[E-trademarks] Two Questionable Wordmark Fixes: 98658424 - ROPLΛSO & 98398495 - LEVEL

Tue Feb 11 12:34:39 UTC 2025

I'm still checking for unexpected question marks occurring in wordmark entries regularly.  Today, I noticed corrections to two trademarks on my questionable wordmark list.  Must be my lucky day.

Yesterday, 98658424 was updated with the unexpected question mark deleted from the wordmark.  Well, sort of.  From my questionable wordmark list, 98658424 had ROPL?SO as the wordmark.  Technically, where the question mark occurs, the corresponding letter in the drawing is NOT a standard character, but I added this trademark to my questionable wordmark list as a curiosity, as I expected Pre-Exam to correct this wordmark to ROPLASO, except that did not occur yesterday.  This pending application (filed 20 July 2024) still had NOT been processed by Pre-Exam and still had the Mark Drawing Type: 0 - UNKNOWN MARK DRAWING TYPE on TSDR, but the update on Trademark Search caused the wordmark to disappear on the search system.

Today, the wordmark for 98658424 has been updated to ROPLΛSO, matching the drawing and the description of mark entry, namely

The mark consists of stylized wording "ROPLΛSO", wherein there is a "Plus sign" design in the letter R, From O to ΛS there is a circular transformation with a four-pointed star in the upper left corner.

Pre-Exam apparently copied ROPLΛSO from the description of mark to the wordmark. I'm thinking ROPLΛSO was provided as the wordmark in the application (as in the description of mark), but USPTO processing tried to standardize that wordmark entry, turning the Λ into a question mark.  (By my checks, Λ is a Unicode character with decimal value 923 - part of the Greek character set.)

In any case, congratulations to Pre-Exam for adding ROPLΛSO as the wordmark (for consistency with the description of mark and the drawing).  Hopefully, they also added ROPLASO as a pseudomark (since that's how I'd pronounce the mark aloud).  I'll let the readers double-check the design codes added for searching this application.

As it happens, the WD: *Λ* search retrieves this application and 2 others.

Then there's 98398495, the mark lev̄el except v with a macron is NOT a standard character (despite the claim by the applicant).  Again, I have to question USPTO's processing of the TEAS Request Reconsideration after FOA<https://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn98398495&docId=RFR20250208060300&linkId=4> that shows lev?el as the wordmark provided by the applicant though the drawing clearly shows lev̄el.  In this case, the examining attorney corrected the wordmark to LEVEL with UPPER CASE characters as standard for USPTO wordmarks, and the trademark has been approved for publication.  Well, I would have preferred to see LEV̄EL as the wordmark, but ...

With those two wordmark corrections, my count of questionable wordmarks has reduced from 258 to 256.

For UNKNOWN mark drawing code entries, if the update to Trademark Search merely deletes the wordmark from Trademark Search but the questionable wordmark is still visible on TSDR, I do NOT consider the wordmark to be corrected.

Happy Trademarking,
Ken Boone

PS - Four weeks ago, I did contact the USPTO about several concerns, including the lack of wordmark entries for trademarks updated on Trademark Search that have the UNKNOWN mark drawing code.  Below is the actual email.  I also shared the email with several Law Office managers.  As usual, there were no replies.  Don't you think that the statement We are currently examining new applications submitted between:
June 24, 2024 - July 08, 2024 implies all applications filed prior to June 24th have been completely processed by Pre-Exam and have been assigned to EAs for examination?   The search FD:[* TO 20240623] AND SA:("new application in the record" AND "assignment to examin" ) returns 29,874 new applications filed prior to June 24th that are still awaiting assignment to an examining attorney.  When will the USPTO do something about those older new applications?  BTW, that processing statement currently states We are currently examining new applications submitted between: July 01, 2024 - July 15, 2024, implying (to me at least) that all applications filed prior to July 1st have been completely processed by Pre-Exam and have been assigned to EAs for examination, though we already know that to be false.

