[E-trademarks] unsubscribe

Sun Feb 23 17:27:32 UTC 2025

Unsubscribe NKennedy at CantorColburn.com

-----Original Message-----
From: E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> On Behalf Of e-trademarks-request at oppedahl-lists.com
Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2025 12:00 PM
To: e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com
Subject: E-trademarks Digest, Vol 16, Issue 22

Send E-trademarks mailing list submissions to
        e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com

or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        e-trademarks-request at oppedahl-lists.com

You can reach the person managing the list at
        e-trademarks-owner at oppedahl-lists.com

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of E-trademarks digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Some Quality Control Checks/Suggestions Using Trademark
      Search (Ken Boone)
   2. Delay in Design Code Assignment (Keller, Scott)
   3. Re: Delay in Design Code Assignment (Ken Boone)
   4. Re: Delay in Design Code Assignment (Carl Oppedahl)
   5. Re: Delay in Design Code Assignment (Jessica R Murray)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2025 19:53:35 +0000
From: Ken Boone <boondogles at hotmail.com>
To: "E-Trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com"
        <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] Some Quality Control Checks/Suggestions
        Using Trademark Search
Message-ID:
        <SN6PR14MB22377EC3D181F8007E0E4EDDD5C72 at SN6PR14MB2237.namprd14.prod.outlook.com>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

>> ... I would have thought that somebody in management would have caught on years ago that this needs to get paid attention to. ...

Carl's comments remind me of a brief period in the 2000s when I was acting manager of the trademark search systems (TESS for external customers and X-Search for internal users).  Suddenly, I was given access to multiple internal reports that were automatically generated weekly.  (Yes, USPTO management has multiple system audit reports generated regularly, though I'm not aware of the specifics of those reports, as management does not share those reports.) One such report was a mismatch report between TRAM (the status side of TSDR, not the documents side of TSDR) and X-search.  That report was generated on Tuesdays.   Can you guess what I saw?  Take a minute to think about it.

If you guessed that one of the categories of mismatches was registrations on TRAM that did not appear on X-Search, you guessed correctly.  Literally, just after midnight on Monday nights, an automated task loads the new registrations for that Tuesday to TRAM, but since the X-Search update for Tuesday began hours earlier, those thousands of new registrations did not get loaded to X-Search until the Wednesday morning update, so every registration number issued that Tuesday was flagged as missing from X-Search in that weekly report, making that section of the report essentially useless.  Fairly promptly, I requested that report to be generated on Wednesday morning instead of Tuesday morning.  As you likely guessed, that promptly reduced the count of registration mismatches between TRAM and X-Search, typically to at most single digits, allowing me to research those mismatches and work towards having them corrected before the next report.

When the new manager for my section was selected (and took over management of TESS and X-Search), that new manager took exception to my revision of that report and ordered it to be returned to Tuesday morning. Once again, that weekly report returned to generating thousands of registration number mismatches between TRAM and X-Search every Tuesday.  Apparently, management preferred the large number of registration number mismatches (that were mostly just the new registrations issued that week) in that weekly report.  Go figure.

Here's today's update to my QC report (except I don't bother sharing weekend updates with the USPTO).  I had to correct a few of the searches since the results didn't match my master list of irregularities.  Specifically, searches 3 & 4 were returning some false hits, namely a few Madrid applications received at the USPTO after July 9th were appearing as problem trademarks.  I noticed those errors yesterday afternoon.  This morning, multiple corrections were noted for the 7th search, including SN 88629495, except that wordmark did include an accurate occurrence of the ? (question mark character), so I had to manually exclude that record from today's results.

