[E-trademarks] Application in Limbo

[Lara Pearson]

The e-TMs list serv PTO Lurkers are the BEST
helping from behind the scenes when we feel most hopeless
I imagine they are responsible for far more than we can guess
And I hope they feel our appreciation and happiness ☺️✨💖




Brand Geek is closed for Reflection Week from noon on December 24, 2024
until January 6, 2025. This allows Andy, Lisa and Niya time to do the
things that they love with their friends & families. If you're experiencing
an IP emergency, please text me.


Lara Pearson (she/her/hers) [Why pronouns
<https://medium.com/gender-inclusivit/why-i-put-pronouns-on-my-email-signature-and-linkedin-profile-and-you-should-too-d3dc942c8743>
?] (Hear how I say my name <https://namedrop.io/larapearson>)

Law Office of Lara Pearson Ltd, PBC

Leader, Brand Geek

Lara at BrandGeek.net | Ph: 775.833.1600 | My bio <http://brandgeek.net/about/>


This e-mail may contain information that is *privileged* or *confidential*.
If you received this communication in error, please immediately notify the
sender and delete/destroy all copies of this correspondence. Thank you.


*Brand Geek practices flex-time and a 4-day work week Mon-Thurs.** If you
see us working weekends, that's our choice. We do not expect anyone
(including you!) to work/respond on the weekend. Please respond at a time
that works for you. *

*Protecting the Brands that are Changing the World**®*

*Protecting the Businesses that are Changing the World*
*®Protecting the Brands of Soulfulpreneurs**®*


*Leading the way, we belong to **1% for the Planet (since January 2006),
SVN (since Spring 2007), **Certified B Corporation (since February 2008).*




*Save the planet! Please don't print.*

*I acknowledge my privilege to live, work and play on the unceded
traditional lands of the first people of Lake Tahoe, the Washoe or Wašišiw
("people from here," pronounced Wa She Shu). With humility and gratitude, I
honor this sacred land, and the Washoe Tribe <https://washoetribe.us/>. *




On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 8:29 AM Kevin Grierson via E-trademarks <
e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:

