TMEP 1109.17 Prohibits the withdrawal of a statement of use (in effect, you can’t convert back to a 1(b) application after converting to 1(a)). So far as I can tell, there is no statutory basis for this, and it is inconsistent with the office’s practice of permitting an application originally filed on a 1(a) basis to be converted to a 1(b) application if the specimen submitted with the 1(a) application is rejected by ...more »
The benefit of "Priority Action" has not not been clearly given under TMEP 708.01. Responding to a priority action within 2 months will give priority handling of the response. But this is not explained anywhere under the TMEP.
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."
It would be nice if references to the statutes, regulations and cases that are cited in the TMEP were all active hyperlinks to that underlying material.
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 »
If this is a legitimate basis for refusal, it should not apply in cases where the proper refusal is merely descriptive or generic, which should be stated expressly in the guide. Beyond that, the guide does not provide any guidance on what the distinction is between "incapable" versus "merely descriptive," "generic," "ornamental" or "use as a mark." As noted by others, saying that the matter "merely  imparts information" ...more »
Section 1201.03(a) states (in its title and text) that use by a related party “must” be disclosed in an application. But the Section then proceeds to say that that use by a related party “should” be disclosed in an application under §§1(a) and (b). Is it mandatory or permissive? Either way, since TEAS forms reference use by a related party in the alternative, there may be no need to affirmatively disclose the fact. ...more »
The new grounds for refusing trademarks as merely informational can in practice result in denial of the Supplemental Register for merely descriptive trademarks because by definition such descriptive terms provide information about the goods
This is a test idea. Please treat it as a sandbox for commenting and voting.
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 »
In a post today, the system added a couple of words to the end of my post: the words "just now" were added to the end of a comment on indexing of the TMEP. I experienced a similar occurrence with a post in the past, but thought it was a typo/mistake on my part. But today I double-checked to make sure there were no words at the end of the post before hitting "submit," and there were not; but after pressing submit, the ...more »
The proposed requirement for relaxation of the currently strict rules against registration of gTLDs makes sense. The AIPLA comments that special rules for registration of gTLDs as trademarks or servicemarks are not needed. The proposed Examination Guideline would allow registration of gTLDs upon proof of : (a) prior registration for an identical mark for the same services or goods, (b) proof that consumers would associated ...more »