[E-trademarks] My "New Application Awaiting Assignment To An Examining Attorney" Search
Ron Kadden
rkadden at vonmaltitz.com
Tue Mar 26 18:12:13 EDT 2024
Well done!
Ron Kadden
On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 4:50 PM Ken Boone via E-trademarks <
e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:
> With the announcement that the USPTO soon will be providing a new summary
> page to Trademark Search, I'm guessing it is time to reveal my *new
> application awaiting assignment to an examining attorney* search, namely
>
> *(SA:" application assignment" ~5) NOT (SA:" application assignment" ~3)*
>
> that retrieves 365,172 trademarks today, where every trademark that I've
> checked has the *new application awaiting assignment to an examining
> attorney* status on TSDR.
>
> More curious is adding a filing date range restriction or other criteria
> to the search. For example,
>
> *FD:[* TO 20201231]** AND (SA:" application assignment" ~5) **AND OW:usa** NOT
> (SA:" application assignment" ~3)*
>
> retrieves the 182 oldest applications filed prior to calendar year 2021
> with USA owners, significantly older than the June 23, 2023 - July 07, 2023
> filing date range shown on the Current Backlog page.
>
> Assuming the new summary page to be added to Trademark Search displays the
> SA - Status field, we will see the exact status phrases used in Trademark
> Search to confirm the accuracy of my *new application awaiting assignment
> to an examining attorney* search.
>
>
> Happy Trademarking,
> Ken Boone
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> on behalf
> of Ken Boone via E-trademarks <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 5, 2024 8:18 AM
> *To:* For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek
> legal advice. <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> *Cc:* Ken Boone <boondogles at hotmail.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [E-trademarks] A "the mark consists" Search Curiosity
>
> Thank you, Carl and Ron, for your interest & comments.
>
> I suspect at least part of the problem is that the USPTO may not have not
> created new status codes for records under investigation for possible
> suspension (which is why I included correspondence addresses for 15 oldest
> trademarks that I listed yesterday). Unfortunately since Trademark Search
> does not include correspondence addresses, tracking *new applications
> awaiting assignment to an examining attorney* status by correspondence
> addresses is largely a manual operation on TSDR.
>
> Comparing Ron's search (14,331 hits) to my search (13,908 hit), Ron's
> search retrieved all of my hits plus 423 additional hits, but from my quick
> review of about a dozen of those additional hits, none had the desired *new
> application awaiting assignment to an examining attorney* status on TSDR.
>
> Yesterday evening, I started a fresh search session and ran 2 version of
> my *new application awaiting assignment to an examining attorney* search,
> namely the full search and the search restricted to only OW:usa hits (as I
> figure we're more interested in USA applications than foreign applications,
> especially applications from China). I kept that session running overnight
> and repeated those 2 searches again. Below are the results.
>
> Id
> Query
> ResultCount
> Diff
> 1
> Full Search on Monday
> 13,908
> 2
> Just OW:usa on Monday
> 5,581
> 3
> Full Search Today
> 13,866
> (42)
> 4
> Just OW:usa Today
> 5,541
> (40)
> 5
> ( 1 ) NOT ( 3 )
> 0
> 6
> ( 2 ) NOT ( 4 )
> 0
>
> Assuming my searches are accurate, the counts of *new applications
> awaiting assignment to an examining attorney* filed before 1 Jan 2023 did
> decline slightly. Unfortunately, since back reference in Trademark Search
> merely repeats the search, the back references in searches 5 and 6 did not
> identify the differences in the search results between Monday and today.
> To track/analyze changes in the search results over time implies
> downloading the serial numbers for the search and then checking any changes
> in status for those serial numbers. I did download several hundred of the
> OW:usa hits yesterday, but I'm not too anxious to try to detect any status
> changes for those downloaded records. (None of the 50 oldest hits for my
> search were updated on Trademark Search today.)
>
> Another curiosity. I recently noticed that the descriptions of the mark
> drawing codes on TSDR were revised. Why? The table below summarizes the
> mark drawing code descriptions from the online help of the new Trademark
> Search System and TSDR.
