<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Thank you Ken for posting.</p>
<p>As I read through this discussion thread, I realized I was not
sure if I knew for sure what exactly counts as a "companion
application". So I looked it up.<br>
</p>
<p>TMEP 702.03(a) says:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><i><b>Companion Applications. </b></i>The term "companion
applications" refers to pending applications filed by the same
applicant. An application is pending until it registers or
abandons. Pending applications include applications that have
been approved for publication or for registration on the
Supplemental Register, applications in the Intent-to-Use
("ITU")/Divisional Unit, and revived or reinstated applications.<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
<p><i><b>TMEP 702.03(a)(i) says:</b></i></p>
<blockquote>
<p><i><b>Companion Applications Not Previously Assigned for the
Same or Similar Marks. </b></i>If an applicant has
multiple pending applications, the issues in the applications
are likely to be similar. When assigned a new application, an
examining attorney will be assigned the companion applications
filed within three months of the filing date of the first
assigned application. If an applicant files more than ten
applications within a three\u2011month period, only the first ten
will be assigned to one examining attorney. Examining attorneys
are encouraged to assign all unassigned companion applications
for the same or similar marks to themselves, even if the
applications were filed outside the three-month period.<br>
<br>
The assignment of companion applications is done electronically,
based upon the owner\u2019s name as set forth in the application.
Therefore, the owner\u2019s name should be set forth consistently in
all applications.<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
<p><i><b>TMEP 702.03(a)(ii) says:</b></i></p>
<blockquote>
<p><i><b>Companion Applications Previously Assigned. </b></i>If
the Trademark database indicates that a companion application
has been assigned to a different examining attorney, the
examining attorney should not transfer their application to the
other examining attorney. However, the examining attorney must
review the electronic record of the earlier companion
application before taking action in a later companion case, and
should act consistently, unless it would be clear error (see
TMEP §706.01) to do so. If the examining attorney believes that
acting consistently with the prior action(s) would be erroneous,
the examining attorney should bring the issue to the attention
of the managing attorney or senior attorney.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>So in my recent pair of cases, there were two screwups within the
Trademark Office. </p>
<p>First, the "assignment of companion applications" that "is done
electronically, based upon the owner\u2019s name" failed to happen in
the USPTO's systems. I suspect that one source of failure is the
Trademark Office developers failing to handle the case of two
applications that got filed the same day. This "electronic
assignment" happens maybe 6½ months after filing day. Keep in
mind that this USPTO batch process happens <i><b>on the same day</b></i>
for the two applications that were filed the same day. And the
batch process turns out to have been incompetently coded because
it looks in some database D that itself only gets updated once a
day. So the batch process reaches the first of my two
applications ("A1") and assigns it to Examining Attorney 1
("EA1"). The tidbit of new information, namely that A1 is now
linked to EA1, <i><b>does not get loaded instantly</b></i> into D
but instead only gets loaded into D at the next time that midnight
comes around.</p>
<p>So maybe sixty seconds later, the batch process reaches the
second of my two applications ("A2") and looks for companion cases
that have already been assigned to an EA. The batch process fails
to catch on that there is a companion that had already been
assigned to an EA, because the database D won't get updated until
some hours from now with that tidbit of information about what
happened with application A1. Instead the poorly coded batch
process blithely assumes that it can give A2 to any EA that its
roll of the dice might choose. <br>
</p>
<p>That's the first Trademark Office screwup. For those who have
done database programming in an earlier life, as I have, this
jumps out as an easy blunder for the coder to make if the coder
does not really know what he or she is doing or has never actually
gone to the trouble to learn how the systems work and when they
get updated. It is a reminder of the old joke "how many database
programmers does it take to replace a light bulb?" And the answer
is "three -- a first one to unscrew the old light bulb, a second
one to screw in the new light bulb, and a third one to perform
record locking to prevent the first two from accidentally trying
to carry out their tasks simultaneously."</p>
<p>Anyway now we turn to the second screwup within the Trademark
Office. The TMEP says "if the Trademark database indicates that a
companion application has been assigned to a different examining
attorney, the examining attorney ... <i><b>must</b></i> review
the electronic record of the earlier companion application before
taking action in a later companion case, and should act
consistently ...". And in my case, EA2 failed to "review the
electronic record of the earlier companion application" even
though this is a "must". <br>
</p>
<p>Well, except that because of this very discussion thread, I did
receive a supplementary Office Action. This happened <i><b>on