#

QC Search

Today

Previously
Change
1
        SN:( /<79000000-79399439>/ ) AND MD:unknown AND LD:true         456             457             -1
2
        FD:[* TO 20240708] AND MD:unknown AND LD:true NOT (SN:79* SN:89* )              41              66              -25
3
        ( SN:( /<79000000-79399439>/ ) OR (FD:[* TO 20240708] NOT SN:79*) ) AND LD:true NOT ON:*                8               8               0
4
        ( SN:( /<79000000-79399439>/ ) OR (FD:[* TO 20240708] NOT SN:79*  )  ) AND LD:true NOT (GS:* SN:89*)            11              12              -1
5
         LD:true NOT  FD:* COMMENT:"Live But No Filing Date - 98305614 97977848 97977833"               4               4               0
6
        LR:true NOT LD:true      Comment:"Live Registrations But Actually Dead"         20              20              0
7

SN:( 75722562 79090344 79099220 79105611 79107274 79294728 79294737 79310411 79331990 79336276 79366512 79384354 79391101 85333307 86500939 88128956 88629495 90444281 90555410 90979979 97667505 97728652 97975969 98176859 98975063 ) AND LD:true AND WD:(  /.*\?.*/  ) NOT SN:( 88629495 )
        13              25              -12
8

LD:true AND MD:(*1* *3* *4* *5* ) NOT ( WD:* FM:* )   COM:"Missing Wordmark"
98

98

0
9

DC:( 030116 )  AND DD:( "heads of cats" )  AND LD:true

5

5

0
10

LD:true AND MD:*1* AND FD:[20031102 TO *]   COM:"New Typed Drawings???"
2

2

0
11

WD:( *?* *?* *?* *?* *?* *?* *?* *?* *?* *?* *?* *?* *?*) AND LD:true AND MD:(TYPED STANDARD)

20

20

0

Happy Trademarking,
Ken Boone
________________________________
From: Carl Oppedahl <carl at oppedahl.com>
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2025 11:18 AM
To: For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice. <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] Fw: Some Quality Control Checks/Suggestions Using Trademark Search

Thank you Ken for posting.  Several things about this situation at the Trademark Office sadden me.

  *   A first thing is, this is the sort of thing computers are supposed to be good at.  Yes, if some suggested change at the Trademark Office were to call for hiring new staff, I could imagine management doing foot-dragging.  But somebody at the Trademark Office could just set this up as a cron job and it could generate the report periodically in an automatic way.  Indeed I bet in a couple of hours I could craft some PHP script that would do this in an automatic recurring way.
  *   A second thing is, why does it need external inputs for this to get addressed at the Trademark Office.  I would have thought that somebody in management would have caught on years ago that this needs to get paid attention to.  Every one of these cases, when it does finally reach the desk of an EA, will make lots of extra work for that EA (assuming the EA is alert enough to pay attention).  And in the (sorry, might happen) category of an EA failing to notice the problem, the result might well be a grant of a registration with mistakes in it.
  *   A third thing is, any time an EA examines a newly filed case, the examination necessarily requires a search of Office records.  But each of these cases has defects that might lead to its failing to turn up in a search of Office records, depending on what is being searched for.  This, too, can lead to cases getting registered that ought never to have gotten registered.

I think probably anybody who looks at this situation would likely be sad for the same three reasons.  I realize I am just stating the obvious here.

On 2/21/2025 10:00 AM, Ken Boone via E-trademarks wrote:
Today's report.  (The new QC search may look familiar.  Yes, I intentionally omitted the new ????????? standard character mark.)

________________________________
From: Ken Boone <boondogles at hotmail.com><mailto:boondogles at hotmail.com>
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2025 10:55 AM
To: TMFeedback <tmfeedback at uspto.gov><mailto:tmfeedback at uspto.gov>
Subject: Some Quality Control Checks/Suggestions Using Trademark Search

Only the 10th search (typed drawings in the standard character era) shows significant progress since yesterday.

#

QC Search

Today

Originally

Change
1

SN:( /<79000000-79399439>/ ) AND MD:unknown AND LD:true

457

449

8
2

FD:[* TO 20240708] AND MD:unknown AND LD:true NOT (SN:79* SN:89* )

66

79

-13
3

(SN:( /<79000000-79399439>/ ) OR (FD:[* TO 20240708])) AND LD:true NOT ON:*

19

21

-2
4

(SN:( /<79000000-79399439>/ ) OR (FD:[* TO 20240708])) AND LD:true NOT (GS:* SN:89*)

23

24

-1
5

 LD:true NOT  FD:* COMMENT:"Live But No Filing Date - 98305614 97977848 97977833"

4

3

1
6

LR:true NOT LD:true      Comment:"Live Registrations But Actually Dead"

