[E-trademarks] Mark not examined in over three years: OR Franz Kafka's
Janice Housey
jhousey at litmuslaw.com
Fri Jul 19 21:40:50 EDT 2024
Following on this point-- I have done several tribal insignia database recordations and just checked-- all are in the “89” series.
Janice Housey
Litmus Law PLLC
4 Weems Lane #240
Winchester, Virginia 22601
703.957.5274 office
703.851.6737 cell
ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION
This communication is subject to the attorney-client privilege of confidentiality, and is intended only for the identified recipient. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender and destroy all copies, hard and electronic, in your possession. Thank you.
From: E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> On Behalf Of mrichter richtertrademarks.com via E-trademarks
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2024 7:33 PM
To: For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice. <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
Cc: mrichter richtertrademarks.com <mrichter at richtertrademarks.com>
Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] Mark not examined in over three years: OR Franz Kafka's
Ken,
Several year’s ago I “registered” a tribal insignia for a client. I just checked and all the documentation is in TSDR so maybe there is a different issue with the ones that don’t have any documents. A looked at a few and they all seem to be from IGOs as the legal entity. That makes me think that they may have been entered at someone other than the organization’s request – that maybe why there is nothing in TSDR. Just a shot in the dark.
Best,
Miriam
Miriam Richter, Attorney at Law, P.L.
Make Your Mark! ®
Trademark, Copyright, and other Intellectual Property Matters
2312 Wilton Drive, Suite 9
Wilton Manors, Florida 33305
954-977-4711 office
954-240-8819 cell
954-977-4717 facsimile
NOTICE: This e-mail message and any attachment to this e-mail message contains confidential information that may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not review, retransmit, convert to hard copy, copy, use or disseminate this e-mail or any attachments to it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail or by telephone at 954-977-4711 and delete this message. Please note that if this e-mail message contains a forwarded message or is a reply to a prior message, some or all of the contents of this message or any attachments may not have been produced by the sender.
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: Friday, July 19, 2024 5:31 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: Re: [E-trademarks] Mark not examined in over three years: OR Franz Kafka's
No worries, they must have “top men” on that!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fdjf4lMmiiI
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<mailto:e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com>> On Behalf Of Ken Boone via E-trademarks
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2024 3:25 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: Ken Boone <boondogles at hotmail.com<mailto:boondogles at hotmail.com>>
Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] Mark not examined in over three years: OR Franz Kafka's
EXTERNAL EMAIL
While I'm still NOT an attorney, I have a few comments about those pesky 89-series records.
When I entered the USPTO in 1993 as an IT Specialist, I was instructed that the 89-series records were not trademarks, but that they were included in the search databases because they are protected by international law like trademarks - that each live 89-series record was equivalent to a trademark registration.
I always thought that the USPTO should have created a filing basis, say 6ter, for each 89-series record. Apparently, that was too much trouble.
I always thought that the USPTO should have entered GS text for each 89-series records, say something like ALL GOODS AND ALL SERVICES IN ALL CLASSES. Again, too much trouble.
I always thought that the USPTO should add the 8-digit serial number as the registration number - that the search criterion RN:* would include 89-series records as registrations (with the filing date as the registration date). Again, too much trouble.
When I was at the USPTO, I was tasked with loading some of the 89-series records - kind of a training exercise to learn the editing program for entering/updating USPTO records, or perhaps as punishment for asking too many questions. (Checking today, most of the 89-series records with the € (Euro symbol) in the word mark look very familiar, that I likely added most of those, so try the search SN:89* AND LD:true AND WD:*€* and you may be seeing some of the 89-series records that I loaded.)
Below are a few searches that I just performed. In summary, there currently are 3079 live 89-series records and 18 dead 89-series records. Every live 89-series record has all 48 International Classes (including International Classes 200, A and B, though technically those are NOT International Classes). The 5th search shows that NONE of the live 89-series records have any specified goods or services.
Id
Query
ResultCount
1
SN:89* AND LD:true
3079
2
SN:89* AND LD:false
18
3
SN:89* AND LD:true AND IC:001 AND IC:002 AND IC:003 AND IC:004 AND IC:005 AND IC:006 AND IC:007 AND IC:008 AND IC:009 AND IC:010 AND IC:011 AND IC:012 AND IC:013 AND IC:014 AND IC:015 AND IC:016 AND IC:017 AND IC:018 AND IC:019 AND IC:020 AND IC:021 AND IC:022 AND IC:023 AND IC:024 AND IC:025 AND IC:026 AND IC:027 AND IC:028 AND IC:029 AND IC:030 AND IC:031 AND IC:032 AND IC:033 AND IC:034 AND IC:035 AND IC:036 AND IC:037 AND IC:038 AND IC:039 AND IC:040 AND IC:041 AND IC:042 AND IC:043 AND IC:044 AND IC:045 AND IC:200 AND IC:A AND IC:B
3079
4
( 1 ) NOT ( 3 )
0
5
SN:89* AND LD:true AND GS:*
0
A story (well, rumor) about the 89-series records I heard while at the USPTO: In the 1930's, Germany requested protection for their Nazi insignia and provided samples of items with the Nazi insignia (flags, silverware, military insignia, etc.). When the US entered WWII, the protections of those Nazi insignia were voided. But what happened to the sample items with the Nazi insignia? Presumably, some USPTO employee quietly stole those items from storage. Well, that was the rumor, but maybe those items actually were transported to the National Archive and are quietly sitting in storage in some warehouse next to the Ark of the Covenant.