the exact day that I posted</b></i> about my two cases, about
six hours after I had posted about the two cases. Clearly some
Trademark Office lurker saw what I posted, looked for cases in
which I had recently received Office Actions, instantly figured
out which EA screwed up, and fired off a note to the boss of that
EA2. Here is what the EA2 said:<br>
</p>
<blockquote>
<p>This supplemental Office Action supersedes the previous Office
action issued on [a day or two earlier] in connection with this
application. The assigned trademark examining attorney wishes to
correct the record by addressing the issue(s) inadvertently
omitted from the previous Office action. ... The trademark
examining attorney apologizes for any inconvenience caused by
the delay in raising this issue(s).</p>
</blockquote>
<p>But anyway, yes, at least two screwups within the Trademark
Office.</p>
<p>And yes, I looked at the Xsearch Search Summary in the case that
landed on the desk of my EA2. My EA2 did exactly what Ken
described. The first search was on the application number being
examined. The second search was on the owner name. The search
was "OW:(firstownerword AND secondownerword)". And I can tell
from the search summary that this search worked, in the sense that
the EA2 did find the companion application. (I tried the search
myself and yes it did find the companion application.) And as of
that day, the Office Action in the companion case had been in the
file for the companion application for more than a week already.<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/9/2025 7:05 AM, Ken Boone via
E-trademarks wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:SN6PR14MB22375BDE08E53106FB2E7274D5F32@SN6PR14MB2237.namprd14.prod.outlook.com">
<div class="elementToProof">
When I first joined Trademarks (to work primarily with the
search system), I attended EA training for the search system.
As I recall, Companion Applications were discussed. Since EAs
were required to save some search sessions on TSDR, some
recommendations were provided, including (a) perform a search of
the serial number under examination as the initial search; (b)
perform a search of the owner name as the second search; and (c)
if the trademark included a wordmark entry, perform a Fullmark
search fairly early in the search session to identify any exact
matches for that wordmark. Well, those were the recommendations
provided around the turn of the century, but reviewing recently
saved search sessions on TSDR, few EAs perform recommendation b,
and none seem to perform recommendation c lately. </div>
<div class="elementToProof">
<br>
</div>
<div class="elementToProof">
TMEP 702.03(a)(ii) Companion Applications Previously Assigned
advises (<span><i>highlighting mine</i></span>)...</div>
<div class="elementToProof">
<br>
</div>
<div class="elementToProof">
<i>If the Trademark database indicates that a companion
application has been assigned to a different examining
attorney, the examining attorney should
</i><b><i>not</i></b><i> transfer their application to the other
examining attorney. However,
</i><span><i>the examining attorney must review the electronic
record of the earlier companion application before taking
action in a later companion case, and should act
consistently, unless it would be clear error (see </i><b><i><a
href="https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/current#/current/TMEP-700d1e566.html"
id="OWAeb3c26fb-7186-740e-7a10-7ad3a8830b26"
class="OWAAutoLink" moz-do-not-send="true">TMEP §706.01</a></i></b><i>)
to do so. If the examining attorney believes that acting
consistently with the prior action(s) would be erroneous,
the
<u>examining attorney should bring the issue to the
attention of the managing attorney or senior attorney</u>.</i></span></div>
<div class="elementToProof">
<br>
</div>
<div class="elementToProof">
My conclusions: Nothing forces <i>Companion Applications</i> to
be examined by the same EA. Per comments previously posted for
this theme, inconsistencies between
<i>Companion Applications</i> occur and apparently do not get
resolved by USPTO management before office actions are issued. I
expected more attorneys on this list to complain about
inconsistencies in office actions for
<i>Companion Applications</i>.</div>
<div class="elementToProof">
<br>
</div>
<div class="elementToProof">
Yesterday, I tried to identify <i>Companion Applications</i> having
different EAs. Hera are some of my findings.</div>
<div class="elementToProof">
<br>
</div>
<div class="elementToProof">
<b>ON:"American Kidney Fund, Inc" AND LD:true AND FD:[20240501
TO 20240630] AND SC:(Maryland )\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002</b></div>
<div class="elementToProof">
<br>
</div>
<table>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<div>
<span>SN</span></div>
</td>
<td>
<div>
<span>FiledDate</span></div>
</td>
<td>
<div>
<span>EA</span></div>
</td>
<td>
<div>
<span>LO</span></div>
</td>
<td>
<div>
<span>Wordmark</span></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<div>
98572427</div>
</td>
<td>
<div>
2024-05-28</div>
</td>
<td>
<div>
GREENE, BYRON</div>
</td>
<td>
<div>
107</div>
</td>
<td>
<div>
AKF LIVING DONOR PROTECTION REPORT CARD</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<div>
98572417</div>
</td>
<td>
<div>
2024-05-28</div>
</td>
<td>
<div>
LORENZO, KATHLEEN</div>
</td>
<td>
<div>
109</div>
</td>
<td>
<div>
LIVING DONOR PROTECTION REPORT CARD</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<div>
98572380</div>
</td>
<td>
<div>
2024-05-28</div>
</td>
<td>
<div>
GREENE, BYRON</div>
</td>
<td>
<div>
107</div>
</td>
<td>
<div>
