[E-trademarks] Trademark Center failures (was 2025 Trademark Fee Change Coincidence?)

Wed Dec 18 13:26:52 UTC 2024

I have been “getting used to it” for a while now, except when I have to file multiple applications for the same client (if someone knows how to save and reuse an application, please let me know, because I haven’t figured out that functionality yet).

For me, at least, the change to the workflow is the most annoying thing, though I suppose that as long as everything works properly it’s just something that we will, in fact, have to get used to.

Kevin Grierson

|

Partner

[cid:image001.png at 01DB5126.947479B0]<https://www.cm.law/>

[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>

Please note: Culhane Meadows is now CM Law<https://www.cm.law/cm-law-formerly-culhane-meadows-launches-second-decade-with-fresh-name-and-modern-brand/>

From: E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> On Behalf Of Mark Kaufman via E-trademarks
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2024 7:37 AM
To: e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com
Cc: Mark Kaufman <kaufman at kaufmankahn.com>; e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com
Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] Trademark Center failures (was 2025 Trademark Fee Change Coincidence?)

EXTERNAL EMAIL
Is the collective wisdom to start “getting used to” the new system now, or wait to suffer and waste time after January 18 in the valiant hope that our thoughts will be heard from On High?

Reminds of management of forced labor, rowing on the open seas:  “The flogging wil continue until morale improves.”

Thanks,
Mark

Mark S. Kaufman
Kaufman & Kahn, LLP
Email:  kaufman at kaufmankahn.com<mailto:kaufman at kaufmankahn.com>
www.kaufmankahn.com<http://www.kaufmankahn.com/>

10 Grand Central
155 East 44<x-apple-data-detectors://5/0>th<x-apple-data-detectors://5/0> Street, 19<x-apple-data-detectors://5/0>th<x-apple-data-detectors://5/0> Floor<x-apple-data-detectors://5/0>
New York, NY  10017<x-apple-data-detectors://5/0>
Mobile:  (917) 453-7807<tel:(917)%20453-7807>
Tel.:  (212) 293-5556<tel:(212)%20293-5556>, x 2

[X]

This email is intended only for the party to whom it is addressed and may contain privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination or copying of this email is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, kindly notify us immediately, return the email to us, and destroy any electronic or other copies of the email (including any notification to us in your “Sent” folder). Thank you in advance for your cooperation and courtesy.

On Dec 18, 2024, at 5:33 AM, Carl Oppedahl via E-trademarks <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>> wrote:

On 12/17/2024 6:07 PM, Patti Giuliano via E-trademarks wrote:
Having just used the new Beta application format for a few filings today, I think they should be paying us for this debacle of form.  I’ve been using it for a couple of months with little to no problems – even though the format is ridiculous and hard to review.  Today, two applications went through just fine.  The third one – not so much.  Twice it didn’t capture all the information (the information is on my “preview” copy but not on the emailed copy), I tried again, and the copy emailed to me was completely blank, and don’t get me started on the issues with the goods and services. Why does the USPTO like to change the order of the description?  You make a simple change, and it moves the phrase to the bottom of the list.  This just makes it harder to review.  If you need to make changes after you have emailed a draft to yourself, God be with you.  Warning:  there are things you cannot change after you have emailed a draft – like a matter number.  Why?  Oh why?  What a nightmare.  Yes, I’m frustrated.

I just went through (suffered through) a trademark filing in Trademark Center with a client.

Over and over again I would fill in various fields (for example where the applicant is incorporated) and click through to later steps in the click path, and then send it to the client, and the version received by the client would be missing one or more of the fields.

--
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/20241218/29a15f06/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 5049 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20241218/29a15f06/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 285 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20241218/29a15f06/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 452 bytes
Desc: image003.png
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20241218/29a15f06/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.png
Type: image/png
Size: 394 bytes
Desc: image004.png
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20241218/29a15f06/attachment-0003.png>