20

20

0
7

SN:( 75722562 79090344 79099220 79105611 79107274 79294728 79294737 79310411 79331990 79336276 79366512 79384354 79391101 85333307 86500939 88128956 88629495 90444281 90555410 90979979 97667505 97728652 97975969 98176859 98975063 ) AND LD:true AND WD:*?*

25

25

0
8

LD:true AND MD:(*1* *3* *4* *5* ) NOT ( WD:* FM:* )   COM:"Missing Wordmark"

98

99

-1
9

DC:( 030116 )  AND DD:( "heads of cats" )  AND LD:true

5

5

0
10

LD:true AND MD:*1* AND FD:[20031102 TO *]   COM:"New Typed Drawings???"

2

17

-15
11

WD:( *?* *?* *?* *?* *?* *?* *?* *?* *?* *?* *?* *?* *?*) AND LD:true AND MD:(TYPED STANDARD)

20

20

0

The new search (#11) identifies 20 live typed drawing or standard character marks with unexpected characters occurring in the wordmark entries. (Yes, I'm sure there are more irregularities among the live standard character marks - that this QC search is incomplete and can be improved.)  For your convenience, here is a list of those 20 typed drawings or standard character mark with unexpected characters in the wordmark entries.

#

SN

FD

Wordmark
1

79166932

09/30/14

?

PRESTA?
2

79235429

02/15/18

?

SEC?URE
3

79264585

03/04/19

?

STORE?CHAIN
4

88751137

01/08/20

?

NB? NOTHING BUT BOURBON
5

79285188

01/30/20

?

VESTAMID E?X
6

79288581

01/30/20

?

E?X
7

79292893

07/03/20

?

P? PULSE
8

79300503

11/11/20

?

CHAMP?
9

90515424

02/06/21

?

PERK?O
10

79309572

02/08/21

?

X?
11

90865200

08/04/21

?

CURIO NO?MERY
12

97786933

02/08/23

?

KASTRA ELI??N
13

79366806

02/23/23

?

SB?
14

79366809

02/23/23

?

ULTRA-SB?
15

79386509

09/05/23

E?
16

79388132

12/19/23

BELIGHT?
17

79409085

01/19/24

A?-SHIELD
18

79400216

05/23/24

EI?
19

79401538

05/23/24

EMPOWERED INTELLIGENCE ?
20

79416052

11/28/24

PI?CH DUAL?DRIVE

You likely noticed that Madrid applications dominate this list.  Perhaps the software for Madrid applications could use further enhancements to check that all characters occurring in standard character marks comply with USPTO's standards for standard character marks?

Most of these trademarks have either the superscript ? or ? characters in the wordmark, but those characters are NOT included on the USPTO's standard character list (https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/standard-character-set), plus section 807.04(b)    When Special Form Drawing Is Required of the TMEP states:

A special form drawing is required for marks that contain superscripts, subscripts, exponents, or other characters that are not in the USPTO?s standard character set.   In re AFG Indus. Inc., 17 USPQ2d 1162, 1164 (TTAB 1990) (requiring special form drawing for raised numeral).  See TMEP ?807.03(b)<https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/current#/current/TMEP-800d1e1215.html> regarding the USPTO?s standard character set.

Sadly, for the occurrences of the superscript ? or ? characters in the wordmark, many of the trademarks are already registered.  I'm guessing that complicates removal of the standard character claim and using the STYLIZED TEXT mark drawing code for these trademarks?  Maybe a Public Note could be added to TSDR for these registrations to admit that the standard characters claim was included in these registrations in error?

For #3, STORE?CHAIN, the ? character is not included in the standard character list, but this trademark is registered, so maybe again a Public Note could be added to TSDR for these registrations to admit that the standard characters claim was included in these registrations in error?

For #11, CURIO NO?MERY, the drawing shows Curio N?mery, where ??is the standard character with decimal value 333 and is described as omacr - latin small letter o with macron.  Now that TRAM/TSDR can handle characters with decimal values over 255, I recommend manually correcting the wordmark to CURIO N?MERY ASAP!

For #12, KASTRA ELI??N, the ?? sequence is particularly annoying (the unexpected ? and the ? invalid character for a standard character mark.  The drawing shows K?STRA ELI?N and I recommend manually correcting the wordmark to K?STRA ELI?N as TRAM/TSDR can now handle characters with decimal values over 255.