> Probably not a coincidence. We do have PTO lurkers here on the list--and
> to be clear, I'm grateful for them. I have received phone calls from the
> PTO in the past responding directly to something I had posted to the list
> and had not yet attempted to bring to their attention.
>
> kwg
>
>
> Kevin Grierson|Partner
> 757-726-7799
> 866-521-5663
> kgrierson at cm.law
> Please note: Culhane Meadows is now CM Law
>
>
> Kevin Grierson <https://www.culhanemeadows.com/attorney/kevin-grierson/>
>
> Partner​​​​
>
> <https://www.cm.law/>
>
> [image: Mobile:]
>
>  757-726-7799
>
> [image: Fax:]
>
>  866-521-5663
>
> [image: Email:]
>
>  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/>
>
>
> Atlanta | Austin | Birmingham | Boston | Chicago | Dallas | Delaware | Denver | Houston | Minneapolis | New Jersey | New York | Philadelphia | Washington, DC
> <https://www.cm.law/offices/>
>
> This message is for the personal and confidential use of the intended
> recipient(s) and may be subject to attorney-client privilege. If you have
> received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately.
> Please note that general marketing updates/legal news alerts provided by
> the firm or its attorneys are for informational purposes only and should
> not be relied on as legal advice for any specific situation. Laws can
> change rapidly and, therefore, you should always consult with your CM Law
> attorney to ensure you have the most accurate and current counsel
> pertaining to your situation. ​
> -----Original Message-----
> From: E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> On Behalf Of
> Diane Gardner via E-trademarks
> Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2024 11:23 AM
> To: e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com
> Cc: Diane Gardner <diane at mmip.com>
> Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] Application in Limbo
>
> EXTERNAL EMAIL
>
> Update to my comments from 12/16. I sent my inquiry to TAC on 11/23/2024.
> The status date of the yet-to-be-issued registration was 02/10/2024 (Review
> prior to registration completed). As I mentioned on 12/16, the registration
> was issued shortly after I contacted TAC, but TAC never responded to me.
> Until today - after having posted my comments here on 12/16, today I
> miraculously received a reply from TAC letting me know that the status of
> the applications had changed. What are the odds that this was a complete
> coincidence?
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Diane L. Gardner
> Reg. No. 36,518
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2024 22:29:41 +0000
> From: Diane Gardner <diane at mmip.com>
> To: "e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com"
> <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] Application in Limbo
> Message-ID:
> <
> CO1PR13MB490485B29B2033400D45A7AFCB3B2 at CO1PR13MB4904.namprd13.prod.outlook.com
> >
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Hi Tom,
>
> This happened to me also and I sent a message to TAC. TAC never responded
> to me, but the registration issued within 48 hrs. after I sent the message.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Diane L. Gardner
> Reg. No. 36,518
> _____________________________________________________________
> Please note our new corporate address as of February 1, 2023:
> Mastermind IP Law P.C., 440 N. Barranca Ave. #6387, Covina, CA 91723
> 760.294.5160 tel. 706.955.9666 tel. 803.226.0741 tel.? ?? diane at mmip.com?
> e-mail
> CA Lic. No. 196214?? DC Lic. No. 470855?? USPTO Reg. No. 36518
>
> Please note our expedited mail processing address as of February 1, 2023:
> Mastermind IP Law P.C., 532 Forest Bluffs Rd., Aiken, SC 29803
>
> __________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> This communication is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy
> Act, 18 U.S.C. ??2510-2521.? It is sent by a law firm for its intended
> recipient only, and may contain information that is privileged,
> confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are
> not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for
> delivering this communication to the intended recipient, you are hereby
> notified that any unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution or copying
> of this communication is strictly prohibited.? If you have received this
> communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone (706)
> 955-9666 or e-mail reply, delete it from your system, and destroy any hard
> copy you may have printed.? Absent an executed engagement agreement with
> Mastermind IP Law P.C., this message does not constitute legal advice, and
> it does not establish any previously non-existent professional relationship
> with, or representation of the recipient. Thank you.
>
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2024 13:25:06 +0000
> From: Tom Vanderbloemen <tom at vanderbloemenlaw.com>
> To: "e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com"
> <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> Subject: [E-trademarks] Application in Limbo
> Message-ID:
> <
> BN8PR18MB23549B479EE486B89AF3C5CBD13E2 at BN8PR18MB2354.namprd18.prod.outlook.com
> >
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> Friends ? We have an application that appears to be stuck in some limbo
> state. ?Review prior to registration? happened in February, but still no
> registration. We?ve tried reaching the examiner, but it may be that she is
> no longer with the USPTO, and we?ve had no luck with the assistance center.
> Do you have any suggestions?
>
> Thank you,
> Tom
>
> __________________________
>
> Tom Vanderbloemen
> Vanderbloemen Law Firm, P.A.
> 330 East Coffee Street
> Greenville, SC 29601
> 864-250-9530 (main)
> 864-501-2627 (direct)
> http://www.vanderbloemenlaw.com/<http://www.vanderbloemenlaw.com/>
>
> Follow us on LinkedIn<http://linkedin.com/company/vanderbloemen-law-firm>
> and Instagram<https://www.instagram.com/vanderbloemenlawfirm/>
> and sign up<https://lp.constantcontact.com/su/Gd3Cej4/VanderbloemenLaw>
> to receive our newsletter.
>
> The contents of this e-mail message and any attachments may contain
> confidential and/or legally privileged information. If you are not the
> intended recipient of this message or if you believe this message was sent
> to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and
> then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended
> recipient, you are notified that any use, dissemination, distribution,
> copying, or storage of this message or any attachment is prohibited.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2024 18:00:37 -0500
> From: Lara Pearson <lara at brandgeek.net>
> To: "For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek
> legal advice." <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> Subject: [E-trademarks] Use of TM/SM in US
> Message-ID: <8A6273F0-4318-4FA4-B09A-40501B3AF624 at brandgeek.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> Happy work week, list friends:
>
> A US trademark attorney posted on LinkedIn today that use of TM/SM is
> reserved for those with pending apps. I don't believe this is accurate (and
> neither does ChatGPT ?), but I wanted to double check with the folks in
> this group, in case I've been missing something all these years.
>
> Thank you.
>
>
> With appreciation,
> Lara Pearson, Esq.
> Law Office of Lara Pearson Ltd, PBC & Brand Geek
> 775.833.1600
> Calendly.com/BrandGeek (let's meet)
>
> Creative typoing by iPhone
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2024 18:10:19 -0500
> From: Charles Guarino <cpguarino9 at gmail.com>
> To: "For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek
> legal advice." <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] Use of TM/SM in US
> Message-ID:
> <CAPW6Pn4S4oBa3-Kiyc5LBjFx6fAJ_cYcrKfTo78HzRZEd8rC+w at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> That is an inaccurate statement. In the United States, the TM/SM
> designations may be used to denote the claim of common law rights in a
> mark. No pending application is required.
>
> On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 6:02?PM Lara Pearson via E-trademarks <
> e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:
>
> > Happy work week, list friends:
> >
> > A US trademark attorney posted on LinkedIn today that use of TM/SM is
> > reserved for those with pending apps. I don't believe this is accurate
> > (and neither does ChatGPT ?), but I wanted to double check with the folks
> > in this group, in case I've been missing something all these years.
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> >
> > With appreciation,
> > Lara Pearson, Esq.
> > Law Office of Lara Pearson Ltd, PBC & Brand Geek
> > 775.833.1600
> > Calendly.com/BrandGeek (let's meet)
> >
> > Creative typoing by iPhone
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > E-trademarks mailing list
> > 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/20241216/8e7ff626/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2024 23:11:56 +0000
> From: "Welch, John L." <John.Welch at WolfGreenfield.com>
> To: "For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek
> legal advice." <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] Use of TM/SM in US
> Message-ID:
> <
> SJ0PR03MB54085DA68215C53E4D00B86CE63B2 at SJ0PR03MB5408.namprd03.prod.outlook.com
> >
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Wrong.
>
>
>
>
> John L. Welch
> Senior Counsel
> Admitted to Practice: Massachusetts, New York, and Washington, DC
> jwelch at WolfGreenfield.com
> TEL. 617.646.8285
>
> Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C.
> BOSTON | NEW YORK | WASHINGTON DC
>
> wolfgreenfield.com
> Please consider the environment before printing this email.
>
>
> This e-mail message and any attachments may contain confidential or
> privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please
> notify me immediately by replying to this message and destroy all copies of
> this message and any attachments. Thank you.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> On Behalf Of
> Lara Pearson via E-trademarks
> Sent: Monday, December 16, 2024 6:01 PM
> To: For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal
> advice. <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> Cc: Lara Pearson <lara at brandgeek.net>
> Subject: [E-trademarks] Use of TM/SM in US
>
> Happy work week, list friends:
>
> A US trademark attorney posted on LinkedIn today that use of TM/SM is
> reserved for those with pending apps. I don't believe this is accurate (and
> neither does ChatGPT ?), but I wanted to double check with the folks in
> this group, in case I've been missing something all these years.
>
> Thank you.
>
>
> With appreciation,
> Lara Pearson, Esq.
> Law Office of Lara Pearson Ltd, PBC & Brand Geek
> 775.833.1600
> Calendly.com/BrandGeek (let's meet)
>
> Creative typoing by iPhone
>
>
>
> --
> E-trademarks mailing list
> E-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com
> http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2024 23:13:08 +0000
> From: Dale Quisenberry <dale at quisenberrylaw.com>
> To: "e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com"
> <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> Cc: Lara Pearson <lara at brandgeek.net>,
> "e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com" <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] Use of TM/SM in US
> Message-ID: <9C683B74-D403-4CB4-BE33-BB000890C5E3 at quisenberrylaw.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> You are correct. If you are using the trademark you can use those symbols
> and should use those symbols. No need to have a trademark application
> pending.
>
> Here?s my blog on this. I invite constructive criticism.
>
> <
> https://www.quisenberrylaw.com/ip-discovery-blog/which-trademark-symbol-can-you-use-tm-or-sm
> >
> [e7e4567acbba4e2fb6af0f721923248e.png]
> Which trademark symbol can you use: ?, TM or SM?<
> https://www.quisenberrylaw.com/ip-discovery-blog/which-trademark-symbol-can-you-use-tm-or-sm
> >
> quisenberrylaw.com<
> https://www.quisenberrylaw.com/ip-discovery-blog/which-trademark-symbol-can-you-use-tm-or-sm
> >
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Dale
>
> C. Dale Quisenberry
> Quisenberry Law PLLC
> 832.680.1000
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Dec 16, 2024, at 5:03?PM, Lara Pearson via E-trademarks <
> e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:
>
> ?Happy work week, list friends:
>
> A US trademark attorney posted on LinkedIn today that use of TM/SM is
> reserved for those with pending apps. I don't believe this is accurate (and
> neither does ChatGPT ?), but I wanted to double check with the folks in
> this group, in case I've been missing something all these years.
>
> Thank you.
>
>
> With appreciation,
> Lara Pearson, Esq.
> Law Office of Lara Pearson Ltd, PBC & Brand Geek
> 775.833.1600
> Calendly.com/BrandGeek (let's meet)
>
> Creative typoing by iPhone
>
>
>
> --
> E-trademarks mailing list
> 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/20241216/8d3c6a88/attachment-0001.htm
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: e7e4567acbba4e2fb6af0f721923248e.png
> Type: image/png
> Size: 250549 bytes
> Desc: e7e4567acbba4e2fb6af0f721923248e.png
> URL: <
> http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20241216/8d3c6a88/attachment-0001.png
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2024 23:13:47 +0000
> From: "Crane, Susan" <susan.crane at wyndham.com>
> To: "e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com"
> <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> Cc: "e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com"
> <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>, Charles Guarino
> <cpguarino9 at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] Use of TM/SM in US
> Message-ID: <85F04D05-4025-400B-8D40-39B90CE8F749 at wyndham.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Agree. There is no statute governing TM/SM.
>
>
> Susan L. Crane
> Group Vice President, Legal
> Intellectual Property, Brands & Marketing
>
> Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, Inc.
> 22 Sylvan Way
> Parsippany, NJ 07054
> O (973) 753-6455
> M (973) 879-3420
> Susan.Crane at wyndham.Com
>
> On Dec 16, 2024, at 6:12?PM, Charles Guarino via E-trademarks <
> e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:
>
> ?
> That is an inaccurate statement. In the United States, the TM/SM
> designations may be used to denote the claim of common law rights in a
> mark. No pending application is required. On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 6:?02 PM
> Lara Pearson via E-trademarks <e-trademarks@?oppedahl-lists.?com>
> ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
> This Message Is From an External Sender
> Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and
> know the content is safe.
> <
> https://us-phishalarm-ewt.proofpoint.com/EWT/v1/Nf401RNTQFE14GfWW3o!ksaLCl3NL80wb-kXUX1Nv649T60_6KbbyywMmHQc-GIYbA8O0imQyCo8YmH3TwCC-pOrHBG2pYYR2Vbh8P_ntNOL26USxLBznNpPb9-hJ1tpltXYtZyP_8bkXzCMVg$
> >
> Report Suspicious
>
> ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
> That is an inaccurate statement. In the United States, the TM/SM
> designations may be used to denote the claim of common law rights in a
> mark. No pending application is required.
>
> On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 6:02?PM Lara Pearson via E-trademarks <
> e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>>
> wrote:
> Happy work week, list friends:
>
> A US trademark attorney posted on LinkedIn today that use of TM/SM is
> reserved for those with pending apps. I don't believe this is accurate (and
> neither does ChatGPT ?), but I wanted to double check with the folks in
> this group, in case I've been missing something all these years.
>
> Thank you.
>
>
> With appreciation,
> Lara Pearson, Esq.
> Law Office of Lara Pearson Ltd, PBC & Brand Geek
> 775.833.1600
> Calendly.com/BrandGeek (let's meet)
>
> Creative typoing by iPhone
>
>
>
> --
> 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
> <
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com__;!!Nf401RNTQFE14GfWW3o!kISZZYDBZL1yjoOwTk-1DPrXmzzQmSCT4SNknvGOFKFeN2T7AbAOjxto0iye92GfRrw4Nn7x-jYMunlfuZPhVqFTs_P2J-A$
> >
> --
> E-trademarks mailing list
> E-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com
>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com__;!!Nf401RNTQFE14GfWW3o!kISZZYDBZL1yjoOwTk-1DPrXmzzQmSCT4SNknvGOFKFeN2T7AbAOjxto0iye92GfRrw4Nn7x-jYMunlfuZPhVqFTs_P2J-A$
> This email message (including all attachments) is for the sole use of the
> intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are
> not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and
> destroy all copies of the original message. Unless otherwise indicated in
> the body of this email, nothing in this communication is intended to
> operate as an electronic signature and this transmission cannot be used to
> form, document, or authenticate a contract. Wyndham Hotels and Resorts
> and/or its affiliates may monitor all incoming and outgoing email
> communications in the United States, including the content of emails and
> attachments, for security, legal compliance, training, quality assurance
> and other purposes.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20241216/16decb82/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2024 18:16:23 -0500
> From: Lara Pearson <lara at brandgeek.net>
> To: Charles Guarino <cpguarino9 at gmail.com>
> Cc: e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com, e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com
> Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] Use of TM/SM in US
> Message-ID: <BDE405C0-1A55-4293-90D7-54EF3A332480 at brandgeek.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20241216/5bd9a979/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2024 23:19:01 +0000
> From: "Gerry J. Elman" <gerry at elman.com>
> To: "For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek
> legal advice." <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] Use of TM/SM in US
> Message-ID: <d3e33320745e46aebb54c97b0349e93a at elman.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Moreover, I would advise a client that it's ok to use TM or SM along with
> their first commercial use of the mark or even in advertising. This could
> be BEFORE they've acquired any enforceable rights under common law but are
> taking a first step towards doing so.
>
> -Gerry J. Elman
> Elman IP
> Denton, Texas
>
> Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device
>
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Charles Guarino via E-trademarks <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> Date: 12/16/24 5:12 PM (GMT-06:00)
> To: "For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal
> advice." <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> Cc: Charles Guarino <cpguarino9 at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] Use of TM/SM in US
>
> That is an inaccurate statement. In the United States, the TM/SM
> designations may be used to denote the claim of common law rights in a
> mark. No pending application is required.
>
> On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 6:02?PM Lara Pearson via E-trademarks <
> e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>>
> wrote:
> Happy work week, list friends:
>
> A US trademark attorney posted on LinkedIn today that use of TM/SM is
> reserved for those with pending apps. I don't believe this is accurate (and
> neither does ChatGPT ?), but I wanted to double check with the folks in
> this group, in case I've been missing something all these years.
>
> Thank you.
>
>
> With appreciation,
> Lara Pearson, Esq.
> Law Office of Lara Pearson Ltd, PBC & Brand Geek
> 775.833.1600
> Calendly.com/BrandGeek (let's meet)
>
> Creative typoing by iPhone
>
>
>
> --
> 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/20241216/2c581939/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2024 18:21:47 -0500
> From: Lara Pearson <lara at brandgeek.net>
> To: e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com
> Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] Use of TM/SM in US
> Message-ID: <DB178376-DF5C-4543-BC35-2FC619E3533B at brandgeek.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20241216/f9491ead/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2024 15:23:15 -0800
> From: Bosland Law <office at bosland.law>
> To: "For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek
> legal advice." <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] Use of TM/SM in US
> Message-ID:
> <CAD9F6bOMDq5RWp2-b5sa6AfUyVQ6PqxfRC81P3LQzKT_aNo6Tw at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> I?ve heard that one from the normies, but not from counsel. How
> embarrassing?
>
>
> db
>
> On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 3:17?PM Lara Pearson via E-trademarks <
> e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:
>
> > Phew! And, thank you!
> >
> >