Happy Trademarking
Ken Boone
PS - On TSDR, many of the documents for the recent 89-series records are missing. That is, some entity had to request the USPTO to add the new 89-series records to the trademark database, but those requests are not documented as correspondence on TSDR. I did question TAC as to why such documents were not available on TSDR. Below is, in part, the response from TAC.
Thank you for contacting the Trademark Assistance Center (TAC) regarding Application Serial No.89002788 89002789 89002790 89002791 89002792 89002793 89002794 89002795 89002796 89002797 89002861 and 89002877. TSDR will not have supporting application that explains why the trademark records were loaded to TSDR and TESS?
Non-registration data (i.e. the 89 series) are signs and insignia that are provided for information. They are not registrations, but they are "active" to the extent there is an underlying statute that protects them. They are notified under Article 6ter and not objected to by the USPTO. So they can be a basis for refusal and cited against a mark in an application. There can be some "inactive" 89 records, those that were withdrawn and for which there is no longer an obligation to protect.
________________________________
From: E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com>> on behalf of Franco, Laura via E-trademarks <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>>
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2024 11:52 AM
To: Gerry J. Elman <gerry at elman.com<mailto:gerry at elman.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: Franco, Laura <LFranco at mintz.com<mailto:LFranco at mintz.com>>; Elman Office - Pratyush/Shashi <Office at elman.com<mailto:Office at elman.com>>
Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] Mark not examined in over three years: OR Franz Kafka's
That’s exactly my understanding – but how to get the Examiner to see the error of her ways???
Laura Franco
Member
O: +1.415.432.6011<tel:+1.415.432.6011>
M: +1.650.996.0212
LFranco at mintz.com<mailto:LFranco at mintz.com>
|
Mintz.com<http://mintz.com/>
From: Gerry J. Elman <gerry at elman.com<mailto:gerry at elman.com>>
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2024 9:26 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>>
Cc: Franco, Laura <LFranco at mintz.com<mailto:LFranco at mintz.com>>; Elman Office - Pratyush/Shashi <Office at elman.com<mailto:Office at elman.com>>
Subject: RE: [E-trademarks] Mark not examined in over three years: OR Franz Kafka's
Laura, Gee, I’ve been practising since 1967 and had never heard of a “series 89” mark record. I see that Dorsey & Whitney blogged about this about 5 years ago atSeries 89: A Secret Menu of Protected Non-Registered Marks | TheTMCA.com What I infer from the blog post is that th
Laura,
Gee, I’ve been practising since 1967 and had never heard of a “series 89” mark record. I see that Dorsey & Whitney blogged about this about 5 years ago at Series 89: A Secret Menu of Protected Non-Registered Marks | TheTMCA.com<https://www.thetmca.com/series-89-a-secret-menu-of-protected-non-registered-marks/> What I infer from the blog post is that the Examining Attorney should not have suspended your application but should have rejected it under 15 U.S.C. sec. 1052 for confusing similarity to the cited series 89 mark and allowed you to argue against that. Is that your understanding?
I see that series 89 is referenced in TMEP 1204.05, as part of sec 1204.
-Gerry
Gerry J. Elman, J.D.
Elman IP
Intellectual Property Matters
6117 St. James Place, Denton, TX 76210
610-892-9942 www.elman.com<http://www.elman.com/>
From: E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com>> On Behalf Of Franco, Laura via E-trademarks
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2024 9:45 AM
To: e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
Cc: Franco, Laura <LFranco at mintz.com<mailto:LFranco at mintz.com>>
Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] Mark not examined in over three years: OR Franz Kafka's
Hi all,
I’m just seeing this thread, and want to chime in with a similar situation:
An app that incorporates my client’s mark was filed in 2021, and received a prior pending refusal, and was suspended. EXCEPT that the “prior pending” application was an 89 serial number – designating non-registrable material (like Red Cross or Olympics, but it’s not either of them). I submitted a Letter of Protest explaining the situation, which was accepted and the “evidence” (legal argument and statutory cites?) was passed to the examiner in January 2024. In February the Examiner did another suspension check. And nothing has happened since.
What the heck! I’m concerned the examiner doesn’t understand that an 89 non-registrable material serial number will NEVER achieve registration, and that it is not actually a prior PENDING application. I’m concerned that this suspension is going to go on in perpetuity. I spoke with the Senior Attorney in the relevant Law Office, and he wasn’t really helpful. I’ve been trying to reach the Managing Attorney in that LO, but he seems to be ignoring my calls and emails.
Any suggestions here? Is there an intermediate place (above the LO and below the Commissioner) that would make sense to contact? Don’t say the Petitions Office – they shut me down already.
(Sorry if this post appears multiple times…I still can’t quite get the hang of this)
Thanks in advance,
Laura
Laura Franco
Member
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
44 Montgomery Street, 36th Floor
,
San Francisco
,
CA
94104
+1.415.432.6011<tel:+1.415.432.6011>
LFranco at mintz.com<mailto:LFranco at mintz.com>
|
Mintz.com<http://mintz.com/>
[mintz.com]<https://www.mintz.com/>
________________________________
STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY:
The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments
to this message are intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s)
and may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not
the intended recipient, or the person responsible for delivering the
email to the intended recipient, be advised you have received this
message in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing,
or copying is strictly prohibited. Please notify the Mintz, Levin, Cohn,
Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo sender immediately, and destroy all copies
of this message and any attachments.
________________________________
STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY:
The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments
to this message are intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s)
and may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not
the intended recipient, or the person responsible for delivering the
email to the intended recipient, be advised you have received this
message in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing,
or copying is strictly prohibited. Please notify the Mintz, Levin, Cohn,
Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo sender immediately, and destroy all copies
of this message and any attachments.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240720/6dedd10a/attachment.htm>
More information about the E-trademarks
mailing list