[E-trademarks] Some Quality Control Checks/Suggestions Using Trademark Search

[Ken Boone]

Et>> ... 16  79390645 2024-02-06   I took a look at your example 16 quoted above.  Yes not only is it missing the drawing type, but it is also missing "mark literal elements".

Thank you for your interest, Carl.

[previously viewed                          Image for 79390645, select for more details]

You noticed 79390645, among the 449 Madrid trademarks retrieved by the first QC search, namely

SN:( /<79000000-79398813>/ ) AND MD:unknown AND LD:true

which is my QC search for isolating Madrid filings received at the USPTO prior to 1 July but still having the UNKNOWN mark drawing code which means Pre-Exam has NOT performed their initial processing.  But how can that be?  The trademark processing wait times page indicates that Pre-Exam does their initial processing of Madrid applications, on average, in 5 days.

That application was received on 29 February 2024.  The 24 April 2024 filing receipt shows LIGHT FOR THE WORLD was captured as the wordmark, but that wordmark entry somehow has since disappeared.

The IB apparently doesn't have anything like our mark drawing codes, so any trademark that is not a standard character mark defaults to having the UNKNOWN mark drawing code.

Then there's ...


[previously viewed                          Image for 79382531, select for more details]

79382531, the oldest trademark for the first QC search (having arrived at the USPTO on Nov. 02, 2023), may be a little more interesting.  It has no wordmark on TSDR, though the raw application from the IB has F Made in Germany Since 1845 as the wordmark.  The good news: it was assigned to an EA on Jan. 30, 2024, over a year ago.  Then again, nothing prompted the EA to provide a valid mark drawing code (and design codes), though such activities are not EA job requirements.  I counted 18 entries in the prosecution history, though NEW APPLICATION OFFICE SUPPLIED DATA ENTERED (the indicator that Pre-Exam did their initial processing) is not among those 18 prosecution history entries.

For my 4 QC searches, namely

Search

02/11/25
SN:( /<79000000-79398813>/ ) AND MD:unknown AND LD:true
449
FD:[* TO 20240630] AND MD:unknown AND LD:true NOT (SN:79* SN:89* )
79
(SN:( /<79000000-79398813>/ ) OR (FD:[* TO 20240630])) AND LD:true NOT ON:*
21
(SN:( /<79000000-79398813>/ ) OR (FD:[* TO 20240630])) AND LD:true NOT (GS:* SN:89*)
24


I count a total of 553 trademarks among the 4 QC searches (as some trademarks are retrieved by multiple searches).

I expect to track any changes in the hit counts daily to see if there is any activity towards addressing the QC issues by the USPTO, but past performance suggests that little will change in the near future.  But miracles can happen, right?

I had been tracking changes for the

SN:/<79000001-79403000>/ AND LD:true AND MD:unknown AND FD:[* TO 20240601]

search.  That search retrieved 472 trademarks on 01/13/25, versus 466 today, so 6 Madrid records had the UNKNOWN mark drawing code revised in the last 4 weeks.  I've since revised the serial number range downward, as some of the Madrid filings were received after 30 June, and I was concerned that the USPTO uses the mailroom date (the date received at the USPTO from the IB) versus the filing date provided by the IB when tracking their progress in processing Madrid filings.

Assuming the USPTO makes any progress with these 4 QC searches, I'm relatively confident that I can construct additional QC searches.  Case in point, the search LD:true NOT FD:* retrieves 3 live trademarks having NO FILING DATE entry.  Oooops!  Better call Homeland Security - we have undocumented trademarks in the trademark system. ;-}


_______________________
Ken Boone


________________________________
From: Carl Oppedahl <carl at oppedahl.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2025, 1:06 PM
To: For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice. <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] Some Quality Control Checks/Suggestions Using Trademark Search

On 2/11/2025 11:46 AM, Ken Boone via E-trademarks wrote:
FYI - I just provided the USPTO some quality control checks that could be performed via Trademark Search.

Do you believe in miracles?

16
79390645

2024-02-06


Thank you Ken for posting.

I took a look at your example 16 quoted above.  Yes not only is it missing the drawing type, but it is also missing "mark literal elements".

I have plugged a few of these into my IPBadger.  Maybe if somebody at the USPTO corrects the lapse, I will get notified.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250211/2f9a033d/attachment.html>