>
> MDC
> Trademark Search Online Help
> TSDR
> 0
> unknown
> UNKNOWN MARK DRAWING TYPE
> 1
> typed drawing
> TYPESET WORD(S) /LETTER(S) /NUMBER(S)
> 2
> design only
> AN ILLUSTRATION DRAWING WITHOUT ANY WORDS(S)/ LETTER(S) /NUMBER(S)
> 3
> design plus words, letters, and/or numbers
> AN ILLUSTRATION DRAWING WHICH INCLUDES WORD(S)/ LETTER(S) /NUMBER(S)
> 4
> standard character mark
> STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
> 5
> words, letters, and/or numbers in stylized form
> AN ILLUSTRATION DRAWING WITH WORD(S)/LETTER(S)/NUMBER(S) IN STYLIZED FORM
> 6
> no drawing
> NO DRAWING
>
> Does anyone else find the expression *ILLUSTRATION DRAWING* redundant?
> How about the term *WORDS(S)* - is* WORDSS *supposed to be the plural of
> *WORDS*? Are punctuation characters considered letters or numbers?
>
> Happy Trademarking,
> Ken Boone
>
> PS - My *new application awaiting assignment to an examining attorney* search
> includes two SA terms but *NOT* the term *new* used by Ron.
>
> PPS - Today the search *LD:true NOT (GS:* SN:8900* SN:81* )* retrieves
> 1151 hits, mostly newer applications with NULL goods/services entries? Any
> guesses of why automated processing of new applications frequently fails to
> load goods/services included in the raw applications to either Trademark
> Search or TSDR?
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> on behalf
> of Carl Oppedahl via E-trademarks <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, March 4, 2024 12:24 PM
> *To:* For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek
> legal advice. <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> *Cc:* Carl Oppedahl <carl at oppedahl.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [E-trademarks] A "the mark consists" Search Curiosity
>
>
> Thank you, Ken and Ron. This is fascinating.
>
> One wonders how it can be that the Trademark Office clearly does not do
> such "boundary condition checking" itself. Anybody who administers any
> system that tracks tasks or production would normally incorporate a variety
> of boundary condition checks into the routine workflow.
>
> This includes things like cross-checking to see whether characters are
> rendered legibly in one part of the system but are rendered unintelligibly
> in some other part of the system. This includes things like identifying
> entries in the database that have had no changes to the entry in more than
> X number of weeks or months. In a system where there are easy-to-see
> starting points and end points for tasks, here for example the filing date
> and the registration date, there are simple and easy-to-do reports that
> could be generated to try to identify cases that deviate widely from the
> normal life span of the tasks.
>
> This stuff is easy to do (Ken does it, Ron does it, others on the listserv
> do it) and easy to automate. Yet it is clear the Trademark Office snoozes
> through stuff like this.
>
> There ought to be automated reports, maybe once per month, that land on
> the desk of somebody in the office of the Commissioner for Trademarks. And
> the reports would list stuff like this. And somebody somewhere would
> figure out why this category of cases or that category of cases ends up
> languishing.
> On 3/4/2024 11:01 AM, Ron Kadden via E-trademarks wrote:
>
> The closest I can come is the following, which picks up unassigned
> applications and applications that have been assigned with no further
> action:
>
> 14,331 results for LD:true AND FD:[* TO 20221231] AND SA:new.
>
> Ron Kadden
>
> On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 11:57 AM Ken Boone via E-trademarks <
> e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:
>
> The search *WD: "the mark consists" AND LD:true AND FD:[* TO 20221231]* retrieves
> a single pending trademark with the drawing
>
> *[image: Image for 97681714, select for more details]*
>
> Curiously, this 17 November 2022 application (approaching 16 months old)
> has yet to be assigned to an examining attorney. Why? Just guessing, but
> maybe Pre-Exam set this application aside for review by an attorney as a
> likely *informal application* (as the drawing does not resemble any
> portion of the specimen provided by my quick review). There is only a
> single entry in the prosecution history, namely *NEW APPLICATION ENTERED* dated
> 4 days following the filing date. (More typically, a second *NEW
> APPLICATION OFFICE SUPPLIED DATA ENTERED* prosecution history entry is
> added when Pre-Exam has performed their processing.) This is NOT a pro se
> application, though I only see 8 total trademarks by that attorney of
> record. (The good news is that this is the only "the mark consists"
> wordmark hit over 14 month old.)
