[E-trademarks] USPTO Fees Federal Register Notice - Unpublished PDF Version

Fri Nov 15 18:43:48 UTC 2024

My question is what happens when the applicant is using the word in a way that is different from a way that translates to something else? Every time I look for a translation I get more than one translation in more than one language. Sometimes they are widely divergent!

A really good example is often seen on the menu of high-end steakhouses is Kumamoto – a type of beef from a region in Japan but in Swahili it is a really bad word!!! Every time I go out with a good friend from Kenya we have a good laugh about it.

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> On Behalf Of Sam Castree via E-trademarks
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2024 1:23 PM
To: For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice. <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
Cc: Sam Castree <sam at castreelaw.com>
Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] USPTO Fees Federal Register Notice - Unpublished PDF Version

Hmm...That response to Comment 40 is interesting, "If the initial application includes a translation or transliteration, the surcharge will not apply for later amendment of the translation or transliteration."  Does that mean, then, that we should always be in the habit of checking the 'The mark has no meaning in a foreign language' box if we don't have a translation to provide?  Would that qualify as having included a translation?   Or would the PTO somehow wiggle out of it with the statement that "The surcharge will apply if the translation or transliteration comprises or contains inappropriate material."  Not sure what exactly "inappropriate material" would mean in this case.

Cheers,

Sam Castree, III

Sam Castree Law, LLC
3421 W. Elm St.
McHenry, IL 60050
(815) 344-6300

On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 12:11 PM Tim Ackermann via E-trademarks <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>> wrote:
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<mailto:tim at ackermannlaw.com>
P:  817.305.0690
F:  214.453.0810
W: ackermannlaw.com<http://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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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/f8b57856/attachment.html>