<div dir="ltr"><div>That's the assumption i'm not willing to make because I'm not sure what happens when they are added to the pseudomark field. Do the lookalike Cyrillic letters get coded as the regular character lookalike? if you're searching the CM field for the mark, you will be searching the pseudomark database too. l did a simple search on the PTO website for OMMISIMQIST and it came up. A search for \u0412 CCETTA \u0412\u041e\u0421\u0421\u0415 RE INVENTED also had the mark in question returned as a result. </div><div><br></div><div>You may do a very targeted search to find a mark you're specifically looking for and might not find it on first go, but you'll keep looking. If you are doing a clearance search and miss a mark because of miscoding, you may have bigger problems because your search doesn't have a wide enough net.There are lots of marks that substitute characters ($ for S, K for C) that you have to be thinking about, although I've not yet thought to add a Cyrillic lookalike to my search strategy. If you're searching for QIST at the end of a mark, and don't consider that a relevant hit would be one with an S at the end, meaning you should throw an asterisk at the end, then you're aren't doing a very good job searching. </div><div><br></div><div>Maybe some of the errors are significant, but maybe some are not, which is why the PTO doesn't care about them. I think the relevant question is "does this error in character mean that the correct mark is not in the PM database?", not whether there is perfection in the WD database.</div><div><br></div><div>Pam Chestek</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, Oct 12, 2025 at 3:39\u202fPM Carl Oppedahl <<a href="mailto:carl@oppedahl.com">carl@oppedahl.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><u></u>
<div>
<p>Keep in mind that I characterized this as a special case of a
general problem. The general problem is "the mark as listed in
the database contains at least one character that is not a
standard character" while at the same time the applicant is
presenting a standard character claim.</p>
<p>Here I could imagine some observers would say "no harm no foul"
on the view that the ink on the page of the registration
certificate will be the same with or without the ZWSP in the
search database. </p>
<p>But other Unicode mistakes that have been identified are much
more likely to make trouble for EA searches or user clearance
searches. For example the recent example of <span>99414215 where
the first character is </span>U+0412 : CYRILLIC CAPITAL LETTER
VE. It looks like a "B" in terms of ink on the page. But the EA
who searches for mark that starts with a "B" won't catch this
application. The user doing a clearance search looking for marks
that start with "B" won't catch it.</p>
<p>A few characters down the line is U+0421 : CYRILLIC CAPITAL
LETTER ES. It looks like "C" but you won't get a hit on that
character if you look for a "C".</p>
<p>And after that is U+0415 : CYRILLIC CAPITAL LETTER IE. It looks
like an "E" but you won't get a match if you search for a "E".</p>
<p>Yes the ink on the page of the registration certificate will look
like "\u0412 CCETTA \u0412\u041e\u0421\u0421\u0415 RE INVENTED". But if you do a text search
for "\u0412 CCETTA \u0412\u041e\u0421\u0421\u0415 RE INVENTED" the search will fail. Five of
the characters will fail to match because they are Cyrillic
characters that happen to look like standard (Latin) characters.</p>
<p>I don't do searching for a living so I don't know how often the
ZWSP mistake would throw off the results of a search. I don't
disagree with you that the ink-on-the-page mark for this ZWSP fail
is "OMMISIMQIST\u200b". But suppose somebody does a search for "marks
where the last four characters are "QIST"? That search will fail
because the last character as listed in the USPTO database is the
ZWSP character and the three characters before that are "IST". So
the search for "marks where the last four characters are "QIST"
will fail to catch this case.</p>
<div>On 10/12/2025 4:17 PM, Pamela Chestek
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="auto">But how does the ZWSP mistake matter? What EA
search or user clearance search will be unreliable because there
is a missing invisible character at the end? If your searches
are so literal that it makes a difference (assuming it even
does, which I'm not convinced of), then there are many other
potentially similar marks you would have missed. I would rather
have the Trademark Office concentrate its efforts on problems
that have legal significance, or make either EAs or users burn
unnecessary time, than this kind of error, which doesn't appear
to me to cause either problem.
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Pam </div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, Oct 12, 2025, 10:32\u202fAM
Carl Oppedahl via E-trademarks <<a href="mailto:e-trademarks@oppedahl-lists.com" target="_blank">e-trademarks@oppedahl-lists.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<p>Thank you Ken for posting.</p>
<p>So if anybody wonders "why is it that some nameless
person at the Trademark Office pulled this case from pub
on October 10?" the answer seems likely to be "Ken told
them about it for the second or third or fourth time on
October 7 and they finally sort of paid attention to it".
