[E-trademarks] Petition to Revive - "unintentional delay in responding"

Tue Jan 2 20:34:47 EST 2024

Thanks everyone for the feedback.  This is not a final refusal, so we do still have the option of filing a response on the last day before the deadline.  I suppose I was just searching for a way to drag the examination out a little further.  I know that the Examiner can’t suspend the application until the cited registrations are at least in the grace period.  The last of the cited registrations will not be in the grace period until August.  But, perhaps the Examiner will be slow to respond to our arguments against the refusal and the final refusal won’t come for a few months - that could stretch things out until August at which time we can ask for a suspension (assuming the marks aren’t renewed).  

The client doesn’t love the idea of filing the cancellations now as they fully expect that the cited marks won’t be renewed.  Fingers crossed they aren’t. 

Thanks again!

Cheers,
Jamie

1760-F Airline Highway, PMB 220
Hollister, CA 95023
M 831.261.5444 
F 858.777.5545

This email is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.  Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.

> On Jan 2, 2024, at 4:32 PM, Margaret Polson via E-trademarks <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:
> 
> See section TMEP 716.02(e)    Pending Cancellation or Expiration of Cited Registration
> 
>   There are some pretty detailed rules on timing of the due date for renewal and the examiner being able to suspend the application pending those dates passing.  In my experience, the examiners are often willing to daisy chain the suspension as long as one of the registrations is within the window 
>  
> From: E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> On Behalf Of Robert Reynolds via E-trademarks
> Sent: Tuesday, January 2, 2024 5:20 PM
> To: For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice. <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> Cc: Robert Reynolds <rreynolds at kandrip.com>
> Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] Petition to Revive - "unintentional delay in responding"
>  
> Jamie,
>  
>                 What a rough timing situation to be in. In that situation I would absolutely advise against letting the deadline expire and petitioning the director to revive. I’d charitably call that “playing silly games” and it has a large chance of backfiring.
>  
> A far better option would be to get a simple OA on file stating what you’ve put below, and including the evidence as to why you believe the 2(d) marks would not be renewed. If your client is truly on board with filing and prosecuting three cancellation actions at once, they shouldn’t worry too much about the fees for doing things the right way.
>  
> Some other options are (1) to file an appeal to the TTAB/request for reconsideration to buy a few months, if this is a final refusal; (2) to ask for a suspension of the examination pending the upcoming renewal deadlines for those three registrations; or (3) just file the three cancellation actions now and use that to suspend the current OA.
>  
> Good luck!
>  
> Bob Reynolds
> Senior Counsel
> Klintworth & Rozenblat IP LLP
> 2045 W. Grand Ave, Ste B PMB 84396
> Chicago, Illinois 60612
> direct 773.770-2554  fax 773.570.3328
> rreynolds at kandrip.com <mailto:rreynolds at kandrip.com>
> www.kandrip.com <http://www.rozenblat-ip.com/>
>  
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it may contain confidential information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender. Please destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner.
>  
>  
>  
> From: E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com <mailto:e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com>> On Behalf Of Jamie Shelden via E-trademarks
> Sent: Tuesday, January 2, 2024 6:09 PM
> To: e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com <mailto:e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> Cc: Jamie Shelden <justtrademarks at gmail.com <mailto:justtrademarks at gmail.com>>
> Subject: [E-trademarks] Petition to Revive - "unintentional delay in responding"
>  
> Happy New Year Listmates!
>  
> I’m wondering if you all have any thoughts on the following tactic regarding a 2(d) refusal citing three existing registrations that are due for renewal later this year.  An extension of time to file a response to the refusal was filed in October.  Our new deadline to respond is at the end of this month.  However, the renewal deadlines for the three cited applications are not until the very end of January (for one mark) and July and August for the remaining 2 marks (plus the grace periods, of course).  We have good reason to believe that none of the 3 cited marks will be renewed and if the owners attempt to renew, we are prepared to file Petitions to Cancel based on fraudulent specimens of use.  But meanwhile, we have the response deadline coming up.  The client has asked if we can “miss” the deadline, then file a Petition to Revive when that deadline comes up.  That would buy us several months.  In my experience, Notices of Abandonment are coming a two months or more after the response deadline and then we would have 60 days after that.  
>  
> The problem is that we can’t exactly say honestly that the delay in responding would be unintentional at this point.
>  
> Any thoughts on getting around this unintentional delay issue?
>  
> Thanks in advance.
>  
> Best,
> Jamie
>  
>  
> <image001.png>
> 1760-F Airline Highway, PMB 220
> Hollister, CA 95023
> M 831.261.5444 
> F 858.777.5545
> 
> This email is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.  Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
>  
>  
> -- 
> 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/20240102/dca2e045/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.png
Type: image/png
Size: 5171 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240102/dca2e045/attachment.png>