[E-trademarks] [EXT] Re: Not everyone is unhappy with the new TESS

Wed Apr 3 15:27:49 EDT 2024

The syntax isn’t just cumbersome, it’s unnecessarily confusing.  You have THREE different search mechanisms available from one query entry field: simple, advanced, and Regex.  And, maddeningly, the advanced search syntax is not consistent with the Regex syntax.  Even the capitalization rules are different.

My personal pet peeve, though it’s easy enough once learned: why in the world would you change the Live/Dead indicator from LIVE /DEAD to TRUE/FALSE (and keep the tag name LD)?

Kevin Grierson
CULHANE|MEADOWS PLLC<http://www.culhanemeadows.com/>
[Mobile:]
  757-726-7799<tel:757-726-7799>
[Fax:]
  866-521-5663<fax:866-521-5663>
[Email:]
  kgrierson at cm.law<mailto:kgrierson at cm.law>

From: E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> On Behalf Of Jeremy Green Eche via E-trademarks
Sent: Wednesday, April 3, 2024 12:26 PM
To: For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice. <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
Cc: Jeremy Green Eche <jeremy at jpglegal.com>
Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] [EXT] Re: Not everyone is unhappy with the new TESS

EXTERNAL EMAIL
I like the new trademark search system a lot. It runs more like a modern search engine than the previous one, with flexible search matching and no temporary URLS that expire in a few minutes. I'm very happy that my clients no longer send me dead links because they panicked after seeing that a similar trademark is "registered" (but actually just LIVE and pending).

I do find the new search syntax cumbersome and I hope they improve it. I don't mind that they unveiled the software before asking for a lot of feedback. One generally accepted concept in software these days -- which has also been true for me anecdotally -- is that if you ask users what they want from a type of product before you release it, they will give you wrong answers, so it's not worth it to spend a ton of time surveying users before unveiling a new software product. You're much more likely to learn what users really want after you've released the product and they've started using it and discovering their pain points. Even releasing a beta while keeping the old search engine intact is only going to get a few early adopters giving you feedback, and early adopters are not normal users.

I understand that releasing the new search engine with bugs creates real issues for trademark owners and attorneys, but there wasn't anything so bad about the software that it "broke" trademark law for people in a fundamental way. Especially when most of us use specialized search software to research our legal opinions.

--

Jeremy

Jeremy Peter Green Eche
Founder and Managing Attorney, JPG Legal

Office: (917) 268-7054 | Direct: (917) 310-2207

www.jpglegal.com<http://www.jpglegal.com/>
157 13th Street, Suite 111
Brooklyn, NY 11215

On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 11:55 AM Chelsie Spencer via E-trademarks <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>> wrote:
I am thankful that the agency is getting some well-deserved scrutiny outside of the listserv. I also gave her your name, Ken, and told her you were probably the leading expert on USPTO searches in the entire world. Still waiting on that class offering from you (albeit on the new TESS)!

Chelsie Spencer | Managing Attorney

Ritter Spencer Cheng PLLC

15455 Dallas Parkway, Suite 600

Addison, Texas 75001

Office: 214-295-5070

Direct: 214-295-5074

[cid:image004.png at 01DA85DA.515AC980]

________________________________
From: E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com>> on behalf of Ken Boone via E-trademarks <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>>
Sent: Wednesday, April 3, 2024 10:34 AM
To: For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice. <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>>
Cc: Ken Boone <boondogles at hotmail.com<mailto:boondogles at hotmail.com>>
Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] [EXT] Re: Not everyone is unhappy with the new TESS

FTR, I received the email below on March 18th.  I figured others in this E-Trademarks discussion group received similar requests for comments.  I responded with several emails over the next few days.  Based on the reply questions that I received from Louise Newstead, I concluded that she was neither an experienced trademark searcher nor familiar with searching either TESS or Trademark Search.  (Tim Lince requested comments from me in April 2021 for a WTR article about the flood of applications from China.)

______________________________

Hi Ken,

I hope you don’t mind me reaching out.

I’m a reporter at World Trademark Review and I’m writing an article this week on the USPTO’s new trademark search tool (the replacement for TESS), and on some of the feedback that has arisen since its launch a few months ago.

