<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Thank you Pam for posting on this.</p>
<p>The closest comparison I can draw, and it is not a very helpful
comparison, is the world of the Patent Cooperation Treaty.</p>
<p>For those in trademark land, the way that you file a single
application and have it move forward is Madrid Protocol. <br>
</p>
<p>In patent land, the way that you file a single application and
have it move forward is PCT.</p>
<p>It turns out that in PCT world, most practitioners in countries
that are not the US who do PCT filings are competent at it. But
in PCT world, so far as patent practitioners in the US are
concerned, there is a big problem. I should find out what the
stats are on this, but basically what happens is that in the US,
some PCT applications are filed by practitioners who do 100 or 400
of them per year. They tend to not commit malpractice and they
tend not to make mistakes that lead to irrevocable loss of
client's patent rights. These are, I suppose, mostly the ones who
show up for my PCT seminars.</p>
<p>But in the US, a big fraction, probably one-third of all US-based
PCT filings, are filed by a US practitioner who has only filed two
or three PCT applications ever in his or her career. These are
the PCT applications where in one case out of every ten, a mistake
got made that led to irrevocable loss of client's patent rights.
Maybe it is worse than one out of ten.</p>
<p>Anyway, what desperately ought to happen in the US is some kind
of licensure. Some way that a potential client who wants to file
a PCT application could check to see if the practitioner has
passed a PCT patent bar exam. (And the practitioner would need to
retest every few years since they need to keep up with changes.)
This would prompt some of the incompetent US patent practitioners
to get out of that line of work and refer the PCT filings to other
counsel who are not incompetent. And it would shame others into
becoming less incompetent. More importantly, it would reduce how
often a clueless client in the US would end up with irrevocable
loss of their patent rights due to their lawyer being incompetent.</p>
<p>And I can't figure out how to deal with this problem in any way
other than having practitioners take an exam and pass it.</p>
<p>But yes by comparison, what I hear from the PCT help desk at WIPO
in Geneva is that nearly all of the sad cases where somebody filed
a PCT and made a big mistake are cases filed by US practitioners.
In contrast, vanishingly few of the sad cases where somebody filed
a PCT and made a big mistake are cases filed by practitioners
outside the US.<br>
</p>
<p>I don't have a good sense of how often a US trademark
practitioner does a Madrid Protocol filing and mucks it up. I
suppose the usual failure path is the US practitioner who does a
Madrid filing and mucks it up is that the practitioner is a patent
practitioner who dabbles in trademark work and does not do it
well. And I suppose the typical screwups are a bit more subtle,
not the kind of screwup where all of the relevant legal rights get
lost. Instead it would be the more subtle kind of screwup where
the practitioner made unwise recommendations to the client about
the goods and/or services, and the eventual result is that the
practitioner "left money on the table" by pursuing too narrowly or
pursuing poorly selected goods or services that don't really track
the actual business needs involved. <br>
</p>
<p>But anyway, in PCT world, there is a desperate need for some way
to cull out the US patent practitioners who lack competence to do
PCT filings, some way to get them to either refer the PCT work out
to someone who is competent, or to get them to learn how to do the
PCT filings right. <br>
</p>
<p>But here in the actual discussion thread (how to deal with the
continued flood of illegitimate or just-barely-legitimate US
trademark filings) I lack confidence that I would know what the
Trademark Office should do to be smarter about this stuff. As I
read what Pam just wrote, my reaction is that a licensure
requirement might not help as much as one would hope.</p>
<p>Carl<br>
</p>
<p> <br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 1/20/2025 11:15 AM, Pamela Chestek
via E-trademarks wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:2d002df8-aedc-4f8e-5c65-6b0fc07f2eef@chesteklegal.com">
As one of only 25 certified trademark specialists in the country,*
and having been on the committee that prepares the questions and
grades the exams, I think I can speak with some authority! <br>
<br>
I don't think the problem is one of knowledge but one of identity
of the filer, and the PTO claims to be addressing the latter
problem (in part by diligently rooting out those virtual
addresses). The difficulty of an exam is where you draw the line
on knowledge. Will you draw it where those business lawyers who
file 2-3 applications are year, and surely don't know the TMEP
(and, god forbid, are still filing paper applications) will fail,
or not bother to take it? Who does that serve? (Well us, for
starters.) How huge is the administrative burden and cost of
testing tens of thousands of people?<br>
<br>
The data you cited revealed very few offices filing a lot of
applications. IMHO, what the attorney representation requirement
did was turn a cottage industry into a consolidated industry that
works way more efficiently than those individuals ever did. The
industrial machine will have a lawyer take (and pass) the exam and
still file just as many fraudulent applications. Crooks gonna
crook and there are plenty of lawyers who would be willing to
flout the ethical rules to do it - I mean, it's not like they send
you to jail for it. So you won't have solved the problem but you
will have reduced the number lawyers available to the public for
legitimate work. So I don't see testing as a step that will
actually do much to address the problem.<br>
<br>
Pam<br>
<br>
*AFAIK, North Carolina is the only state to have a trademark
specialty and there are currently 25 of us on the list. \U0001f44b\U0001f44b my
fellow NC specialists!<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">Pamela S. Chestek<br>
Chestek Legal<br>
PLEASE NOTE OUR NEW MAILING ADDRESS<br>
4641 Post St.<br>
Unit 4316<br>
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762<br>
+1 919-800-8033<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:pamela@chesteklegal.com" moz-do-not-send="true">pamela@chesteklegal.com</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="http://www.chesteklegal.com" moz-do-not-send="true">www.chesteklegal.com</a><br>
<br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 1/20/2025 9:36 AM, Lara Pearson
via E-trademarks wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:1AB14007-C75B-492A-9E89-C71B7FDE1515@brandgeek.net">
Perhaps the list serv can pick up the mantle if there is
consensus here that this might be a viable solution.