Except whoever was doing the "paying attention" did not
really pay attention. Because that person then released
the case back into pub without actually correcting the
Trademark Office mistake.</p>
<p>This particular problem falls into a very
easy-to-spell-out general category, namely "applications
that have a standard character claim but where the mark
contains at least one character that is not a standard
character".</p>
<p>It is decades ago that I did my first computer
programming (in Fortran). Since then I have done lots
more computer programming in several programming
languages. </p>
<p>For a couple of years now I only sort of vaguely knew of
the existence of Unicode, but Ken's postings within the
past year or so prompted me to gain some familiarity with
Unicode. <br>
</p>
<p>I'd guess there are at least a dozen members of this
listserv (including myself) who, given developer-level
access within the Trademark Office, could write a simple
report generator computer program in any of half a dozen
programming languages that would instantly generate a
report listing every case in this general category. What
I know with absolute certainty is that there is no way the
Trademark Office would ever accept such help, even if
provided free of charge, for the simple reason that it
would be too close to admitting error and too close to
admitting that anyone outside the Trademark Office could
do something better than those within the Trademark
Office.</p>
<p>The report generator, if only it were to be allowed to
come into existence (probably free of charge), could then
be run once a week or even once a month, and the
nameless-pull-from-pub-person could be handed the list and
told to keep trying until they would make it so that the
cases on the list did not show up on the next report.</p>
<p>This is the sort of thing that computers are supposed to
be good at, given the opportunity.</p>
<p>Carl</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div>On 10/12/2025 5:15 AM, Ken Boone wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div> As it happens, I also have been keeping an eye on
99181596 OMMISIMQIST\u200b. Following is an October 7th <b><i>alert
</i></b>that I provided to the USPTO, where 99181596
OMMISIMQIST is the 3rd trademark on the list. (I see
some evidence of activity to correct 3 of the 20
trademarks listed. For example, the 1st trademark
99264792 LA FRANCÉ LF is no longer a standard character
mark. BTW, the search <span><b>WD:( *\u200b* )</b></span><b>
</b>with that ZWSP between the asterisks now retrieves 3
trademarks: 99283545 \u200b<b>RAPIDREST</b>, 99181596 <b>OMMISIMQIST</b>\u200b,
and 98111449 <b>KY\u016a\u200b\u200b\u200b\u200b\u200b\u200b\u200bR</b>.</div>
<div> <br>
</div>
<hr>
<div id="m_1967031857822916372m_2489380887310787621divRplyFwdMsg">
<div> <b>From:</b> Ken Boone <a href="mailto:boondogles@hotmail.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"><boondogles@hotmail.com></a><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, October 7, 2025 9:38 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> TMFeedback <a href="mailto:tmfeedback@uspto.gov" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"><tmfeedback@uspto.gov></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Challenging Trademarks In The
Publication Queue</div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div> By my checks, 5 of the 16 challenging trademarks
that I reported on September 26th have been addressed. </div>
<div> <br>
</div>
<div> Today's list includes the 11 challenging trademarks
that were not addressed plus 9 new challenging
trademarks (20 total trademarks), though one trademark
has registered since initially reported.</div>
<div> <br>
</div>
<table id="m_1967031857822916372m_2489380887310787621table_0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<div> <span>#</span></div>
</td>
<td>
<div> <span>SN</span></div>
</td>
<td>
<div> <span>Wordmark</span></div>
</td>
<td>
<div> <span>Drawing</span></div>
</td>
<td>
<div> <span>Comment</span></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<div> 1</div>
</td>
<td>
<div> 99264792</div>
</td>
<td>
<div> LA FRANCÉ LF</div>
</td>
<td>
<div> <img alt="Image for 99264792"> </div>
</td>
<td>
<div> The drawing and description of mark [The
mark consists of The mark consists of the mark
"LAFRANCE" in a stylized font, with an accent
above the letter "E". The stylized abbreviation
\u201cLF\u201d is superimposed above the word
\u201cLAFRANCE.\u201d.] contradict the standard character
mark claim. Also, correct the repetition of
"The mark consists of" in the description of
mark.</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<div> 2</div>
</td>
<td>
<div> 99194118</div>
</td>
<td>
<div> O\u041a</div>
</td>
<td>
<div> <img alt="Image for 99194118"> </div>
</td>
<td>
<div> The letter \u041a is the Unicode character with
decimal value 1050 (Cyrillic Capital Letter Ka),
not the standard character K. I doubt the
applicant was aware of the presence of the
unusual Cyrillic letter \u041a. Substitute the
ordinary K for the Cyrillic letter \u041a; else, add
the appropriate design code for Cyrillic
letters.</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<div> 3</div>
</td>
<td>
<div> 99181596</div>
</td>
<td>
<div> OMMISIMQIST\u200b</div>
</td>
<td>
<div> <img alt="Image for 99181596"> </div>
</td>
<td>
<div> How many characters do you see in the
wordmark? Just 11? Actually, there are 12.
