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."
Sometimes, an entity that owns a prior registration finds that a later application for its mark is blocked by an intervening third-party registration. It submits arguments pointing out that its own earlier registration was not cited to block the intervening registration, so in fairness its new application should not be blocked by the intervening registration. Usually, such arguments are not successful, and a final refusal... 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.
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.
I think perhaps it's time for the PTO to re-examine it's requirement that specimens must be in the form of labels and tags, etc. Perhaps thirty years ago it was unheard of for consumers to purchase goods without physically inspecting them. That is no longer the case today. A substantial portion of consumer purchases are made by customers over the web, who never see a physical product until it is delivered to them.... more »
New decision - relevant to unity of control section and presumably TMEP will be updated to incorporate it in time: In re Wacker Neuson SE, Serial No. 79060553 (T.T.A.B. December 28, 2010) [precedential] (reversing a 2(d) refusal when the applicant and owner of the cited mark were related in a corporate family (wholly owned subsidiaries of a joint parent)).
We have some clients that sell goods to industry, not the general public. They advertise on their website but do not sell through their website, nor is there any brick and mortar place their goods are sold. I would like to see this sitation addressed in the examination guidelines.
On behalf of a foreign client that does not necessarily sell its goods directly to consumers in the United States, or through ordinary retail outlets, we question why "Contact Us" or "Where to buy" tabs that provide contact info for resellers, wholesalers or distributors but do not provide a direct link to the company for purchasing are always inadequate as evidence that the website is not used as a means for purchasing... more »
If the "where to buy" tab links a page with specific retailer links, including a screen shot of that page should be sufficient.
Another means for ordering (other than a Shopping Bag or Cart) can be provided through online "Inquiry Forms," particularly for technical goods for which the customer must provide product specifications or must inquire about the product specifications described on the webpage before making a purchase decision. Such forms should be deemed to constitute a "means for ordering" the goods, since such inquries are ofte the... more »
I do not support the proposed changes.
It appears that the USPTO wishes to increase the “solemnity” of the trademark application declarations in response to the Section 8 & 71 pilot project that revealed more than half of all renewals included at least partially overbroad statements of continued use. Considering that these declarations are already made under penalty of perjury, I am not sure how big an impact the increasing solemnity might have on the problem.... more »