[E-trademarks] how old the oldest applications are that have never seen an Examining Attorney?

[Ken Boone]

Revisiting that search for applications currently over 2 years old ...

Id
Query
Trademarks
1
FD:[* TO 20221201] AND (SA:" application assignment" ~5) NOT (SA:" application assignment" ~3)
       12,458
2
( 1 ) AND SC:( China )
          7,155
3
( 1 ) AND SC:( Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada "New Hampshire" "New Jersey" "New Mexico" "New York" "North Carolina" "North Dakota" Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania "Rhode Island" "South Carolina" "South Dakota" Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington "West Virginia" Wisconsin Wyoming )
          4,503
4
( 1 ) NOT ((2) (3))
             800
5
( 1 ) AND AT:"Jackson George"
1,121

The first search indicates that today, there are 12,458 pending applications over 2 years old with the new application awaiting assignment to an examining attorney status on TSDR, though I would argue that applications over 2 years old are no longer new.

The second search shows that a majority of the trademarks for the first search are from applicants with China as their state/country, though the third search indicates a significant number of applicants for the first search have a US state as their state/country (though some Georgia might be from the country and not the US state).

The USPTO indicates that they are currently examining new applications submitted between May 01, 2024 - May 15, 2024, yet 12,458 pending applications over 2 years old have yet to be assigned to examining attorneys for examination. The fifth search shows "Jackson George" is the attorney of record for 1,121 of those older pending applications yet to be assigned to an EA for examination.

It seems to me that the USPTO should have an alternate status for older applications that they're investigating for fraud.


------------------------------
Ken Boone
________________________________
From: Charles B. Kramer <charlesbkramer.tm at gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, December 2, 2024 4:23 PM
To: e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
Cc: Ken Boone <boondogles at hotmail.com>; charles.b.kramer at gmail.com <charles.b.kramer at gmail.com>
Subject: how old the oldest applications are that have never seen an Examining Attorney?

FD:[* TO 20210930] AND (SA:" application assignment" ~5) NOT (SA:" application assignment" ~3)
> retrieves 3,879 new applications filed prior to 1 October 2021 that have the new
> application awaiting assignment to an examining attorney status on TSDR, far
> more than the 75 applications that I mentioned on 8/23/2022.  That is, there are
> nearly 4,000 new applications filed prior to October 2021 that the USPTO appears
> to be ignoring

Thanks, Ken!

And (narrowing your fine search) many of them involve applicants from China, and the fictitious attorney "Jackson George" who was called out in the Show Cause Order of 2022 (and also the attorney of record in the pre-existing application about which I am complaining).

The Show Cause order refers to "false, fictitious or fraudulent information in thousands of trademark application and registration records" which are listed on "EXHIBIT A" which I don't have.  I suspect that EXHIBIT A and your search results overlap.

 - Charles



===========================================
Charles B. Kramer, Esq.
~ ATTORNEY ~
Linkedin: www.linkedin.com/in/charleskramer<http://www.linkedin.com/in/charleskramer>
     Tel: +1 917-512-2721
   Email: charles.b.kramer at gmail.com <--- for direct responses (I don't always monitor CharlesBKramer.TM at gmail.com)
    Mail: 200 E. 10th Street, No. 816, New York, NY 10003
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20241202/9b0f03da/attachment.html>