<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>What I like about this is that I get to see how people do
sophisticated trademark searches. I would not have been able to
figure out how to identify cases that were <i>pro se</i>.<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/25/2025 8:13 AM, Ken Boone via
E-trademarks wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:SN6PR14MB223799858018BEAF56B12657D5C32@SN6PR14MB2237.namprd14.prod.outlook.com">
<div class="elementToProof">
<span>Per Carl's comment regarding <b>pro se</b> filings, my
last search retrieved 96 trademarks
</span><span>having the
</span><span><b><i>new application assigned to an examining
attorney for examination</i></b></span><span> status on
TSDR. Repeating that search with additional criteria, 23 of
those 96 trademarks appear to be
<b>pro se</b> filings, and 73 of those 96 appear to have <b>attorney
of record</b> entries. My additional 2 searches are below.</span></div>
<div class="elementToProof">
<span><br>
</span></div>
<table>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<span>SA:( "new application not assigned for examination"
) NOT UD:[20231201 TO *]</span></td>
<td>
<span>96</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="elementToProof">
<div>
<span>AT:* AND</span><span> SA:( "new application not
assigned for examination" ) NOT UD:[20231201 TO *]</span></div>
</td>
<td>
<span>73</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<span>SA:( "new application not assigned for examination"
) NOT ( UD:[20231201 TO *]
</span><span>AT:*</span><span> )</span></td>
<td>
<span>23</span></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<div class="elementToProof">
<br>
</div>
<div id="Signature">
<div>
<br>
</div>
<div>
Ken Boone</div>
</div>
<div>
<br>
</div>
<hr>
<div dir="ltr" id="divRplyFwdMsg"><span><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
Janice Housey 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> Tuesday, February 25, 2025 8:42 AM<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> Janice Housey <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:jhousey@litmuslaw.com"><jhousey@litmuslaw.com></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [E-trademarks] Yet Another TM Backlog -
What If The EA Doesn't Examine?</span>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div>
There are also cases (I know of at least two) where there is
skilled trademark counsel that inherited long lingering
applications. Follow ups have been met with "well, we are
examining the original attorney who filed the applications so
these applications are stuck in perpetual purgatory and we don't
know what will happen to them and we don't even know when we
will be able to tell you what will happen to them." (Of course,
I have liberally paraphrased.)</div>
<div>
<br>
</div>
<div>
<br>
</div>
<div class="x_elementToProof" id="x_Signature">
<p>
<span><b><i>Janice Housey</i></b></span><span> </span></p>
<p>
<span>Litmus Law PLLC<br>
4 Weems Lane #240<br>
Winchester, Virginia 22601</span><span> </span></p>
<p>
<span>703.957.5274 office<br>
703.851.6737 cell</span></p>
<p>
<span> </span></p>
<p>
<span><br>
ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION<br>
This communication is subject to the attorney-client
privilege of confidentiality, and is intended only for the
identified recipient. If you have received this message in
error, please contact the sender and destroy all copies,
hard and electronic, in your possession. Thank you.</span><span> </span></p>
<div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<br>
</div>
<hr>
<div dir="ltr" id="x_divRplyFwdMsg"><span><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
Carl Oppedahl 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> Tuesday, February 25, 2025 4:00 AM<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> Carl Oppedahl <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:carl@oppedahl.com"><carl@oppedahl.com></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [E-trademarks] Yet Another TM Backlog -
What If The EA Doesn't Examine?</span>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div>On 2/24/2025 7:53 PM, Ken Boone via E-trademarks wrote:</div>
<blockquote>
<div>Well, I started reviewing the prosecution histories of the
older applications. Many of these applications have been
stagnant for years. Then again, attorneys in this discussion
group would be contacting the USPTO frequently to get their
applications moving forward, right?</div>
</blockquote>
<p>This is a fun question.</p>
<p>Keep in mind if a case had been filed by a
<i>pro se</i> filer, it is not beyond imagining that the filer
might allow a long time to pass without going back and checking
on status.</p>
<p>And then imagining a case filed by some attorney who really
ought not to be doing it -- an attorney who has only filed two
applications in their career and one of them was ten years ago.
In an office where nobody else has ever filed a trademark
application, or maybe it is a solo practitioner. And docketing
is only carried out in a limited fashion. Such a trademark file
might not get looked at again until something shows up from the
Trademark Office.</p>
<p>Then we turn to trademark mills. Some of them are probably
actually pretty good about stuff like docketing. A few of them
might sort of give almost no attention to the case once the
up-front money has been collected.</p>
<p>But yes, the listserv members who do almost nothing all day
except trademark work, they are surely going to set sensible
dockets and are surely going to make inquiry when it makes
sense. In our office we would start to worry if 7-8 months had
passed since filing and no indication of progress. Having said
that, in the past year I think every case we filed did get acted
upon by an EA before 8 months had passed.</p>
<br>
<fieldset class="moz-mime-attachment-header"></fieldset>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>