For #15 thru #20 with superscript ? or ? characters in the wordmark entries, I recommend cancelling the standard character claims and converting the trademarks to stylized text ASAP to prevent these trademarks from becoming registrations with the standard character claim.

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

________________________________

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250222/e2fabf5c/attachment-0001.htm>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2025 12:50:08 +0000
From: "Keller, Scott" <SKeller at wnj.com>
To: "e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com"
        <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
Subject: [E-trademarks] Delay in Design Code Assignment
Message-ID: <ff7757f2a6844240a98439fc4c3f7324 at wnj.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Has anyone else noticed that it is taking a long time for design codes to be assigned.  I just got a design code email on an application I filed August 1, 2025.  It seems to me this used to happen within days or at least a week of filing.  This had an effect on other applications I filed because I found with two other applications that, while the application was in TSDR, I could not prepopulate a Madrid application.  I sent emails  to Trademark assistance and after I received the design code designation email, the Madrid would prepopulate.  It is going to be an issue for Madrid applications if this is the standard practice now to wait over 6 months before issuing the design code designations and prepopulation cannot occur until then.  I know I can just fill in the whole Madrid application, but that is time consuming and can lead to errors that would not occur with pre-population.

[cid:image001.jpg at 01DB85C7.8D194030]

R. Scott Keller | Partner
Warner Norcross + Judd LLP
1500 Warner Building, 150 Ottawa Ave N.W., Grand Rapids, MI 49503 d 616.752.2479 | m 616.485.9975 | skeller at wnj.com<mailto:skeller at wnj.com> | profile<http://www.wnj.com/scott_keller> | V-Card<http://www.wnj.com/Attorney/VCard.vcf?AttorneyID=2189>

This email and any attachments are solely for the confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or act in reliance on it or any attachments. If you received this email by mistake, please notify us immediately by email, and promptly delete this email and any attachments.

The attorney-client and work product privileges are not waived by the transmission of this email.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250223/10252e1c/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 3230 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250223/10252e1c/attachment-0001.jpg>

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2025 15:08:37 +0000
From: Ken Boone <boondogles at hotmail.com>
To: "For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek
        legal advice." <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] Delay in Design Code Assignment
Message-ID:
        <SN6PR14MB22375310AC48B695345AAB4BD5C12 at SN6PR14MB2237.namprd14.prod.outlook.com>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

>From my Some Quality Control Checks/Suggestions Using Trademark Search posting yesterday, the search SN:( /<79000000-79399439>/ ) AND MD:unknown AND LD:true??retrieved?456 Madrid applications received at the USPTO prior to 9 July 2024 that still have the UNKNOWN mark drawing code - that Pre-Exam has yet to provide the appropriate mark drawing code (and design codes) to those trademarks, some of which are likely already under examination.  Similarly, the search FD:[* TO 20240708] AND MD:unknown AND LD:true NOT (SN:79* SN:89* )?retrieves 41 US applications filed prior to 9 July 2024 that still have not been processed by Pre-Exam.

It has been my experience that if an EA gets assigned an application that Pre-Exam has skipped, the EA may not bother to update the mark drawing code or add appropriate design codes, as that is not their job.  Instead, the EA will often just look at the raw application.  I saw an application recently where the EA did NOT notice that the GS entries from the application were missing on TM Search and TSDR status listing and approved the trademark for publication.  The application then was now stalled for further review, likely because the publication review noticed the GS text was missing and could not be printed in the OG.  I dare say that application was one of the applications that was retrieved by one of the QC searches in my posting yesterday.
???
Maybe now you now see some significance for that QC Search posting?

Ken Boone
________________________________
From: E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> on behalf of Keller, Scott via E-trademarks <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2025 6:50 AM
To: e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
Cc: Keller, Scott <SKeller at wnj.com>
Subject: [E-trademarks] Delay in Design Code Assignment

Has anyone else noticed that it is taking a long time for design codes to be assigned.  I just got a design code email on an application I filed August 1, 2025.  It seems to me this used to happen within days or at least a week of filing.  This had an effect on other applications I filed because I found with two other applications that, while the application was in TSDR, I could not prepopulate a Madrid application.  I sent emails  to Trademark assistance and after I received the design code designation email, the Madrid would prepopulate.  It is going to be an issue for Madrid applications if this is the standard practice now to wait over 6 months before issuing the design code designations and prepopulation cannot occur until then.  I know I can just fill in the whole Madrid application, but that is time consuming and can lead to errors that would not occur with pre-population.

