealable matter and §1704 regarding petitionable subject matter.