Trademark Policy Collaboration

Discuss the Format of the TMEP :

• Recent Ideas (6)
• Popular Ideas (6)
• Hot Ideas (0)

• I agree

  Feedback Score

  1

  +1

  -0

  I disagree
  This idea is active.
  Other Discussion Topics? »

  Brackets appearing in g/s identification of newly filed app

  This idea is submitted to request that the USPTO discontinue the practice that causes words enclosed in brackets in an identification of goods in a newly filed TEAS application to be automatically deleted from the application by TEAS. I am aware that brackets traditionally have been, and still are, used to show goods that have been deleted from a registration. But when a new application is filed, the use of this common ...more »

  This idea is submitted to request that the USPTO discontinue the practice that causes words enclosed in brackets in an identification of goods in a newly filed TEAS application to be automatically deleted from the application by TEAS.

  I am aware that brackets traditionally have been, and still are, used to show goods that have been deleted from a registration.

  But when a new application is filed, the use of this common form of punctuation should be accepted. It should not result in the always-unintended consequence of the goods within the brackets being deleted from the new application.

  The TEAS support group replied to an inquiry about this issue in March 2009 as follows: "The form should not support/accept bracketed language in the ID. Brackets actually have a meaning when they appear in descriptions of goods/services when published in the Official Gazette."

  However, this reasoning is not persuasive. The bracketed language in a new application will be examined and corrected by the Examiner prior to publication in the Official Gazette. Foreign applicants in particular are accustomed to using brackets in an identification of goods.

  Thank you for your consideration.

  « less full details »

  2 comments for Idea: Brackets appearing in g/s identification of newly filed app

  Submitted by Allison Strickland Ricketts 4 months ago

• I agree

  Feedback Score

  -1

  +0

  -1

  I disagree
  This idea is active.
  Discuss the Format of the TMEP »

  Protecting Dead Celebrities per 1203.03(a)

  Given the current legal issues regarding the rights to publicity and the rights to privacy and the ability for these rights to continue after death (in certain states and circumstances), it would be extremely helpful for those of us who are charged with protecting the names and images of deceased natural persons, if the miscellaneous statement section was amended to include dead persons as well. This would not require ...more »

  Given the current legal issues regarding the rights to publicity and the rights to privacy and the ability for these rights to continue after death (in certain states and circumstances), it would be extremely helpful for those of us who are charged with protecting the names and images of deceased natural persons, if the miscellaneous statement section was amended to include dead persons as well.

  This would not require any change in the examination procedure but would make it much easier to find potential infringers. This is even more critical when the mark is for an image only. See application number 85077133. Those of you of a certain age would instantly recognize this figure as Jacques Cousteau. Assume that this mark was filed by someone other than Jacques Cousteau’s rights holders. How would the rights holders have found it? What if the examiners in the design search code department didn’t recognize it and didn’t assign design code 02.01.05? Even with the code it is extremely difficult to find. The only statement in the record is "The name(s), portrait(s), and/or signature(s) shown in the mark does not identify a particular living individual."

  Changing the statement to "The name(s), portrait(s), and/or signature(s) shown in the mark does not identify a particular individual, living or dead" would go a long way towards solving this problem.

  « less full details »

  4 comments for Idea: Protecting Dead Celebrities per 1203.03(a)

  Submitted by Miriam Richter 1 year ago

• I agree

  Feedback Score

  1

  +1

  -0

  I disagree
  This idea is active.
  Other Discussion Topics? »

  Color claim and description of mark

  TEAS requires applicants to describe the colors, and where they appear, in a color mark and to describe the features of a design mark. However, TMEP §808.01, as well as 37 C.F.R. §§2.37 and 2.52, do not seem to require providing such information at the time of filing. The Trademark Law Treaty Implementation Act of 1998 eliminated several minimum requirements necessary to receive a filing date in order to make it easier ...more »

  TEAS requires applicants to describe the colors, and where they appear, in a color mark and to describe the features of a design mark. However, TMEP §808.01, as well as 37 C.F.R. §§2.37 and 2.52, do not seem to require providing such information at the time of filing. The Trademark Law Treaty Implementation Act of 1998 eliminated several minimum requirements necessary to receive a filing date in order to make it easier for applicants to obtain filing dates. The color and description requirements arguably violate the TLTIA. Even though paper filing without such information remains available, the majority of applications are processed completely electronically from filing to disposal.

  « less full details »

  5 comments for Idea: Color claim and description of mark

  Submitted by Peter Sloane 1 year ago

• I agree

  Feedback Score

  1

  +1

  -0

  I disagree
  This idea is active.
  Other Discussion Topics? »

  Excusable Non-Use - TMEP 1604.11

  This issue is in the Rules so cannot be addressed just in the TMEP, but here goes. 37 C.F.R. §2.161. requires the following of a declaration of excusable non-use: (2) If the registered mark is not in use in commerce on or in connection with all the goods or services in the registration, set forth the date when use of the mark in commerce stopped and the approximate date when use is expected to resume; and . . ." For ...more »

  This issue is in the Rules so cannot be addressed just in the TMEP, but here goes. 37 C.F.R. §2.161. requires the following of a declaration of excusable non-use:

  (2) If the registered mark is not in use in commerce on or in connection with all the goods or services in the registration, set forth the date when use of the mark in commerce stopped and the approximate date when use is expected to resume; and . . ."

  For Section 44(e) registrations, the mark may never have been in use in the first place, and may never have been used since registration. (And there actually can be valid reasons why the non-use is, nonetheless, excusable.) However, the regulation does not apply only to use-based registrations, so office actions will sometimes issue requiring 44(e) registrants to state the date when the use was discontinued. The regulation should be changed to require the form to state the date when use stopped only in the case of use-based applications; or, at the very least, acknowledge that an exception to this requirement may exist for 44(e) registrations. The same applies to Sec. 66(a) registrations (37 CFR 7.37). Thank you.

  « less full details »

  1 comment for Idea: Excusable Non-Use - TMEP 1604.11

  Submitted by Allison Strickland Ricketts 1 year ago

• I agree

  Feedback Score

  4

  +4

  -0

  I disagree
  This idea is active.
  Discuss the Format of the TMEP »

  Format of the TMEP - Indexing

  I think that indexing in the TMEP could be improved and more cross references added. For instance, if you want to look up "Abandonment" in the index, all you get is "Abandonment of application" and numerous related subtopics. You don't get any references to "Abandonment of mark" or "Abandonment, presumption of."

  3 comments for Idea: Format of the TMEP - Indexing

  Submitted by Karen Cushman 2 years ago

Displaying 1 - 5 of 6 Ideas

• 1
• 2
• Next »