Discuss this Discussion Tool

Delete TMEP 1109.17

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 »

Submitted by (@kevingrierson)

Voting

18 votes
18 up votes
0 down votes

Discuss the Format of the TMEP

Format of the TMEP - Add Hyperlinks

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.

Submitted by (@allisonstricklandricketts)

Voting

10 votes
10 up votes
0 down votes

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."

Submitted by (@karencushman)

Voting

6 votes
6 up votes
0 down votes

Discuss this Discussion Tool

Insertion of random text at end of posts

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 »

Submitted by (@allisonstricklandricketts)

Voting

0 votes
0 up votes
0 down votes

Discuss this Discussion Tool

USPTO IdeaScale commenting policy

Please note that this discussion board provides a forum for public suggestions and discussion relating to the TMEP. Although the USPTO moderates this discussion board, the USPTO generally will not respond to the comments. However, the comments will be reviewed and considered by TMEP editorial staff in connection with periodic updates of the TMEP.

Submitted by (@stephenaquila)

Voting

1 vote
1 up votes
0 down votes

Discuss this Discussion Tool

Consistency Initiative Program

it woudl be helpful to have a section in the manual instructing on how to submit a request under the trademark office's Consistency Initative Program. Currently, the TMEP does not even mention the program.

Submitted by (@doolan)

Voting

0 votes
0 up votes
0 down votes

Discuss the Format of the TMEP

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 »

Submitted by (@allisonstricklandricketts)

Voting

1 vote
1 up votes
0 down votes

Discuss the Format of the TMEP

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 »

Submitted by (@petersloane)

Voting

1 vote
1 up votes
0 down votes

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 »

Submitted by (@miriamrichter)

Voting

-2 votes
0 up votes
2 down votes

Discuss the Format of the TMEP

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 »

Submitted by (@allisonstricklandricketts)

Voting

-1 votes
1 up votes
2 down votes

Discuss the Format of the TMEP

TMEP 708 - Priority Action

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.

 

Source: http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp

Submitted by (@balajiperiasamy)

Voting

4 votes
4 up votes
0 down votes

Discuss the Format of the TMEP

Use by related party

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 »

Submitted by (@petersloane)

Voting

4 votes
4 up votes
0 down votes