<div>I'd be especially thrilled if we could swap this solution
out for the ineffective, arduous Domicile Requirement that
does nothing to achieve it's stated purpose (as Clarivate's
table shows) and instead causes bona fide applicants time,
money and stress.</div>
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thoughts?<br id="lineBreakAtBeginningOfSignature">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Lara Pearson, Esq.</div>
<div>Law Office of Lara Pearson Ltd, PBC & Brand Geek</div>
<div>775.833.1600</div>
<div>Calendly.com/BrandGeek (let's meet)</div>
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><span>Creative typoing by iPhone</span></div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
<blockquote type="cite">On Jan 20, 2025, at 9:32\u202fAM,
Miriam Richter, Esq. <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:mrichter@richtertrademarks.com"
moz-do-not-send="true"><mrichter@richtertrademarks.com></a>
wrote:<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">\ufeff
<meta name="Generator"
content="Microsoft Word 15
(filtered medium)">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Lara,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>For years, I was very vocal
about this idea (as many on this list serve can
attest). As hard as I tried, and as many PTO and
AIPLA officials as I talked to, I could not get
any traction. If you want to pick up the mantle,
you have my full support! </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Best, </span><span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Miriam </span><span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span><span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Miriam Richter,
Attorney at Law, P.L.</span><span> </span><span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span>Make Your Mark!</span></i><i><span> ®</span></i><span> </span><span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Trademark, Copyright,
and other Intellectual Property Matters</span><span><br>
</span><span>2312 Wilton Drive, Suite 9<br>
Wilton Manors, Florida 33305</span><span> </span><span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span><span> </span><span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>954-977-4711 office</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>954-240-8819 cell<br>
954-977-4717 facsimile</span><span><br>
</span><b><span><br>
</span></b><b><span>NOTICE: This e-mail
message and any attachment to this e-mail
message contains <u>confidential
information</u> that may be <u>legally
privileged</u>. If you are not the
intended recipient, you must not review,
retransmit, convert to hard copy, copy, use
or disseminate this e-mail or any
attachments to it. If you have received this
e-mail in error, please notify us
immediately by return e-mail or by telephone
at 954-240-8819 and delete this message.
Please note that if this e-mail message
contains a forwarded message or is a reply
to a prior message, some or all of the
contents of this message or anyattachments
may not have been produced by the sender.</span></b><span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span><span></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span>From:</span></b><span>
E-trademarks <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:e-trademarks-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com"
moz-do-not-send="true"><e-trademarks-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com></a>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Lara Pearson via
E-trademarks<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, January 20, 2025 12:21 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:e-trademarks@oppedahl-lists.com" moz-do-not-send="true">e-trademarks@oppedahl-lists.com</a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Lara Pearson <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:lara@brandgeek.net"
moz-do-not-send="true"><lara@brandgeek.net></a>;
<a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:e-trademarks@oppedahl-lists.com" moz-do-not-send="true">e-trademarks@oppedahl-lists.com</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [E-trademarks] 2024 USPTO
filings (mostly not from this list)</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">One of the suggestions I made in
my post was that the US PTO administer a trademark
admissions exam similar in nature to that which it
uses for patent attorneys.</p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I would love to know ya'll
thoughts on whether that could work to address the
issue of fraudulent, primarily Chinese, TM apps.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I'm especially curious to hear
from Carl and the other patent/TM attorneys on the
list.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Happy MLK Day.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Warmly,</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Lara Pearson, Esq.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Law Office of Lara Pearson
Ltd, PBC & Brand Geek</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">775.833.1600</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Calendly.com/BrandGeek
(let's meet)</p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Creative typoing by
iPhone</p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
</p>
<blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Jan 19, 2025, at 6:02<span>\u202f</span>PM,
Pamela Chestek via E-trademarks <<a
href="mailto:e-trademarks@oppedahl-lists.com"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
moz-do-not-send="true">e-trademarks@oppedahl-lists.com</a>>
wrote:</p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>\ufeff</span> </p>
<p>Fascinating reading, thanks for posting Lara.</p>
<p>Pam</p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Pamela S. Chestek<br>
Chestek Legal<br>
PLEASE NOTE OUR NEW MAILING ADDRESS<br>
4641 Post St.<br>
Unit 4316<br>
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762<br>
+1 919-800-8033<br>
pamela@chesteklegal<br>
<a href="http://www.chesteklegal.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">www.chesteklegal.com</a><br>
<br>
</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 1/19/2025 5:25 PM,
Lara Pearson via E-trademarks wrote:</p>
</div>
<blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi List friends:</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Happy Sunday
Funday.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I reposted Robert
Reading & Clarivate's data on 2024 US
TM filings on LinkedIn: <a
href="https://www.linkedin.com/posts/brandgeek_trademarks-activity-7286822761556033536-bRZ3?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_ios"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.linkedin.com/posts/brandgeek_trademarks-activity-7286822761556033536-bRZ3?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_ios</a></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Let's discuss (here,
and there, and everywhere) and may we each
find a joyful way to honor MLK tomorrow.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I feel grateful for
each of you, and this list brings me joy
(and so much wisdom).</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Cheers!</p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Lara Pearson, Esq.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Law Office of Lara
Pearson Ltd, PBC & Brand Geek</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">775.833.1600</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Calendly.com/BrandGeek
(let's meet)</p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Creative typoing by
iPhone</p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- <br>
E-trademarks mailing list<br>
<a
href="mailto:E-trademarks@oppedahl-lists.com"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
moz-do-not-send="true">E-trademarks@oppedahl-lists.com</a><br>
<a
href="http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com</a></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="moz-mime-attachment-header"></fieldset>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="moz-mime-attachment-header"></fieldset>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>