[E-trademarks] USPTO Fees Federal Register Notice - Unpublished PDF Version

Fri Nov 15 18:09:27 UTC 2024

Oh boy. These three are going to be 'fun' w/r/t the *per class* $100
insufficient information fee.

• If the mark includes color, a statement naming the color(s) and
describing where the color(s) appears on the mark, and a claim that the
color(s) is a feature of the mark;
• If the mark is not in standard characters, a description of the mark;
• If the mark includes non-English wording, an English translation of that
wording;

 The Office appears to be taking the position that getting the color
statement or description of the mark "wrong" -- per the Examining
Attorney's subjective opinion -- subjects Applicant to the $100 *per-class*
fee. The asserted 'remedy' is that Applicant can complain that the Office
is not being consistent. Which, of course, is not actually the problem at
hand. The non-standard text marks are, in general, different, and will have
different descriptions. So consistency is not the issue -- it's imposing
unpredictable fees based on a difference of opinion. [Comment 36 below.]
 And the Office does take the position that Applicant must search for, and
provide, any possible (if remote / random / irrelevant) non-English
meaning. This applies even if it's a language that no one in the process
has ever heard of. Failing that -- the $100/class fee applies. [Comment 40
below]
 How many translations might there be? Who knows! Take the word 'casette'
-- it translates from Italian as "little houses" -- which is the one you
get if you tell Google Translate "detect language. Same for Catalan. But if
you happen to know it's also a word in Spanish, it's "cassette" (same for
many languages). Or maybe if you search Romanian, it's "tapes." Or in
Breton & Dari, it's "box."

  Comment 36: Commenters, including the SBA, expressed concern regarding
the difficulty of anticipating whether the insufficient information fee
[e.g. $100/class] will apply for an applicant, given that many of the
requirements are subjective to the examining attorney’s opinions and
discretion, rather than objective factual standards. Commenters included
color claim, description of a mark, identification of form of applicant,
and translation of a mark as examples of subjective determinations where a
fee could be imposed later in examination. Commenters suggested these
questions will lead to accounting disputes, thus inhibiting the quality and
timeliness of prosecution progress.
  Response: The USPTO acknowledges the commenters’ concerns and offers
assurance that the agency strives to ensure consistent examination. An
applicant may request that the USPTO review situations where, in their
opinion, the agency has acted inconsistently in its treatment of their
pending application(s) or recent registration(s). Applicants also may
submit a request for review when a substantive or procedural issue has been
addressed in a significantly different manner in different cases, subject
to requirements on the Consistency Initiative page on the USPTO website at
https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/trademark-updates-and-announcements/consistencyinitiative.
If the applicant believes that the agency incorrectly imposed an
insufficient information fee and has discussed the issue with the examining
attorney, they may also contact the managing or senior attorney in the
examining attorney’s law office

  Comment 40: One commenter suggested that the USPTO consider whether the
insufficient information fee is appropriate in instances where an applicant
makes a good faith effort to supply required information, such as when they
have no knowledge of a term’s non-English meaning.
  Response: Requiring the fee is appropriate in the situation described in
the comment because § 2.32(a)(9) requires an applicant to research a mark
that is comprised of or includes non-English wording to determine whether
there is a transliteration or translation of the wording. If there is, and
the applicant omits the translation or transliteration, the examining
attorney will issue an Office action requiring the insufficient information
surcharge and submission of the translation and/or transliteration, as
appropriate. If the initial application includes a translation or
transliteration, the surcharge will not apply for later amendment of the
translation or transliteration. The surcharge will apply if the translation
or transliteration comprises or contains inappropriate material.

Tim Ackermann
The Ackermann Law Firm

E:  tim at ackermannlaw.com
P:  817.305.0690
F:  214.453.0810
W: ackermannlaw.com
O: 1701 W. Northwest Hwy. Ste. 100
     Grapevine TX 76051

On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 11:12 AM Thilo C. Agthe via E-trademarks <
e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:

> Available here:
> https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2024-26644.pdf
>
>
>
> Enjoy!  ;-)
>
>
>
> WUERSCH & GERING
>
> Thilo C. Agthe, Partner
>
> Wuersch & Gering LLP | 100 Wall Street, 10th Fl. | New York, NY 10005
> 212-509-4714 (direct) | 212-509-5050 (firm)
> thilo.agthe at wg-law.com | www.wg-law.com
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.wg-law.com&c=E,1,CWoeRVQhtGs121LAVIh7zU1-dx3iVrghVXYSNSKabu2gys3XF-T4ZebqmeopXQ1xZCNj4u5_DxhXvfueoeFMVmprC0L4rGxGcSgyirWqdfa_AwkM&typo=1&ancr_add=1>
>
> This message and any attachments hereto contain confidential information
> and information which may be subject to the attorney-client privilege. It
> is intended for the individual or entity named above.  If you are not the
> intended recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose this
> communication to others; also please notify the sender by replying to this
> message, and then delete it from your system.  Thank you.
>
>
>
> Diese Nachricht und etwaige Anhänge enthalten vertrauliche Informationen
> und Daten, die Gegenstand des Anwaltsgeheimnisses sein können. Sie ist nur
> für die oben genannte natürliche oder juristische Person gedacht. Sollten
> Sie nicht der beabsichtigte Empfänger sein, bitten wir Sie die Nachricht
> nicht zu lesen, zu kopieren, oder an andere weiterzugeben.  Bitte
> informieren Sie den Absender durch Beantwortung dieser Nachricht, und
> löschen Sie die Nachricht aus Ihrem System. Danke.
>
>
>
> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail!
>
>
> --
> 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/20241115/0e102529/attachment.html>