> > Due to the high visibility of the poster on LinkedIn, this was one of
> > those moments where I thought I'd somehow been mistaken for 25 years.
> >
> > I appreciate the quick sanity check, Charles!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Lara Pearson, Esq.
> > Law Office of Lara Pearson Ltd, PBC & Brand Geek
> > 775.833.1600
> > Calendly.com/BrandGeek (let's meet)
> >
> > Creative typoing by iPhone
> >
> >
> >
> > On Dec 16, 2024, at 6:10?PM, Charles Guarino <cpguarino9 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > ?
> >
> > That is an inaccurate statement. In the United States, the TM/SM
> > designations may be used to denote the claim of common law rights in a
> > mark. No pending application is required.
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 6:02?PM Lara Pearson via E-trademarks <
> > e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Happy work week, list friends:
> >>
> >> A US trademark attorney posted on LinkedIn today that use of TM/SM is
> >> reserved for those with pending apps. I don't believe this is accurate
> >> (and neither does ChatGPT ?), but I wanted to double check with the
> folks
> >> in this group, in case I've been missing something all these years.
> >>
> >> Thank you.
> >>
> >>
> >> With appreciation,
> >> Lara Pearson, Esq.
> >> Law Office of Lara Pearson Ltd, PBC & Brand Geek
> >> 775.833.1600
> >> Calendly.com/BrandGeek (let's meet)
> >>
> >> Creative typoing by iPhone
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> E-trademarks mailing list
> >> E-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com
> >>
> http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com
> >>
> > --
> > E-trademarks mailing list
> > 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/20241216/391cc4dc/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2024 16:18:08 -0800
> From: Judith S <judith.a.s at gmail.com>
> To: Carl Oppedahl <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> Subject: [E-trademarks] Use in Commerce and Prototype Evaluation
> Contracts
> Message-ID:
> <CAAt3LnPQawJ+M0athcQb=z7odC6+=K6NR1gmMp3DDTFXJ_Y9TQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Hi All,
>
> I have a small client with a trademark who has deployed two prototypes to
> different evaluation customers. They are receiving payments, but the
> customer does not own the set up. Is that sufficient use in commerce for a
> product?
>
> I think for software it would be, but I'm unsure whether it is enough for
> hardware goods/services since no hardware was sold. I'd appreciate any
> input.
>
> Judith
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20241216/6153108e/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 12
> Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2024 17:34:50 -0700
> From: Carl Oppedahl <carl at oppedahl.com>
> To: For trademark "practitioners." This is not for laypersons to seek
> legal "advice." <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> Subject: [E-trademarks] social media (was use of TM/SM in US)
> Message-ID: <020f8c71-ab12-4fb3-83ef-dbb8bb4d190a at oppedahl.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>
> On 12/16/2024 4:21 PM, Lara Pearson via E-trademarks wrote:
> >
> > LinkedIn is my only social media, and it's amazing how even that can
> > make me doubt myself sometimes.
>
> You could subscribe to me on Bluesky!? :)
>
> https://bsky.app/profile/oppedahl.com
>
> and @oppedahl.com
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: smime.p7s
> Type: application/pkcs7-signature
> Size: 4751 bytes
> Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
> URL: <
> http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20241216/ca8a78f4/attachment-0001.p7s
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 13
> Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2024 19:37:02 -0500
> From: "daniel at keganlaw.com" <daniel at keganlaw.com>
> To: Oppedahl Carl <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] Use in Commerce and Prototype Evaluation
> Contracts
> Message-ID: <8C67BE8F-B2AA-4D40-84E6-3CEB49B977A2 at keganlaw.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> " since no hardware was sold. ?
>
> As I remember, the statutory phrase is sold or transported.
> Something under the authority of Congress.
> Daniel Kegan
> Kennett Sq PA USA.
>
> > On Dec 16, 2024, at 7:18?PM, Judith S via E-trademarks <
> e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:
> > Hi All,
> > I have a small client with a trademark who has deployed two prototypes
> to different evaluation customers. They are receiving payments, but the
> customer does not own the set up. Is that sufficient use in commerce for a
> product?
> >
> > I think for software it would be, but I'm unsure whether it is enough
> for hardware goods/services since no hardware was sold. I'd appreciate any
> input.
> >
> > Judith
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 14
> Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2024 19:37:02 -0500
> From: "daniel at keganlaw.com" <daniel at keganlaw.com>
> To: Oppedahl Carl <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] Use in Commerce and Prototype Evaluation
> Contracts
> Message-ID: <8C67BE8F-B2AA-4D40-84E6-3CEB49B977A2 at keganlaw.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> " since no hardware was sold. ?
>
> As I remember, the statutory phrase is sold or transported.
> Something under the authority of Congress.
> Daniel Kegan
> Kennett Sq PA USA.
>
> > On Dec 16, 2024, at 7:18?PM, Judith S via E-trademarks <
> e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:
> > Hi All,
> > I have a small client with a trademark who has deployed two prototypes
> to different evaluation customers. They are receiving payments, but the
> customer does not own the set up. Is that sufficient use in commerce for a
> product?
> >
> > I think for software it would be, but I'm unsure whether it is enough
> for hardware goods/services since no hardware was sold. I'd appreciate any
> input.
> >
> > Judith
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 15
> Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2024 19:42:49 -0500
> From: "daniel at keganlaw.com" <daniel at keganlaw.com>
> To: Oppedahl Carl <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] Use of TM/SM in US
> Message-ID: <E317CC61-52EB-45C7-8518-1F4D828F85A5 at keganlaw.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> There are registered trademarks and there are unregistered trademarks.
> TM/SM indicates someone believes the phrase is a trademark;
> a US federal trademark registration indicates the USPTO believes the
> registrant has evidence the
> phrase is a trademark.
> In a dispute, all contingent on what the jury/judge decide.
>
> > A US trademark attorney posted on LinkedIn today that use of TM/SM is
> reserved for those with pending apps.
>
> I wonder what statute is cited for support.
> Also, a registrant can use TM/SM rather than ?, no longer having a live
> application, which matured into registration.
>
> Daniel Kegan
> Kennett Sq PS USA.
>
> > On Dec 16, 2024, at 6:00?PM, Lara Pearson via E-trademarks <
> e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:
> > A US trademark attorney posted on LinkedIn today that use of TM/SM is
> reserved for those with pending apps. I don't believe this is accurate (and
> neither does ChatGPT ?), but I wanted to double check with the folks in
> this group, in case I've been missing something all these years.
> > Thank you.
> > With appreciation,
> > Lara Pearson, Esq.
> > Law Office of Lara Pearson Ltd, PBC & Brand Geek
> > 775.833.1600
> > Calendly.com/BrandGeek (let's meet)
> > Creative typoing by iPhone
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 16
> Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2024 04:59:08 +0000
> From: Ken Boone <boondogles at hotmail.com>
> To: "E-Trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com"
> <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] Application in Limbo
> Message-ID:
> <
> SN6PR14MB223722B6B9D9FDF8204B649FD5042 at SN6PR14MB2237.namprd14.prod.outlook.com
> >
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> I have watched this discussion from afar from the beginning. I hope the
> originator has found a USPTO contact sympathetic to his concerns.
> Meanwhile, ...
>
> While the SA - Status field on Trademark Search remains a bit of a mystery
> (as the contents of that field are not displayed but, from my experience,
> that contents typically does NOT match the status description displayed on
> TSDR, eliminating the option of an exact match search of the TSDR status
> text on Trademark Search), I see 314 pending trademarks for the search
>
> SA:(review AND registration) AND LD:true AND PO:* NOT (UD:[20240301 TO *]
> RN:*)
>
> suggesting that "Review prior to registration completed" (the TSDR status
> of the pending marks I checked for that search) is yet another USPTO
> purgatory status waiting complaints from the owner/attorney of record for
> further action by the USPTO. As noted, that search retrieves 314 pending
> trademarks today, where one of those pending trademarks appears to be the
> trademark inspiring this E-Trademarks discussion.
>
> Curious? Well, the search
>
> UD:[20241216 TO *] AND SN:( 86980509 87769203 88110411 88232431 88472833
> 88756971 88789436 88843007 90057103 90521117 90706772 90735034 90753596
> 90780559 90783862 90804195 90812917 90822910 90872681 90887866 90899852
> 90979928 90979981 90980019 90980045 97017090 97031122 97067424 97075031
> 97100429 97100437 97108107 97133734 97137059 97159370 97160078 97166550
> 97169530 97172164 97194679 97202189 97202581 97204163 97206673 97216415
> 97218545 97227930 97239893 97263899 97266596 97271806 97279594 97285054
> 97285443 97289940 97294861 97299134 97303038 97304571 97304640 97304695
> 97316079 97321190 97325909 97327750 97338754 97341522 97342520 97348696
> 97356771 97358299 97361426 97361961 97363476 97363758 97369815 97386931
> 97389621 97393946 97395592 97399431 97402951 97410853 97411172 97417084
> 97417244 97418367 97418827 97418968 97421337 97422075 97423470 97423925
> 97425704 97428007 97430039 97430177 97431687 97433033 97433384 97433610
> 97435882 97435885 97435887 97439860 97440288 97440961 97441810 97442082
> 97445663 97445895 97445914 97446008 97446915 97449093 97449241 97452225
> 97452830 97453898 97455358 97457296 97457310 97459217 97461387 97461774
> 97461813 97463830 97464424 97466649 97468157 97469702 97470510 97471790
> 97472046 97472762 97473121 97473126 97473455 97473806 97475236 97476499
> 97477634 97478434 97478804 97479892 97482317 97483222 97484155 97484745
> 97485821 97485888 97486981 97487000 97487076 97488718 97492675 97493254
> 97494136 97494327 97494677 97497742 97497811 97498751 97499591 97504893
> 97506283 97508050 97508331 97513145 97514678 97517217 97520019 97522458
> 97524493 97532374 97533562 97536877 97538131 97545861 97547585 97550339
> 97551105 97552181 97552507 97555716 97563084 97563785 97564370 97567223
> 97567275 97569636 97571001 97571528 97574414 97576865 97578526 97582885
> 97583668 97587224 97588457 97589517 97590814 97593789 97593813 97602378
> 97603996 97606851 97607043 97607449 97609686 97611688 97614143 97614486
> 97622350 97623330 97623621 97627875 97629363 97632909 97638216 97638744
> 97641065 97645582 97649729 97653796 97657114 97658325 97658718 97665237
> 97665737 97669596 97673064 97676247 97677722 97677723 97677972 97680887
> 97681034 97681812 97683921 97686016 97686034 97686042 97688786 97690981
> 97692017 97694176 97694187 97694329 97698302 97698720 97703312 97703799
> 97704709 97704744 97704748 97705299 97707847 97708023 97709958 97710979
> 97711987 97715336 97715760 97718094 97718124 97720233 97725467 97725702
> 97726345 97730452 97730989 97731785 97734811 97738294 97743863 97744657
> 97745072 97748750 97748808 97749894 97750468 97750888 97756079 97762025
> 97763749 97768284 97803208 97809049 97812131 97824948 97837456 97842773
> 97855387 97888992 97908782 97975421 97975827 97976089 97976149 97976178
> 97976770 97977096 97977309 97977312 97977359 97977399 97977448 97977467
> 98031355 98034012 98043532 98079031 98114018 )
>
> should retrieve any of those 314 pending trademarks for any future updates
> on USPTO systems, so who (besides me) will be performing that search daily
> to watch the future progress of those 314 pending application in limbo
> trademarks? Well, those pending trademarks are the responsibilities of the
> owners/attorneys of record to monitor, so ... never mind. I'll probably
> give up that daily search long before the year ends. So it goes.
>
> Happy Trademarking,
> Ken Boone
>
> PS - My email editor complained about links in this message trail, so I
> converted the message trail to text to (hopefully) remove any links.
> Typically, I do NOT click on any links in postings for this discussion
> group (that I hope the relevant links will appear via an Internet search on
> a secure search platform from the relevant clues provided) and hope you use
> the same caution (even on my postings, as scammers/dark webbers have
> impersonated me).
> ________________________________
> From: E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> on behalf of
> Diane Gardner via E-trademarks <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> Sent: Monday, December 16, 2024 4:29 PM
> To: e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> Cc: Diane Gardner <diane at mmip.com>
> Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] Application in Limbo
>
> Hi Tom,
>
> This happened to me also and I sent a message to TAC. TAC never responded
> to me, but the registration issued within 48 hrs. after I sent the message.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Diane L. Gardner
> Reg. No. 36,518
> _____________________________________________________________
> Please note our new corporate address as of February 1, 2023:
> Mastermind IP Law P.C., 440 N. Barranca Ave. #6387, Covina, CA 91723
> 760.294.5160 tel. 706.955.9666 tel. 803.226.0741 tel. ? diane at mmip.com
> e-mail
> CA Lic. No. 196214 DC Lic. No. 470855 USPTO Reg. No. 36518
>
> Please note our expedited mail processing address as of February 1, 2023:
> Mastermind IP Law P.C., 532 Forest Bluffs Rd., Aiken, SC 29803
>
> __________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> This communication is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy
> Act, 18 U.S.C. ??2510-2521. It is sent by a law firm for its intended
> recipient only, and may contain information that is privileged,
> confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are
> not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for
> delivering this communication to the intended recipient, you are hereby
> notified that any unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution or copying
> of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
> communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone (706)
> 955-9666 or e-mail reply, delete it from your system, and destroy any hard
> copy you may have printed. Absent an executed engagement agreement with
> Mastermind IP Law P.C., this message does not constitute legal advice, and
> it does not establish any previously non-existent professional relationship
> with, or representation of the recipient. Thank you.
>
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2024 13:25:06 +0000
> From: Tom Vanderbloemen <tom at vanderbloemenlaw.com>
> To: "e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com"
> <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> Subject: [E-trademarks] Application in Limbo
> Message-ID:
> <
> BN8PR18MB23549B479EE486B89AF3C5CBD13E2 at BN8PR18MB2354.namprd18.prod.outlook.com
> >
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> Friends ? We have an application that appears to be stuck in some limbo
> state. ?Review prior to registration? happened in February, but still no
> registration. We?ve tried reaching the examiner, but it may be that she is
> no longer with the USPTO, and we?ve had no luck with the assistance center.
> Do you have any suggestions?
>
> Thank you,
> Tom
>
> __________________________
>
> Tom Vanderbloemen
> Vanderbloemen Law Firm, P.A.
> 330 East Coffee Street
> Greenville, SC 29601
> 864-250-9530 (main)
> 864-501-2627 (direct)
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20241217/9c52c096/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 17
> Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2024 04:26:46 -0500
> From: "Charles B. Kramer" <charlesbkramer.tm at gmail.com>
> To: e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com
> Subject: [E-trademarks] UPDATE Serial #________ - suspension based on
> MINI POP IT serial #90708026
> Message-ID: <676143d7.d40a0220.191b78.b5da at mx.google.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> "SUSPENDED PENDING ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW" is the first update in MINI POP
> IT since 2021.
>
> Perhaps it's just an acknowledgement of what I already know -- activity on
> the application is "suspended." Still no Examiner appointed, so the LoP
> notice is addressed to (blank).
>
> But any change seems like some kind of progress.
>
> - Charles
>
>
> Emacs!
>
>
>
> ===========================================
>
> >From: Charles B. Kramer, Esq. <charles.b.kramer at gmail.com>
> >Sent: Monday, December 2, 2024 7:38 PM
> >To: ____________USPTO.GOV>
> >Cc: Trademark Assistance Center <TrademarkAssistanceCenter at USPTO.GOV>;
> TM Policy <TMpolicy at USPTO.GOV>; TMFeedback <TMFeedback at USPTO.GOV>
> >Subject: Serial #________ - suspension based on MINI POP IT serial
> #90708026
> >
> >Dear [Examiner]
> >
> >This is an informal communication regarding:
> >
> > APPLICATION: Serial
> > MARK:
> > Law Office: 125 TM Attorney
> >
> >I write on behalf of the Applicant as the attorney of record.
> >
> >The Applicant's application is currently suspended, pending resolution of
> two applications:
> >
> > -- #________ which was abandoned July 16, 2024, and is no longer a basis
> for suspension; and
> >
> > -- a preexisting application for MINI POP IT serial #90708026 (the
> "Preexisting Application").
> >
> >The Preexisting Application was filed May 13, 2021. A Letter Of Protest
> Memorandum ("LOP") was entered on June 17, 2024, which refers to
> registration #___________ (words only) which is owned by the Applicant, and
> is senior to the Preexisting Application. But because no Trademark Examiner
> has been assigned to the Preexisting Application, the LOP has not been
> reviewed. Until an Examiner is assigned, the Preexisting Application will
> remain pending, and the Applicant's application may remain suspended as a
> result.
> >
> >This is an absurd and possibly illegal situation. The Applicant is unable
> to compete registration as long as suspension continues, and appears to be
> without due process to challenge the cause of the suspension. Not being
> able to complete registration harms the Applicant by (as examples)
> preventing it from obtaining the protections of (1) the Bureau of U.S.
> Customs & Border Protection and (2) Amazon.com's brand registry -- in both
> cases to prevent sales of knock-off goods during the period when the
> Applicant's product under the mark is most popular.
> >
> >I have since learned that there is another reason -- a reason apart from
> the Applicant's senior registration -- that the Preexisting Application
> should not provide a basis for suspension. The attorney named in the
> Preexisting Application -- "Jackson George" -- is apparently fictional.
> >
> >The basis for this conclusion is the "Show Cause" order issued on August
> 25, 2022 addressed to Chen Huanyony (and others), a copy of which I attach
> ("ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 90512567.pdf"). As you will see, the Order refers to
> Jackson George, "a presumed presumed fictious [SIC] attorney" whose name
> was used on literally thousands of applications based on "false, fictitious
> or fraudulent information."
> >
> >Accordingly, the Preexisting Application should not provide a basis for
> suspension both because of the Applicant's senior rights, and because the
> Preexisting Application is invalidated by false or fictitious information
> or fraud, or all three.
> >
> >REQUEST
> >
> >If you have the power to do so, please lift the Suspension that was
> issued June 13, 2024 on the Applicant's application, and allow it to
> proceed to publication.
> >
> >Alternatively, I request guidance on what procedure may be available to
> move the application forward, and, toward that end I am also copying
> "Trademark Assistance Center" <<mailto:TrademarkAssistanceCenter at USPTO.GOV
> >TrademarkAssistanceCenter at USPTO.GOV> and <mailto:TMPolicy at uspto.gov>
> TMPolicy at uspto.gov and <mailto:TMFeedback at uspto.gov>TMFeedback at uspto.gov.
> >
> >Respectfully submitted,
> >
> >ATTORNEY FOR APPLICANT in Serial #____________________
> >Signature: /Charles B. Kramer/
> >December 2, 2024
> >Signatory's Name: Charles B. Kramer
> >Signatory's Position: Attorney of Record, New York