STATE OF THE STATES:</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<div class="elementToProof">
\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002</div>
<div class="elementToProof">
<b>ON:"Sport Squad, Inc" AND LD:true AND FD:[20240501 TO
20240630] AND SC:(Maryland )</b></div>
<div class="elementToProof">
<br>
</div>
<table>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<div>
<span>SN</span></div>
</td>
<td>
<div>
<span>FiledDate</span></div>
</td>
<td>
<div>
<span>EA</span></div>
</td>
<td>
<div>
<span>LO</span></div>
</td>
<td>
<div>
<span>Wordmark</span></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<div>
98605138</div>
</td>
<td>
<div>
2024-06-17</div>
</td>
<td>
<div>
MCCLELLAN, MATTHEW</div>
</td>
<td>
<div>
121</div>
</td>
<td>
<div>
BEACON</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<div>
98588596</div>
</td>
<td>
<div>
2024-06-06</div>
</td>
<td>
<div>
POMEROY-MURPHY, KAITLIN</div>
</td>
<td>
<div>
126</div>
</td>
<td>
<div>
LIKE TO PLAY. LOVE TO WIN.</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<div>
98588585</div>
</td>
<td>
<div>
2024-06-06</div>
</td>
<td>
<div>
POMEROY-MURPHY, KAITLIN</div>
</td>
<td>
<div>
126</div>
</td>
<td>
<div>
LIVE TO PLAY. LOVE TO WIN.</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<div>
98588581</div>
</td>
<td>
<div>
2024-06-06</div>
</td>
<td>
<div>
LEASER, ANDREW</div>
</td>
<td>
<div>
117</div>
</td>
<td>
<div>
CLAIM THE COURT</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<div>
98588574</div>
</td>
<td>
<div>
2024-06-06</div>
</td>
<td>
<div>
LEASER, ANDREW</div>
</td>
<td>
<div>
117</div>
</td>
<td>
<div>
SHOW UP READY</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<div class="elementToProof">
\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002\u2002</div>
<div class="elementToProof">
<b>ON:"Fordham Lee Distillery, LLC" AND LD:true AND FD:[20240501
TO 20240630] AND SC:(Maryland ) </b></div>
<div class="elementToProof">
<br>
</div>
<table>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<div>
<span>SN</span></div>
</td>
<td>
<div>
<span>FiledDate</span></div>
</td>
<td>
<div>
<span>EA</span></div>
</td>
<td>
<div>
<span>LO</span></div>
</td>
<td>
<div>
<span>Wordmark</span></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<div>
98607460</div>
</td>
<td>
<div>
2024-06-18</div>
</td>
<td>
<div>
BELL, JUSTIN</div>
</td>
<td>
<div>
112</div>
</td>
<td>
<div>
CHOCOLATE LOVE</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<div>
98607442</div>
</td>
<td>
<div>
2024-06-18</div>
</td>
<td>
<div>
LEARNED, GLEN</div>
</td>
<td>
<div>
131</div>
</td>
<td>
<div>
I'VE GOT A CRUSH ON YOU</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<div>
98607422</div>
</td>
<td>
<div>
2024-06-18</div>
</td>
<td>
<div>
LEARNED, GLEN</div>
</td>
<td>
<div>
131</div>
</td>
<td>
<div>
AIN'T THAT A PEACH</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<div>
98607391</div>
</td>
<td>
<div>
2024-06-18</div>
</td>
<td>
<div>
BELL, JUSTIN</div>
</td>
<td>
<div>
112</div>
</td>
<td>
<div>
BAD BILLY</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<div class="elementToProof">
<br>
</div>
<div class="elementToProof">
<b>ON:( "CleanArc Data Centers" ) AND LD:true AND FD:[20240501
TO 20240630] AND OW:(houston AND texas)</b></div>
<div class="elementToProof">
<br>
</div>
<table>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<div>
<span>SN</span></div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
<span>FiledDate</span></div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
<span>EA</span></div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
<span>LO</span></div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
<span>Wordmark</span></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<div>
98539117</div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
2024-05-08</div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
DETMER, CAROLYN</div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
127</div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
CLEANARC DATA CENTERS</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<div>
98539116</div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
2024-05-08</div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
DETMER, CAROLYN</div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
127</div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
CA</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<div>
98539114</div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
2024-05-08</div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
KIRCHGASSER, ROSS</div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
101</div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
TIER 1 ADJACENT</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<div class="elementToProof">
<br>
</div>
<div class="elementToProof">
<b>ON:( "PLATYPUS BREWING LLC" ) AND LD:true AND FD:[20240501 TO
20240630] AND OW:(houston AND texas)</b></div>
<div class="elementToProof">
<br>
</div>
<table>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<div>
<span>SN</span></div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
<span>FiledDate</span></div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
<span>EA</span></div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
<span>LO</span></div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
<span>Wordmark</span></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<div>
98602438</div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
2024-06-14</div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
HILLIARD, JESSICA</div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