________________________________
From: Ken Boone <boondogles at hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2025 12:08 PM
To: TMFeedback <tmfeedback at uspto.gov>
Subject: Older Madrid Applications With MD:Unknown - Skipped By Pre-Exam?

The Current wait times webpage<https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/application-timeline> states

We are currently examining new applications submitted between:
June 24, 2024 - July 08, 2024

that suggests to the typical customer that all live trademark applications received prior to 24 June 2024 have been assigned to examining attorneys for examination, but the search

LD:true AND MD:unknown AND FD:[* TO 20240623]

retrieves 2,096 trademarks today.  Doesn't that mean that Pre-Exam has yet to complete their initial processing of these 2,096 applications?

Today, I'm primarily concerned about the Madrid applications retrieved by the MD:unknown search.  Note that the Current wait times webpage<https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/application-timeline> indicates that, on average, Pre-Exam completes their processing of new Madrid application in one day.  I find that 1-day processing a bit hard to believe.

The mail/create date 29 Aug 2024 of 79403000 indicates Madrid filings 79000001 to 79903000 were received at the USPTO on or before 29 Aug 2024. I will limit my reviews of Madrid filings to that serial number range to avoid reviewing any Madrid filings that were received since last August.  The search

SN:/<79000001-79403000>/ AND LD:true AND MD:unknown AND FD:[* TO 20240623]

retrieves 545 Madrid applications received at the USPTO before September 2024 and having filing dates prior to 24 June 2024.  On average, that's considerably longer than the one-day processing time advertised on the Current wait times webpage<https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/application-timeline>, but clearly further reviews are necessary.  Since 545 applications is too many to review, I revised the search to

SN:/<79000001-79403000>/ AND LD:true AND MD:unknown AND FD:[* TO 20240623] AND SN:( *76 OR *31  *66  OR *13 )

that retrieves only 25 older Madrid filings to review. That last part limits the results to serial numbers ending in the two digits 76 OR 31 66 OR 13.   I'm thinking that creates fairly random sample of 25 older Madrid filings listed below (where Received is the date the application was received at the USPTO from the mail/create date of the application on TSDR, and Exam is a Yes/No indicator that the application has been assigned to an examining attorney, though only the oldest application in this sample is under examination.

#
SN
FD
Received
Exam
Wordmark
1
79382531
07/17/23
11/02/23
Yes

2
79390631
01/26/24
02/29/24
No
FAST RETAILING
3
79390666
02/07/24
02/29/24
No

4
79390676
01/26/24
02/29/24
No
TAVO
5
79391113
02/14/24
03/07/24
No
Y
6
79391513
12/22/23
03/14/24
No
RELATICS
7
79391531
02/15/24
03/14/24
No
ICECAT
8
79394531
04/03/24
04/25/24
No
CLINIC LES ALPES
9
79394966
04/09/24
05/02/24
No
NARVI
10
79394976
02/14/24
05/02/24
No
MAPEL
11
79395466
04/08/24
05/09/24
No
SWEDENCARE
12
79395476
03/22/24
05/09/24
No
FLOREON
13
79395513
04/05/24
05/09/24
No

14
79396313
04/02/24
05/23/24
No
VINOTWIST
15
79396713
05/03/24
05/30/24
No
OCRYL
16
79397676
04/24/24
06/13/24
No
MEADOWBANK
17
79398166
05/28/24
06/20/24
No
SYNCHROPRESS
18
79398213
04/01/24
06/20/24
No
COHERENT BIOPHARMA
19
79398231
05/09/24
06/20/24
No

20
79398766
05/28/24
06/27/24
No
CALAF NUANCES CN
21
79398813
05/15/24
06/27/24
No
NEUTRALITY
22
79399413
05/31/24
07/04/24
No
COMICWALKER
23
79399913
06/19/24
07/11/24
No
AJAX
24
79400313
06/20/24
07/18/24
No
FT FENCE TANK
25
79401466
06/13/24
08/01/24
No
DECENT PACKAGING

Clearly, the above data verifies that Pre-Exam has skipped their processing of multiple older Madrid applications.

