<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 12/17/2024 6:07 PM, Patti Giuliano
via E-trademarks wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:DM5PR02MB318016D51AFD85D8919DC66EAA052@DM5PR02MB3180.namprd02.prod.outlook.com">
<meta name="Generator"
content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Having just used the new Beta
application format for a few filings today, I think they
should be paying us for this debacle of form. I\u2019ve been
using it for a couple of months with little to no problems \u2013
even though the format is ridiculous and hard to review.
Today, two applications went through just fine. The third
one \u2013 not so much. Twice it didn\u2019t capture all the
information (the information is on my \u201cpreview\u201d copy but not
on the emailed copy), I tried again, and the copy emailed to
me was completely blank, and don\u2019t get me started on the
issues with the goods and services. Why does the USPTO like
to change the order of the description? You make a simple
change, and it moves the phrase to the bottom of the list.
This just makes it harder to review. If you need to make
changes after you have emailed a draft to yourself, God be
with you. Warning: there are things you cannot change
after you have emailed a draft \u2013 like a matter number.
Why? Oh why? What a nightmare. Yes, I\u2019m frustrated.</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I just went through (suffered through) a trademark filing in
Trademark Center with a client.</p>
<p>Over and over again I would fill in various fields (for example
where the applicant is incorporated) and click through to later
steps in the click path, and then send it to the client, and the
version received by the client would be missing one or more of the
fields.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>