120</div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
OUT OF ORBIT</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<div>
98602414</div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
2024-06-14</div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
LOREDO GASPAR,ALONSO</div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
130</div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
WHAT'S THE SKINNY</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<div>
98602392</div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
2024-06-14</div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
LOREDO GASPAR,ALONSO</div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
130</div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
BREWED WITH TEXAN HEART AND AUSTRALIAN SOUL</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<div class="elementToProof">
<br>
</div>
<div class="elementToProof">
<b>ON:( "The Roof Store, LLC" ) AND LD:true AND FD:[20240501 TO
20240630] AND OW:(houston AND texas)</b></div>
<div class="elementToProof">
<br>
</div>
<table>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<div>
<span>SN</span></div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
<span>FiledDate</span></div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
<span>EA</span></div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
<span>LO</span></div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
<span>Wordmark</span></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<div>
98592318</div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
2024-06-09</div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
GLASSMAN,SARAH M</div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
303</div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
ARCHITECTURAL SHINGLES</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<div>
98591958</div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
2024-06-08</div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
HYUN,ISABELLA MARIA</div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
303</div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
THE ROOF STORE</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<div>
98587072</div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
2024-06-05</div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
PARKER, JUSTINE</div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
101</div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
THE ROOF.STORE</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<div class="elementToProof">
<br>
</div>
<div class="elementToProof">
<b>ON:( "Empower Clinic Services" ) AND LD:true AND FD:[20240501
TO 20240630] AND OW:(houston AND texas)</b></div>
<div class="elementToProof">
<br>
</div>
<table>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<div>
<span>SN</span></div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
<span>FiledDate</span></div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
<span>EA</span></div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
<span>LO</span></div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
<span>Wordmark</span></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<div>
98603997</div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
2024-06-17</div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
KEENAN, CAYLA</div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
122</div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
EXPANDING ACCESS TO QUALITY, AFFORDABLE MEDICATION</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<div>
98601554</div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
2024-06-14</div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
VALLILLO, MELISSA</div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
105</div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
EMPOWER PHARMACY</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<div>
98601551</div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
2024-06-14</div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
STINSON,JENNIFER ELLE</div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
129</div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
EMPOWER PHARMACY</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<div>
98601549</div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
2024-06-14</div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
KETCHUM, BRENDAN</div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
125</div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
COMPOUNDING IS PERSONAL</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<div class="elementToProof">
<br>
</div>
<div class="elementToProof">
<b>ON:( "Hines Interests Limited" ) AND LD:true AND FD:[20240501
TO 20240630] AND OW:(houston AND texas)</b></div>
<div class="elementToProof">
<br>
</div>
<table>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<div>
<span>SN</span></div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
<span>FiledDate</span></div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
<span>EA</span></div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
<span>LO</span></div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
<span>Wordmark</span></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<div>
98573905</div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
2024-05-29</div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
SHEN, DANIEL</div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
128</div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
