[E-trademarks] Two issues

[Nancy Prager]

 Thank you both Kevin and Robert for directing me to the new expungement option.  
Requesting an expungement or reexamination proceeding | USPTO

| 
| 
| 
|  |  |

 |

 |
| 
|  | 
Requesting an expungement or reexamination proceeding

Learn how you can request an expungement or reexamination proceeding to challenge any good or service in a regis...
 |

 |

 |



However, it's $400 to file per class.  I wish it were free!    
There should be a hotline where we can report these kinds of trademark registration fraud.  UGH! 
Best,

Nancy 


    On Friday, April 19, 2024 at 02:18:54 PM EDT, Kevin Grierson <kgrierson at cm.law> wrote:  
 
 
Sounds like a good candidate for one of the new proceedings under the TMA.  The reexamination proceeding in particular is geared towards marks that were not in use on or before a particular relevant date (such as the date of filing of the application or the date of the SOU).  
 
  
 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Kevin Grierson​​​​
  |

 |
| 

  |

 |
| 
| 
|  |  |
| 

  | 
  757-726-7799
  |
| 

  | 
  866-521-5663
  |
| 

  | 
  kgrierson at cm.law
  |

 |

 |
|  |

 |

 |


  
 
From: E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com>On Behalf Of Nancy Prager via E-trademarks
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2024 1:40 PM
To: E-TM-Mail-Server <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
Cc: Nancy Prager <nancyprager at yahoo.com>
Subject: [E-trademarks] Two issues
 
  
 
| 
EXTERNAL EMAIL
  |


I was doing a knock out search this morning for a client.  I was shocked to see that the USPTO accepted two specimens which have significant issues:

1)  In the screenshots for YouTube videos that purport to support that there are multiple episodes of a show the videos are clearly marked as unlisted.  Unlisted videos are not technically publicly available on the platform.  Each of the videos had between 1 and 4 views.  Not hundreds, thousands or millions.  Single digits. How was that not clearly fake?  this was processed in 2020

2)  Another specimen is clearly a picture where the mark has been transposed on a generic journal.  Like a notebook you buy at the store.  I am shocked it was accepted.  this was processed in 2022.  

In both instances I cannot find any evidence of actual use on the internet, or on YouTube years after the videos were purportedly uploaded. 

Both marks are within the initial 5 year window.  Is my client's only option to cancel the marks?   Is there another option so that my client doesn't have to incur costs?  Also, couldn't the registrant start using the marks now once notified of the cancellation effort?  

thanks in advance!  Hope to meet some of you at the INTA reception.  

Best,
 

Nancy 
   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240420/1284003e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 3100 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240420/1284003e/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.png
Type: image/png
Size: 394 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240420/1284003e/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 452 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240420/1284003e/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 285 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240420/1284003e/attachment-0003.png>