[E-trademarks] John's Post re the TTAB Jettisoning the USPQ

[Oppedahl TM]

My understanding is that the only online source of USPQ cites is Bloomberg.
Bloomberg owns the Bureau of National Affairs who is the sole publisher of
the USPQ. Cites to the USPQ are required by USPTO rules, so USPTO practice
requires either purchase of Bloomberg or USPQ hard copies. Of course, both
requirements are absurd because nobody has Bloomberg, everything is (or
should be available) online, and these requirements don't stop anybody from
practicing before the USPTO.

Perhaps even more absurd is the solution suggested by the case that John
blogged today. In place of the current requirement of subscribing to
Bloomberg would be the requirement of subscribing to Westlaw. Not a
solution.

Nick Santucci
LZ Legal Services

On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 4:40 PM Dale Quisenberry via E-trademarks <
e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:

> Are they excluding LEXIS?
>
>
>
> 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)
>
> 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 reidl--- via E-trademarks <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> *Date: *Monday, 12 February 2024 at 5:48 pm
> *To: *'For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek
> legal advice.' <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> *Cc: *reidl at sbcglobal.net <reidl at sbcglobal.net>
> *Subject: *[E-trademarks] John's Post re the TTAB Jettisoning the USPQ
>
> Dear All,
>
>
>
> I don’t know how many of you caught up with John’s TTABlog today about the
> potential requirement that henceforth all citations to the TTAB will need
> to be to WESTLAW.  To me, this sounds like a solution in search of a
> problem.
>
>
>
> How many people are they going to hire to change all USPQ cites in the
> TBMP to Westlaw cites?  And what about we old timers who have extensive
> libraries of USPQ citations?  I know, the USPQ has only been published
> since 1929 but it is still the standard.  And what about Federal Courts who
> prefer the USPQ cites?  From my standpoint, I’d have to write a brief using
> USPQ cites and then have the client pay an associate to translate that into
> WESTLAW cites.  Why impose that cost on us?
>
>
>
> I have an open mind but would really like to know why the Board thinks
> that changing the citation format it has used for its entire existence is
> beneficial.  If I were still a solo, and one who did not subscribe to
> Westlaw, I would have to do so in order to practice before the TTAB.  I
> know that the universe of we folks who actually did legal research using
> dusty books in dwindling, but still ……
>
>
>
> I could understand saying that “for cases decided from now on you must
> cite to Westlaw” but to redo history makes no sense for me.
>
>
> That said, I am equally bewildered by the MENSTRUATION CRUSTACEON
> decision.
>
>
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> Paul W. Reidl
>
> Dickenson, Peatman & Fogarty
>
> 1455 1st St #301
>
> Napa, CA 94559
>
> 707-261-7010 x 7210
>
> preidl at dpf-law.com
>
> @TMGuy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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/20240212/95517df8/attachment.htm>