[E-trademarks] Please Reply with Questions (or answers, or both) About Trademark Searching

Mon Dec 18 20:12:32 EST 2023

One feature of the old TESS that is missing in the new system is searching
for goods/services wording in a particular class. The following TESS search
can't be conducted in the new system: ((ic with 009) same widget)[gs]. In
the new system you can search for all apps/regs that include (1) Class 9
and (2) "widgets" in the GS field. But you will get apps/regs which include
Class 9 and "widgets" in Classes other than 9 (as well as within 9). Though
this is not a search I have conducted often, it would be useful to have
(after more important improvements have been made).

I'm just getting to know the new system, but I think the way to do this is
to select expert mode and search goods and services for "widgets". Then use
the class filter on the left (with the Coordinated toggle off) to select
Class 9.  I think then you get only marks with "widgets" in Class 9.  I
don't think this works if you search using the field tags.

Thanks everyone for your tips on the new system.

Regards,
Scott
Winter Closure: Dec. 25 - Jan. 1
Scott Landsbaum, Inc.
323-314-7881 / f 323-714-2454
8306 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 420, Beverly Hills, CA  90211
www.scottlandsbaum.com / www.linkedin.com/in/scottlandsbaum/

NOTICE: This e-mail is intended solely for the individual or individuals to
whom it is addressed and may contain confidential attorney-client
privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the
intended recipient, please do not read, forward, print, copy or distribute
it or any of the information it contains.  Please delete it immediately and
notify us by return e-mail or by telephone at (323) 314-7881.

IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: Any discussion of tax matters contained in
this or any email (including any attachments) or in any oral or other written
communication is not intended to be used and cannot be used for the purpose
of avoiding U.S. tax related penalties or in connection with the promotion,
marketing or recommendation of any of the matters addressed in the
communication.

On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 3:20 PM Ron Kadden via E-trademarks <
e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:

> Ed,
>
> I agree in general that the new system is not inferior to or less
> efficient than the old TESS. It is better in some respects and worse in
> others. For example, the new system's results page, which shows the mark's
> design, initial owner, and at least some of the goods, is certainly more
> informative than the old TESS search results, even though it doesn't show
> the reg number or the current owner. I also think the regex option is a
> significant improvement. On the other hand, I, like others, would like to
> see a link to a TESS-like summary rather than a link to TSDR.
>
> One feature of the old TESS that is missing in the new system is searching
> for goods/services wording in a particular class. The following TESS search
> can't be conducted in the new system: ((ic with 009) same widget)[gs]. In
> the new system you can search for all apps/regs that include (1) Class 9
> and (2) "widgets" in the GS field. But you will get apps/regs which include
> Class 9 and "widgets" in Classes other than 9 (as well as within 9). Though
> this is not a search I have conducted often, it would be useful to have
> (after more important improvements have been made).
>
> Ron Kadden
>
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 2:59 PM Edward Timberlake via E-trademarks <
> e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:
>
>> I'd like to take this opportunity flatly to disagree with all the haters
>> of the new trademark search system.
>>
>> I'll readily admit the system takes some getting used to (so did TESS),
>> but I'd hardly characterize it as "inferior," or "inefficient," (especially
>> since there's no reason to believe it's anywhere close to being finished),
>> and I'm having a hard time seeing what specific bread-and-butter searching
>> tasks one could accomplish in TESS that would now require one to resort to
>> other searching services and tools.
>>
>> Even though I felt pretty comfortable constructing search queries in the
>> old system, I'm not finding the new environment fundamentally disorienting.
>> So far it seems more like being exposed to a language where many of the
>> words are clearly cognates but the modifiers go in different places. Plus
>> the interface is prettier.
>>
>> Rather than start a fight, though (actually, I'd be happy to start a
>> fight, but I'd much rather be trademark searching), I'd like to take this
>> opportunity to ask people if they'd be willing to respond with specific
>> search tasks they're having trouble accomplishing in the new search
>> environment.
>>
>> What, specifically, is the question you're trying to answer?
>>
>> Did you have a search strategy that worked in TESS? If so, what was it?
>>
>> There are a lot of us on this listserv (thanks Carl!), and we all know
>> how to do things. If we could match specific questions with specific search
>> strategies (or better yet, an array of strategies), it might be helpful and
>> sounds (at least to me) like more fun than complaining.
>>
>> Perhaps we could start with Michael Bressman's questions, which (if I
>> understand them correctly) we might summarize as:
>>
>> 1) How to search for records where he is listed as the attorney
>>
>> 2) How to sort among these records for filings with recent activity
>>
>> 3) How to limit search results to live or pending filings.
>>
>>
>> The first (admittedly opinionated) thing I would say would be:
>>
>> Never search by anything but field tags.
>>
>> (At least in my opinion, searching only or mostly by field tags gives us
>> the most flexibility for modifying strategies while also likely being able
>> to understand why we're getting—or not getting—the results we are.)
>>
>> For finding Michael as the attorney of record I'd be inclined to start
>> with:
>>
>> AT:bressman AND AT:michael
>>
>>
>> We could limit this to only live records by adding AND LD:true:
>>
>>  AT:bressman AND AT:michael AND LD:true
>>
>>
>> And we could further limit this to filings that were not yet registered
>> by adding AND NOT RN:* (which is the system's goofy way of saying no
>> registration number has been issued):
>>
>> AT:bressman AND AT:michael AND LD:true AND NOT RN:*
>>
>>
>> If we wanted to limit these to records which had been updated within a
>> certain range (for instance, since June 1st) we could add AND
>> UD:[2023-06-01 TO 2023-12-31]:
>>
>> AT:bressman AND AT:michael AND LD:true AND NOT RN:* AND UD:[2023-06-01 TO
>> 2023-12-31]
>>
>>
>> Since one of the possible updates in the UD field is when a new
>> application for registration of a trademark is filed, if we wanted to limit
>> the results to filings with updates since June other than new applications
>> for registration we could add AND NOT FD:[2023-06-01 TO 2023-12-31]:
>>
>> AT:bressman AND AT:michael AND LD:true AND NOT RN:* AND UD:[2023-06-01 TO
>> 2023-12-31] AND NOT FD:[2023-06-01 TO 2023-12-31]
>>
>>
>> Do people use other strategies to sort through results for records with
>> recent activity?
>>
>> As for Michael's last question (how to sort through records for live or
>> pending files), we already basically answered it by searching from the
>> beginning using field tags, then adding,
>>
>> for live records:
>>
>> AND LD:true
>>
>> for live records where no registration number has yet been issued (i.e.,
>> pending applications for registration of trademarks:
>>
>> AND LD:true AND NOT RN:*
>>
>>
>> What other questions do people have?
>>
>> What could you do in TESS that you can't seem to be able to do now?
>>
>> What strategies did people use before?
>>
>> What strategies are people using now?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Ed Timberlake