The first and third records reveal another problem.   For 79382531, multiple correspondence documents on TSDR, including the Oct. 03, 2024 Final Action, show the wordmark F MADE IN GERMANY SINCE 1845 had been entered for the application, but currently neither TSDR nor TM Search show a wordmark for the filing. For 79390666, the raw application and filing receipt show FOUNTAIN FUEL as the wordmark of this standard character mark, but USPTO processing failed to preserve the standard characters claim, assigning the unknown mark drawing code to the application, plus a recent update to the trademark deleted the wordmark entry.  By my checks, the search

UD:[20241206 TO *] AND MD:unknown AND FM:*

has NOT retrieved any trademarks updated since December 6th with the unknown mark drawing code - that USPTO processing now deletes any wordmark entry for MD:unknown records updated since December 6th.

So, besides the significant number of older applications that have been skipped by Pre-Exam, some standard character mark applications fail to have the standard characters claim preserved by initial USPTO processing, plus wordmark entries for special form drawings (whether Madrid on TEAS/Trademark Center) now have the wordmarks deleted when updated for any reason - that the USPTO no longer accepts wordmark entries for special form drawings until Pre-Exam reviews the applications and assigns a valid mark drawing code.

Hope this helps,
Ken Boone
USPTO IT Specialist (Retired)

Included below are recent E-trademark postings related to concerned raised in this email.
________________________________
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: Monday, January 6, 2025 8:38 AM
To: E-Trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
Cc: Ken Boone <boondogles at hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] Trademark Search: Missing Wordmarks For New TEAS Special Form Drawings???

A few more unexpected observations related to this MD:unknown theme.

The Trademark processing wait times page states

We are currently examining new applications submitted between: June 24, 2024 - July 08, 2024

from which one might assume that Pre-Exam has completed their initial processing of all pending trademarks filed prior to 24 June 2024, but the search

LD:true AND FD:[* TO 20240623] AND MD:unknown

retrieves 3,901 live trademarks filed prior to 24 June 2024 with the unknown mark drawing code.

Admittedly, not all of those 3,901 live trademarks are the fault of incomplete processing by Pre-Exam.  For example, there are multiple older dead registrations in the 81 series that TM Search still considers to be live registrations, plus there are some skeleton records in the 89-series that have yet to be populated with real data among those search results, but I expect that most of the 3,901 trademarks retrieved by that search are applications that Pre-Exam has yet to process.  (From my experience, Pre-Exam does NOT use the search system to double check whether they accidentally skipped their initial processing of applications.  Apparently USPTO management isn't checking either.)

Looking a little deeper at Madrid applications, the search

LD:true AND MD:unknown AND SN:79* AND FD:[* TO 20240623] NOT (WD:*)

retrieves 196 Madrid trademarks with the unknown mark drawing code filed prior to 6/24/24 that do NOT have wordmark entries.  Sorting those search results in increasing serial number order (to view them in the order received at the USPTO), I noticed multiple Madrid applications that looked suspiciously like standard character marks. Checking the raw applications on TSDR often (but not always) confirmed my standard character mark suspicions - that initial processing of Madrid applications failed to preserve the standard character claims and wordmark entries on USPTO systems for multiple older Madrid applications still awaiting processing by Pre-Exam.

Below is a listing of the first dozen such standard character marks with the false MD:unknown characteristic, curiously all received at the USPTO on 02/29/24.  All have the new application awaiting assignment to an examining attorney status on TSDR.  All need further processing by Pre-Exam.  I included the serial number, the filing date provided by the IB, the date the USPTO received the Madrid application, and the wordmark provided in the application that was ignored and excluded from both TSDR and TM Search.

