[E-trademarks] New Madrid Applications Received March 13th & 20th
Ken Boone
boondogles at hotmail.com
Thu Apr 3 16:22:27 UTC 2025
It gets worse. The initial automated processing of new Madrid applications apparently skips the various translation statements. The brief search session below shows all new Madrids yet to be updated by Pre-Exam are void of translation/transliteration text.
Query
ResultCount
SN:79* AND MD:unknown AND LD:true
1363
SN:79* AND MD:unknown AND LD:true AND (TL:* TT:* )
0
Why would I construct that search? Well, one of my QC searches, namely
LD:true AND MD:(*1* *3* *4* *5* ) NOT ( WD:* FM:* ) COM:"Missing Wordmark or inappropriate MDC"
retrieved three relatively new Madrid applications awaiting assignment to EAs today, namely
79398797
[Image for 79398797, select for more details]
79398806
[Image for 79398806, select for more details]
79401073
[previously viewed Image for 79401073, select for more details]
For 79398797, the raw application on TSDR includes KOKTEBEL' as the MARK TRANSLITERATION entry, but TSDR only shows the following mark info.
Mark Literal Elements: None
Standard Character Claim: No
Mark Drawing Type: 5 - AN ILLUSTRATION DRAWING WITH WORD(S)/LETTER(S)/NUMBER(S) IN STYLIZED FORM
For 79398806, the raw application on TSDR includes Kisekinohaburasi as the MARK TRANSLITERATION entry and Miracle Toothbrushes as the MARK TRANSLATION DETAILS entry, but TSDR only shows the following mark info.
Mark Literal Elements: None
Standard Character Claim: No
Mark Drawing Type: 5 - AN ILLUSTRATION DRAWING WITH WORD(S)/LETTER(S)/NUMBER(S) IN STYLIZED FORM
For 79401073, the raw application on TSDR includes the mark consists of the phrase transliterated into Latin as "Zheltaya bochka" written in Russian letters as the MARK DESCRIPTION and ZHELTAYA BOCHKA as the MARK TRANSLITERATION, but TSDR only shows the following mark info.
Mark Literal Elements: None
Standard Character Claim: No
Mark Drawing Type: 5 - AN ILLUSTRATION DRAWING WITH WORD(S)/LETTER(S)/NUMBER(S) IN STYLIZED FORM
Isn't it curious that these three applications have stylized text but no literal elements? Well, maybe these 3 applications are still under review at Pre-Exam.
Additionally, the search SN:79* AND MD:unknown AND LD:true AND ( DE:*) retrieves only one trademark, namely 79400314 which apparently has had the new application awaiting assignment to an examining attorney status on TSDR since Jul. 18, 2024. A 1/25/2025 note to the file stating "Per correction notice dated 09/24/2024 from the IB, the description of the mark has been amended. No action is needed for the color claimed." apparently explains how this particular Madrid application yet to be processed by Pre-Exam acquired the Description of Mark entry.
In conclusion, besides any standard character mark claim, it appears neither the various translation/transliteration statements nor the description of mark entries are automatically loaded to the official record for Madrid applications. Well, maybe DOGE will try to make Madrid processing a little more efficient?
Additionally, for older Madrid applications with the UNKNOWN mark drawing code that apparently were skipped by Pre-Exam, many appear to have the wordmark literal elements deleted. Try the search SN:( 79390629 79390640 79390641 79390647 79390650 79390651 79390654 79390655 79390656 79390659 79390660 79390661 79390662 79390663 79390665 79390666 79390667 79390668 79390670 79390671 79390672 79390675 79391124 79391127 79391509 79391511 79391514 79391515 79391520 79391521 79391522 79391523 79391524 79391525 79391528 79391532 79391533 79391534 79391538 79391540 79391545 79391547 79391550 79391551 ). I didn't check all of these today, but for the applications that I checked, the application (and the filing receipt) included literal elements for the wordmark. I'm guess that earlier processing procedure that excluded wordmarks for applications yet to be processed by Pre-Exam included some deletion of wordmark entries from the official record for older Madrid application yet to be processed by Pre-Exam.
Happy Post-Liberation Day,
Ken Boone
________________________________
From: Carl Oppedahl <carl at oppedahl.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2025 10:12 AM
To: For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice. <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] New Madrid Applications Received March 13th & 20th
Thank you for posting. This kind of thing (the computerized processing of inbound Madrid designations into the USPTO systems) strikes me as the sort of thing computers are supposed to be good at. Seems to me that the smart way for USPTO to go would be for the USPTO to incur the one-time cost of writing good code to handle the inbound Madrid designations correctly. The one-time cost would be incurred once (duh) and would pay for itself after some number of weeks or months during which a smaller amount of human intervention would be needed. Not only that, the quality of issued registrations would be higher, compared with the present situation that some of these 79-series cases issue with defects that did not receive the human intervention that was needed.
On 3/27/2025 8:46 AM, Ken Boone via E-trademarks wrote:
Continuing the searches performed last week, I've updated to search counts daily for Madrid applications received March 13th and March 20th.
I had assumed that initial electronic processing of Madrid applications tried to capture the standard character claims. The daily checks of the March 20th Madrid applications contradict that assumption (search #10), as there were only 22 standard character marks on 3/21 for the 653 total Madrid applications received that Thursday. I do find that choice of ignoring the standard character claims provided by the IB incredible. Why would electronic processing ignore the standard character claim included in the Madrid applications, forcing Pre-Exam to manually process the standard character claims when adding mark drawing codes to new Madrid applications?