There is an unusual Unicode character with
decimal value 8203 ( the ZERO WIDTH SPACE, a
non-printing character that can be used to
indicate a potential line break opportunity
within a word or phrase, without introducing a
visible space or hyphen) appended to the
wordmark. Since the ZERO WIDTH SPACE is not
included in the standard character set, delete
this ZERO WIDTH SPACE from the wordmark.</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<div> 4</div>
</td>
<td>
<div> 99154626</div>
</td>
<td>
<div> S&DENT</div>
</td>
<td>
<div> <img alt="Image for 99154626"> </div>
</td>
<td>
<div> The drawing is poorly cropped, plus the
description of mark [The mark consists of the
stylized wording "S&DENT".] indicates this
is stylized text, not a standard character mark.</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<div> 5</div>
</td>
<td>
<div> 99145834</div>
</td>
<td>
<div> DAPHOO FORCE</div>
</td>
<td>
<div> <img alt="Image for 99145834"> </div>
</td>
<td>
<div> Tthe drawing and description of mark [The
mark consists of the words "DAPHOO FORCE" in
stylized letters below a lotus flower. Going
across the lotus flower is an EKG heartbeat line
which turns into a running stick figure.]
contradict the standard character mark claim.</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<div> 6</div>
</td>
<td>
<div> 99108096</div>
</td>
<td>
<div> GOCAN</div>
</td>
<td>
<div> <img alt="Image for 99108096"> </div>
</td>
<td>
<div> The contradictory and obsolete description
of mark [The mark consists of the stylized
wording "GOCAN" with a design of a circular
pattern featuring stylized depictions of a
mountain landscape, full moon, and roadway in
front of the wording.] for this standard
character mark should be deleted.</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<div> 7</div>
</td>
<td>
<div> 99097553</div>
</td>
<td>
<div> SPµ</div>
</td>
<td>
<div> <img alt="Image for 99097553"> </div>
</td>
<td>
<div> The wordmark (SPµ) is inconsistent with the
description of mark (The mark consists of the
stylized wording "SP\u03c0".). </div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<div> 8</div>
</td>
<td>
<div> 99027509</div>
</td>
<td>
<div> MS MARSHEIK</div>
</td>
<td>
<div> <img alt="Image for 99027509"> </div>
</td>
<td>
<div> The drawing and description of mark [The
mark consists of the stylized letters "MS" in a
handwritten, cursive font, where the letters are
interconnected. Below the letters, there is a
horizontal line, beneath which appears the
stylized wording "MARSHEIK".] contradict the
standard character mark claim.</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<div> 9</div>
</td>
<td>
<div> 98931863</div>
</td>
<td>
<div> PALE TRADING CO.</div>
</td>
<td>
<div> <img alt="Image for 98931863"> </div>
</td>
<td>
<div> The description of mark [The mark consists
of standard characters without claim to any
particular font style, size, or color.]