> >State bar member in good standing admitted in New York 1983 Bar #1890888
>
>
> ===========================================
> Charles B. Kramer, Esq.
> 200 E. 10th Street, No. 816, New York, NY 10003 (mail address)
> Tel: +1 917-512-2721 (voice, voicemail, text)
> Fax: +1 347-493-3583
> Gmail: charles.b.kramer at gmail.com
> Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/charleskramer
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20241217/46f9c418/attachment-0001.htm
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: ac634c4.jpg
> Type: image/jpeg
> Size: 154807 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL: <
> http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20241217/46f9c418/attachment-0001.jpg
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 18
> Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2024 12:28:28 +0000
> From: "Gordon, Michael" <Michael.Gordon at cfraresearch.com>
> To: "For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek
> legal advice." <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] Use of TM/SM in US
> Message-ID:
> <
> MN2PR04MB5645E86C15174BC099119800CD042 at MN2PR04MB5645.namprd04.prod.outlook.com
> >
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Just another day in online hot takes.
> There was another one on LinkedIn recently (which a different lawyer
> shared with me) where a trademark and copyright attorney said that designs
> made using ?pre-made elements and templates, which aren?t unique to your
> brand? are ?NOT enough for trademark registration? because ?trademarks
> require originality.?
>
>
> [A picture containing person, person, wall, indoor Description
> automatically generated][A picture containing text, screen Description
> automatically generated]<https://www.cfraresearch.com/>
> Michael R. Gordon, J.D.
> Vice President, Legal Research
> WASHINGTON ANALYSIS, A CFRA Business
> mgordon at washingtonanalysis.com<mailto:mgordon at washingtonanalysis.com>
> o: +1.646.517.2461<tel:+1.646.517.2461>
> Clients First ? Integrity ? Courage ? Excellence
> [LinkedIn]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/cfra-research/>[Twitter]<
> https://twitter.com/cfraresearch>[YouTube]<
> https://www.youtube.com/@CFRAResearch>
>
>
> From: E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> On Behalf Of
> Lara Pearson via E-trademarks
> Sent: Monday, December 16, 2024 6:16 PM
> To: Charles Guarino <cpguarino9 at gmail.com>
> Cc: Lara Pearson <lara at brandgeek.net>; e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com
> Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] Use of TM/SM in US
>
> CAUTION: EXTERNAL MESSAGE
> Phew! And, thank you!
>
>
> Due to the high visibility of the poster on LinkedIn, this was one of
> those moments where I thought I'd somehow been mistaken for 25 years.
>
> I appreciate the quick sanity check, Charles!
>
>
>
>
> Lara Pearson, Esq.
> Law Office of Lara Pearson Ltd, PBC & Brand Geek
> 775.833.1600
> Calendly.com/BrandGeek (let's meet)
>
> Creative typoing by iPhone
>
>
>
>
> On Dec 16, 2024, at 6:10?PM, Charles Guarino <cpguarino9 at gmail.com<mailto:
> cpguarino9 at gmail.com>> wrote:
> ?
> That is an inaccurate statement. In the United States, the TM/SM
> designations may be used to denote the claim of common law rights in a
> mark. No pending application is required.
>
> On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 6:02?PM Lara Pearson via E-trademarks <
> e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>>
> wrote:
> Happy work week, list friends:
>
> A US trademark attorney posted on LinkedIn today that use of TM/SM is
> reserved for those with pending apps. I don't believe this is accurate (and
> neither does ChatGPT ?), but I wanted to double check with the folks in
> this group, in case I've been missing something all these years.
>
> Thank you.
>
>
> With appreciation,
> Lara Pearson, Esq.
> Law Office of Lara Pearson Ltd, PBC & Brand Geek
> 775.833.1600
> Calendly.com/BrandGeek (let's meet)
>
> Creative typoing by iPhone
>
>
>
> --
> 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/20241217/f0c077dd/attachment-0001.htm
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: image001.png
> Type: image/png
> Size: 103982 bytes
> Desc: image001.png
> URL: <
> http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20241217/f0c077dd/attachment-0005.png
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: image002.gif
> Type: image/gif
> Size: 1104 bytes
> Desc: image002.gif
> URL: <
> http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20241217/f0c077dd/attachment-0001.gif
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: image003.png
> Type: image/png
> Size: 5278 bytes
> Desc: image003.png
> URL: <
> http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20241217/f0c077dd/attachment-0006.png
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: image004.png
> Type: image/png
> Size: 1513 bytes
> Desc: image004.png
> URL: <
> http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20241217/f0c077dd/attachment-0007.png
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: image005.png
> Type: image/png
> Size: 1645 bytes
> Desc: image005.png
> URL: <
> http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20241217/f0c077dd/attachment-0008.png
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: image006.png
> Type: image/png
> Size: 1510 bytes
> Desc: image006.png
> URL: <
> http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20241217/f0c077dd/attachment-0009.png
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 19
> Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2024 08:55:54 -0500
> From: Mark Kaufman <kaufman at kaufmankahn.com>
> To: e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com
> Cc: Law Bosland <office at bosland.law>, e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com,
> Law Bosland <office at bosland.law>
> Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] Use of TM/SM in US
> Message-ID: <2E978441-3657-473D-9A9D-8584691EE7F7 at kaufmankahn.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20241217/40372368/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 20
> Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2024 09:29:12 -0500
> From: Edward Timberlake <ed at timberlakelaw.com>
> To: "For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek
> legal advice." <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] Use in Commerce and Prototype Evaluation
> Contracts
> Message-ID:
> <CABNf9SVtHRfvSFgsqZQXKaF-cja4dGUd_FTKw8xH=_A-fx6VGQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Admittedly every situation is different (perhaps your client is in the
> prototype and evaluation business), but at first glance words like
> "prototype" and "evaluation" don't exactly scream "regular course of
> trade."
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Ed Timberlake
> *Board Certified Specialist in Trademark Law
> <
> https://www.nclawspecialists.gov/for-the-public/find-a-board-certified-specialist/results/detail/?id=29473
> >*
>
> *Timberlake Law* <http://timberlakelaw.com/>
> Chapel Hill, NC
>
> Schedule a call on Clarity <https://clarity.fm/edtimberlake>
> ed at timberlakelaw.com
> 919.960.1950
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 7:19?PM Judith S via E-trademarks <
> e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I have a small client with a trademark who has deployed two prototypes to
> > different evaluation customers. They are receiving payments, but the
> > customer does not own the set up. Is that sufficient use in commerce for
> a
> > product?
> >
> > I think for software it would be, but I'm unsure whether it is enough for
> > hardware goods/services since no hardware was sold. I'd appreciate any
> > input.
> >
> > Judith
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > E-trademarks mailing list
> > 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/20241217/803ebca0/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 21
> Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2024 09:42:18 -0500
> From: <jack at baldinilaw.com>
> To: "'For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek
> legal advice.'" <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> Subject: [E-trademarks] Etsy
> Message-ID: <01e401db5091$e0084540$a018cfc0$@baldinilaw.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Hello all,
>
>
>
> Anyone have clients with issues selling on Etsy? Anyone have a direct
> contact for someone at Etsy who can help expedite resolving account issues?
>
>
>
> Replies off list please.
>
>
>
> Thanks all,
>
>
>
> Jack
>
>
>
> John Brooks Baldini, Esq.
>
> Baldini Law, LLC
>
> 12557 Leatherleaf Drive
>
> Tampa, Florida 33626
>
> (973) 945.1645
>
> http://www.baldinilaw.com/
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This e-mail and any document attached to it may
> contain information which is confidential and/or legally privileged. If you
> are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
> disclosure, copying, distribution, printing or other use of, or any action
> based in, the contents of this e-mail, is strictly prohibited. If you have
> received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by
> telephone at 973.945.1645 and destroy the original message. Thank you.
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20241217/a348bcb4/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 22
> Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2024 09:56:25 -0500
> From: Mark Kaufman <kaufman at kaufmankahn.com>
> To: e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com
> Cc: Oppedahl Carl <carl at oppedahl.com>,
> e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com, Oppedahl Carl <carl at oppedahl.com>
> Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] What are you telling your clients ...
> Message-ID: <6933FCE6-FB03-4E04-9308-B0CCF4F1BFA6 at kaufmankahn.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20241217/c24b1ee4/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 23
> Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2024 15:07:41 +0000
> From: Kevin Grierson <kgrierson at cm.law>
> To: "For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek
> legal advice." <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] Application in Limbo
> Message-ID:
> <
> MN2PR12MB4127316C13A1F98266706584D2042 at MN2PR12MB4127.namprd12.prod.outlook.com
> >
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Side note to this?it appears that the PTO has a habit of just taking no
> action on suspicious applications/filers until it figures out what to do
> with them. Case in point: one of my partners has an application suspended
> because of a prior pending application. That application (and 7 others by
> the same applicant) were filed roughly a year ago but no action has been
> taken on any of them. The applicant has a real attorney?at least, the
> applications indicate they were filed by an attorney licensed in NY, and
> this person is actually licensed there?but that attorney, despite being
> admitted to the bar only in 2021, has filed over 4000 applications to date.
> There are no notes in the files of the blocking application or its 7
> companions, no letter of protest or something else that would explain why
> the PTO has just allowed these applications to sit even as they otherwise
> seem to be getting pendency down a bit. Who knows how long we?ll have to
> wait until the PTO acts and the suspension is lifted?
>
>
> Kevin Grierson????
>
> |
>
> Partner
>
> [cid:image001.png at 01DB506B.7F911960]<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
> Ken Boone via E-trademarks
> Sent: Monday, December 16, 2024 11:59 PM
> To: E-Trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com
> Cc: Ken Boone <boondogles at hotmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] Application in Limbo
>
> EXTERNAL EMAIL
> I have watched this discussion from afar from the beginning. I hope the
> originator has found a USPTO contact sympathetic to his concerns.
> Meanwhile, ...
>
> While the SA - Status field on Trademark Search remains a bit of a mystery
> (as the contents of that field are not displayed but, from my experience,
> that contents typically does NOT match the status description displayed on
> TSDR, eliminating the option of an exact match search of the TSDR status
> text on Trademark Search), I see 314 pending trademarks for the search
>
> SA:(review AND registration) AND LD:true AND PO:* NOT (UD:[20240301 TO *]
> RN:*)
>
> suggesting that "Review prior to registration completed" (the TSDR status
> of the pending marks I checked for that search) is yet another USPTO
> purgatory status waiting complaints from the owner/attorney of record for
> further action by the USPTO. As noted, that search retrieves 314 pending
> trademarks today, where one of those pending trademarks appears to be the
> trademark inspiring this E-Trademarks discussion.
>
> Curious? Well, the search
>
> UD:[20241216 TO *] AND SN:( 86980509 87769203 88110411 88232431 88472833
> 88756971 88789436 88843007 90057103 90521117 90706772 90735034 90753596
> 90780559 90783862 90804195 90812917 90822910 90872681 90887866 90899852
> 90979928 90979981 90980019 90980045 97017090 97031122 97067424 97075031
> 97100429 97100437 97108107 97133734 97137059 97159370 97160078 97166550
> 97169530 97172164 97194679 97202189 97202581 97204163 97206673 97216415
> 97218545 97227930 97239893 97263899 97266596 97271806 97279594 97285054
> 97285443 97289940 97294861 97299134 97303038 97304571 97304640 97304695
> 97316079 97321190 97325909 97327750 97338754 97341522 97342520 97348696
> 97356771 97358299 97361426 97361961 97363476 97363758 97369815 97386931
> 97389621 97393946 97395592 97399431 97402951 97410853 97411172 97417084
> 97417244 97418367 97418827 97418968 97421337 97422075 97423470 97423925
> 97425704 97428007 97430039 97430177 97431687 97433033 97433384 97433610
> 97435882 97435885 97435887 97439860 97440288 97440961 97441810 97442082
> 97445663 97445895 97445914 97446008 97446915 97449093 97449241 97452225
> 97452830 97453898 97455358 97457296 97457310 97459217 97461387 97461774
> 97461813 97463830 97464424 97466649 97468157 97469702 97470510 97471790
> 97472046 97472762 97473121 97473126 97473455 97473806 97475236 97476499
> 97477634 97478434 97478804 97479892 97482317 97483222 97484155 97484745
> 97485821 97485888 97486981 97487000 97487076 97488718 97492675 97493254
> 97494136 97494327 97494677 97497742 97497811 97498751 97499591 97504893
> 97506283 97508050 97508331 97513145 97514678 97517217 97520019 97522458
> 97524493 97532374 97533562 97536877 97538131 97545861 97547585 97550339
> 97551105 97552181 97552507 97555716 97563084 97563785 97564370 97567223
> 97567275 97569636 97571001 97571528 97574414 97576865 97578526 97582885
> 97583668 97587224 97588457 97589517 97590814 97593789 97593813 97602378
> 97603996 97606851 97607043 97607449 97609686 97611688 97614143 97614486
> 97622350 97623330 97623621 97627875 97629363 97632909 97638216 97638744
> 97641065 97645582 97649729 97653796 97657114 97658325 97658718 97665237
> 97665737 97669596 97673064 97676247 97677722 97677723 97677972 97680887
> 97681034 97681812 97683921 97686016 97686034 97686042 97688786 97690981
> 97692017 97694176 97694187 97694329 97698302 97698720 97703312 97703799
> 97704709 97704744 97704748 97705299 97707847 97708023 97709958 97710979
> 97711987 97715336 97715760 97718094 97718124 97720233 97725467 97725702
> 97726345 97730452 97730989 97731785 97734811 97738294 97743863 97744657
> 97745072 97748750 97748808 97749894 97750468 97750888 97756079 97762025
> 97763749 97768284 97803208 97809049 97812131 97824948 97837456 97842773
> 97855387 97888992 97908782 97975421 97975827 97976089 97976149 97976178
> 97976770 97977096 97977309 97977312 97977359 97977399 97977448 97977467
> 98031355 98034012 98043532 98079031 98114018 )
>
> should retrieve any of those 314 pending trademarks for any future updates
> on USPTO systems, so who (besides me) will be performing that search daily
> to watch the future progress of those 314 pending application in limbo
> trademarks? Well, those pending trademarks are the responsibilities of the
> owners/attorneys of record to monitor, so ... never mind. I'll probably
> give up that daily search long before the year ends. So it goes.
>
> Happy Trademarking,
> Ken Boone
>
> PS - My email editor complained about links in this message trail, so I
> converted the message trail to text to (hopefully) remove any links.
> Typically, I do NOT click on any links in postings for this discussion
> group (that I hope the relevant links will appear via an Internet search on
> a secure search platform from the relevant clues provided) and hope you use
> the same caution (even on my postings, as scammers/dark webbers have
> impersonated me).
> ________________________________
> From: E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:
> e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com>> on behalf of Diane Gardner via
> E-trademarks <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:
> e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>>
> Sent: Monday, December 16, 2024 4:29 PM
> To: e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>>
> Cc: Diane Gardner <diane at mmip.com<mailto:diane at mmip.com>>
> Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] Application in Limbo
>
> Hi Tom,
>
> This happened to me also and I sent a message to TAC. TAC never responded
> to me, but the registration issued within 48 hrs. after I sent the message.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Diane L. Gardner
> Reg. No. 36,518
> _____________________________________________________________
> Please note our new corporate address as of February 1, 2023:
> Mastermind IP Law P.C., 440 N. Barranca Ave. #6387, Covina, CA 91723
> 760.294.5160 tel. 706.955.9666 tel. 803.226.0741 tel. ? diane at mmip.com
> <mailto:diane at mmip.com> e-mail
> CA Lic. No. 196214 DC Lic. No. 470855 USPTO Reg. No. 36518
>
> Please note our expedited mail processing address as of February 1, 2023:
> Mastermind IP Law P.C., 532 Forest Bluffs Rd., Aiken, SC 29803
>
> __________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> This communication is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy
> Act, 18 U.S.C. ??2510-2521. It is sent by a law firm for its intended
> recipient only, and may contain information that is privileged,
> confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are
> not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for
> delivering this communication to the intended recipient, you are hereby
> notified that any unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution or copying
> of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
> communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone (706)
> 955-9666 or e-mail reply, delete it from your system, and destroy any hard
> copy you may have printed. Absent an executed engagement agreement with
> Mastermind IP Law P.C., this message does not constitute legal advice, and
> it does not establish any previously non-existent professional relationship
> with, or representation of the recipient. Thank you.
>
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2024 13:25:06 +0000
> From: Tom Vanderbloemen <tom at vanderbloemenlaw.com<mailto:
> tom at vanderbloemenlaw.com>>
> To: "e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:
> e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>"
> <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>>
> Subject: [E-trademarks] Application in Limbo
> Message-ID:
> <
> BN8PR18MB23549B479EE486B89AF3C5CBD13E2 at BN8PR18MB2354.namprd18.prod.outlook.com
> <mailto:
> BN8PR18MB23549B479EE486B89AF3C5CBD13E2 at BN8PR18MB2354.namprd18.prod.outlook.com
> >>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> Friends ? We have an application that appears to be stuck in some limbo
> state. ?Review prior to registration? happened in February, but still no
> registration. We?ve tried reaching the examiner, but it may be that she is
> no longer with the USPTO, and we?ve had no luck with the assistance center.
> Do you have any suggestions?
>
> Thank you,
> Tom
>
> __________________________
>
> Tom Vanderbloemen
> Vanderbloemen Law Firm, P.A.
> 330 East Coffee Street
> Greenville, SC 29601
> 864-250-9530 (main)
> 864-501-2627 (direct)
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20241217/0def5456/attachment-0001.htm
> >
> -------------- 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/20241217/0def5456/attachment-0004.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/20241217/0def5456/attachment-0005.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/20241217/0def5456/attachment-0006.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/20241217/0def5456/attachment-0007.png
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 24
> Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2024 08:21:32 -0700
> From: Carl Oppedahl <carl at oppedahl.com>
> To: For trademark "practitioners." This is not for laypersons to seek
