[E-trademarks] Hot Take on Improvements Needed for Design Descriptions/Codes/Searching

[Jaclyn Ionin]

I know we have much bigger fish to fry with NEW TESS, but am I the only one
who is  frustrated with how archaic, incomplete, and poorly managed the
design mark categorization and searching is? The standards for descriptions
are so loose and have no consistency, and the  design codes do not come
close to covering all the visual elements that could be used. This results
in having to search for broad terms that COULD encompass your mark, but
also end up producing tons of results that definitely do not apply... OR
you simply miss marks that are actually quite similar just because the
elements they share are not elements that can be searched for within the
confines of the existing system, or COULD be searched for, but aren't
REQUIRED to be included in the description, or are included in the
description, but without any standardized uniform language across the
board. Design searching should not be this inefficient.

The USPTO should employ actual designers to evaluate each mark and properly
craft consistent descriptions, or at minimum have actual designers develop
standardized formula models for descriptions. For example:

   - styles of fonts (script, serif, sans serif, bubble, block, and
   preferably even more specific like gothic serif, wedge serif, slab serif,
   etc.) should be a required inclusion for any stylized mark or design mark
   with literal elements;
   - if a mark is an ambigram, or has other symmetrical elements, that
   should be a required inclusion;
   - consistent ways to describe directions of letters or lines (diagonal
   from top left to bottom right, etc.)
   - consistent ways to describe spacing and sizing comparisons between
   elements (using technical terms like kerning or any other consistent term
   that would then be searchable)
   - consistent and required categorizations of different graphic styles
   that would actually help to find marks that have a similar feel to your
   clients' mark(s), despite maybe not both having a banana or a cow or the
   same word in them (illustration, cartoon, watercolor, dimensional,
   geometric, typographic, art deco, pop art, bauhaus, graffiti)

Also wouldn't hurt for the USPTO to simply add an image search like Google
Images to TESS. If they really wanted to make our lives easier.

I come from a (limited) design background, so maybe I'm an outlier in
feeling this way, but I know this does not need to be this difficult and
inefficient.

Just curious whether anyone shares the sentiment or has any insight as to
whether this type of improvement has been suggested or explored in the
past.

<https://www.ioninlaw.com/>

JACLYN IONIN, ESQ.
Owner, Principal Attorney, Ionin Law
<https://www.facebook.com/ioninlaw> <https://www.instagram.com/ioninlaw/>
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/ioninlaw/> <https://calendly.com/ioninlaw>
  Trademark & Business Law
  646.470.1167
  www.ioninlaw.com
  31 Hudson Yards, FL 11 New York, NY 10001
<https://maps.google.com/?q=31%20Hudson%20Yards,%20FL%2011%20New%20York,%20NY%2010001>
[image: App Banner Image]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20231219/a249a70e/attachment.htm>