Campaign: 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

Voting

2 votes
2 up votes
0 down votes

Campaign: 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

Voting

0 votes
0 up votes
0 down votes

Campaign: 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

Voting

1 vote
2 up votes
1 down votes

Campaign: 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

Voting

1 vote
1 up votes
0 down votes

Campaign: 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

Voting

18 votes
18 up votes
0 down votes

Campaign: 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

Voting

0 votes
0 up votes
0 down votes

Campaign: 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

Voting

1 vote
1 up votes
0 down votes

Campaign: 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

Voting

0 votes
0 up votes
0 down votes

Campaign: Discuss this Discussion Tool

Test

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

Submitted by

Voting

4 votes
4 up votes
0 down votes

Campaign: 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

Voting

4 votes
4 up votes
0 down votes

Campaign: 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

Voting

10 votes
10 up votes
0 down votes

Campaign: 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

Voting

6 votes
6 up votes
0 down votes