<html>
<body>
Someone on the list kindly supplied to me this link:
<dl>
<dd>
<a href="https://www.chinaiplawupdate.com/2022/08/uspto-chinese-firms-used-dead-attorney-to-file-trademark-applications/" eudora="autourl">
https://www.chinaiplawupdate.com/2022/08/uspto-chinese-firms-used-dead-attorney-to-file-trademark-applications/</a>
</dl>which led me to this similar one:
<dl>
<dd>
<a href="https://www.sternekessler.com/news-insights/publications/show-cause-showdown-fraudulent-filers-uspto/" eudora="autourl">
https://www.sternekessler.com/news-insights/publications/show-cause-showdown-fraudulent-filers-uspto/</a>
</dl>Both discuss a "show cause" order relating to a:
<dl>
<dd>fictitious U.S. attorney, for whom no record exists, by the name of
"Jackson George" as the attorney of record in over 2,500
trademark applications and/or registrations
</dl>and lo! "Jackson George" is the attorney on the
application I've been complaining about - filed in 2021 and no attorney
assigned.
<dl>
<dd>
<a href="http://tdr.uspto.gov/search.action?sn=90708026" eudora="autourl">
http://tdr.uspto.gov/search.action?sn=90708026</a>
</dl>A second Letter of Protest is not likely to work anymore than the
first one -- which was not reviewed by a Trademark Examiner because none
has been assigned.<br><br>
<b>So... now what?<br><br>
</b>The other ex-parte procedures of which I am aware (petitions for
reexamination / expungement) do not apply.<br><br>
I see a June 2022 reference to
<dl>
<dd>"new process to investigate suspicious submissions related to
trademark applications" including as "part of an improper
filing scheme"
<a href="https://www.cantorcolburn.com/news-newsletters-298.html" eudora="autourl">
https://www.cantorcolburn.com/news-newsletters-298.html</a>
</dl>but (at risk of sounding lame) I haven't tracked down the procedure
for that, if there is one. I do have the Show Cause Order relating
to "Jackson George."<br><br>
- Charles<br><br>
<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><hr>
<b>From:</b> E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com>
on behalf of Carl Oppedahl via E-trademarks
<e-trademarks@oppedahl-lists.com><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, November 27, 2024 3:13 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to
seek legal advice. <e-trademarks@oppedahl-lists.com><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Carl Oppedahl <carl@oppedahl.com><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [E-trademarks] how old the oldest applications are
that have never seen an Examining Attorney? <br>
<br><br>
Some months ago I dropped an email to Commissioner Gooder, flagging this
list of old applications that were stalled with no examiner. He
wrote back to me that he would look into it and get back to
me. I have not heard back from Commissioner Gooder.<br>
On 11/27/2024 1:16 PM, Charles B. Kramer via E-trademarks wrote:
<dl>
<dd>8/23/2022, Ken Boone via E-trademarks wrote:
<dl>
<dd>On Saturday, August 20th, I had a list of 136 live applications filed
prior to 1 October 2021 that had the new application will be assigned to
an examining attorney approximately 6 months after filing date status on
TSDR.
<dd>As of today's check, that list is reduced to 75 live applications
filed prior to 1 October 2021 but still having the new application will
be assigned to an examining attorney approximately 6 months after filing
date status on TSDR<br>
<br><br>
</dl>
<dd>No movement for my client -- who's application is blocked by one
filed in 2021 and "not assigned to an Examiner."
<dd>The applicant for the blocking application -- and, yes, it is based
in China -- appears to have two other applications pending. One of
those also has no Examiner, but the other was approved for publication.
<dd>Some of you may know my view: there is something very wrong
here. If there is a reason for an application being in permanent
limbo, the reasons should be known and possible to address. But
apart from investigating whether there is any method or basis for suing
the USPTO, I am out of ideas.
<dd>My hope that a LoP would spur action was unjustified. The
Trademark Office is fully aware of the situation -- the LoP people know,
the Trademark Examiner in my client's application knows, the Assistance
people know. It's just not doing anything. This did not fall
through a crack, it's being held.</blockquote>
</dl><br><br>
===========================================<br>
Charles B. Kramer, Esq.<br>
~ ATTORNEY ~ <br>
Linkedin:
<a href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/charleskramer" eudora="autourl">
www.linkedin.com/in/charleskramer</a> <br>
Tel: +1 212-254-5093<br>
Email: charles@charlesbkramer.com <--- for direct
responses (I don't monitor CharlesBKramer.TM@gmail.com)<br>
Mail: 200 E. 10th Street, No. 816, New York, NY
10003<br>
Blog:
<a href="https://www.provideocoalition.com/CharlesBKramer/" eudora="autourl">
https://www.provideocoalition.com/CharlesBKramer/<br>
</a></body>
</html>