>> *Board Certified Specialist in Trademark Law
>> <https://www.nclawspecialists.gov/for-the-public/find-a-board-certified-specialist/results/detail/?id=29473>*
>>
>> *Timberlake Law* <http://timberlakelaw.com/>
>> Chapel Hill, NC
>>
>> Schedule a call on Clarity <https://clarity.fm/edtimberlake>
>> ed at timberlakelaw.com
>> 919.960.1950
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 16, 2023 at 11:39 AM Kroninger, Sr., Timothy K. <
>> tkkroninger at varnumlaw.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello all, I agree totally with David Henry’s (Michael Bressman’s)
>>> comments. The system is so far inferior and inefficient overall as compared
>>> to the prior searching system. It has forced me to resort to other
>>> searching services and tools, and the related added costs associated
>>> therewith.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Tim Kroninger
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> UDM Law School Trademark Clinic, Director and Adjunct Professor
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Timothy*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *K.*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Kroninger*
>>>
>>> Partner
>>>
>>> *Direct: *
>>>
>>> 313-481-7320
>>>
>>> *Cell: *
>>>
>>> 248-505-2348
>>>
>>> *Email: *
>>>
>>> tkkroninger at varnumlaw.com
>>>
>>> [image: Link to Biography]
>>> <https://www.varnumlaw.com/people/Timothy-K-Kroninger>
>>>
>>> [image: Link to V-Card]
>>> <https://www.varnumlaw.com/wp-content/themes/jupiterx-child/downloadVcard.php?v_per=2007>
>>>
>>> [image: Linked In]
>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/tim-or-timothy-k-kroninger-b948b022/>
>>>
>>> [image: Twitter] <http://twitter.com/@varnumlaw>
>>>
>>> Varnum LLP
>>>
>>> 480 Pierce St., Suite 300
>>>
>>> Birmingham, Michigan 48009
>>>
>>> varnumlaw.com <http://www.varnumlaw.com/>
>>>
>>> ******************************
>>> CONFIDENTIAL
>>> The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be
>>> attorney-client privileged, may constitute inside information, and is only
>>> for viewing and use of the intended recipients. If you are not an intended
>>> recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, disclosure, or copying is
>>> strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this
>>> communication in error, please immediately notify the sender at
>>> 616-336-6000.
>>> ******************************
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Henry, David <David_Henry at baylor.edu>
>>> *Sent:* Friday, December 15, 2023 1:14 PM
>>> *To:* Bressman, Michael <michael.bressman at vanderbilt.edu>
>>> *Cc:*
>>>
>>> *Subject:* Re: New USPTO Trademark Search Tool
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> As one who is adept at using the old tool, I do not like it in the
>>> least.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Dec 15, 2023, at 12:12, Bressman, Michael <
>>> michael.bressman at vanderbilt.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>> I’m curious how most of you feel about the new USPTO trademark search
>>> tool. I am finding the sorting very difficult to use. For example, if I do
>>> a search for all marks that I am the attorney for, it defaults to sorting
>>> by relevance (though most the marks that show up at the beginning are long
>>> dead). If I want to see which marks have had recent USPTO activity, I have
>>> not figured out how to sort for that. For example, in the old version if an
>>> examiner had a approved a mark for publication or if there was a section 8
>>> reminder generated, that mark would be toward the top of the list. Maybe
>>> there is a way to do that that I have not figured out. I am also finding it
>>> difficult after conducting a search to then limit the findings to live or
>>> pending marks (I can’t seem to uncheck the boxes at that point).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So, just trying to figure out if it is just me or if others are finding
>>> the system not so user friendly.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Happy Holidays!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Michael
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *_________________________________________________*
>>>
>>> Michael B. Bressman
>>>
>>> Professor of the Practice of Law
>>>
>>> Faculty Clerkship Advisor
>>>
>>> Vanderbilt Law School
>>>
>>> 131 21st Avenue South
>>>
>>> Nashville, Tennessee 37203
>>>
>>> P:  (615) 322-4964
>>>
>>> F:  (615) 343-6562
>>>
>>> E:  michael.bressman at vanderbilt.edu
>>>
>>> www.linkedin.com/pub/michael-bressman/66/a55/51b/
>>>
>>> --
>> E-trademarks mailing list
>> E-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com
>> http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com
>>
> --
> E-trademarks mailing list
> E-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com
> http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20231218/62a4cfd8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1772 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20231218/62a4cfd8/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 661 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20231218/62a4cfd8/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 587 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20231218/62a4cfd8/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.png
Type: image/png
Size: 604 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20231218/62a4cfd8/attachment-0003.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image005.png
Type: image/png
Size: 702 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20231218/62a4cfd8/attachment-0004.png>