#
March 13th Madrids
3/20
3/21
3/22
3/23
3/24
3/25
3/26
3/27
1
SN:( /<79418750-79419190>/ )
439
439
439
439
439
439
439
439
2
1 AND MD:( "1" "2" "3" "5" "6" )
175
181
192
192
192
194
194
194
3
1 AND MD:unknown
84
73
48
48
48
46
46
46
4
1 AND MD:( "4" )
180
185
199
199
199
199
199
199
5
1 NOT GS:*
63
63
31
31
31
31
2
0
6
1 NOT ON:*
63
63
31
31
31
31
2
0
March 20th Madrids
7
SN:( /<79419210-79419862>/ )
0
653
653
653
653
653
653
653
8
7 AND MD:( "1" "2" "3" "5" "6" )
0
22
124
179
188
228
228
228
9
7 AND MD:unknown
0
609
350
255
237
159
159
159
10
7 AND MD:( "4" )
0
22
179
219
228
266
266
266
11
7 NOT GS:*
0
107
107
107
107
107
22
0
12
7 NOT ON:*
0
107
107
107
107
107
22
0
There is good news, namely that every Madrid application for these two weeks now have GS entries and Owner Name entries (searches 5, 6, 11 and 12).
The search ( 3 ) OR ( 9 ) retrieves the 205 trademarks for the two weeks that still have the unknown mark drawing code. By my checks, following are the 10 oldest Madrids for these 2 weeks that still do not have valid mark drawing code entries.
SN
FD
79419274
04/08/24
79419060
07/04/24
79419454
07/22/24
79419681
07/25/24
79418808
08/06/24
79419336
09/05/24
79419809
09/09/24
79419641
09/09/24
79419061
09/11/24
79419463
09/23/24
The March 20th arrivals included the following challenging standard character marks (assuming you're not a fan of superscript characters appearing in standard character marks). With the shared 01/24/25 filing date, it will likely be several months before these are assigned to EAs for examination.
SN
FD
WM
79419603
01/24/25
Q² INFINITE
79419604
01/24/25
Q² LEATHERSHIELD
79419605
01/24/25
Q²M WETCOAT
79419606
01/24/25
Q²M INTERIORDETAILER
79419607
01/24/25
Q² CANCOAT
79419608
01/24/25
Q² PURE
79419766
01/24/25
Q² MOHS
Happy Trademarking,
Ken Boone
________________________________
From: E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com><mailto:e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> on behalf of Ken Boone via E-trademarks <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com><mailto:e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2025 12:15 PM
To: E-Trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:E-Trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com> <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com><mailto:e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
Cc: Ken Boone <boondogles at hotmail.com><mailto:boondogles at hotmail.com>
Subject: [E-trademarks] A Peek At New Madrid Applications Received Last Thursday (March 13th)
By my quick checks, the search SN:( /<79418750-79974999>/ ) retrieves the new Madrid applications received last Thursday (March 13th), a total of 439 applications. The highest serial number is 79419190; that is, the search SN:( /<79418750-79419190>/ ) retrieves those 439 applications. Two serial numbers for that range 79419188 and 79419189 appear to have been skipped, as neither TM Search nor TSDR have any data for those two serial numbers.
The search SN:( /<79418750-79974999>/ ) AND MD:( "1" "2" "3" "5" "6" ) retrieves 175 of those 439 applications, while the search SN:( /<79418750-79974999>/ ) AND MD:unknown retrieves 84 of those 439 applications. For this quick look, Pre-Exam has applied valid mark drawing codes to 67.6% of the special form drawings received last Thursday, with 32,4% still awaiting processing by Pre-Exam. SN :( /<79418750-79974999>/ ) AND MD:( "4" ) retrieves 180 standard character mark applications. Curiously, 79419092 was among those standard character marks, except the raw application indicates this application has a color drawing and does not claim to be a standard character mark. Same for 79418995. For my quick review of those 180 standard character marks, only those two drawings caught my eye as contradictory to standard character marks.
79419092
[previously viewed Image for 79419092, select for more details]
79418995
[previously viewed Image for 79418995, select for more details]
Viewing the 84 MD:unknown drawings, many look like standard character marks. For example, the 11 applications retrieved by SN:( 79419151 79419153 79419154 79419160 79419165 79419166 79419167 79419169 79419170 79419171 79419172 )all looked like standard character marks, plus viewing the applications on TSDR, all indicated they are standard character marks in the raw applications. So why didn't the initial load of the applications to the USPTO systems fail to capture these applications as standard character mark?
The search SN:( /<79418750-79419190>/ ) NOT GS:* indicates 63 of the Madrid applications received last Thursday do NOT have GS text on TM Search, except the raw applications on TSDR showed GS text (for the few that I checked). So why does the initial load of the applications for the USPTO systems fail to completely load the GS text for the new applications?
The search SN:( /<79418750-79419190>/ ) NOT ON:* indicates 63 of the Madrid applications received last Thursday do NOT have Owner Name text on TM Search. Coincidence?
Obviously, I expected more complete entries for the standard character marks, GS text, and Owner Names for the 439 Madrid applications received at the USPTO last week. Just me?
Happy Trademarking,
Ken Boone
PS - For my questionable wordmark review today, I happend to notice 79399777 now has ??? as the wordmark. Previously, that application had ΤΑΝ as the wordmark, except those three characters were Greek Unicode characters provided in the raw application. Could it be that the USPTO's ROA form did not recognize the Greek characters ΤΑΝ and substituted ??? as the literal element? In any case, this application has been added to my questionable wordmark list (approximately 287 trademarks).
79399777
[Image for 79399777, select for more details]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250403/5eaa9385/attachment.html>
More information about the E-trademarks
mailing list