[E-trademarks] Trademark Revival Pendency (Notice of allowance)

[Ryan Bethell]

I suppose we could paper file, or else contact the examiner and have them
chew out the paralegals in the revival division. If your docketing is
hardcoded to the original Notice of allowance (and your internal record
that the extension was filed), you should still be at least aware of the
dates, but if you are relying on the extension approval, then it
completely bricks your internal docketing.

I've notified a contact at USPTO policy and a few examiners of the issue,
but no word yet on a fix.

On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 1:54 PM Jamie Shelden <justtrademarks at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Interesting Ryan.  I had one come up last week.  I received the Notice of
> Approval of Extension Request the same day that the next extension was
> due.  Because we hadn’t received the approval of extension, the deadline
> for the next extension didn’t come up on our docket, so we missed it again
> 🤬.
>
> I had another read of the approval notice and it specifically states that *Applicant
> must continue to file extension requests every six months…*But, if TEAS
> won’t allow you file the extension request, what option do you have?
>
>
> [image: Screenshot 2025-02-04 at 5.42.30 PM.png]
>
>
> On Feb 25, 2025, at 12:40 PM, Ryan Bethell via E-trademarks <
> e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:
>
> Word to the wise --
>
> I have several applications where revivals were filed for notices of
> allowance, where no extension has been yet granted, dating back to October
> of 2024. Something fishy is going on at the USPTO regarding the approval of
> extensions filed with a revival. This is quite frustrating, because we are
> already coming up on the next sixth-month deadline to file either a
> statement of use or extension for several applications, and I cannot file
> either through TEAS until the previous extension is granted.
>
> If you have clients that are nearly ready to prove use, it may be better
> to hold off and file the extension and SOU together with the revival rather
> than filing the revival immediately and waiting on specimens. The
> exceedingly long processing times create issues with very tight (or
> non-existent) online filing windows.
>
> Warm Regards,
> Ryan Bethell
> Managing Partner
> The Ideas Law Firm PLLC
> P: 833-863-5483
> Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ryan-bethell-70a04024
>
> www.TrademarkElite.com <http://www.trademarkelite.com/>
>
> This e-mail may contain information that is *privileged* or *confidential*.
> If you received this communication in error, please immediately notify the
> sender and delete/destroy all copies of this correspondence. Thank you.
> --
> E-trademarks mailing list
> E-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com
> http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com
>
>
>

-- 
Ryan Bethell
Managing Partner
The Ideas Law Firm PLLC
P: 833-863-5483
Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ryan-bethell-70a04024

www.TrademarkElite.com

This e-mail may contain information that is *privileged* or *confidential*.
If you received this communication in error, please immediately notify the
sender and delete/destroy all copies of this correspondence. Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250225/15ed3fd7/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Screenshot 2025-02-04 at 5.42.30 PM.png
Type: image/png
Size: 190398 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250225/15ed3fd7/attachment.png>