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