[E-trademarks] Cost imposed on the user (was Thanks for the six hours warning on Friday evening that I can't save my draft form...)
Carl Oppedahl
carl at oppedahl.com
Tue Dec 12 10:54:09 EST 2023
I'd guess that not one of the USPTO developers managing this particular
"update" to the TEAS software has ever in his or her life actually used
any of the TEAS forms involved here, in the actual service of a real client.
I'd guess that the same may be said for whatever beltway bandit
contractor is being "managed" (using the term loosely ) by the USPTO
developers.
I'd guess that if you were to put any of these people on the spot, their
stammered answer would be that so far as they knew, the "saved
submission" feature was sort of a "nice to have" thing but not actually
really important.
Yesterday I received instructions from foreign counsel to carry out a
trademark renewal. The fact pattern is complicated and there are layers
of communication involved. I am not, for example, in direct
communication with the underlying client. The TM registration has five
trademark classes in it. The USPTO's proclivity to do "audits" on
foreign renewals that have lots of semicolons in the ID means that we
have no choice but to worry and worry about the many would-be specimens
of use. It is almost certain that two or three or four versions of the
would-be TEAS submission will need to be generated and reviewed before
the underlying client reaches a confidence level as to everything about
what will be contained and said in the renewal. There are time zones
involved so that every iteration will include a loss of at least a
24-hour cycle.
Preparing this TEAS submission, and checking its correctness, took me
around an hour.
In a normal TEAS workflow, I would save the submission each time, prior
to shipping the "click here" link off to foreign counsel. Then the next
day when I hear back about the need to make some adjustment to the
filing package, I need merely reload the submission file and make the
adjustment, and the time required would be just a few minutes.
Same thing a day after that when yet another review cycle has happened
and it turns out that yet another adjustment is needed. Maybe against
all odds the client managed to snap one last photograph and now there is
one more specimen of use to add to the many specimens of use that had
already been uploaded to the submission.
But instead of "one hour on the first day plus ten minutes a day later
plus another ten minutes a day later", this task for this client is
going to suck up maybe three hours of my time. All because the
saved-submission feature has been broken for several days now.
More importantly, every time I have to start from a blank form,
constructing the renewal package all over again, I have to check the
correctness of it from the top to the bottom. Suppose that on the
second try or the third try, I inadvertently get it a little bit wrong
on which goods from class 10 are to be canceled and which are to be
retained. If eventually that submission is the one that gets submitted
and it turns out I canceled something that was not supposed to be
canceled, it is impossible to get that item of goods back into the
case. There is an enormous malpractice risk every time that I start
over again from a blank form.
My point here being that the USPTO developers probably have no clue,
none at all, about how wrong they are if they use "nice to have but not
really super important to have" as their way of characterizing the
saved-submission feature.
On 12/12/2023 7:40 AM, Richard Schafer wrote:
>
> Still broken today after three days of outage.
>
> This is significant egg-on-face territory for the PTO and reinforces
> the opinion that the PTO’s IT department and their contractors are
> incompetent.
>
> Best regards,
> *Richard A. Schafer | Schafer IP Law*
> P.O. Box 230081 | Houston, TX 77223
> M: 832.283.6564 | richard at schafer-ip.com <mailto:richard at schafer-ip.com>
>
> *From:* E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> *On
> Behalf Of *Carl Oppedahl via E-trademarks
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 12, 2023 1:43 AM
> *To:* For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek
> legal advice. <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> *Cc:* Carl Oppedahl <carl at oppedahl.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [E-trademarks] Thanks for the six hours warning on
> Friday evening that I can't save my draft form...
>
> Thank you for posting.
>
> On 12/11/2023 12:35 PM, Tim Ackermann via E-trademarks wrote:
>
> Evidently, this is still broken -- you cannot save many of the
> TEAS forms. No ETA on repair.
>
> https://www.uspto.gov/blog/ebiz/
>
> Tim Ackermann
>
> The Ackermann Law Firm
>
> E: tim at ackermannlaw.com
> P: 817.305.0690
> F: 214.453.0810
> W: ackermannlaw.com <http://ackermannlaw.com>
> O: 1701 W. Northwest Hwy. Ste. 100
> Grapevine TX 76051
>
> On Sat, Dec 9, 2023 at 3:10 PM Tim Ackermann
> <tim at ackermannlaw.com> wrote:
>
> Posted at *06:24PM Dec 08, 2023*
> <https://www.uspto.gov/blog/ebiz/entry/planned-events941> in Planned
> Events |
>
> Friday Dec 08, 2023
>
> Planned Events
>
> *Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) Save Feature
> Temporarily Disabled on Some Forms*
> The USPTO will be updating the TEAS forms below which requires
> us to disable the save feature on those forms *beginning at
> 12:01 a.m. on Saturday*, December 9 ET. An update will be
> posted on this page once the save feature is restored.
> You’ll still be able to:
>
> * Save certain forms, including initial applications
> * Upload data from previously saved forms
> * Submit all TEAS forms as usual
>
> Saving will be temporarily disabled on the following forms:
>
> * Change Address or Representation Form
> * Combined Declaration of Continued Use/Excusable Nonuse and
> Incontestability under Sections 71 and 15
> * Combined Declaration of Use and Incontestability Under
> Section 8 and 15
> * Combined Declaration of Use and/or Excusable
> Nonuse/Application for Renewal of Registration of a Mark
> under Section 8 and 9
> * Declaration of Incontestability of a Mark under Section 15
> * Declaration of Use and Excusable Nonuse under Section 71
> * Declaration of Use and/or Excusable Nonuse of Mark in
> Commerce Under Section 8
> * Letter of Protest
> * Petition for Expungement or Reexamination Form
> * Petition to Revive Abandoned Application - Failure to File
> Timely Statement of Use or Extension Request
> * Petition to Revive Abandoned Application - Failure to
> Respond Timely to Office Action
> * Petition to the Director
> * Post-Publication Amendment
> * Request for Express Abandonment
> * Request for Extension of Time to File a Response
> * Request for Permission to Withdraw as Attorney of Record
> * Request for Reconsideration after Final Action
> * Request To Delete Section 1(b) Basis, Intent to Use
> * Response to Office Action
> * Response to Office Action for Post-Registration
> Matters/Response to Office Action for Post-Registration
> for Expungement or Reexamination Form
> * Response to Suspension Inquiry or Letter of Suspension
> * Section 7 Request Form
> * SOU Extension Request
> * Trademark/Service Mark Allegation of Use
> * Voluntary Amendment Not in Response to USPTO Office
> Action/Letter Form
>
> Thank you for your understanding. If you have questions,
> email *teas at uspto.gov* <mailto:teas at uspto.gov>.
>
>
> Tim Ackermann
>
> The Ackermann Law Firm
>
> E: tim at ackermannlaw.com
> P: 817.305.0690
> F: 214.453.0810
> W: ackermannlaw.com <http://ackermannlaw.com>
> O: 1701 W. Northwest Hwy. Ste. 100
> Grapevine TX 76051
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20231212/965a4aeb/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4514 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20231212/965a4aeb/attachment.p7s>
More information about the E-trademarks
mailing list