[E-trademarks] Trademark Search: Missing Wordmarks For New TEAS Special Form Drawings???

[Carl Oppedahl]

Thank you Ken for posting.

Like many of us old-timers in the trademark community, in an earlier 
life I did a lot of coding in several different programming languages.  
Nowadays I find myself doing a lot of PHP coding (blog article 
<https://blog.oppedahl.com/how-to-find-a-php-programmer/>) for a variety 
of hobby projects.  I regularly make mistakes in my own coding, but then 
I realize my mistakes and I try to fix what I got wrong.

My main reaction to this recent posting by Ken is that the USPTO coders 
on these systems are simply not doing their jobs competently.   There 
are simple and straightforward things that competent coders can do to 
test their work before putting new code into production service.  And it 
is clear that the USPTO coders are failing to do such testing.  See the 
embarrassing results in this blog article from four months ago: 
/Trademark Office can’t handle its own characters/ 
<https://blog.oppedahl.com/trademark-office-cant-handle-its-own-characters/>/./

On 12/27/2024 6:40 AM, Ken Boone via E-trademarks wrote:
> I happened to notice that multiple recent TEAS applications that are 
> NOT standard character marks do not have wordmark entries on Trademark 
> Search, yet when I toggled to TSDR, most of the drawings that looked 
> worthy of word marks had wordmark entries on TSDR.  This prompted the 
> search
>
> FD:20241220 AND LD:true NOT FM:*
>
> that retrieves 609 TEAS applications filed last Friday that do not 
> have wordmark entries on Trademark Search.  Per the table below, 23 of 
> the first 25 trademarks (increasing serial number order) have wordmark 
> entries on TSDR but not on Trademark Search. (I only checked the first 
> 25 trademarks for that search.)
>
>
> #
> 	
> SN
> 	
> Search WM
> 	
> TSDR WM
> 1
> 	
> 98904955
> 	
> 	
> POWERS'X
> 2
> 	
> 98911295
> 	
> 	
> FEASTMATE
> 3
> 	
> 98911517
> 	
> 	
> LOOPYDOO
> 4
> 	
> 98911546
> 	
> 	
> H HERBALOGY
> 5
> 	
> 98912752
> 	
> 	
> SANGA EATS
> 6
> 	
> 98913717
> 	
> 	
> WINGED WOLF I…
> 7
> 	
> 98913792
> 	
> 	
> MYY
> 8
> 	
> 98913992
> 	
> 	
> TIJVZK
> 9
> 	
> 98913995
> 	
> 	
> HOIFAANLONG
> 10
> 	
> 98913999
> 	
> 	
> CAFE VIDA
> 11
> 	
> 98914005
> 	
> 	
> HEOICYU
> 12
> 	
> 98914007
> 	
> 	
> not recorded
> 13
> 	
> 98914008
> 	
> 	
> HIIT WATER
> 14
> 	
> 98914009
> 	
> 	
> REMIMPI
> 15
> 	
> 98914010
> 	
> 	
> SUPREME FIRE S…
> 16
> 	
> 98914013
> 	
> 	
> CW THE CUSTOM…
> 17
> 	
> 98914016
> 	
> 	
> MODERN MADE
> 18
> 	
> 98914019
> 	
> 	
> HEKBATSIU
> 19
> 	
> 98914024
> 	
> 	
> not recorded
> 20
> 	
> 98914026
> 	
> 	
> BLOEM
> 21
> 	
> 98914039
> 	
> 	
> GUNGJOENG
> 22
> 	
> 98914042
> 	
> 	
> DANNY JIA
> 23
> 	
> 98914043
> 	
> 	
> GONGNAAMJYULOK
> 24
> 	
> 98914048
> 	
> 	
> GOKZIJYUZAU
> 25
> 	
> 98914054
> 	
> 	
> GOEKZAANG
>
>
> While the wordmark entries on TSDR likely are the literal elements 
> provided by in the raw applications that probably have NOT been 
> reviewed by Pre-Exam, *I still expected Trademark Search and TSDR 
> would have matching wordmark entries.  After all, why would you expect 
> the two systems to differ?*
>
> Yes, I've shared this wordmark inconsistency between TSDR and 
> Trademark Search with the USPTO.  No, I have not researched how long 
> these inconsistencies have been occurring.
>
> Happy Trademarking,
> Ken Boone
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20241227/3b032c1d/attachment.html>
-------------- 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/20241227/3b032c1d/attachment.p7s>