> legal "advice." <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] What are you telling your clients ...
> Message-ID: <cd46ec47-2afe-4897-890d-95a4cd7a399e at oppedahl.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>
> Yes, I have been running into situations in recent months where I work
> on some recurring task in trademark world, and I lose money on the
> recurring task.
>
> And I have been running into situations in recent months where I simply
> decline a potential new client trademark matter, because my spidey sense
> hints to me that I would likely lose money on the task.
>
> I have gotten to the point where as a general matter I only do a
> trademark task if it is for an existing client for whom I have carried
> out that kind of task multiple times in the past.? Meaning that it is
> not so likely to be a high-maintenance and money-losing task.
>
> Your mention of Legalzoom lines up with one of my recent musings.? Where
> are these potential new client trademark matters going, if they are not
> getting handled by old-guard trademark professionals like us who talk on
> this listserv?? Are the tasks ending up at places like Legalzoom?? Are
> the tasks going to trademark attorneys who are so very very hungry for
> work that they are willing to accept a task even though they receive
> only a very small professional fee?
>
> And I also muse on what effect these shifts and trends are likely to
> have upon the Trademark Office and its Examining Attorneys. Surely one
> possible effect is that the submissions are of poorer quality.?
> Submissions in which corners get cut, little or no professional review
> takes place, specimens of use are of poorer quality, IDs represent
> more-painful mismatches between the words of the ID and what activity
> the applicant/registrant is actually engaged in.
>
> On 12/17/2024 7:56 AM, Mark Kaufman via E-trademarks wrote:
> > Yes, but clients seem to think it?s business as usual. An overseas law
> > firm just sent me a ?referral? where the client set a budget?that is
> > literally less than the potential filing fees, alone, with almost no
> > attorneys fees, for a mark in multiple classes.
> >
> > Maybe I?m tempting the fates of LegalZoom, but after detailing all the
> > fees (and creating a template for future clients), and receiving their
> > kind rejection, I wrote that if they find someone else to do the work
> > for that amount and then need help on responding to an office action
> > resulting from such services, ??please let me know if we can be of
> > assistance??
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Mark
> >
> > Mark S. Kaufman
> >
> > Kaufman & Kahn, LLP
> >
> > Email: kaufman at kaufmankahn.com
> >
> > http://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
> >
> > [null]
> >
> > 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 2, 2024, at 6:47?PM, Carl Oppedahl via E-trademarks
> > <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:
> >
> > ?
> >
> > I am simply adding up all of the new gouge fees from the Trademark
> > Office and telling the client that this is the new price for filing a
> > trademark application.
> >
> > On 12/2/2024 2:24 PM, Kevin Grierson via E-trademarks wrote:
> >>
> >> With regard to the surcharge, I?ve been telling clients that the
> >> standard application fee is going up $200 per class, unless we can
> >> fit the description into the pre-approved list on the TMID. Because
> >> ?standard fee plus surcharge? is, in essence, replacing the old TEAS
> >> standard filing.
> >>
> >> With regard to the insufficient information charge, the causes for it
> >> are the same as for failing to comply with TEAS-plus requirements,
> >> but I?m still trying to figure out what to say there other than to
> >> emphasize that we need to have all the required information ready
> >> when we file.
> >>
> >> *Kevin?Grierson**?**?**?**?***
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> |
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Partner
> >>
> >> <image001.png>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> <image002.png>
> >>
> >>
> >> 757-726-7799 <tel:757-726-7799>
> >>
> >> <image003.png>
> >>
> >>
> >> 866-521-5663 <fax:866-521-5663>
> >>
> >> <image004.png>
> >>
> >>
> >> kgrierson at cm.law <mailto:kgrierson at cm.law>
> >>
> >> */Please?note:?Culhane?Meadows?is?now?CM?Law/*
> >>
> >>
> >> *From:*E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> *On
> >> Behalf Of *Laura Geyer via E-trademarks
> >> *Sent:* Monday, December 2, 2024 4:03 PM
> >> *To:* For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek
> >> legal advice. <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> >> *Cc:* Laura Geyer <lgeyer at ndgallilaw.com>
> >> *Subject:* [E-trademarks] What are you telling your clients ...
> >>
> >> EXTERNAL EMAIL
> >>
> >> About the absolutely insane and absurd subcharge that an awful lot of
> >> our clients will need to pay to use the freeform g/s field in
> >> applications starting next year? And how are you presenting the
> >> highly unpredictable ?deficiency? amounts in estimates?
> >>
> >> (I still can?t believe they?re doing this when it?s basically the
> >> only way to avoid a 2(d) refusal in many cases where the broader
> >> definition makes no darned sense. Or when the broader category
> >> doesn?t include a field option?)
> >>
> >> *Laura Talley Geyer*| *Of Counsel*
> >>
> >> **
> >>
> >> *ND Galli Law LLC*
> >>
> >> 1200 G Street, N.W., Ste 800
> >>
> >> Washington, DC 20005
> >>
> >> Tel: (202) 599-9019 (direct)
> >>
> >> https://ndgallilaw.com/laura-geyer/
> >>
> >> https://ndgallilaw.com/
> >>
> >>
> > --
> > E-trademarks mailing list
> > 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/20241217/e3751f02/attachment-0001.htm
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: smime.p7s
> Type: application/pkcs7-signature
> Size: 4751 bytes
> Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
> URL: <
> http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20241217/e3751f02/attachment-0001.p7s
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 25
> Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2024 10:26:35 -0500
> From: Mark Kaufman <kaufman at kaufmankahn.com>
> To: Carl Oppedahl <carl at oppedahl.com>, "For trademark practitioners.
> This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice."
> <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] What are you telling your clients ...
> Message-ID: <8eec10d39f54101dd7bba791d5105306 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Ah, but coming into an application?s prosecution at the stage of responding
> to an office action? ?Priceless.?
>
>
>
> -Mark
>
>
>
> *From:* Carl Oppedahl <carl at oppedahl.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 17, 2024 10:22 AM
> *To:* For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal
> advice. <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [E-trademarks] What are you telling your clients ...
>
>
>
> Yes, I have been running into situations in recent months where I work on
> some recurring task in trademark world, and I lose money on the recurring
> task.
>
> And I have been running into situations in recent months where I simply
> decline a potential new client trademark matter, because my spidey sense
> hints to me that I would likely lose money on the task.
>
> I have gotten to the point where as a general matter I only do a trademark
> task if it is for an existing client for whom I have carried out that kind
> of task multiple times in the past. Meaning that it is not so likely to be
> a high-maintenance and money-losing task.
>
> Your mention of Legalzoom lines up with one of my recent musings. Where
> are these potential new client trademark matters going, if they are not
> getting handled by old-guard trademark professionals like us who talk on
> this listserv? Are the tasks ending up at places like Legalzoom? Are the
> tasks going to trademark attorneys who are so very very hungry for work
> that they are willing to accept a task even though they receive only a very
> small professional fee?
>
> And I also muse on what effect these shifts and trends are likely to have
> upon the Trademark Office and its Examining Attorneys. Surely one possible
> effect is that the submissions are of poorer quality. Submissions in which
> corners get cut, little or no professional review takes place, specimens of
> use are of poorer quality, IDs represent more-painful mismatches between
> the words of the ID and what activity the applicant/registrant is actually
> engaged in.
>
> On 12/17/2024 7:56 AM, Mark Kaufman via E-trademarks wrote:
>
> Yes, but clients seem to think it?s business as usual. An overseas law firm
> just sent me a ?referral? where the client set a budget that is literally
> less than the potential filing fees, alone, with almost no attorneys fees,
> for a mark in multiple classes.
>
>
>
> Maybe I?m tempting the fates of LegalZoom, but after detailing all the fees
> (and creating a template for future clients), and receiving their kind
> rejection, I wrote that if they find someone else to do the work for that
> amount and then need help on responding to an office action resulting from
> such services, ?please let me know if we can be of assistance??
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> Mark S. Kaufman
>
> Kaufman & Kahn, LLP
>
> Email: kaufman at 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.: (212) 293-5556, x 2
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 2, 2024, at 6:47?PM, Carl Oppedahl via E-trademarks
> <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com> <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:
>
> ?
>
> I am simply adding up all of the new gouge fees from the Trademark Office
> and telling the client that this is the new price for filing a trademark
> application.
>
> On 12/2/2024 2:24 PM, Kevin Grierson via E-trademarks wrote:
>
> With regard to the surcharge, I?ve been telling clients that the standard
> application fee is going up $200 per class, unless we can fit the
> description into the pre-approved list on the TMID. Because ?standard fee
> plus surcharge? is, in essence, replacing the old TEAS standard filing.
>
>
>
> With regard to the insufficient information charge, the causes for it are
> the same as for failing to comply with TEAS-plus requirements, but I?m
> still trying to figure out what to say there other than to emphasize that
> we need to have all the required information ready when we file.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Kevin Grierson**????*
>
> |
>
> Partner
>
> <image001.png>
>
> <image002.png>
>
> 757-726-7799
>
> <image003.png>
>
> 866-521-5663 <fax:866-521-5663>
>
> <image004.png>
>
> kgrierson at cm.law
>
> *Please note: Culhane Meadows is now CM Law*
>
>
>
> *From:* E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com>
> <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> *On Behalf Of *Laura Geyer via
> E-trademarks
> *Sent:* Monday, December 2, 2024 4:03 PM
> *To:* For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal
> advice. <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com> <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com
> >
> *Cc:* Laura Geyer <lgeyer at ndgallilaw.com> <lgeyer at ndgallilaw.com>
> *Subject:* [E-trademarks] What are you telling your clients ...
>
>
>
> EXTERNAL EMAIL
>
> About the absolutely insane and absurd subcharge that an awful lot of our
> clients will need to pay to use the freeform g/s field in applications
> starting next year? And how are you presenting the highly unpredictable
> ?deficiency? amounts in estimates?
>
>
>
> (I still can?t believe they?re doing this when it?s basically the only way
> to avoid a 2(d) refusal in many cases where the broader definition makes no
> darned sense. Or when the broader category doesn?t include a field option?)
>
>
>
> *Laura Talley Geyer* | *Of Counsel*
>
>
>
> *ND Galli Law LLC*
>
> 1200 G Street, N.W., Ste 800
>
> Washington, DC 20005
>
> Tel: (202) 599-9019 (direct)
>
> https://ndgallilaw.com/laura-geyer/
>
> https://ndgallilaw.com/
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> E-trademarks mailing list
> 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/20241217/79247642/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 26
> Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2024 08:38:51 -0700
> From: Carl Oppedahl <carl at oppedahl.com>
> To: For trademark "practitioners." This is not for laypersons to seek
> legal "advice." <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] Application in Limbo
> Message-ID: <2435765e-1e5c-4491-8cc0-f6d1774b74b2 at oppedahl.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>
> Yes and Ken Boone has been doing a variety of son-of-TESS searches in
> recent months that are designed to try to sniff out clusters of
> applications that sound similar to this kind of fact pattern.? He keeps
> finding various ways to craft a search and he keeps finding whole
> tranches of applications that seem to be stalled in one way or another.
>
> Which raises the natural question -- why is there (apparently) nobody at
> the Trademark Office monitoring this kind of thing and doing whatever is
> needed to break logjams?? If Ken can do a search and with a few mouse
> clicks find 200 or 700 applications that are stalled in a particular
> way, why is there no one in management at the Trademark Office doing
> those searches and taking appropriate corrective steps?
>
> On 12/17/2024 8:07 AM, Kevin Grierson via E-trademarks wrote:
> >
> > Side note to this?it appears that the PTO has a habit of just taking
> > no action on suspicious applications/filers until it figures out what
> > to do with them.? Case in point: one of my partners has an application
> > suspended because of a prior pending application.? That application
> > (and 7 others by the same applicant) were filed roughly a year ago but
> > no action has been taken on any of them. ?The applicant has a real
> > attorney?at least, the applications indicate they were filed by an
> > attorney licensed in NY, and this person is actually licensed
> > there?but that attorney, despite being admitted to the bar only in
> > 2021, has filed over 4000 applications to date.? There are no notes in
> > the files of the blocking application or its 7 companions, no letter
> > of protest or something else that would explain why the PTO has just
> > allowed these applications to sit even as they otherwise seem to be
> > getting pendency down a bit.? Who knows how long we?ll have to wait
> > until the PTO acts and the suspension is lifted?
> >
> > *Kevin?Grierson**?**?**?**?***
> >
> >
> >
> > |
> >
> >
> >
> > Partner
> >
> > <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 *Ken Boone via E-trademarks
> > *Sent:* Monday, December 16, 2024 11:59 PM
> > *To:* E-Trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com
> > *Cc:* Ken Boone <boondogles at hotmail.com>
> > *Subject:* Re: [E-trademarks] Application in Limbo
> >
> > EXTERNAL EMAIL
> >
> > I have watched this discussion from afar from the beginning.? I hope
> > the originator has found a USPTO contact sympathetic to his concerns.
> > Meanwhile, ...
> >
> > While the *SA - Status*?field on Trademark Search remains a bit of a
> > mystery (as the contents of that field are not displayed but, from my
> > experience, that contents typically does NOT match the status
> > description displayed on TSDR, eliminating the option of an exact
> > match search of the TSDR status text on Trademark Search), I see *_314
> > pending trademarks_*?for the search
> >
> > *SA:(review AND registration) AND LD:true AND PO:* NOT (UD:[20240301
> > TO *] RN:*)*
> >
> > suggesting that "*/Review prior to registration completed/*" (the TSDR
> > status of the pending marks I checked for that search) is yet another
> > USPTO */purgatory/***status waiting complaints from the owner/attorney
> > of record for further action by the USPTO.? As noted, that search
> > retrieves 314 pending trademarks today, where one of those pending
> > trademarks appears to be the trademark inspiring this E-Trademarks
> > discussion.
> >
> > Curious?? Well, the search
> >
> > UD:[20241216 TO *] AND SN:( 86980509 87769203 88110411 88232431
> > 88472833 88756971 88789436 88843007 90057103 90521117 90706772
> > 90735034 90753596 90780559 90783862 90804195 90812917 90822910
> > 90872681 90887866 90899852 90979928 90979981 90980019 90980045
> > 97017090 97031122 97067424 97075031 97100429 97100437 97108107
> > 97133734 97137059 97159370 97160078 97166550 97169530 97172164
> > 97194679 97202189 97202581 97204163 97206673 97216415 97218545
> > 97227930 97239893 97263899 97266596 97271806 97279594 97285054
> > 97285443 97289940 97294861 97299134 97303038 97304571 97304640
> > 97304695 97316079 97321190 97325909 97327750 97338754 97341522
> > 97342520 97348696 97356771 97358299 97361426 97361961 97363476
> > 97363758 97369815 97386931 97389621 97393946 97395592 97399431
> > 97402951 97410853 97411172 97417084 97417244 97418367 97418827
> > 97418968 97421337 97422075 97423470 97423925 97425704 97428007
> > 97430039 97430177 97431687 97433033 97433384 97433610 97435882
> > 97435885 97435887 97439860 97440288 97440961 97441810 97442082
> > 97445663 97445895 97445914 97446008 97446915 97449093 97449241
> > 97452225 97452830 97453898 97455358 97457296 97457310 97459217
> > 97461387 97461774 97461813 97463830 97464424 97466649 97468157
> > 97469702 97470510 97471790 97472046 97472762 97473121 97473126
> > 97473455 97473806 97475236 97476499 97477634 97478434 97478804
> > 97479892 97482317 97483222 97484155 97484745 97485821 97485888
> > 97486981 97487000 97487076 97488718 97492675 97493254 97494136
> > 97494327 97494677 97497742 97497811 97498751 97499591 97504893
> > 97506283 97508050 97508331 97513145 97514678 97517217 97520019
> > 97522458 97524493 97532374 97533562 97536877 97538131 97545861
> > 97547585 97550339 97551105 97552181 97552507 97555716 97563084
> > 97563785 97564370 97567223 97567275 97569636 97571001 97571528
> > 97574414 97576865 97578526 97582885 97583668 97587224 97588457
> > 97589517 97590814 97593789 97593813 97602378 97603996 97606851
> > 97607043 97607449 97609686 97611688 97614143 97614486 97622350
> > 97623330 97623621 97627875 97629363 97632909 97638216 97638744
> > 97641065 97645582 97649729 97653796 97657114 97658325 97658718
> > 97665237 97665737 97669596 97673064 97676247 97677722 97677723
> > 97677972 97680887 97681034 97681812 97683921 97686016 97686034
> > 97686042 97688786 97690981 97692017 97694176 97694187 97694329
> > 97698302 97698720 97703312 97703799 97704709 97704744 97704748
> > 97705299 97707847 97708023 97709958 97710979 97711987 97715336
> > 97715760 97718094 97718124 97720233 97725467 97725702 97726345
> > 97730452 97730989 97731785 97734811 97738294 97743863 97744657
> > 97745072 97748750 97748808 97749894 97750468 97750888 97756079
> > 97762025 97763749 97768284 97803208 97809049 97812131 97824948
> > 97837456 97842773 97855387 97888992 97908782 97975421 97975827
> > 97976089 97976149 97976178 97976770 97977096 97977309 97977312
> > 97977359 97977399 97977448 97977467 98031355 98034012 98043532
> > 98079031 98114018 )
> >
> > should retrieve any of those 314 pending trademarks for any future
> > updates on USPTO systems, so who (besides me) will be performing that
> > search daily to watch the future progress of those 314 pending
> > */application in limbo/*?trademarks? Well, those pending trademarks
> > *are *the responsibilities of the owners/attorneys of record to
> > monitor, so ... never mind. I'll probably give up that daily search
> > long before the year ends. So it goes.
> >
> > Happy Trademarking,
> >
> > Ken Boone
> >
> > PS - My email editor complained about links in this message trail, so
> > I converted the message trail to text to (hopefully) remove any links.
> > Typically, I do NOT click on any links in postings for this discussion
> > group (that I hope the relevant links will appear via an Internet
> > search on a secure search platform from the relevant clues provided)
> > and hope you use the same caution (even on my postings, as
> > scammers/dark webbers have impersonated me).
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > From: E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> on behalf
> > of Diane Gardner via E-trademarks <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> >
> > Sent: Monday, December 16, 2024 4:29 PM
> >
> > To: e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> >
> > Cc: Diane Gardner <diane at mmip.com>
> >
> > Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] Application in Limbo
> >
> > Hi Tom,
> >
> > This happened to me also and I sent a message to TAC. TAC never
> > responded to me, but the registration issued within 48 hrs. after I
> > sent the message.
> >
> > Kind regards,
> >
> > Diane L. Gardner
> >
> > Reg. No. 36,518
> >
> > _____________________________________________________________
> >
> > Please note our new corporate address as of February 1, 2023:
> >
> > Mastermind IP Law P.C., 440 N. Barranca Ave. #6387, Covina, CA 91723
> >