indicates this text & design application is
really a standard character mark. Change the
mark drawing code to standard character mark and
delete the obsolete 26.09.21 design code.</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<div> 10</div>
</td>
<td>
<div> 98912015</div>
</td>
<td>
<div> HAVEN</div>
</td>
<td>
<div> <br>
<img height="347" width="268" id="m_1967031857822916372m_2489380887310787621x_markImage" alt="Trademark image"></div>
<div> </div>
</td>
<td>
<div> Published 9/16/2025 as a typed drawing mark,
except the era for typed drawings ended 1
November 2003, so this should have been a
standard character mark when published, except
there is a design element in the drawing. Also,
the drawing has excess blank space above and
below the mark that could be cropped out.</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<div> 11</div>
</td>
<td>
<div> 98875872</div>
</td>
<td>
<div> W.E.L.L. NEWS \u2015 WELLNESS, EATING, LIVING,
& LEARNING.</div>
</td>
<td>
<div> <img alt="Image for 98875872"> </div>
</td>
<td>
<div> The \u2015 character is the Unicode character
with the decimal value 8213, a Horizontal Bar
character, but since it is not a standard
character, shouldn't the USPTO substitute a
similar valid standard character?</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<div> 12</div>
</td>
<td>
<div> 98790010</div>
</td>
<td>
<div> SINCE 1968 BUGANGOK A PREMIUM SUNDAEGUK
PASSED DOWN THROUGH GENERATIONS</div>
</td>
<td>
<div> <img alt="Image for 98790010"> </div>
</td>
<td>
<div> The drawing and description of mark [The
mark consists of the stylized Chinese character
meaning wealth in a circle all in black with
slightly extended horizontal lines on both the
left and right sides with the words SINCE 1968
in black underneath; the word BUGANGOK in black
and the stylized Korean characters meaning a
nation located in the east, each Korean
character in white and being arranged in a
column direction on a red square background next
to the word BUGANGOK, both of which are placed
underneath the words SINCE 1968; the phrase "A
premium sundaeguk passed down through
generations" in black is underneath BUGANGOK and
the Korean characters.] contradict the standard
character mark claim.</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<div> 13</div>
</td>
<td>
<div> 98015467</div>
</td>
<td>
<div> CARWELL</div>
</td>
<td>
<div> <img alt="Image for 98015467"> </div>
</td>
<td>
<div> The obsolete design code [07.11.07 -
Highways with lines or dividers; intersections
(roads) with lines or dividers; Roads with lines
or dividers; Streets with lines or dividers]
should be deleted for this standard character
mark.</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<div> 14</div>
</td>
<td>
<div> 88463388</div>
</td>
<td>
<div> NUTREETION</div>
</td>
<td>
<div> <img alt="Image for 88463388"> </div>
</td>
<td>
<div> The obsolete description of mark [The mark
consists of "NUTREETION" in white font encased
in Circle filled with Green color.] should be
deleted for this standard character mark.</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<div> 15</div>
</td>
<td>
<div> 79418788</div>
</td>
<td>
<div> \u0391\u039c\u039f\u0399</div>
</td>
<td>
<div> <img alt="Image for 79418788"> </div>
</td>
<td>
<div> The search CM:amoi does NOT retrieve this
trademark. Why? There are Unicode Greek
characters (that look like A-Z standard
characters) in the wordmark. Without the Greek
characters design code, the current wordmark is
deceptive and could impact searching for this
STYLIZED TEXT mark.</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<div> 16</div>
</td>
<td>
<div> 79416509</div>
</td>
<td>
<div> GX\uff65SONIC STREAM</div>
</td>
<td>
<div> <img alt="Image for 79416509"> </div>
</td>
<td>
<div> Substitute the standard character · for
\u2022 ( the Unicode character with decimal value
65381 [Halfwidth Katakana Middle Dot?] that is
NOT in the Standard Character Set) in the
wordmark for this Standard Character Mark?</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<div> 17</div>
</td>
<td>
<div> 79408569</div>
</td>
<td>
<div> RILASTIL</div>
</td>
<td>
<div> <img alt="Image for 79408569"> </div>
</td>
<td>
<div> The drawing and description of mark [The
mark consists of standard characters without
claim to any particular font style, size, or
color.] contradict the current STYLIZED TEXT
mark drawing code.</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<div> 18</div>
</td>
<td>
<div> 79408087</div>
</td>
<td>
<div> FREEZETECH \u0391</div>
</td>
<td>
<div> <img alt="Image for 79408087"> </div>
</td>
<td>
<div> Scheduled for publication, considering the
in the drawing and the description of mark [The
mark consists of the stylized wording FREEZETECH
A with the lower case letter "A" taking the form
of the Greek letter alpha.], isn't the design
code 28.01.05 - Alpha (Greek letter)
appropriate for this STYLIZED TEXT application?</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<div> 19</div>
</td>
<td>
<div> 79404822</div>
</td>
<td>
<div> KOOKA\u0407</div>
</td>
<td>
<div> <img alt="Image for 79404822"> </div>
</td>
<td>
