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

[Michael Brown]

Am I missing something, but since the TTAB has its own opinions online, and
provides the TTAB Reading Room with its decisions, why can't it accept
references directly to its opinions without either USPQ or Westlaw cites?
The decisions are in PDFs, so references to specific pages should be
consistent.


Michael Brown
Michael J Brown Law Office
354 Eisenhower Parkway
Plaza I, 2nd Floor, Suite 2025
Livingston, NJ  07039

michaeljbrownlaw at gmail.com
www.mjbrownlaw.com
+1 973-577-6300  fax +1 973-577-6301
Google Voice +1 973-637-0358


On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 9:05 PM Oppedahl TM via E-trademarks <
e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
> --
> 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/20240213/9e406daa/attachment.htm>