> > 760.294.5160 tel. 706.955.9666 tel. 803.226.0741 tel. ??
> > diane at mmip.com ?e-mail
> >
> > CA Lic. No. 196214 ? DC Lic. No. 470855 ? USPTO Reg. No. 36518
> >
> > Please note our expedited mail processing address as of February 1, 2023:
> >
> > Mastermind IP Law P.C., 532 Forest Bluffs Rd., Aiken, SC 29803
> >
> >
> __________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> >
> > This communication is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy
> > Act, 18 U.S.C. ??2510-2521. ?It is sent by a law firm for its intended
> > recipient only, and may contain information that is privileged,
> > confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you
> > are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible
> > for delivering this communication to the intended recipient, you are
> > hereby notified that any unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution
> > or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. ?If you have
> > received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by
> > telephone (706) 955-9666 or e-mail reply, delete it from your system,
> > and destroy any hard copy you may have printed. ?Absent an executed
> > engagement agreement with Mastermind IP Law P.C., this message does
> > not constitute legal advice, and it does not establish any previously
> > non-existent professional relationship with, or representation of the
> > recipient. Thank you.
> >
> > Message: 3
> >
> > Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2024 13:25:06 +0000
> >
> > From: Tom Vanderbloemen <tom at vanderbloemenlaw.com>
> >
> > To: "e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com"
> >
> > ? ? ? ? <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> >
> > Subject: [E-trademarks] Application in Limbo
> >
> > Message-ID:
> >
> > ? ? ? ?
> > <
> BN8PR18MB23549B479EE486B89AF3C5CBD13E2 at BN8PR18MB2354.namprd18.prod.outlook.com
> >
> >
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
> >
> > Friends ? We have an application that appears to be stuck in some
> > limbo state. ??Review prior to registration? happened in February, but
> > still no registration. ?We?ve tried reaching the examiner, but it may
> > be that she is no longer with the USPTO, and we?ve had no luck with
> > the assistance center. ?Do you have any suggestions?
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> > Tom
> >
> > __________________________
> >
> > Tom Vanderbloemen
> >
> > Vanderbloemen Law Firm, P.A.
> >
> > 330 East Coffee Street
> >
> > Greenville, SC 29601
> >
> > 864-250-9530 (main)
> >
> > 864-501-2627 (direct)
> >
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20241217/6e651a86/attachment-0001.htm
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: image001.png
> Type: image/png
> Size: 5049 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL: <
> http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20241217/6e651a86/attachment-0004.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/20241217/6e651a86/attachment-0005.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/20241217/6e651a86/attachment-0006.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/20241217/6e651a86/attachment-0007.png
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: smime.p7s
> Type: application/pkcs7-signature
> Size: 4751 bytes
> Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
> URL: <
> http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20241217/6e651a86/attachment-0001.p7s
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 27
> Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2024 15:40:39 +0000
> From: Rick Stempkovski <rstempkovski at dbclaw.com>
> To: "For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek
> legal advice." <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>, Carl Oppedahl
> <carl at oppedahl.com>
> Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] What are you telling your clients ...
> Message-ID:
> <
> PH7PR12MB67402736CB393CB0A5B2D5F6A4042 at PH7PR12MB6740.namprd12.prod.outlook.com
> >
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> You can pay me know, or you can pay me later?.FRAM auto filters; thanks
> for all the great info throughout the year, whatever your end of year thing
> is, wear it out, R
>
> Regards,
>
> Richard C. Stempkovski, Jr.
> DICKE, BILLIG & CZAJA, PLLC
> INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ATTORNEYS
> 100 South Fifth Street
> Suite 2250
> Minneapolis, MN 55402
> Office: 612-767-2522
> Fax: 612-573-2005<tel:6125732005>
> Email: rstempkovski at dbclaw.com<mailto:rstempkovski at dbclaw.com>
> http://www.dbclaw.com/<http://www.dbclaw.com/>
>
> This electronic mail transmission may contain confidential or privileged
> information. If you believe that you have received the message in error,
> please notify the sender by reply transmission and delete the message
> without copying it or disclosing it.
>
> From: E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> On Behalf Of
> Mark Kaufman via E-trademarks
> Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2024 9:27 AM
> To: Carl Oppedahl <carl at oppedahl.com>; For trademark practitioners. This
> is not for laypersons to seek legal advice. <
> e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> Cc: Mark Kaufman <kaufman at kaufmankahn.com>
> Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] What are you telling your clients ...
>
> Ah, but coming into an application?s prosecution at the stage of
> responding to an office action? ?Priceless.?
>
> -Mark
>
> From: Carl Oppedahl <carl at oppedahl.com<mailto:carl at oppedahl.com>>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2024 10:22 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>>
> Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] What are you telling your clients ...
>
>
> Yes, I have been running into situations in recent months where I work on
> some recurring task in trademark world, and I lose money on the recurring
> task.
>
> And I have been running into situations in recent months where I simply
> decline a potential new client trademark matter, because my spidey sense
> hints to me that I would likely lose money on the task.
>
> I have gotten to the point where as a general matter I only do a trademark
> task if it is for an existing client for whom I have carried out that kind
> of task multiple times in the past. Meaning that it is not so likely to be
> a high-maintenance and money-losing task.
>
> Your mention of Legalzoom lines up with one of my recent musings. Where
> are these potential new client trademark matters going, if they are not
> getting handled by old-guard trademark professionals like us who talk on
> this listserv? Are the tasks ending up at places like Legalzoom? Are the
> tasks going to trademark attorneys who are so very very hungry for work
> that they are willing to accept a task even though they receive only a very
> small professional fee?
>
> And I also muse on what effect these shifts and trends are likely to have
> upon the Trademark Office and its Examining Attorneys. Surely one possible
> effect is that the submissions are of poorer quality. Submissions in which
> corners get cut, little or no professional review takes place, specimens of
> use are of poorer quality, IDs represent more-painful mismatches between
> the words of the ID and what activity the applicant/registrant is actually
> engaged in.
> On 12/17/2024 7:56 AM, Mark Kaufman via E-trademarks wrote:
> Yes, but clients seem to think it?s business as usual. An overseas law
> firm just sent me a ?referral? where the client set a budget that is
> literally less than the potential filing fees, alone, with almost no
> attorneys fees, for a mark in multiple classes.
>
> Maybe I?m tempting the fates of LegalZoom, but after detailing all the
> fees (and creating a template for future clients), and receiving their kind
> rejection, I wrote that if they find someone else to do the work for that
> amount and then need help on responding to an office action resulting from
> such services, ?please let me know if we can be of assistance??
>
> Thank you,
> Mark
>
> Mark S. Kaufman
> Kaufman & Kahn, LLP
> Email: kaufman at kaufmankahn.com<mailto:kaufman at kaufmankahn.com>
> http://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
>
>
>
> 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 2, 2024, at 6:47?PM, Carl Oppedahl via E-trademarks <
> e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com><mailto:e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> wrote:
> ?
>
> I am simply adding up all of the new gouge fees from the Trademark Office
> and telling the client that this is the new price for filing a trademark
> application.
> On 12/2/2024 2:24 PM, Kevin Grierson via E-trademarks wrote:
> With regard to the surcharge, I?ve been telling clients that the standard
> application fee is going up $200 per class, unless we can fit the
> description into the pre-approved list on the TMID. Because ?standard fee
> plus surcharge? is, in essence, replacing the old TEAS standard filing.
>
> With regard to the insufficient information charge, the causes for it are
> the same as for failing to comply with TEAS-plus requirements, but I?m
> still trying to figure out what to say there other than to emphasize that
> we need to have all the required information ready when we file.
>
>
>
>
> Kevin Grierson????
>
> |
>
> Partner
> <image001.png>
> <image002.png>
>
> 757-726-7799<tel:757-726-7799>
> <image003.png>
>
> 866-521-5663<fax:866-521-5663>
> <image004.png>
>
> kgrierson at cm.law<mailto:kgrierson at cm.law>
>
> Please note: Culhane Meadows is now CM Law
>
> From: E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com><mailto:
> e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> On Behalf Of Laura Geyer via
> E-trademarks
> Sent: Monday, December 2, 2024 4:03 PM
> 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: Laura Geyer <lgeyer at ndgallilaw.com><mailto:lgeyer at ndgallilaw.com>
> Subject: [E-trademarks] What are you telling your clients ...
>
> EXTERNAL EMAIL
> About the absolutely insane and absurd subcharge that an awful lot of our
> clients will need to pay to use the freeform g/s field in applications
> starting next year? And how are you presenting the highly unpredictable
> ?deficiency? amounts in estimates?
>
> (I still can?t believe they?re doing this when it?s basically the only way
> to avoid a 2(d) refusal in many cases where the broader definition makes no
> darned sense. Or when the broader category doesn?t include a field option?)
>
> Laura Talley Geyer | Of Counsel
>
> ND Galli Law LLC
> 1200 G Street, N.W., Ste 800
> Washington, DC 20005
> Tel: (202) 599-9019 (direct)
> https://ndgallilaw.com/laura-geyer/
> https://ndgallilaw.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/20241217/1e55be3c/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 28
> Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2024 15:43:51 +0000
> From: Rick Stempkovski <rstempkovski at dbclaw.com>
> To: "For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek
> legal advice." <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>, Carl Oppedahl
> <carl at oppedahl.com>
> Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] What are you telling your clients ...
> Message-ID:
> <
> PH7PR12MB67404B6FDF17EEE7460874E3A4042 at PH7PR12MB6740.namprd12.prod.outlook.com
> >
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> --now--, more coffee
>
> Regards,
>
> Richard C. Stempkovski, Jr.
> DICKE, BILLIG & CZAJA, PLLC
> INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ATTORNEYS
> 100 South Fifth Street
> Suite 2250
> Minneapolis, MN 55402
> Office: 612-767-2522
> Fax: 612-573-2005<tel:6125732005>
> Email: rstempkovski at dbclaw.com<mailto:rstempkovski at dbclaw.com>
> http://www.dbclaw.com/<http://www.dbclaw.com/>
>
> This electronic mail transmission may contain confidential or privileged
> information. If you believe that you have received the message in error,
> please notify the sender by reply transmission and delete the message
> without copying it or disclosing it.
>
> From: E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> On Behalf Of
> Rick Stempkovski via E-trademarks
> Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2024 9:41 AM
> To: For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal
> advice. <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>; Carl Oppedahl <
> carl at oppedahl.com>
> Cc: Rick Stempkovski <rstempkovski at dbclaw.com>
> Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] What are you telling your clients ...
>
> You can pay me know, or you can pay me later?.FRAM auto filters; thanks
> for all the great info throughout the year, whatever your end of year thing
> is, wear it out, R
>
> Regards,
>
> Richard C. Stempkovski, Jr.
> DICKE, BILLIG & CZAJA, PLLC
> INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ATTORNEYS
> 100 South Fifth Street
> Suite 2250
> Minneapolis, MN 55402
> Office: 612-767-2522
> Fax: 612-573-2005<tel:6125732005>
> Email: rstempkovski at dbclaw.com<mailto:rstempkovski at dbclaw.com>
> http://www.dbclaw.com/<http://www.dbclaw.com/>
>
> This electronic mail transmission may contain confidential or privileged
> information. If you believe that you have received the message in error,
> please notify the sender by reply transmission and delete the message
> without copying it or disclosing it.
>
> From: E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:
> e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com>> On Behalf Of Mark Kaufman via
> E-trademarks
> Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2024 9:27 AM
> To: Carl Oppedahl <carl at oppedahl.com<mailto:carl at oppedahl.com>>; 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: Mark Kaufman <kaufman at kaufmankahn.com<mailto:kaufman at kaufmankahn.com>>
> Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] What are you telling your clients ...
>
> Ah, but coming into an application?s prosecution at the stage of
> responding to an office action? ?Priceless.?
>
> -Mark
>
> From: Carl Oppedahl <carl at oppedahl.com<mailto:carl at oppedahl.com>>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2024 10:22 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>>
> Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] What are you telling your clients ...
>
>
> Yes, I have been running into situations in recent months where I work on
> some recurring task in trademark world, and I lose money on the recurring
> task.
>
> And I have been running into situations in recent months where I simply
> decline a potential new client trademark matter, because my spidey sense
> hints to me that I would likely lose money on the task.
>
> I have gotten to the point where as a general matter I only do a trademark
> task if it is for an existing client for whom I have carried out that kind
> of task multiple times in the past. Meaning that it is not so likely to be
> a high-maintenance and money-losing task.
>
> Your mention of Legalzoom lines up with one of my recent musings. Where
> are these potential new client trademark matters going, if they are not
> getting handled by old-guard trademark professionals like us who talk on
> this listserv? Are the tasks ending up at places like Legalzoom? Are the
> tasks going to trademark attorneys who are so very very hungry for work
> that they are willing to accept a task even though they receive only a very
> small professional fee?
>
> And I also muse on what effect these shifts and trends are likely to have
> upon the Trademark Office and its Examining Attorneys. Surely one possible
> effect is that the submissions are of poorer quality. Submissions in which
> corners get cut, little or no professional review takes place, specimens of
> use are of poorer quality, IDs represent more-painful mismatches between
> the words of the ID and what activity the applicant/registrant is actually
> engaged in.
> On 12/17/2024 7:56 AM, Mark Kaufman via E-trademarks wrote:
> Yes, but clients seem to think it?s business as usual. An overseas law
> firm just sent me a ?referral? where the client set a budget that is
> literally less than the potential filing fees, alone, with almost no
> attorneys fees, for a mark in multiple classes.
>
> Maybe I?m tempting the fates of LegalZoom, but after detailing all the
> fees (and creating a template for future clients), and receiving their kind
> rejection, I wrote that if they find someone else to do the work for that
> amount and then need help on responding to an office action resulting from
> such services, ?please let me know if we can be of assistance??
>
> Thank you,
> Mark
>
> Mark S. Kaufman
> Kaufman & Kahn, LLP
> Email: kaufman at kaufmankahn.com<mailto:kaufman at kaufmankahn.com>
> http://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
>
>
>
> 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 2, 2024, at 6:47?PM, Carl Oppedahl via E-trademarks <
> e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com><mailto:e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> wrote:
> ?
>
> I am simply adding up all of the new gouge fees from the Trademark Office
> and telling the client that this is the new price for filing a trademark
> application.
> On 12/2/2024 2:24 PM, Kevin Grierson via E-trademarks wrote:
> With regard to the surcharge, I?ve been telling clients that the standard
> application fee is going up $200 per class, unless we can fit the
> description into the pre-approved list on the TMID. Because ?standard fee
> plus surcharge? is, in essence, replacing the old TEAS standard filing.
>
> With regard to the insufficient information charge, the causes for it are
> the same as for failing to comply with TEAS-plus requirements, but I?m
> still trying to figure out what to say there other than to emphasize that
> we need to have all the required information ready when we file.
>
>
>
>
> Kevin Grierson????
>
> |
>
> Partner
> <image001.png>
> <image002.png>
>
> 757-726-7799<tel:757-726-7799>
> <image003.png>
>
> 866-521-5663<fax:866-521-5663>
> <image004.png>
>
> kgrierson at cm.law<mailto:kgrierson at cm.law>
>
> Please note: Culhane Meadows is now CM Law
>
> From: E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com><mailto:
> e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> On Behalf Of Laura Geyer via
> E-trademarks
> Sent: Monday, December 2, 2024 4:03 PM
> 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: Laura Geyer <lgeyer at ndgallilaw.com><mailto:lgeyer at ndgallilaw.com>
> Subject: [E-trademarks] What are you telling your clients ...
>
> EXTERNAL EMAIL
> About the absolutely insane and absurd subcharge that an awful lot of our
> clients will need to pay to use the freeform g/s field in applications
> starting next year? And how are you presenting the highly unpredictable
> ?deficiency? amounts in estimates?
>
> (I still can?t believe they?re doing this when it?s basically the only way
> to avoid a 2(d) refusal in many cases where the broader definition makes no
> darned sense. Or when the broader category doesn?t include a field option?)
>
> Laura Talley Geyer | Of Counsel
>
> ND Galli Law LLC
> 1200 G Street, N.W., Ste 800
> Washington, DC 20005
> Tel: (202) 599-9019 (direct)
> https://ndgallilaw.com/laura-geyer/
> https://ndgallilaw.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/20241217/a3b9fc15/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 29
> Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2024 10:48:59 -0500
> From: Mark Kaufman <kaufman at kaufmankahn.com>
> To: "For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek
> legal advice." <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] Application in Limbo
> Message-ID: <1057d4196938f3268882448734f35273 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> If anyone remembers my tale of subterfuge from last week: the actual
> attorney who purportedly filed the Section 8 & 9 without my client?s
> authorization (and which I wrested back from him by filing a CAR and a new
> Section 8 & 9, at the wise counsel of you fine people) was also admitted in
> 2021, consistent with what Kevin noted below in his logjam situation ? but
> my fraudulent user (using the wrong bar admission number) has filed a mere
> 267 applications since then?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> *From:* E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> *On Behalf
> Of *Carl Oppedahl via E-trademarks
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 17, 2024 10:39 AM
> *To:* For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal
> advice. <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> *Cc:* Carl Oppedahl <carl at oppedahl.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [E-trademarks] Application in Limbo
>
>
>
> Yes and Ken Boone has been doing a variety of son-of-TESS searches in
> recent months that are designed to try to sniff out clusters of
> applications that sound similar to this kind of fact pattern. He keeps
> finding various ways to craft a search and he keeps finding whole tranches