<div> The final letter \u0407 is the Unicode character
with the decimal value 1031 , the CYRILLIC
CAPITAL LETTER YI. The search WD:*\u0407* AND MD:4
using this CYRILLIC CAPITAL LETTER YI retrieves
only this KOOKA\u0407 trademark, while the WD:*Ï*
AND MD:4 search using the standard character Ï
retrieves over 3.7 million trademarks. Revise
the wordmark for this pending trademark to use
the standard character Ï; else, add the
Cyrillic characters design code.</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<div> 20</div>
</td>
<td>
<div> 79337527</div>
</td>
<td>
<div> ZIGZAG</div>
</td>
<td>
<div> <img alt="Image for 79337527"> </div>
</td>
<td>
<div> The drawing and description of mark [The
mark consists of the stylized wording
"ZIGZAG."] contradict the standard character
mark claim.</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<div> <br>
</div>
<div> The search SN:( 99264792 99194118 99181596 99154626
99145834 99108096 99097553 99027509 98931863 98912015
98875872 98790010 98015467 88463388 79418788 79416509
79408569 79408087 79404822 79337527 ) retrieves these 20
challenging trademarks.</div>
<div> <br>
</div>
<div> <br>
</div>
<div id="m_1967031857822916372m_2489380887310787621x_Signature">
<div> Hope this helps,</div>
<div> Ken Boone, USPTO IT Specialist (Retired)</div>
</div>
<div> <br>
</div>
<div> <br>
</div>
<div> <br>
</div>
<hr>
<div id="m_1967031857822916372m_2489380887310787621divRplyFwdMsg">
<div> <b>From:</b> Carl Oppedahl <a href="mailto:carl@oppedahl.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"><carl@oppedahl.com></a><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, October 12, 2025 4:57 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> For trademark practitioners. This is not
for laypersons to seek legal advice. <a href="mailto:e-trademarks@oppedahl-lists.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"><e-trademarks@oppedahl-lists.com></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> The ZWSP mistake at the Trademark
Office</div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div>On 5/24/2025 11:15 AM, Ken Boone via E-trademarks
wrote:</div>
<blockquote>
<div>PS - Do you notice anything unusual about 99181596,
the trademark <u>OMMISIMQIST\u200b</u> in standard
characters. The search WD:( *\u200b* ) with that</div>
<div><u><img id="m_1967031857822916372m_2489380887310787621x_image_0" alt="Image for 99181596, select for more details"></u></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>It's another case of counting the letters in the
wordmark. It looks like there are only 11 characters
in the wordmark, but there are actually 12. The final
letter is the Unicode character with decimal value
8203, the <i>zero-width space (rendered: \u200b ; HTML
entity: &ZeroWidthSpace; or &#8203; ),
abbreviated ZWSP, is a non-printing character used
in computerized typesetting to indicate where the
word boundaries are, without actually displaying a
visible space in the rendered text</i>. The search <b>WD:(
*\u200b* ) </b>with that <i>zero-width space</i> character
between the two * wildcard operators retrieves only
this OMMISIMQIST\u200b trademark. The similar search <b>CM:(
*\u200b* )</b> retrieves 6 live trademarks, including 2
registrations. Go figure.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Hello fellow listserv members.</p>
<p>It will be recalled that on May 24, Ken found this
application number 99181596 which is supposedly a
standard-character mark, except that from the day it was
filed it contained Unicode 8203 at the end. This is a
zero-width space or ZWSP character.</p>
<p>I plugged it into my IP Badger.</p>
<p>I figured that one or another of the many Trademark
Office lurkers would have quietly flagged the case to
correct this Trademark Office mistake.</p>
<p>On September 25, the case reached the desk of the
Examining Attorney. The EA approved it for publication
the next day.</p>
<p>On October 10, this happened:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>692 - WITHDRAWN BEFORE PUBLICATION</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>10/10/2025 ON HOLD - ELECTRONIC RECORD REVIEW
REQUI\u2026</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I assumed this must surely mean that somebody at the
Trademark Office was paying attention to the failure on
the part of the Trademark Office to have noticed until
now the non-standard character contained in this
supposedly standard-character mark.</p>
<p>But now on October 12, whoever the nameless person was
who pulled the case before publication has quietly let
go of it. Now it is back in the publication workflow.
The Trademark Office has selected October 28 as the day
it plans to publish this application. And (I am not
making this up) the ZWSP is still in the mark.</p>
<p>Carl</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
</blockquote>
</div>
-- <br>
E-trademarks mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:E-trademarks@oppedahl-lists.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">E-trademarks@oppedahl-lists.com</a><br>
<a href="http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote></div>