[cid:image001.jpg at 01DB85C7.8D194030]

R. Scott Keller | Partner
Warner Norcross + Judd LLP
1500 Warner Building, 150 Ottawa Ave N.W., Grand Rapids, MI 49503 d 616.752.2479 | m 616.485.9975 | skeller at wnj.com<mailto:skeller at wnj.com> | profile<http://www.wnj.com/scott_keller> | V-Card<http://www.wnj.com/Attorney/VCard.vcf?AttorneyID=2189>

This email and any attachments are solely for the confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or act in reliance on it or any attachments. If you received this email by mistake, please notify us immediately by email, and promptly delete this email and any attachments.

The attorney-client and work product privileges are not waived by the transmission of this email.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250223/b4a0b9c2/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 3230 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250223/b4a0b9c2/attachment-0001.jpg>

------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2025 08:33:23 -0700
From: Carl Oppedahl <carl at oppedahl.com>
To: For trademark "practitioners." This is not for laypersons to seek
        legal "advice." <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] Delay in Design Code Assignment
Message-ID: <338cdd3d-8d8a-4f1f-89f6-c5b1b27b1a6f at oppedahl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"

Thank you Scott and thank you Ken for posting.

I don't know enough about the internal workflow on this to make a confident guess as to the mechanism of action here for each of the various quality failures that Ken has been tracking (one of which Scott highlighted for us).? For example consider the quality failure that Scott bemoaned -- failure to assign design codes promptly.

  * /*Guess A. */Maybe the workflow for assignment of design codes has
    for years gone to some particular workgroup within the Trademark
    Office, and maybe starting a year ago or so, that workgroup got
    starved of resources.? So the work is just not getting done and is
    now backlogged worse than half a year.
  * /*Guess B. */Maybe the workflow for assignment of design codes has
    for years gone to some particular workgroup within the Trademark
    Office, and maybe starting a year ago or so, that task got
    reassigned to a contractor, and the contractor is failing to do the
    job promptly.? Meaning, among other things, the Trademark Office is
    not competently administering the contract.? So the work is just not
    getting done and is now backlogged worse than half a year.
  * /*Guess C. */Maybe the workflow for assignment of design codes has
    for years gone to some contractor, and maybe a year ago or so the
    Trademark Office decided to bring the task back in-house, and the
    Trademark Office is failing to handle this well.? So the work is
    just not getting done and is now backlogged worse than half a year.
  * /*Guess D. */Maybe the team of workers is pretty small, let's say
    five workers.? And design-code cases with a last digit of 0 and 1 go
    to worker 1, and design-code cases with a last digit of 2 or 3 go to
    worker 2, and so on.? And a year ago or so, workers 2 and 4 retired
    or got promoted or something, and very little attention has been
    given to the docket for those two workers.

For no reason other than guessing, I point to Guess C. Recall that there was the big push at the USPTO maybe five years ago to cut off some of Reed Publishing's most lucrative contracts, namely the contracts for typesetting and printing physical patents and physical trademark registration certificates.?? The likely souring of the relationship with Reed probably had knock-on effects.? For example the handling of incoming faxes at the patent central fax number had been outsourced to Reed and now there is a three-month backlog on the patent side with handling of incoming faxes.

So what if Reed had, until say a year ago, been the outsourced contractor for assignment of design codes?? And maybe now that has soured and maybe has been (unsuccessfully) been brought back in-house.