My colleague, Tim Lince, mentioned that you might be a good person to reach out to.

I was wondering whether you have any thoughts on how the new search engine compares to TESS? In particular, on any specific features/functions that you think have improved or worsened the search engine experience? And on whether you think the new system marks an improvement overall?

Any comments you could share by this time tomorrow would be great! We would then attribute these to you in the article.

Kind regards,

Louise

Louise Newstead

REPORTER, WTR

Louise.Newstead at lbresearch.com<mailto:Louise.Newstead at lbresearch.com>

www.worldtrademarkreview.com<http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/>

[cid:image005.png at 01DA85DA.515AC980]

______________________________

Happy Trademarking,
Ken Boone

________________________________
From: E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com>> on behalf of Alex Butterman via E-trademarks <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>>
Sent: Wednesday, April 3, 2024 5:59 AM
To: For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice. <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>>
Cc: Alex Butterman <abutterman at dbllawyers.com<mailto:abutterman at dbllawyers.com>>
Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] [EXT] Re: Not everyone is unhappy with the new TESS

Agreed. I have seen several articles from this publication over the years refer specifically to issues we discuss and complain about on this List. In fact, I recall this publication reporting several times on the "where you sleep at night" address issue and the publication repeated that exact language, making it even more well-known.

You are welcome, everyone.

Alex Butterman
Partner
DUNLAP BENNETT & LUDWIG
211 Church St., SE; Leesburg, VA 20175
T: 703-777-7319 - BIO

This electronic message contains information from Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig PLLC and may be confidential or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, or use of the contents is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us and delete the message without copying or disclosing it.

-----Original Message-----
From: E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com>> On Behalf Of Neil R. Ormos via E-trademarks
Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 10:47 AM
To: E-trademarks Mailing List <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>>
Cc: Neil R. Ormos <ormos-lists at ormos.org<mailto:ormos-lists at ormos.org>>
Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] [EXT] Re: Not everyone is unhappy with the new TESS

Attachment:  Article:  "USPTO to iteratively develop new trademark search system.pdf"

Alex Butterman via E-trademarks wrote:

> Did everyone see the attached article? I tried to send this to the
> list last week but it apparently never got posted. It is from WTR and
> the original may have been paywalled, but my office made this pdf copy
> for internal purposes and I'd like to think this is just fair use
> between colleagues helping each other out.

Thank you.

> It is a PTO response to our criticism of the new search software and I
> don't know why the PTO would or should respond only through trade
> press that puts this behind a paywall.

Of the people quoted in the article, six are not PTO officials.  At least four of those six are participants in Carl's e-mail lists.  I doubt that's mere coincidence.

Not only do Carl's e-mail lists serve practitioners directly, they also (it seems) serve journalists by aggregating the zeitgeist of the practitioner community and aid in identifying people who might be interviewed and quoted.

Thanks, Carl, for providing these e-mail lists.

--
E-trademarks mailing list
E-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:E-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Foppedahl-lists.com%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fe-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com&data=05%7C02%7C%7C8c9301c73f434e03af4008dc53cd7368%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638477389083724916%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=5KlbwP4sdHyknYTCCxSil%2F3STNXp8%2BcXjdD3T5TGi%2FI%3D&reserved=0<http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com>

--
E-trademarks mailing list
E-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:E-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Foppedahl-lists.com%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fe-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com&data=05%7C02%7C%7C8c9301c73f434e03af4008dc53cd7368%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638477389083737020%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=xSO3XiXq3JGz1HpE1fW%2F%2BttQkGP%2BpwvJLIN%2FnH6DSNU%3D&reserved=0<http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com>
--
E-trademarks mailing list
E-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto: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/20240403/10e5ba0f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 285 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240403/10e5ba0f/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 452 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240403/10e5ba0f/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 394 bytes
Desc: image003.png
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240403/10e5ba0f/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.png
Type: image/png
Size: 17912 bytes
Desc: image004.png
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240403/10e5ba0f/attachment-0003.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image005.png
Type: image/png
Size: 10043 bytes
Desc: image005.png
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240403/10e5ba0f/attachment-0004.png>