> of applications that seem to be stalled in one way or another.
>
> Which raises the natural question -- why is there (apparently) nobody at
> the Trademark Office monitoring this kind of thing and doing whatever is
> needed to break logjams? If Ken can do a search and with a few mouse
> clicks find 200 or 700 applications that are stalled in a particular way,
> why is there no one in management at the Trademark Office doing those
> searches and taking appropriate corrective steps?
>
> On 12/17/2024 8:07 AM, Kevin Grierson via E-trademarks wrote:
>
> Side note to this?it appears that the PTO has a habit of just taking no
> action on suspicious applications/filers until it figures out what to do
> with them. Case in point: one of my partners has an application suspended
> because of a prior pending application. That application (and 7 others by
> the same applicant) were filed roughly a year ago but no action has been
> taken on any of them. The applicant has a real attorney?at least, the
> applications indicate they were filed by an attorney licensed in NY, and
> this person is actually licensed there?but that attorney, despite being
> admitted to the bar only in 2021, has filed over 4000 applications to
> date. There are no notes in the files of the blocking application or its 7
> companions, no letter of protest or something else that would explain why
> the PTO has just allowed these applications to sit even as they otherwise
> seem to be getting pendency down a bit. Who knows how long we?ll have to
> wait until the PTO acts and the suspension is lifted?
>
>
>
> *Kevin Grierson**????*
>
> |
>
> Partner
>
> <https://www.cm.law/>
>
> [image: Mobile:]
>
> 757-726-7799
>
> [image: Fax:]
>
> 866-521-5663 <fax:866-521-5663>
>
> [image: Email:]
>
> 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>
> <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> *On Behalf Of *Ken Boone via
> E-trademarks
> *Sent:* Monday, December 16, 2024 11:59 PM
> *To:* E-Trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com
> *Cc:* Ken Boone <boondogles at hotmail.com> <boondogles at hotmail.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [E-trademarks] Application in Limbo
>
>
>
> EXTERNAL EMAIL
>
> I have watched this discussion from afar from the beginning. I hope the
> originator has found a USPTO contact sympathetic to his concerns.
> Meanwhile, ...
>
>
>
> While the *SA - Status* field on Trademark Search remains a bit of a
> mystery (as the contents of that field are not displayed but, from my
> experience, that contents typically does NOT match the status description
> displayed on TSDR, eliminating the option of an exact match search of the
> TSDR status text on Trademark Search), I see *314 pending trademarks* for
> the search
>
>
>
> *SA:(review AND registration) AND LD:true AND PO:* NOT (UD:[20240301 TO *]
> RN:*)*
>
>
>
> suggesting that "*Review prior to registration completed*" (the TSDR status
> of the pending marks I checked for that search) is yet another USPTO
> *purgatory *status waiting complaints from the owner/attorney of record for
> further action by the USPTO. As noted, that search retrieves 314 pending
> trademarks today, where one of those pending trademarks appears to be the
> trademark inspiring this E-Trademarks discussion.
>
>
>
> Curious? Well, the search
>
>
>
> UD:[20241216 TO *] AND SN:( 86980509 87769203 88110411 88232431 88472833
> 88756971 88789436 88843007 90057103 90521117 90706772 90735034 90753596
> 90780559 90783862 90804195 90812917 90822910 90872681 90887866 90899852
> 90979928 90979981 90980019 90980045 97017090 97031122 97067424 97075031
> 97100429 97100437 97108107 97133734 97137059 97159370 97160078 97166550
> 97169530 97172164 97194679 97202189 97202581 97204163 97206673 97216415
> 97218545 97227930 97239893 97263899 97266596 97271806 97279594 97285054
> 97285443 97289940 97294861 97299134 97303038 97304571 97304640 97304695
> 97316079 97321190 97325909 97327750 97338754 97341522 97342520 97348696
> 97356771 97358299 97361426 97361961 97363476 97363758 97369815 97386931
> 97389621 97393946 97395592 97399431 97402951 97410853 97411172 97417084
> 97417244 97418367 97418827 97418968 97421337 97422075 97423470 97423925
> 97425704 97428007 97430039 97430177 97431687 97433033 97433384 97433610
> 97435882 97435885 97435887 97439860 97440288 97440961 97441810 97442082
> 97445663 97445895 97445914 97446008 97446915 97449093 97449241 97452225
> 97452830 97453898 97455358 97457296 97457310 97459217 97461387 97461774
> 97461813 97463830 97464424 97466649 97468157 97469702 97470510 97471790
> 97472046 97472762 97473121 97473126 97473455 97473806 97475236 97476499
> 97477634 97478434 97478804 97479892 97482317 97483222 97484155 97484745
> 97485821 97485888 97486981 97487000 97487076 97488718 97492675 97493254
> 97494136 97494327 97494677 97497742 97497811 97498751 97499591 97504893
> 97506283 97508050 97508331 97513145 97514678 97517217 97520019 97522458
> 97524493 97532374 97533562 97536877 97538131 97545861 97547585 97550339
> 97551105 97552181 97552507 97555716 97563084 97563785 97564370 97567223
> 97567275 97569636 97571001 97571528 97574414 97576865 97578526 97582885
> 97583668 97587224 97588457 97589517 97590814 97593789 97593813 97602378
> 97603996 97606851 97607043 97607449 97609686 97611688 97614143 97614486
> 97622350 97623330 97623621 97627875 97629363 97632909 97638216 97638744
> 97641065 97645582 97649729 97653796 97657114 97658325 97658718 97665237
> 97665737 97669596 97673064 97676247 97677722 97677723 97677972 97680887
> 97681034 97681812 97683921 97686016 97686034 97686042 97688786 97690981
> 97692017 97694176 97694187 97694329 97698302 97698720 97703312 97703799
> 97704709 97704744 97704748 97705299 97707847 97708023 97709958 97710979
> 97711987 97715336 97715760 97718094 97718124 97720233 97725467 97725702
> 97726345 97730452 97730989 97731785 97734811 97738294 97743863 97744657
> 97745072 97748750 97748808 97749894 97750468 97750888 97756079 97762025
> 97763749 97768284 97803208 97809049 97812131 97824948 97837456 97842773
> 97855387 97888992 97908782 97975421 97975827 97976089 97976149 97976178
> 97976770 97977096 97977309 97977312 97977359 97977399 97977448 97977467
> 98031355 98034012 98043532 98079031 98114018 )
>
>
>
> should retrieve any of those 314 pending trademarks for any future updates
> on USPTO systems, so who (besides me) will be performing that search daily
> to watch the future progress of those 314 pending *application in
> limbo* trademarks?
> Well, those pending trademarks *are *the responsibilities of the
> owners/attorneys of record to monitor, so ... never mind. I'll probably
> give up that daily search long before the year ends. So it goes.
>
>
>
> Happy Trademarking,
>
> Ken Boone
>
>
>
> PS - My email editor complained about links in this message trail, so I
> converted the message trail to text to (hopefully) remove any links.
> Typically, I do NOT click on any links in postings for this discussion
> group (that I hope the relevant links will appear via an Internet search on
> a secure search platform from the relevant clues provided) and hope you use
> the same caution (even on my postings, as scammers/dark webbers have
> impersonated me).
> ------------------------------
>
> From: E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> on behalf of
> Diane Gardner via E-trademarks <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
>
> Sent: Monday, December 16, 2024 4:29 PM
>
> To: e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
>
> Cc: Diane Gardner <diane at mmip.com>
>
> Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] Application in Limbo
>
>
>
> Hi Tom,
>
>
>
> This happened to me also and I sent a message to TAC. TAC never responded
> to me, but the registration issued within 48 hrs. after I sent the message.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> Diane L. Gardner
>
> Reg. No. 36,518
>
> _____________________________________________________________
>
> Please note our new corporate address as of February 1, 2023:
>
> Mastermind IP Law P.C., 440 N. Barranca Ave. #6387, Covina, CA 91723
>
> 760.294.5160 tel. 706.955.9666 tel. 803.226.0741 tel. ? diane at mmip.com
> e-mail
>
> CA Lic. No. 196214 DC Lic. No. 470855 USPTO Reg. No. 36518
>
>
>
> Please note our expedited mail processing address as of February 1, 2023:
>
> Mastermind IP Law P.C., 532 Forest Bluffs Rd., Aiken, SC 29803
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
> This communication is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act,
> 18 U.S.C. ??2510-2521. It is sent by a law firm for its intended recipient
> only, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and
> exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended
> recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this
> communication to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
> unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this
> communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
> communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone (706)
> 955-9666 or e-mail reply, delete it from your system, and destroy any hard
> copy you may have printed. Absent an executed engagement agreement with
> Mastermind IP Law P.C., this message does not constitute legal advice, and
> it does not establish any previously non-existent professional relationship
> with, or representation of the recipient. Thank you.
>
>
>
>
>
> Message: 3
>
> Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2024 13:25:06 +0000
>
> From: Tom Vanderbloemen <tom at vanderbloemenlaw.com>
>
> To: "e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com"
>
> <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
>
> Subject: [E-trademarks] Application in Limbo
>
> Message-ID:
>
> <
>
> BN8PR18MB23549B479EE486B89AF3C5CBD13E2 at BN8PR18MB2354.namprd18.prod.outlook.com
> >
>
>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
>
>
> Friends ? We have an application that appears to be stuck in some limbo
> state. ?Review prior to registration? happened in February, but still no
> registration. We?ve tried reaching the examiner, but it may be that she is
> no longer with the USPTO, and we?ve had no luck with the assistance
> center. Do you have any suggestions?
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
> Tom
>
>
>
> __________________________
>
>
>
> Tom Vanderbloemen
>
> Vanderbloemen Law Firm, P.A.
>
> 330 East Coffee Street
>
> Greenville, SC 29601
>
> 864-250-9530 (main)
>
> 864-501-2627 (direct)
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20241217/9923cd55/attachment-0001.htm
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: image001.png
> Type: image/png
> Size: 5049 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL: <
> http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20241217/9923cd55/attachment-0004.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/20241217/9923cd55/attachment-0005.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/20241217/9923cd55/attachment-0006.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/20241217/9923cd55/attachment-0007.png
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 30
> Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2024 16:21:02 +0000
> From: Laura Geyer <lgeyer at ndgallilaw.com>
> To: "For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek
> legal advice." <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] Etsy
> Message-ID:
> <
> BL3PR14MB574891F50D12A19979DD3725AA042 at BL3PR14MB5748.namprd14.prod.outlook.com
> >
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Dear Jack:
>
> Yes, many times. If it?s a copyright issue, their DMCA process is usually
> reasonably fast so long as it?s a straight-up DMCA situation (ie,
> copyright, you can point to the infringement and to what it?s infringing,
> and you provide all the other necessary info. If you haven?t got a
> copyright issue that falls under that, but rather a trademark issue, if you
> have a trademark registration, they have a form-based filing process to
> complain about that and if the situation is a flaming infringement, they
> will generally act. They also are reasonably good if your client?s
> complaint is based on obvious fraud or falls into one of the ?abuse?
> categories. Again, you have to use the proper form to get anywhere.
>
> I?ve never had any success with an escalation without going through their
> formal process first.
>
> And generally if the form-based process doesn?t work, they want people to
> sort it out themselves.
>
> The ?do you know someone at Etsy? (or ag Google or at any of the places
> that something infringing but not something the company will generally act
> on is going on) is a tempting way to go at it, but since they themselves
> (Etsy or Google pr Meta or similar employees) have limited capacity to do
> anything, if someone here *did* have something as close to the elixir of
> eternal life as a contact at Etsy or one of those places who could actually
> do anything, that would be a close-held secret saved for a
> once-every-five-years type emergency. You can imagine how quickly you?d
> burn that connection if you handed it out, given how *&^% unresponsive the
> companies can be if their formal process doesn?t work!
>
> I can sometimes work my way into a real human?s email address via targeted
> googling, and then use that to work my way to someone who can do something
> by using the company?s email format to guess the correct email address of
> the person you?re trying to reach. I?ve never succeeded in getting someone
> at one of the big platforms to act (only smaller ones), however, and the
> sole time I reached such a person I was told they were forbidden by
> internal policy from helping people outside the usual pathways.
>
> Good luck!
>
> Laura Talley Geyer | Of Counsel
>
> ND Galli Law LLC
> 1200 G Street, N.W., Ste 800
> Washington, DC 20005
> Tel: (202) 599-9019 (direct)
> https://ndgallilaw.com/laura-geyer/
> https://ndgallilaw.com/
>
> From: E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> On Behalf Of
> Jack Baldini via E-trademarks
> Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2024 9:42 AM
> To: 'For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal
> advice.' <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> Cc: jack at baldinilaw.com
> Subject: [E-trademarks] Etsy
>
> EXTERNAL EMAIL
> Hello all,
>
> Anyone have clients with issues selling on Etsy? Anyone have a direct
> contact for someone at Etsy who can help expedite resolving account issues?
>
> Replies off list please.
>
> Thanks all,
>
> Jack
>
> John Brooks Baldini, Esq.
> Baldini Law, LLC
> 12557 Leatherleaf Drive
> Tampa, Florida 33626
> (973) 945.1645
> http://www.baldinilaw.com/
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This e-mail and any document attached to it may
> contain information which is confidential and/or legally privileged. If you
> are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
> disclosure, copying, distribution, printing or other use of, or any action
> based in, the contents of this e-mail, is strictly prohibited. If you have
> received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by
> telephone at 973.945.1645 and destroy the original message. Thank you.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20241217/3c4253d0/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 31
> Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2024 16:35:14 +0000
> From: Dale Quisenberry <dale at quisenberrylaw.com>
> To: "For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek
> legal advice." <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] Etsy
> Message-ID:
> <
> SN6PR17MB2510648182086EA6AF6F6377A8042 at SN6PR17MB2510.namprd17.prod.outlook.com
> >
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> You can always put the company on notice of the infringement by sending
> directly to their General Counsel, and then if they ignore that they lose
> safe harbor, and once you file a lawsuit then you are in direct contact
> with their outside counsel.
>
> C. Dale Quisenberry
> Quisenberry Law PLLC
> 13910 Champion Forest Drive, Suite 203
> Houston, Texas 77069
> (832) 680.5000 (office)
> (832) 680.1000 (mobile)
> (832) 680.5555 (facsimile)
> http://www.quisenberrylaw.com/<http://www.quisenberrylaw.com/>
>
> This email may contain information that is confidential and subject to the
> attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine and other applicable
> privileges. This email is intended to be received only by those to whom it
> is specifically addressed. Any receipt of this email by others is not
> intended to and shall not waive any applicable privilege. If you have
> received this email in error, please delete it and immediately notify the
> sender by separate email. Thank you.
>
>
>
> From: E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> on behalf of
> Laura Geyer via E-trademarks <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> Date: Tuesday, 17 December 2024 at 10:25?am
> To: For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal
> advice. <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> Cc: Laura Geyer <lgeyer at ndgallilaw.com>
> Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] Etsy
> Dear Jack:
>
> Yes, many times. If it?s a copyright issue, their DMCA process is usually
> reasonably fast so long as it?s a straight-up DMCA situation (ie,
> copyright, you can point to the infringement and to what it?s infringing,
> and you provide all the other necessary info. If you haven?t got a
> copyright issue that falls under that, but rather a trademark issue, if you
> have a trademark registration, they have a form-based filing process to
> complain about that and if the situation is a flaming infringement, they
> will generally act. They also are reasonably good if your client?s
> complaint is based on obvious fraud or falls into one of the ?abuse?
> categories. Again, you have to use the proper form to get anywhere.
>
> I?ve never had any success with an escalation without going through their
> formal process first.
>
> And generally if the form-based process doesn?t work, they want people to
> sort it out themselves.
>
> The ?do you know someone at Etsy? (or ag Google or at any of the places
> that something infringing but not something the company will generally act
> on is going on) is a tempting way to go at it, but since they themselves
> (Etsy or Google pr Meta or similar employees) have limited capacity to do
> anything, if someone here *did* have something as close to the elixir of
> eternal life as a contact at Etsy or one of those places who could actually
> do anything, that would be a close-held secret saved for a
> once-every-five-years type emergency. You can imagine how quickly you?d
> burn that connection if you handed it out, given how *&^% unresponsive the
> companies can be if their formal process doesn?t work!
>
> I can sometimes work my way into a real human?s email address via targeted
> googling, and then use that to work my way to someone who can do something
> by using the company?s email format to guess the correct email address of
> the person you?re trying to reach. I?ve never succeeded in getting someone
> at one of the big platforms to act (only smaller ones), however, and the
> sole time I reached such a person I was told they were forbidden by
> internal policy from helping people outside the usual pathways.
>
> Good luck!
>
> Laura Talley Geyer | Of Counsel
>
> ND Galli Law LLC
> 1200 G Street, N.W., Ste 800
> Washington, DC 20005
> Tel: (202) 599-9019 (direct)
> https://ndgallilaw.com/laura-geyer/
> https://ndgallilaw.com/
>
> From: E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> On Behalf Of
> Jack Baldini via E-trademarks
> Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2024 9:42 AM
> To: 'For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal
> advice.' <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> Cc: jack at baldinilaw.com
> Subject: [E-trademarks] Etsy
>
> EXTERNAL EMAIL
> Hello all,
>
> Anyone have clients with issues selling on Etsy? Anyone have a direct
> contact for someone at Etsy who can help expedite resolving account issues?
>
> Replies off list please.
>
> Thanks all,
>
> Jack
>
> John Brooks Baldini, Esq.
> Baldini Law, LLC
> 12557 Leatherleaf Drive
> Tampa, Florida 33626
> (973) 945.1645
> http://www.baldinilaw.com/
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This e-mail and any document attached to it may
> contain information which is confidential and/or legally privileged. If you
> are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
> disclosure, copying, distribution, printing or other use of, or any action
> based in, the contents of this e-mail, is strictly prohibited. If you have
> received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by
> telephone at 973.945.1645 and destroy the original message. Thank you.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20241217/378731d8/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 32
> Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2024 10:42:19 -0600