On 2/23/2025 8:08 AM, Ken Boone via E-trademarks wrote:
> From my Some Quality Control Checks/Suggestions Using Trademark
> Search?posting yesterday, the search *SN:( /<79000000-79399439>/ ) AND
> MD:unknown AND LD:true*??retrieved?*456 *Madrid applications received
> at the USPTO prior to 9?July 2024 that *_still have the UNKNOWN mark
> drawing code - that Pre-Exam has yet to provide the appropriate mark
> drawing code (and design codes) to those trademarks_*, some of which
> are likely already under examination.? Similarly, the search *FD:[* TO
> 20240708] AND MD:unknown AND LD:true NOT (SN:79* SN:89* )?*retrieves
> *41*?US applications filed prior to 9 July 2024 that still have not
> been processed by Pre-Exam.
>
> It has been my experience that if an EA gets assigned an application
> that Pre-Exam has skipped, the EA may not bother to update the mark
> drawing code or add appropriate design codes, as that is not their
> job.? Instead, the EA will often just look at the raw application.? I
> saw an application recently where the EA did NOT notice that the GS
> entries from the application were missing on TM Search and TSDR status
> listing and approved the trademark for publication.? The application
> then was now stalled for further review, likely because the
> publication review noticed the GS text was missing and could not be
> printed in the OG.? I dare say that application was one of the
> applications that was retrieved by one of the QC searches in my
> posting yesterday.
> ???
> Maybe now you now see some significance for that QC Search posting?
>
> Ken Boone
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> *From:* E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> on
> behalf of Keller, Scott via E-trademarks
> <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> *Sent:* Sunday, February 23, 2025 6:50 AM
> *To:* e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com
> <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> *Cc:* Keller, Scott <SKeller at wnj.com>
> *Subject:* [E-trademarks] Delay in Design Code Assignment Has anyone
> else noticed that it is taking a long time for design codes to be
> assigned.? I just got a design code email on an application I filed
> August 1, 2025.? It seems to me this used to happen within days or at
> least a week of filing.? This had an effect on other applications I
> filed because I found with two other applications that, while the
> application was in TSDR, I could not prepopulate a Madrid
> application.? I sent emails to Trademark assistance and after I
> received the design code designation email, the Madrid would
> prepopulate.? It is going to be an issue for Madrid applications if
> this is the standard practice now to wait over 6 months before issuing
> the design code designations and prepopulation cannot occur until
> then.? I know I can just fill in the whole Madrid application, but
> that is time consuming and can lead to errors that would not occur
> with pre-population.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250223/1c3e74a4/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4751 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250223/1c3e74a4/attachment-0001.p7s>

------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2025 15:53:26 +0000
From: Jessica R Murray <jrmurray at syr.edu>
To: "For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek
        legal advice." <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] Delay in Design Code Assignment
Message-ID:
        <DM6PR01MB487362ED13E51F27815FE851C0C12 at DM6PR01MB4873.prod.exchangelabs.com>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

My guess is that it is related to this backlog in Pre-Exam:

Trademark Processing Times
Average
Target
Pre-Examination Unit
TEAS
196 days
10 days

https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/application-timeline

Jessica R. Murray
(pronouns she/her/hers)
Director, Transactional Law Clinic
Associate Teaching Professor
Syracuse University College of Law

Zoom Link  https://syracuseuniversity.zoom.us/my/jessica.r.murray

T 315.443.4582  F 315.443.3636
jrmurray at syr.edu

Dineen Hall, 950 Irving Ave., Syracuse, NY 13244 law.syr.edu

Syracuse University
________________________________
From: E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> on behalf of Carl Oppedahl via E-trademarks <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2025 10:33 AM
To: For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice. <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
Cc: Carl Oppedahl <carl at oppedahl.com>
Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] Delay in Design Code Assignment

Thank you Scott and thank you Ken for posting.

I don't know enough about the internal workflow on this to make a confident guess as to the mechanism of action here for each of the various quality failures that Ken has been tracking (one of which Scott highlighted for us).  For example consider the quality failure that Scott bemoaned -- failure to assign design codes promptly.