#
SN
FD
USPTO Date
Wordmark Provided By IB
1
79390633
02/02/24
02/29/24
JULES VERNE
2
79390636
01/30/24
02/29/24
ACTIMARIS
3
79390637
02/06/24
02/29/24
FRICOFIN
4
79390638
02/02/24
02/29/24
KEPLER
5
79390646
01/22/24
02/29/24
TEPI PATCH
6
79390653
02/02/24
02/29/24
investengine
7
79390659
01/24/24
02/29/24
D-PYRE
8
79390660
01/31/24
02/29/24
ATAWA
9
79390661
01/31/24
02/29/24
SWEETZYME
10
79390662
02/01/24
02/29/24
INFINEO
11
79390664
01/26/24
02/29/24
Return to Shironagasu Island
12
79390666
02/07/24
02/29/24
FOUNTAIN FUEL

Why did the initial processing by the USPTO fail to recognize and preserve the standard characters claim when loading these (and presumably many others) Madrid applications to USPTO systems?

For your convenience, the search SN:( 79390633 79390636 79390637 79390638 79390646 79390653 79390659 79390660 79390661 79390662 79390664 79390666 ) retrieves those 12 Madrid filings where the USPTO failed to preserve the standard characters claim and provide the wordmarks on TSDR or TM Search. GEFGW?

Happy Trademarking,
Ken Boone

PS: The highest electronic application for 1/5/25 loaded to TM Search this morning is 98938472, so the 98-series has room for 36,527 more electronic filings (i.e., via TEAS or Trademark Center) before midnight on January 17th to avoid the necessity of starting a new series.

PPS: One live trademark registration in the 76 series has the MD:unknown condition, namely 76140440 (registration 2616797), with the mark consists of of the word IRINOX in stylized letters as the description of mark.  The next oldest live MD:unknown trademark (ignoring the noise records of the 81 and 89 series) is 97742991, a 5 Jan 2023 filing that was abandoned in error. It has been reinstated and is awaiting further action. I see no obvious action on this application since March 2023.  The search LD:true AND MD:unknown AND FD:[20230101 TO 20231231] NOT (SN:81* SN:89* ) retrieves 24 trademarks filed in 2023 that still await initial processing by Pre-Exam.  Some still have wordmarks, though wordmarks disappear any time a MD:unknown record is updated on TM Search.

#
SN
FiledDate
Wordmark
1
98670609
2023-12-20
2
98185711
2023-09-18
HOPLITO
3
98183363
2023-09-17
SHUYE
4
98183254
2023-09-16
AESVANITOP
5
97742991
2023-01-05
FLIPSHOPCART
6
79414064
2023-11-09
7
79413935
2023-11-09
8
79413805
2023-11-09
9
79413723
2023-12-01
10
79413227
2023-12-13
11
79413114
2023-10-24
12
79409484
2023-10-09
ATLAS COPCO GROUP
13
79409369
2023-12-05
FERRARI 499 GTB
14
79398769
2023-10-23
DEATH CAFE
15
79391549
2023-12-07
GIO+
16
79391536
2023-12-08
NOLIVADE
17
79391529
2023-12-01
FORETHIX
18
79391527
2023-11-06
19
79391521
2023-12-14
20
79391513
2023-12-22
RELATICS
21
79391104
2023-11-11
EQUAL
22
79390674
2023-12-20
F
23
79390673
2023-12-20
FTN
24
79382531
2023-07-17

________________________________
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: Monday, December 30, 2024 10:13 AM
To: E-Trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
Cc: Ken Boone <boondogles at hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] Trademark Search: Missing Wordmarks For New TEAS Special Form Drawings???

I've done some additional searching since Friday towards identifying when this missing wordmark phenomenon began.

The search UD:20241205 AND MD:unknown AND FM:* retrieves 509 trademarks.

The search UD:[20241206 TO *] AND MD:unknown retrieves 11,469 trademarks, but

the search UD:[20241206 TO *] AND MD:unknown AND FM:* does not retrieve any trademarks.

I conclude that for updates beginning December 6th and continuing through today's update, the Trademark Search update processing blocks the load of wordmark entries for trademarks having the UNKNOWN mark drawing code.  This change impacts TEAS and Madrid filings, whether live or dead.