THE CAYS</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<div>
98565830</div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
2024-05-23</div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
JOHNSON, JAYLEN</div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
132</div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
ELINA</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<div>
98565822</div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
2024-05-23</div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
JOHNSON, JAYLEN</div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
132</div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
ELINA</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<div>
98559001</div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
2024-05-20</div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
MOLINOFF, JEFFREY</div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
122</div>
</td>
<td>
<br>
</td>
<td>
<div>
WILDRYE</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<div class="elementToProof">
<br>
</div>
<div class="elementToProof">
Basically, if you look at any large collection of trademarks for
a two-month filing date range for a particular geographic area,
you'll likely find some companion applications with different
EAs. </div>
<div class="elementToProof">
\u200b</div>
<div id="Signature">
<div>
Happy <i>Companion Applications</i>,</div>
<div>
Ken Boone</div>
</div>
<hr tabindex="-1">
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><b>From:</b> E-trademarks
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:e-trademarks-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com"><e-trademarks-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com></a> on behalf of
Todd Owers via E-trademarks
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:e-trademarks@oppedahl-lists.com"><e-trademarks@oppedahl-lists.com></a><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, February 6, 2025 7:05 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> For trademark practitioners. This is not for
laypersons to seek legal advice.
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:e-trademarks@oppedahl-lists.com"><e-trademarks@oppedahl-lists.com></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Todd Owers <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:owers@carverdarden.com"><owers@carverdarden.com></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [E-trademarks] Applications owned by same
owners no longer examined together?
<div> </div>
</div>
<div lang="EN-US">
<div class="x_WordSection1">
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span>TMEP §702.03(a)(i), which sets
forth the practice that companion applications filed
within three months will be assigned to the same examiner,
is still in force and was unchanged by the November 2024
update. </span></p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span>I recently had a situation in
which the practice was implemented correctly. The client
filed the first application in early June 2024 and three
other applications in September 2024. In late December,
all four applications were assigned to the same examiner.</span></p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span>Perhaps the situations described
below are the result of error, computer glitch, or other
mix-up in which the USPTO failed to follow TMEP
§702.03(a)(i), rather than a formal change in operating
procedure.</span></p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span>Best regards,</span></p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<div>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span>Todd Owers</span></p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span>Carver, Darden, Koretzky,
Tessier, Finn, Blossman & Areaux, LLC</span></p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span>1100 Poydras Street, Suite 3100</span></p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span>New Orleans, Louisiana 70163</span></p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span>(504) 585-3811</span></p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span><a
href="mailto:owers@carverdarden.com"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">owers@carverdarden.com</a>
</span></p>
</div>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><b><span>From:</span></b><span>
E-trademarks
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:e-trademarks-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com"><e-trademarks-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com></a>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Jaclyn Ionin via E-trademarks<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, February 6, 2025 4:52 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Carl Oppedahl <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:carl@oppedahl.com"><carl@oppedahl.com></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Jaclyn Ionin <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:jaclyn@ioninlaw.com"><jaclyn@ioninlaw.com></a>;
For trademark practitioners. This is not for
laypersons to seek legal advice.
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:e-trademarks@oppedahl-lists.com"><e-trademarks@oppedahl-lists.com></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [E-trademarks] Applications owned
by same owners no longer examined together?</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span>[</span><strong><span>EXT</span></strong><span>]</span></p>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span class="x_gmaildefault"><span>OK
- well glad it's not just me... but also....