> From: Sam Castree <sam at castreelaw.com>
> To: "For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek
> legal advice." <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] Application in Limbo
> Message-ID:
> <CAKU8sWY-ww0QfncoCZAzZ5g_WncUW+VRBkD_5hU7vk_vt5_D4Q at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> "*why is there no one in management at the Trademark Office doing those
> searches and taking appropriate corrective steps?*"
>
> Do we really think that people at the PTO can handle the search system as
> well as Ken?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Sam Castree, III
>
> *Sam Castree Law, LLC*
> *3421 W. Elm St.*
> *McHenry, IL 60050*
> *(815) 344-6300*
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 9:40?AM Carl Oppedahl via E-trademarks <
> e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:
>
> > Yes and Ken Boone has been doing a variety of son-of-TESS searches in
> > recent months that are designed to try to sniff out clusters of
> > applications that sound similar to this kind of fact pattern. He keeps
> > finding various ways to craft a search and he keeps finding whole
> tranches
> > of applications that seem to be stalled in one way or another.
> >
> > Which raises the natural question -- why is there (apparently) nobody at
> > the Trademark Office monitoring this kind of thing and doing whatever is
> > needed to break logjams? If Ken can do a search and with a few mouse
> > clicks find 200 or 700 applications that are stalled in a particular way,
> > why is there no one in management at the Trademark Office doing those
> > searches and taking appropriate corrective steps?
> > On 12/17/2024 8:07 AM, Kevin Grierson via E-trademarks wrote:
> >
> > Side note to this?it appears that the PTO has a habit of just taking no
> > action on suspicious applications/filers until it figures out what to do
> > with them. Case in point: one of my partners has an application suspended
> > because of a prior pending application. That application (and 7 others by
> > the same applicant) were filed roughly a year ago but no action has been
> > taken on any of them. The applicant has a real attorney?at least, the
> > applications indicate they were filed by an attorney licensed in NY, and
> > this person is actually licensed there?but that attorney, despite being
> > admitted to the bar only in 2021, has filed over 4000 applications to
> > date. There are no notes in the files of the blocking application or its
> 7
> > companions, no letter of protest or something else that would explain why
> > the PTO has just allowed these applications to sit even as they otherwise
> > seem to be getting pendency down a bit. Who knows how long we?ll have to
> > wait until the PTO acts and the suspension is lifted?
> >
> >
> >
> > *Kevin Grierson**?**?**?**?*
> >
> > |
> >
> > Partner
> >
> > <https://www.cm.law/>
> >
> >
> > [image: Mobile:]
> >
> > 757-726-7799
> >
> > [image: Fax:]
> >
> > 866-521-5663
> >
> > [image: Email:]
> >
> > 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>
> > <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> *On Behalf Of *Ken Boone via
> > E-trademarks
> > *Sent:* Monday, December 16, 2024 11:59 PM
> > *To:* E-Trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com
> > *Cc:* Ken Boone <boondogles at hotmail.com> <boondogles at hotmail.com>
> > *Subject:* Re: [E-trademarks] Application in Limbo
> >
> >
> >
> > EXTERNAL EMAIL
> >
> > I have watched this discussion from afar from the beginning. I hope the
> > originator has found a USPTO contact sympathetic to his concerns.
> > Meanwhile, ...
> >
> >
> >
> > While the *SA - Status* field on Trademark Search remains a bit of a
> > mystery (as the contents of that field are not displayed but, from my
> > experience, that contents typically does NOT match the status description
> > displayed on TSDR, eliminating the option of an exact match search of the
> > TSDR status text on Trademark Search), I see *314 pending trademarks* for
> > the search
> >
> >
> >
> > *SA:(review AND registration) AND LD:true AND PO:* NOT (UD:[20240301 TO
> *]
> > RN:*)*
> >
> >
> >
> > suggesting that "*Review prior to registration completed*" (the TSDR
> > status of the pending marks I checked for that search) is yet another
> USPTO
> > *purgatory* status waiting complaints from the owner/attorney of record
> > for further action by the USPTO. As noted, that search retrieves 314
> > pending trademarks today, where one of those pending trademarks appears
> to
> > be the trademark inspiring this E-Trademarks discussion.
> >
> >
> >
> > Curious? Well, the search
> >
> >
> >
> > UD:[20241216 TO *] AND SN:( 86980509 87769203 88110411 88232431 88472833
> > 88756971 88789436 88843007 90057103 90521117 90706772 90735034 90753596
> > 90780559 90783862 90804195 90812917 90822910 90872681 90887866 90899852
> > 90979928 90979981 90980019 90980045 97017090 97031122 97067424 97075031
> > 97100429 97100437 97108107 97133734 97137059 97159370 97160078 97166550
> > 97169530 97172164 97194679 97202189 97202581 97204163 97206673 97216415
> > 97218545 97227930 97239893 97263899 97266596 97271806 97279594 97285054
> > 97285443 97289940 97294861 97299134 97303038 97304571 97304640 97304695
> > 97316079 97321190 97325909 97327750 97338754 97341522 97342520 97348696
> > 97356771 97358299 97361426 97361961 97363476 97363758 97369815 97386931
> > 97389621 97393946 97395592 97399431 97402951 97410853 97411172 97417084
> > 97417244 97418367 97418827 97418968 97421337 97422075 97423470 97423925
> > 97425704 97428007 97430039 97430177 97431687 97433033 97433384 97433610
> > 97435882 97435885 97435887 97439860 97440288 97440961 97441810 97442082
> > 97445663 97445895 97445914 97446008 97446915 97449093 97449241 97452225
> > 97452830 97453898 97455358 97457296 97457310 97459217 97461387 97461774
> > 97461813 97463830 97464424 97466649 97468157 97469702 97470510 97471790
> > 97472046 97472762 97473121 97473126 97473455 97473806 97475236 97476499
> > 97477634 97478434 97478804 97479892 97482317 97483222 97484155 97484745
> > 97485821 97485888 97486981 97487000 97487076 97488718 97492675 97493254
> > 97494136 97494327 97494677 97497742 97497811 97498751 97499591 97504893
> > 97506283 97508050 97508331 97513145 97514678 97517217 97520019 97522458
> > 97524493 97532374 97533562 97536877 97538131 97545861 97547585 97550339
> > 97551105 97552181 97552507 97555716 97563084 97563785 97564370 97567223
> > 97567275 97569636 97571001 97571528 97574414 97576865 97578526 97582885
> > 97583668 97587224 97588457 97589517 97590814 97593789 97593813 97602378
> > 97603996 97606851 97607043 97607449 97609686 97611688 97614143 97614486
> > 97622350 97623330 97623621 97627875 97629363 97632909 97638216 97638744
> > 97641065 97645582 97649729 97653796 97657114 97658325 97658718 97665237
> > 97665737 97669596 97673064 97676247 97677722 97677723 97677972 97680887
> > 97681034 97681812 97683921 97686016 97686034 97686042 97688786 97690981
> > 97692017 97694176 97694187 97694329 97698302 97698720 97703312 97703799
> > 97704709 97704744 97704748 97705299 97707847 97708023 97709958 97710979
> > 97711987 97715336 97715760 97718094 97718124 97720233 97725467 97725702
> > 97726345 97730452 97730989 97731785 97734811 97738294 97743863 97744657
> > 97745072 97748750 97748808 97749894 97750468 97750888 97756079 97762025
> > 97763749 97768284 97803208 97809049 97812131 97824948 97837456 97842773
> > 97855387 97888992 97908782 97975421 97975827 97976089 97976149 97976178
> > 97976770 97977096 97977309 97977312 97977359 97977399 97977448 97977467
> > 98031355 98034012 98043532 98079031 98114018 )
> >
> >
> >
> > should retrieve any of those 314 pending trademarks for any future
> updates
> > on USPTO systems, so who (besides me) will be performing that search
> daily
> > to watch the future progress of those 314 pending *application in limbo*
> trademarks?
> > Well, those pending trademarks *are *the responsibilities of the
> > owners/attorneys of record to monitor, so ... never mind. I'll probably
> > give up that daily search long before the year ends. So it goes.
> >
> >
> >
> > Happy Trademarking,
> >
> > Ken Boone
> >
> >
> >
> > PS - My email editor complained about links in this message trail, so I
> > converted the message trail to text to (hopefully) remove any links.
> > Typically, I do NOT click on any links in postings for this discussion
> > group (that I hope the relevant links will appear via an Internet search
> on
> > a secure search platform from the relevant clues provided) and hope you
> use
> > the same caution (even on my postings, as scammers/dark webbers have
> > impersonated me).
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > From: E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> on behalf
> of
> > Diane Gardner via E-trademarks <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> >
> > Sent: Monday, December 16, 2024 4:29 PM
> >
> > To: e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> >
> > Cc: Diane Gardner <diane at mmip.com>
> >
> > Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] Application in Limbo
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Tom,
> >
> >
> >
> > This happened to me also and I sent a message to TAC. TAC never responded
> > to me, but the registration issued within 48 hrs. after I sent the
> message.
> >
> >
> >
> > Kind regards,
> >
> >
> >
> > Diane L. Gardner
> >
> > Reg. No. 36,518
> >
> > _____________________________________________________________
> >
> > Please note our new corporate address as of February 1, 2023:
> >
> > Mastermind IP Law P.C., 440 N. Barranca Ave. #6387, Covina, CA 91723
> >
> > 760.294.5160 tel. 706.955.9666 tel. 803.226.0741 tel. ? diane at mmip.com
> > e-mail
> >
> > CA Lic. No. 196214 DC Lic. No. 470855 USPTO Reg. No. 36518
> >
> >
> >
> > Please note our expedited mail processing address as of February 1, 2023:
> >
> > Mastermind IP Law P.C., 532 Forest Bluffs Rd., Aiken, SC 29803
> >
> >
> >
> __________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> >
> > This communication is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy
> > Act, 18 U.S.C. ??2510-2521. It is sent by a law firm for its intended
> > recipient only, and may contain information that is privileged,
> > confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are
> > not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for
> > delivering this communication to the intended recipient, you are hereby
> > notified that any unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution or
> copying
> > of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
> > communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone (706)
> > 955-9666 or e-mail reply, delete it from your system, and destroy any
> hard
> > copy you may have printed. Absent an executed engagement agreement with
> > Mastermind IP Law P.C., this message does not constitute legal advice,
> and
> > it does not establish any previously non-existent professional
> relationship
> > with, or representation of the recipient. Thank you.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Message: 3
> >
> > Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2024 13:25:06 +0000
> >
> > From: Tom Vanderbloemen <tom at vanderbloemenlaw.com>
> >
> > To: "e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com"
> >
> > <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> >
> > Subject: [E-trademarks] Application in Limbo
> >
> > Message-ID:
> >
> > <
> >
> BN8PR18MB23549B479EE486B89AF3C5CBD13E2 at BN8PR18MB2354.namprd18.prod.outlook.com
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
> >
> >
> >
> > Friends ? We have an application that appears to be stuck in some limbo
> > state. ?Review prior to registration? happened in February, but still no
> > registration. We?ve tried reaching the examiner, but it may be that she
> is
> > no longer with the USPTO, and we?ve had no luck with the assistance
> > center. Do you have any suggestions?
> >
> >
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> > Tom
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________
> >
> >
> >
> > Tom Vanderbloemen
> >
> > Vanderbloemen Law Firm, P.A.
> >
> > 330 East Coffee Street
> >
> > Greenville, SC 29601
> >
> > 864-250-9530 (main)
> >
> > 864-501-2627 (direct)
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > E-trademarks mailing list
> > 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/20241217/2746a059/attachment-0001.htm
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: image001.png
> Type: image/png
> Size: 5049 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL: <
> http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20241217/2746a059/attachment-0004.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/20241217/2746a059/attachment-0005.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/20241217/2746a059/attachment-0006.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/20241217/2746a059/attachment-0007.png
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 33
> Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2024 10:51:06 -0600
> From: Sam Castree <sam at castreelaw.com>
> To: "For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek
> legal advice." <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] What are you telling your clients ...
> Message-ID:
> <CAKU8sWYFGUtNN+ikLZozYymUagDQvKExkJkzgStjivhzdB0k8g at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> To be fair, I am both ?old-guard trademark professionals like us who talk
> on this listserv? and also ?so very very hungry for work.? But nobody's
> calling me about these cases, so ?\_(?)_/?.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Sam Castree, III
>
> *Sam Castree Law, LLC*
> *3421 W. Elm St.*
> *McHenry, IL 60050*
> *(815) 344-6300*
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 9:23?AM Carl Oppedahl via E-trademarks <
> e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:
>
> > Yes, I have been running into situations in recent months where I work on
> > some recurring task in trademark world, and I lose money on the recurring
> > task.
> >
> > And I have been running into situations in recent months where I simply
> > decline a potential new client trademark matter, because my spidey sense
> > hints to me that I would likely lose money on the task.
> >
> > I have gotten to the point where as a general matter I only do a
> trademark
> > task if it is for an existing client for whom I have carried out that
> kind
> > of task multiple times in the past. Meaning that it is not so likely to
> be
> > a high-maintenance and money-losing task.
> >
> > Your mention of Legalzoom lines up with one of my recent musings. Where
> > are these potential new client trademark matters going, if they are not
> > getting handled by old-guard trademark professionals like us who talk on
> > this listserv? Are the tasks ending up at places like Legalzoom? Are the
> > tasks going to trademark attorneys who are so very very hungry for work
> > that they are willing to accept a task even though they receive only a
> very
> > small professional fee?
> >
> > And I also muse on what effect these shifts and trends are likely to have
> > upon the Trademark Office and its Examining Attorneys. Surely one
> possible
> > effect is that the submissions are of poorer quality. Submissions in
> which
> > corners get cut, little or no professional review takes place, specimens
> of
> > use are of poorer quality, IDs represent more-painful mismatches between
> > the words of the ID and what activity the applicant/registrant is
> actually
> > engaged in.
> > On 12/17/2024 7:56 AM, Mark Kaufman via E-trademarks wrote:
> >
> > Yes, but clients seem to think it?s business as usual. An overseas law
> > firm just sent me a ?referral? where the client set a budget that is
> > literally less than the potential filing fees, alone, with almost no
> > attorneys fees, for a mark in multiple classes.
> >
> > Maybe I?m tempting the fates of LegalZoom, but after detailing all the
> > fees (and creating a template for future clients), and receiving their
> kind
> > rejection, I wrote that if they find someone else to do the work for that
> > amount and then need help on responding to an office action resulting
> from
> > such services, ?please let me know if we can be of assistance??
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Mark
> >
> > Mark S. Kaufman
> >
> > Kaufman & Kahn, LLP
> >
> > Email: kaufman at kaufmankahn.com
> >
> > http://www.kaufmankahn.com/
> >
> >
> >
> > 10 Grand Central
> >
> > 155 East 44th Street, 19th Floor
> >
> > New York, NY 10017
> >
> > Mobile: (917) 453-7807
> >
> > Tel.: (212) 293-5556, x 2
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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 2, 2024, at 6:47?PM, Carl Oppedahl via E-trademarks
> > <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com> <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > ?
> >
> > I am simply adding up all of the new gouge fees from the Trademark Office
> > and telling the client that this is the new price for filing a trademark
> > application.
> > On 12/2/2024 2:24 PM, Kevin Grierson via E-trademarks wrote:
> >
> > With regard to the surcharge, I?ve been telling clients that the standard
> > application fee is going up $200 per class, unless we can fit the
> > description into the pre-approved list on the TMID. Because ?standard fee
> > plus surcharge? is, in essence, replacing the old TEAS standard filing.
> >
> >
> >
> > With regard to the insufficient information charge, the causes for it are
> > the same as for failing to comply with TEAS-plus requirements, but I?m
> > still trying to figure out what to say there other than to emphasize that
> > we need to have all the required information ready when we file.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *Kevin Grierson**?**?**?**?*
> >
> > |
> >
> > Partner
> >
> > <image001.png>
> >
> >
> > <image002.png>
> >
> > 757-726-7799
> >
> > <image003.png>
> >
> > 866-521-5663
> >
> > <image004.png>
> >
> > kgrierson at cm.law
> >
> > *Please note: Culhane Meadows is now CM Law*
> >
> >
> >
> > *From:* E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com>
> > <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> *On Behalf Of *Laura Geyer via
> > E-trademarks
> > *Sent:* Monday, December 2, 2024 4:03 PM
> > *To:* For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek
> > legal advice. <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> > <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> > *Cc:* Laura Geyer <lgeyer at ndgallilaw.com> <lgeyer at ndgallilaw.com>
> > *Subject:* [E-trademarks] What are you telling your clients ...
> >
> >
> >
> > EXTERNAL EMAIL
> >
> > About the absolutely insane and absurd subcharge that an awful lot of our
> > clients will need to pay to use the freeform g/s field in applications
> > starting next year? And how are you presenting the highly unpredictable
> > ?deficiency? amounts in estimates?
> >
> >
> >
> > (I still can?t believe they?re doing this when it?s basically the only
> way
> > to avoid a 2(d) refusal in many cases where the broader definition makes
> no
> > darned sense. Or when the broader category doesn?t include a field
> option?)
> >
> >
> >
> > *Laura Talley Geyer* | *Of Counsel*
> >
> >
> >
> > *ND Galli Law LLC*
> >
> > 1200 G Street, N.W., Ste 800
> >
> > Washington, DC 20005
> >
> > Tel: (202) 599-9019 (direct)
> >
> > https://ndgallilaw.com/laura-geyer/
> >
> > https://ndgallilaw.com/
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > E-trademarks mailing list
> > E-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com
> >
> http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com
> >
> > --
> > E-trademarks mailing list
> > 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/20241217/80a2d7af/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> E-trademarks mailing list
> E-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com
> http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of E-trademarks Digest, Vol 14, Issue 16
> ********************************************
> --
> E-trademarks mailing list
> E-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com
> http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com
> --
> E-trademarks mailing list
> 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/20241218/2bde7ff5/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image609047.png
Type: image/png
Size: 27976 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20241218/2bde7ff5/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image206857.png
Type: image/png
Size: 285 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20241218/2bde7ff5/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image361792.png
Type: image/png
Size: 452 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20241218/2bde7ff5/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image486759.png
Type: image/png
Size: 394 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20241218/2bde7ff5/attachment-0003.png>