Incapable Information Matter Examination Guide

IBM Comments to the Examination Guide on Informational Matter

By Leonora Hoicka (IBM Associate General Counsel, IP Law), Lisa Ulrich (IBM Senior Attorney, IP Law), and Jenny Greisman ( IBM Attorney, IP Law) IBM thanks the United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office) for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Examination Guide on Incapable Informational Matter (1/19/2017). The following comments discuss IBM’s concerns with respect to having informational matter as a separate ...more »

Submitted by (@lisaulrich)
Add your comment

Voting

2 votes
2 up votes
0 down votes

Incapable Information Matter Examination Guide

Subject Matter Insufficiently Defined

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 »

Submitted by (@pchestek)
4 comments

Voting

2 votes
3 up votes
1 down votes

Incapable Information Matter Examination Guide

Upgrade Policy selection criteria

Trademark selection criteria upgrade is now justified in terms of time and clarity of requirements for application approval.

That will automatically drive a simpler process downstream.

Submitted by (@techsolve4u)
Add your comment

Voting

1 vote
1 up votes
0 down votes

Incapable Information Matter Examination Guide

Supercedes Section 2(e)(1)

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

Submitted by (@gxbesq1)
2 comments

Voting

3 votes
3 up votes
0 down votes

Discuss this Discussion Tool

Test

This is a test idea. Please treat it as a sandbox for commenting and voting.

Submitted by (@stephen.aquila1)
1 comment

Voting

5 votes
5 up votes
0 down votes

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)
3 comments

Voting

19 votes
19 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)
3 comments

Voting

1 vote
1 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)
1 comment

Voting

2 votes
2 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)
Add your comment

Voting

1 vote
1 up votes
0 down votes

Discuss the Format of the TMEP

Energy

Generate Energy

Submitted by (@mohamadhadi.trp)
Add your comment

Voting

1 vote
1 up votes
0 down votes

Discuss the Format of the TMEP

2. Registry Agreement/ICANN Contrac

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 »

Submitted by (@bruceburdick)
1 comment

Voting

2 votes
3 up votes
1 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)
5 comments

Voting

2 votes
2 up votes
0 down votes