>
> My first question: Is this an informal application? Alternatively, could
> the filer submit a preliminary amendment with *Princess Egypt Closet* (or
> some other phrase occurring in the specimen provided) as the word mark for
> a standard character drawing? If the latter, wouldn't the filing date have
> to be amended to the date the amended drawing was received at the USPTO?
> (No reply expected.)
>
> My usual follow-up question: How many other new applications filed prior
> to 1 January 2023 (i.e., now over 14 months old) have yet to be assigned to
> an examining attorney for examination?
>
> Are aware of a search on the new trademark search system that answers that
> question?
>
> The two solutions that I have mentioned before: (1) add the prosecution
> histories to trademark search and (2) add the TSDR status to trademark
> search whenever a trademark is updated on trademark search, versus the
> current *SA - Status* field that is NOT displayed and whose exact content
> is unknown. (In this case, it would be nice to search the status *new
> application awaiting assignment to an examining attorney* for a
> particular filing date range to find other older applications yet to be
> assigned to an examining attorney for examination.)
>
> As it happens, I have a candidate *SA - Status* field search that appears
> to retrieve all live applications with the *new application awaiting
> assignment to an examining attorney* status. Today, that search
> retrieves 381,616 pending trademarks. Restricting those hits to
> applications filed prior to 1 January 2023, that search retrieves 13,908
> new applications over 14 months old that have not been assigned to a USPTO
> examining attorney for examination. Sorry, but I'm still reviewing those
> 13,908 applications to verify that each has the *new application awaiting
> assignment to an examining attorney* status on TSDR, but here are the 15
> oldest applications retrieved by my search.
>
> #
> SN
> FD
> WM
> Comment
> 1
> 90202945
> 09/23/20
> FAT ALBERT
> Attorney Name: Mary R. Bonzagni
> 2
> 90230047
> 10/01/20
> CHUCKLECIDE
> Correspondent e-mail: Legal at theblitzdesign.com
> 3
> 90230467
> 10/01/20
> AFFAIRE BIKINIS
> Correspondent e-mail: Legal at theblitzdesign.com
> 4
> 90230590
> 10/01/20
> IGNITE
> Correspondent e-mail: Legal at theblitzdesign.com
> 5
> 90230860
> 10/01/20
> I.ANDROID.LIVE FREQUENCY BASED MUSIC
> Correspondent e-mail: Legal at theblitzdesign.com
> 6
> 90231937
> 10/02/20
> TMC TERRA METALS CORP.
> Correspondent e-mail: Legal at theblitzdesign.com
> 7
> 90235170
> 10/05/20
> M MYCHMAR
> Correspondent e-mail: Legal at theblitzdesign.com
> 8
> 90235341
> 10/05/20
> L..O. QUEINT DEFINED FASHION
> Correspondent e-mail: Legal at theblitzdesign.com
> 9
> 90235429
> 10/05/20
> MINDFUL LUNATIC
> Correspondent e-mail: Legal at theblitzdesign.com
> 10
> 90235569
> 10/05/20
> BOOKGASM
> Correspondent e-mail: Legal at theblitzdesign.com
> 11
> 90237546
> 10/06/20
> SPA BEAUTY
> Correspondent e-mail: Legal at theblitzdesign.com
> 12
> 90238108
> 10/06/20
> SPA BEAUTY NYC
> Correspondent e-mail: Legal at theblitzdesign.com
> 13
> 90238486
> 10/06/20
> NEW YORK PODIATRY GROUP
> Correspondent e-mail: tyler.ross at designproficient.com
> 14
> 90239836
> 10/07/20
> HEAVENLY VOICE GLOBAL MINISTRIES.
