[E-trademarks] Trademark Mill

Fri Mar 1 18:28:24 EST 2024

That would make sense, partially. In this case, the application hasn't even
been assigned to an Examiner yet, so there is no issue of post-registration
withdrawal, and the communication from the mill* said they "no longer
represent" the applicant (as opposed to this being outside the scope of the
representation), so I was not clear on why the information hadn't been
completely removed. A PTO system that keeps any information that isn't
explicitly replaced during the withdrawal process is, sadly, completely
believable.

That said, there was no secondary email address in the original Attorney
section. The mill's email address had to be moved to the secondary address
line. If they have a limited-scope representation, I'm not sure why they
wouldn't just tell me that rather than go through the whole withdrawal
process.

It doesn't matter much; I have the contact information I need. It's just
bothering me.

* Objection to terminology duly noted, but it's easier to keep using it
than switch at this point.

*Kelcey Patrick-Ferree *
Phone: (IA): (319) 383-0659
Phone (MN): (612) 568-5573
Email: kpf at patrickferreelaw.com

On Fri, Mar 1, 2024 at 12:18 PM Kevin Grierson <kgrierson at cm.law> wrote:

> Ah, OK.  That may be an artifact of the PTO’s system for withdrawals.  For
> docket numbers, even if I delete them on a form (as when taking over for
> another firm, etc.) the number will stay unless it is replaced by something
> else.  The withdrawal form automatically imports the client’s email from
> the application info, but I suspect that if you leave the secondary email
> blank it will keep what was already there.
>
>
>
> *Kevin Grierson*********
>
> *CULHANE|MEADOWS PLLC <http://www.culhanemeadows.com/>*
>
> [image: Mobile:]
>
>   757-726-7799
>
> [image: Fax:]
>
>   866-521-5663
>
> [image: Email:]
>
>   kgrierson at cm.law
>
>
>
> *From:* Kelcey Patrick-Ferree <kpf at patrickferreelaw.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 29, 2024 9:34 PM
> *To:* Kevin Grierson <kgrierson at cm.law>
> *Cc:* For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek
> legal advice. <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [E-trademarks] Trademark Mill
>
>
>
> EXTERNAL EMAIL
>
> I do have contact information for the applicant, who is now the primary
> contact for the application, both physical address and email address. It's
> just that the secondary email address is the trademark mill's email
> address, and the docket number is still the trademark mill's docket number.
>
>
>
> Warm regards,
>
> Kelcey
>
>
>
> *Kelcey Patrick-Ferree *
>
> Phone: (IA): (319) 383-0659
>
> Phone (MN): (612) 568-5573
>
> Email: kpf at patrickferreelaw.com
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 5:52 PM Kevin Grierson <kgrierson at cm.law> wrote:
>
> Doesn’t a withdrawal petition have to provide proposed contact information
> for the applicant?  A mailing address if not an email address?
>
>
>
> *Kevin Grierson*********
>
> *CULHANE|MEADOWS PLLC <http://www.culhanemeadows.com/>*
>
> [image: Mobile:]
>
>   757-726-7799
>
> [image: Fax:]
>
>   866-521-5663
>
> [image: Email:]
>
>   kgrierson at cm.law
>
>
>
> *From:* E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> *On Behalf
> Of *Kelcey Patrick-Ferree via E-trademarks
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 29, 2024 6:45 PM
> *To:* e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com Carl <
> e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> *Cc:* Kelcey Patrick-Ferree <kpf at patrickferreelaw.com>
> *Subject:* [E-trademarks] Trademark Mill
>
>
>
> EXTERNAL EMAIL
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> I've somehow never had this come up before. I have a client who is
> concerned about an application filed by a Legalzoom-type trademark mill.
> Since the mill employee is an attorney and was listed as the attorney of
> record, I sent a letter about the concerning application to the mill
> employee. The mill employee promptly withdrew as attorney of record for the
> application and asked me to contact the applicant directly.
>
>
>
> But the mill's email address is still listed as a secondary email address
> for contacting the now-technically-unrepresented applicant, and the "docket
> number" code hasn't changed.
>
>
>
> Seems like they're trying to be the attorney of record without actually
> being the attorney of record/representing the applicant. Anyone ever seen
> this before?
>
>
>
> Warm regards,
>
> Kelcey
>
>
>
> *Kelcey Patrick-Ferree *
>
> Attorney and Owner
>
>
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> *Patrick-Ferree Law, P.L.L.C.*
>
> By Appointment: 136 S. Dubuque St., Iowa City, IA 52240
>
> Mail: P.O. Box 148, Iowa City, IA 52244
>
> Phone (IA): (319) 383-0659
>
> Phone (MN): (612) 568-5573
>
> Email: kpf at patrickferreelaw.com
>
> Web: https://patrickferreelaw.com
>
> Payments: https://patrickferreelaw.com/payments/
>
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240301/d2f5791d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 285 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240301/d2f5791d/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 452 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240301/d2f5791d/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 394 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240301/d2f5791d/attachment-0002.png>