While Carl thinks this change in USPTO processing was a coding blunder that should have been caught during testing, I'm thinking the change was intentional - that some USPTO manager requested and approved this change on Trademark Search - that the USPTO now requires Pre-Exam to review wordmarks and provide a valid mark drawing code for the wordmarks to be available on Trademark Search for searching - that inconsistencies for wordmarks between Trademark Search and TSDR for trademarks that have not been processed by Pre-Exam is NOT considered a problem.

Well, let's hope Carl is correct.

I'll be performing the UD:[20241206 TO *] AND MD:unknown AND FM:* search daily for the near future, but I am NOT optimistic that the USPTO will reverse the decision to exclude from Trademark Search wordmarks that haven't been reviewed and approved by Pre-Exam.

But there is good news, namely that this change on Trademark Search does not impact standard character marks.  Imagine not being able to search the wordmarks of standard character marks until Pre-Exam reviewed and approved those applications.

Happy New Year,
Ken Boone

________________________________

From: Carl Oppedahl <carl at oppedahl.com>
Sent: Friday, December 27, 2024 9:06 AM
To: For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice. <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] Trademark Search: Missing Wordmarks For New TEAS Special Form Drawings???

Thank you Ken for posting.
Like many of us old-timers in the trademark community, in an earlier life I did a lot of coding in several different programming languages.  Nowadays I find myself doing a lot of PHP coding (blog article<https://blog.oppedahl.com/how-to-find-a-php-programmer/>) for a variety of hobby projects.  I regularly make mistakes in my own coding, but then I realize my mistakes and I try to fix what I got wrong.
My main reaction to this recent posting by Ken is that the USPTO coders on these systems are simply not doing their jobs competently.   There are simple and straightforward things that competent coders can do to test their work before putting new code into production service.  And it is clear that the USPTO coders are failing to do such testing.  See the embarrassing results in this blog article from four months ago:  Trademark Office can’t handle its own characters<https://blog.oppedahl.com/trademark-office-cant-handle-its-own-characters/>.
On 12/27/2024 6:40 AM, Ken Boone via E-trademarks wrote:
I happened to notice that multiple recent TEAS applications that are NOT standard character marks do not have wordmark entries on Trademark Search, yet when I toggled to TSDR, most of the drawings that looked worthy of word marks had wordmark entries on TSDR.  This prompted the search

FD:20241220 AND LD:true NOT FM:*

that retrieves 609 TEAS applications filed last Friday that do not have wordmark entries on Trademark Search.  Per the table below, 23 of the first 25 trademarks (increasing serial number order) have wordmark entries on TSDR but not on Trademark Search. (I only checked the first 25 trademarks for that search.)

#
SN
Search WM
TSDR WM
1
98904955
POWERS'X
2
98911295
FEASTMATE
3
98911517
LOOPYDOO
4
98911546
H HERBALOGY
5
98912752
SANGA EATS
6
98913717
WINGED WOLF I…
7
98913792
MYY
8
98913992
TIJVZK
9
98913995
HOIFAANLONG
10
98913999
CAFE VIDA
11
98914005
HEOICYU
12
98914007
not recorded
13
98914008
HIIT WATER
14
98914009
REMIMPI
15
98914010
SUPREME FIRE S…
16
98914013
CW THE CUSTOM…
17
98914016
MODERN MADE
18
98914019
HEKBATSIU
19
98914024
not recorded
20
98914026
BLOEM
21
98914039
GUNGJOENG
22
98914042
DANNY JIA
23
98914043
GONGNAAMJYULOK
24
98914048
GOKZIJYUZAU
25
98914054
GOEKZAANG

While the wordmark entries on TSDR likely are the literal elements provided by in the raw applications that probably have NOT been reviewed by Pre-Exam, I still expected Trademark Search and TSDR would have matching wordmark entries.  After all, why would you expect the two systems to differ?

Yes, I've shared this wordmark inconsistency between TSDR and Trademark Search with the USPTO.  No, I have not researched how long these inconsistencies have been occurring.

Happy Trademarking,
Ken Boone

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250211/6ac27fe6/attachment.html>