> Correspondent e-mail: Legal at theblitzdesign.com
> 15
> 90239912
> 10/07/20
> ENTREPRENEUR CONNECTIONS NETWORK
> Correspondent e-mail: tyler.ross at designproficient.com
>
> Hmmm ... perhaps I should generate a more random sample of those 13,908
> new applications over 14 months old that have not been assigned to a USPTO
> examining attorney for examination. Stay tuned.
>
> Happy trademarking,
> Ken Boone
>
> PS - Below, I alerted the USPTO of another 2022 application with the *new
> application awaiting assignment to an examining attorney* status on TSDR
> that also lacks the second *NEW APPLICATION OFFICE SUPPLIED DATA ENTERED* prosecution
> history entry. I intentionally did a copy/paste of status information from
> TSDR - that the formatting did go sideways, emphasizing the need for a full
> record display option in the new Trademark Search System. Alas, nothing
> has happened with this *JUST BE FEARLESS APPAREL* application since I
> alerted the USPTO of the incomplete processing by Pre-Exam. So it goes.
>
> PPS - Just for fun, try the following search: GS:"I am not selling
> anything - just want ownership of the phrase"
> 1 results for GS:"I am not selling anything - just want ownership of the
> phrase"
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Ken Boone <boondogles at hotmail.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 25, 2023 3:45 PM
> *To:* TMFeedback <tmfeedback at uspto.gov>
> *Subject:* 97631882 - JUST BE FEARLESS APPAREL - Filed 13 Oct 2022 - No
> Valid Mark Drawing Code - Awaiting Examinating Attorney
>
> Dear USPTO,
>
> The subject application is over a year old and still has not been assigned
> to an examining attorney, perhaps because it still does not have a valid
> mark drawing code. It looks like this application has been sitting idle in
> New Application Processing since 31 October 2022 (the status date). It is
> my theory that without a valid mark drawing code, automated processing will
> NOT assign this application to an examining attorney. Perhaps someone at
> the USPTO can shove this application forward by providing a valid mark
> drawing code (and a few design search codes) to help this application
> progress to examination?
>
>
>
>
> *Generated on:*
> This page was generated by TSDR on 2023-10-25 16:33:16 EDT
> *Mark:*
> JUST BE FEARLESS APPAREL
> [image: Trademark image]
> *US Serial Number:*
> 97631882
> *Application Filing Date:*
> Oct. 13, 2022
> *Filed as TEAS Plus:*
> Yes
> *Currently TEAS Plus:*
> Yes
> *Register:*
> Principal
> *Mark Type:*
> Trademark
> *TM5 Common Status Descriptor:*
> [image: TM5 Common Status image]
>
> LIVE/APPLICATION/Awaiting Examination
>
> The trademark application has been accepted by the Office (has met the
> minimum filing requirements) and has not yet been assigned to an examiner.
> *Status:*
> New application awaiting assignment to an examining attorney. See current
> trademark processing wait times
> <https://www.uspto.gov/dashboard/trademarks/application-timeline.html>for
> more information.
> *Status Date:*
> Oct. 31, 2022
>
> Mark Information
> *Mark Literal Elements:*
> JUST BE FEARLESS APPAREL
> *Standard Character Claim:*
> No
> *Mark Drawing Type:*
> -
> *Description of Mark:*
> The mark consists of just be fearless apparel color all black letters.
> *Color(s) Claimed:*
> Color is not claimed as a feature of the mark.
> Goods and Services
> Basis Information (Case Level)
> Current Owner(s) Information
> Attorney/Correspondence Information
> Prosecution History
> TM Staff and Location Information
> *TM Staff Information - None*
> *File Location*
> *Current Location:*
> NEW APPLICATION PROCESSING
> *Date in Location:*
> Oct. 31, 2022
> Assignment Abstract Of Title Information - Click to Load
> Proceedings - Click to Load
>
>
> Hope this helps,
> Ken Boone
>
> --
> 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/20240326/b3d3c675/attachment.htm>
More information about the E-trademarks
mailing list