[E-trademarks] Trademark Examination Vent: How does this even happen?

[Robert Pierce]

You could complain to TMFeedback at uspto.gov<mailto:TMFeedback at uspto.gov> but that won't restore the examining attorney's jurisdiction.

To potentially restore jurisdiction, you could submit a letter of protest if the specimen is fraudulent. However, that won't toll the opposition period. So you will still need to file the opposition or request an extension of time.

Best wishes,
Robert

Robert S. Pierce (he, him)
Jacobson Holman PLLC
400 Seventh Street, Northwest, Suite 700
Washington, District of Columbia 20004
United States of America

Telephone: 202-628-4268
Fax: 202-393-5350
Email: rpierce at jhip.com<mailto:rpierce at jhip.com>



From: E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> On Behalf Of Leesa N. Weiss via E-trademarks
Sent: Thursday, May 9, 2024 11:05 AM
To: e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com
Cc: Leesa N. Weiss <lweiss at esfip.com>
Subject: [E-trademarks] Trademark Examination Vent: How does this even happen?

This morning, one of the watch services with which one of my client's trademarks is listed sent me a notice of a U.S. application published for opposition at the end of April. It's a use-based application filed under Section 1(a) utilizing TEASPlus; the 23 goods identified within the single class do not fit neatly into one category. The specimen is definitely suspect: a print out from a questionable online website from which one of the products allegedly was purchased and depicts what appears to be a photograph of a product on which the subject trademark appears to be photoshopped and misspelled!

The TSDR file history is as follows (note the dates!):

[cid:image001.png at 01DAA203.D8269620]

As of this morning, the status dates for new applications being reached for examination reads:

[cid:image002.png at 01DAA203.D8269620]
Apart from having to file an opposition to which the applicant likely will not answer, is there an office or individual to whom one can complain at the PTO regarding these issues? My client's mark and the published mark, both in the same class and identify a number of the same goods, differ by a single letter.

Vent over and, if you've read this far, thank you.

Leesa





Leesa N. Weiss
Partner
[cid:image003.png at 01DAA203.D8269620]
9801 Washingtonian Boulevard, Suite 750
Gaithersburg, MD 20878
lweiss at esfip.com<mailto:lweiss at esfip.com>
Direct:  240-864-2472
Fax:  301-762-4056

Information contained within this email and its attachments, if any, may be confidential and/or privileged. This email is intended to be reviewed only by the individual to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of the intended recipient, please be aware that any review, dissemination, or copying of the information contained within this email and its attachments, if any, is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify me by return email and delete this email from your system.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240509/09770d77/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 27473 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240509/09770d77/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 32112 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240509/09770d77/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 8938 bytes
Desc: image003.png
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240509/09770d77/attachment-0002.png>