wild... leave it to the USPTO to make a policy
choice to actually STOP doing one of the few
things that made sense and was a good practice </span></span><br>
</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<table class="x_MsoNormalTable">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<table class="x_MsoNormalTable" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span><img
width="99" height="57"
id="x__x0000_i1036"
moz-do-not-send="true"></span><span></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<table class="x_MsoNormalTable" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><br>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"> </p>
<table class="x_MsoNormalTable" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<table class="x_MsoNormalTable"
width="141">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><a
href="https://www.ioninlaw.com/" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"><span><img
width="141"
height="141"
id="x__x0000_i1035"
moz-do-not-send="true"></span></a></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</td>
<td width="100%">
<table class="x_MsoNormalTable"
width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<table
class="x_MsoNormalTable"
width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td width="100%">
<table
class="x_MsoNormalTable" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<p><b><span>JACLYN
IONIN, ESQ.</span></b><br>
<span>Owner,
Principal
Attorney,</span>
<span>Ionin
Law</span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</td>
<td>
<table
class="x_MsoNormalTable" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<table
class="x_MsoNormalTable">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<p
class="x_MsoNormal"><a href="https://www.facebook.com/ioninlaw"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"><span><img width="24" height="24"
id="x__x0000_i1034" moz-do-not-send="true"></span></a></p>
</td>
<td>
<p
class="x_MsoNormal"><a href="https://www.instagram.com/ioninlaw/"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"><span><img width="24" height="24"
id="x__x0000_i1033" moz-do-not-send="true"></span></a></p>
</td>
<td>
<p
class="x_MsoNormal"><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/company/ioninlaw/"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"><span><img width="24" height="24"
id="x__x0000_i1032" moz-do-not-send="true"></span></a></p>
</td>
<td>
<p
class="x_MsoNormal"><a href="https://calendly.com/ioninlaw"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"><span><img width="24" height="24"
id="x__x0000_i1031" moz-do-not-send="true"></span></a></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2">
<table
class="x_MsoNormalTable"
width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><br>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<br>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><br>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<table
class="x_MsoNormalTable">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<table
class="x_MsoNormalTable">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<p
class="x_MsoNormal"><b><span><img width="13" height="13"
id="x__x0000_i1030" moz-do-not-send="true"></span></b><b><span></span></b></p>
</td>
<td width="7">
<p
class="x_MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
</td>
<td>
<p
class="x_MsoNormal"><span>Trademark & Business Law
</span><span></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<table
class="x_MsoNormalTable">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<p
class="x_MsoNormal"><b><span><img width="13" height="13"
id="x__x0000_i1029" moz-do-not-send="true"></span></b><b><span></span></b></p>
</td>
<td width="7">
<p
class="x_MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
</td>
<td>
<p
class="x_MsoNormal"><span><a href="tel:646.470.1167" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span>646.470.1167
</span></a></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<table
class="x_MsoNormalTable">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<p
class="x_MsoNormal"><b><span><img width="13" height="13"
id="x__x0000_i1028" moz-do-not-send="true"></span></b><b><span></span></b></p>
</td>
<td width="7">
<p
class="x_MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
</td>
<td>
<p
class="x_MsoNormal"><span><a href="http://www.ioninlaw.com/"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"><span>www.ioninlaw.com
</span></a></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<table
class="x_MsoNormalTable">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<p
class="x_MsoNormal"><b><span><img width="13" height="13"
id="x__x0000_i1027" moz-do-not-send="true"></span></b><b><span></span></b></p>
</td>
<td width="7">
<p
class="x_MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
</td>
<td>
<p
class="x_MsoNormal"><span><a
href="https://maps.google.com/?q=31%20Hudson%20Yards,%20FL%2011%20New%20York,%20NY%2010001"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"><span>31 Hudson Yards, FL 11 New
York, NY 10001
</span></a></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</td>
<td><br>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2">
<table
class="x_MsoNormalTable"
width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><br>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<br>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><br>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<table class="x_MsoNormalTable" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><br>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"> </p>
<table class="x_MsoNormalTable">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<table class="x_MsoNormalTable">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><img
width="75%"
id="x__x0000_i1026"
alt="App Banner Image"
moz-do-not-send="true"></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<table class="x_MsoNormalTable"
width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><br>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"><img width="2" height="2"
id="x__x0000_i1025" moz-do-not-send="true"></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 7:26<span>\u202f</span>AM