  *   Guess A.  Maybe the workflow for assignment of design codes has for years gone to some particular workgroup within the Trademark Office, and maybe starting a year ago or so, that workgroup got starved of resources.  So the work is just not getting done and is now backlogged worse than half a year.
  *   Guess B.  Maybe the workflow for assignment of design codes has for years gone to some particular workgroup within the Trademark Office, and maybe starting a year ago or so, that task got reassigned to a contractor, and the contractor is failing to do the job promptly.  Meaning, among other things, the Trademark Office is not competently administering the contract.  So the work is just not getting done and is now backlogged worse than half a year.
  *   Guess C.  Maybe the workflow for assignment of design codes has for years gone to some contractor, and maybe a year ago or so the Trademark Office decided to bring the task back in-house, and the Trademark Office is failing to handle this well.  So the work is just not getting done and is now backlogged worse than half a year.
  *   Guess D.  Maybe the team of workers is pretty small, let's say five workers.  And design-code cases with a last digit of 0 and 1 go to worker 1, and design-code cases with a last digit of 2 or 3 go to worker 2, and so on.  And a year ago or so, workers 2 and 4 retired or got promoted or something, and very little attention has been given to the docket for those two workers.

For no reason other than guessing, I point to Guess C.  Recall that there was the big push at the USPTO maybe five years ago to cut off some of Reed Publishing's most lucrative contracts, namely the contracts for typesetting and printing physical patents and physical trademark registration certificates.   The likely souring of the relationship with Reed probably had knock-on effects.  For example the handling of incoming faxes at the patent central fax number had been outsourced to Reed and now there is a three-month backlog on the patent side with handling of incoming faxes.

So what if Reed had, until say a year ago, been the outsourced contractor for assignment of design codes?  And maybe now that has soured and maybe has been (unsuccessfully) been brought back in-house.

On 2/23/2025 8:08 AM, Ken Boone via E-trademarks wrote:
>From my Some Quality Control Checks/Suggestions Using Trademark Search posting yesterday, the search SN:( /<79000000-79399439>/ ) AND MD:unknown AND LD:true??retrieved?456 Madrid applications received at the USPTO prior to 9 July 2024 that still have the UNKNOWN mark drawing code - that Pre-Exam has yet to provide the appropriate mark drawing code (and design codes) to those trademarks, some of which are likely already under examination.  Similarly, the search FD:[* TO 20240708] AND MD:unknown AND LD:true NOT (SN:79* SN:89* )?retrieves 41 US applications filed prior to 9 July 2024 that still have not been processed by Pre-Exam.

It has been my experience that if an EA gets assigned an application that Pre-Exam has skipped, the EA may not bother to update the mark drawing code or add appropriate design codes, as that is not their job.  Instead, the EA will often just look at the raw application.  I saw an application recently where the EA did NOT notice that the GS entries from the application were missing on TM Search and TSDR status listing and approved the trademark for publication.  The application then was now stalled for further review, likely because the publication review noticed the GS text was missing and could not be printed in the OG.  I dare say that application was one of the applications that was retrieved by one of the QC searches in my posting yesterday.
???
Maybe now you now see some significance for that QC Search posting?

Ken Boone
________________________________
From: E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com><mailto:e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> on behalf of Keller, Scott via E-trademarks <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com><mailto:e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2025 6:50 AM
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: Keller, Scott <SKeller at wnj.com><mailto:SKeller at wnj.com>
Subject: [E-trademarks] Delay in Design Code Assignment

Has anyone else noticed that it is taking a long time for design codes to be assigned.  I just got a design code email on an application I filed August 1, 2025.  It seems to me this used to happen within days or at least a week of filing.  This had an effect on other applications I filed because I found with two other applications that, while the application was in TSDR, I could not prepopulate a Madrid application.  I sent emails  to Trademark assistance and after I received the design code designation email, the Madrid would prepopulate.  It is going to be an issue for Madrid applications if this is the standard practice now to wait over 6 months before issuing the design code designations and prepopulation cannot occur until then.  I know I can just fill in the whole Madrid application, but that is time consuming and can lead to errors that would not occur with pre-population.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250223/e5c5e0d1/attachment-0001.htm>

------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

E-trademarks mailing list
E-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com
http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com

------------------------------

End of E-trademarks Digest, Vol 16, Issue 22
********************************************
This transmission, and any attached files, may contain information from the law firm of Cantor Colburn LLP which is confidential and/or legally privileged. Such information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom this transmission is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this transmitted information is strictly prohibited, that copies of this transmission and any attached files should be deleted from your disk directories immediately, and that any printed copies of this transmission or attached files should be returned to this firm. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us by telephone or e-mail immediately, and we will arrange for the return to Cantor Colburn LLP of any printed copies.