Carl Oppedahl <<a href="mailto:carl@oppedahl.com"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">carl@oppedahl.com</a>>
wrote:</p>
</div>
<blockquote>
<div>
<p>Yes we saw this just within the past two weeks. We
filed two cases on the same day for the same owner
for the exact same identification of goods. One is
a plain-text mark and the other is a logo in which
the most prominent element is, you guessed it, the
identical plain-text mark.</p>
<p>And they got put onto the desk of two non-identical
Examining Attorneys. In two non-identical Law
Offices.</p>
<p>And within the past two weeks each Examining
Attorney mailed out a first Office Action.</p>
<p>If you were to put the two Office Actions side by
side and work your way through them, you would be
astonished. I'll not go into details. The sole
identical element of the two Office Actions is that
in neither case did a search of prior filings lead
to any 2d refusal. But there are instances of a
refusal (on other non-2d grounds) in one case that
did not get raised in the other. And
<i>vice versa</i>. Barring some surprise, to secure
approvals for pub there will be no choice but to
accede to non-identical IDs in the two cases, for
example. If we were in class 25 (clothing) which we
are not, it would have been a case of one of the EAs
getting all wound up about what to do with the
feather boas and the other EA getting all wound up
about what to do with the smoking jackets, and
arriving at non-identical proposals about new ID
wording.</p>
<p>I would have thought that legacy practice (doing a
cluster analysis on the corpus of not-yet-examined
cases and assigning the cluster to a single
Examining Attorney) had some common sense to it. It
could promote consistency among examined cases. It
could save internal resources within the Law Offices
given that two related cases might not suck up twice
as much time to examine as two unrelated cases.</p>
<p>But no, if you were to look at the two applications
I am alluding to here (same filing date, same
applicant, same goods, same text in the two
drawings) then your reaction might well me that the
USPTO's way of picking Examining Attorneys for the
two applications could not be stupider even if one
had set a goal of trying to be as stupid as
possible. Stupid in terms of consistency of
examination, stupid in terms of managing the
resources and productivity of the Law Offices.</p>
<p>Now let's assume for sake of discussion that there
actually is some non-stupid reason why these cases
got assigned to EAs the way they did. I have to
strain to come up with a guess as to a good reason,
but maybe the big day arrived when some USPTO
algorithm decided it was time to assign these cases
to EAs. And the algorithm happened to look at case
A1 first, and and picked EA1 to assign it to. And
then ten minutes later the algorithm got around to
looking at case A2. And during the intervening ten
minutes, two minor earthquakes within the USPTO had
happened by coincidence within two minutes of each
other. A first minor earthquake was, EA1 got a
notice that he or she was soon to be put on
temporary detail in the Madrid Processing Unit. And
two minutes later, a second minor earthquake was
that newly hired EA2 had just gotten placed into
service and had an empty docket that needed to be
filled urgently. This is the kind of fact pattern
that one must construct and imagine to make it
non-stupid to assign the cases like this.</p>
<p>But even if you then stick your neck out and
imagine that there have been dozens and dozens of
earthquake coincidences that would explain dozens of
such failure-to-cluster events, this still leaves
more stupid to be explained.</p>
<p>Even if the two applications I am alluding to here
(same filing date, same applicant, same goods, same
text in the two drawings) somehow had a non-stupid
reason for being assigned to non-identical EAs in
non-identical Law Offices ...
</p>
<p>why the heck would the USPTO not even bother to
tell the two EAs that they have been assigned
related cases? Why did the USPTO pass up the
opportunity to drop an email to each of the EAs
letting them know that some other EA has a closely
related case? And then each EA could look in the
computer and see stuff that might be helpful. In my
two cases, the Office Actions arrived a week apart.
The slower EA, when sitting down to examine the
case, could have looked in the computer to see the
contents of the Office Action that had already been
mailed out by the faster EA.</p>
<p>Or even if we imagine the USPTO passing up the
opportunity to drop an email to each of the EAs ...
isn't there part of the ordinary examination process
that ought to have prompted the slower EA to go look
at the other nearly-identical case anyway? Even in
the absence of any prompting by some cluster
analysis? So for example when the time came for the
slower EA to do a search of Office records, surely
the other nearly-identical case would have jumped
off the computer screen into the face of that slower
EA. And then the slower EA could at least get
tipped off in the faster EA had identified some
issue common to the two cases -- a surname issue or
name-and-likeness-of-living-individual issue, or
feather boa issue or smoking jacket issue. But no,
if you look at the two Office Actions, your strong
reaction would be that it must be that neither of
the EAs did anything at all to pay attention to the
work of the other of the EAs.</p>
<p> </p>
<div>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">On 2/6/2025 12:04 AM, Jaclyn
Ionin via E-trademarks wrote:</p>
</div>
<blockquote>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">Has the practice of all
applications by a single applicant being
pulled at once by examiners been
discontinued? </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">I have several sets of
applications not only owned by the same
owners and filed simultaneously, but some of
which are also straight translations of each
other, yet they are being pulled for
examination at different times by different
examiners. </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="x_MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="x_MsoNormal">Anyone else encountered
this recently?</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="moz-mime-attachment-header"></fieldset>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>