[E-trademarks] E-trademarks Digest, Vol 16, Issue 26

Thu Feb 27 20:05:49 UTC 2025

Diane,

You raise some interesting points.

You point out that retail services require an investment.  But so does 
licensing a brand: typically there has already been large scale 
marketing and large retail sales by the licensor. These cost more than 
setting up a store.

You point out that visiting customers can shop for goods. But licensees 
pay royalties, so there is also payment.

The licensor is not offering negotiation services or legal advice. The 
offer to potential licensees is to rent (pay royalty for) the right to 
use the trademark to increase their sales. How is this different from 
renting a wheel barrow for a construction site (which is a service)?

Regards,

Tony

IP Business Law, Inc.
320 via Pasqual
Redondo Beach, CA 90277
(310)377-5171
www.calrestitution.com

On 2/27/2025 11:26 AM, Diane Gardner via E-trademarks wrote:
> I still do not think that is a direct correlation.  Identifying branded services requires that you offer those services to third parties. That constitutes commercial use of a mark. Typically, any third party that comes into contact with advertising for the branded services is a potential customer.
>
> In the particular case of licensing here, licensing services are not being offered...a license to use the mark is being offered. I feel that those are very separate and distinct things.
>
> What commercial services are provided to the potential licensee?  Clearly the party offering the license is not providing legal services to the potential licensee - that would be a conflict of interest.  The potential licensee would have its own representation (perhaps by a party offering branded licensing services).
>
> It appears that it is simply a business negotiation/transaction, not a brand of services commercially offered to potentially any third party.  The owner deals only with third parties that want to license the owner's mark.  And again, entering into a license agreement is not the same as providing "licensing services."  No services are offered to any old third parties seeking licensing services for entering into a license agreement a different party.
>
> How would the mark be used commercially to identify a brand of licensing services?  It appears that it is the mark itself that is the subject of the potential license.
>
> So, I disagree that "licensing is to third parties in the same way that shopping is to third parties."  Providing branded retail services directly benefits any interested party by enabling retail shopping for whatever goods are made available.  The services may include, e.g., setting up a storefront, keeping stock on-hand, displaying items for sale, conducting sales transactions, etc. It doesn't matter that the store may sell only goods made by its owner.  That's the distinction between commercial use of a mark for goods as opposed to services.
>
> I do not see how entering into a licensee agreement for a mark constitutes that mark being a brand of licensing services.  If any services are provided that are remotely related to "licensing services (and I do not believe that there are)," they are for the benefit the potential licensor, not the potential licensee - therefore it is not commercial use of the mark. This is especially true if the potential licensor has its own outside counsel handling the negotiations/drafting, etc.
>
> If the licensor is a party in an enforcement proceeding, should it also claim "trademark litigation services?" How about "trademark renewal services?"  You can see where I'm going with this analogy.
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Diane L. Gardner
> Reg. No. 36,518
> _____________________________________________________________
> Please note our new corporate address as of February 1, 2023:
> Mastermind IP Law P.C., 440 N. Barranca Ave. #6387, Covina, CA 91723
> 760.294.5160 tel. 706.955.9666 tel. 803.226.0741 tel.  ▪diane at mmip.com  e-mail
> CA Lic. No. 196214   DC Lic. No. 470855   USPTO Reg. No. 36518
>
> Please note our expedited mail processing address as of February 1, 2023:
> Mastermind IP Law P.C., 532 Forest Bluffs Rd., Aiken, SC 29803
> __________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> This communication is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§2510-2521.  It is sent by a law firm for its intended recipient only, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this communication to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone (706) 955-9666 or e-mail reply, delete it from your system, and destroy any hard copy you may have printed.  Absent an executed engagement agreement with Mastermind IP Law P.C., this message does not constitute legal advice, and it does not establish any previously non-existent professional relationship with, or representation of the recipient. Thank you.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: E-trademarks<e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> On Behalf Ofe-trademarks-request at oppedahl-lists.com
> Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2025 12:00 PM
> To:e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com
> Subject: E-trademarks Digest, Vol 16, Issue 26
>
> 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: E-trademarks Digest, Vol 16, Issue 25 (Diane Gardner)
>     2. Re: E-trademarks Digest, Vol 16, Issue 25 (asarabia2)
>     3. fees for ex parte appeals to the TTAB (Diane Melnick)
>     4. Re: fees for ex parte appeals to the TTAB (Carl Oppedahl)
>     5. Re: fees for ex parte appeals to the TTAB (Erik Pelton)
>     6. Re: Duplicating applications in the new Trademark Center
>        (Kelcey Patrick-Ferree)
>     7. Re: fees for ex parte appeals to the TTAB (Diane Melnick)
>     8. Re: Duplicating applications in the new Trademark Center
>        (Carl Oppedahl)
>     9. Re: [EXT] Re: Duplicating applications in the new Trademark
>        Center (Alex Butterman)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2025 19:54:18 +0000
> From: Diane Gardner<diane at mmip.com>
> To:"e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com"
> 	<e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] E-trademarks Digest, Vol 16, Issue 25
> Message-ID:
> 	<CO1PR13MB49045406689C44631C597B6CCBC22 at CO1PR13MB4904.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
> 	
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> But Kevin, the retail services (regardless of whose goods are being sold) are provided to retail shoppers, a.k.a. "others."
>
> If I cannot silently include the words "for others" after a proposed identification, it usually isn't a registrable service. For example, my pharma clients often propose reciting some kind of in-house research activities. But those activities are not offered to third parties, they simply support the in-house development of the eventual goods that will be recited/branded.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Diane L. Gardner
> Reg. No. 36,518
> _____________________________________________________________
> Please note our new corporate address as of February 1, 2023:
> Mastermind IP Law P.C., 440 N. Barranca Ave. #6387, Covina, CA 91723
> 760.294.5160 tel. 706.955.9666 tel. 803.226.0741 tel.? ??diane at mmip.com? e-mail CA Lic. No. 196214?? DC Lic. No. 470855?? USPTO Reg. No. 36518
>
> Please note our expedited mail processing address as of February 1, 2023:
> Mastermind IP Law P.C., 532 Forest Bluffs Rd., Aiken, SC 29803 __________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> This communication is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. ??2510-2521.? It is sent by a law firm for its intended recipient only, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this communication to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.? If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone (706) 955-9666 or e-mail reply, delete it from your system, and destroy any hard copy you may have printed.? Absent an executed engagement agreement with Mastermind IP Law P.C., this message does not constitute legal advice, and it does not establish any previously non-existent professional relationship with, or representation of the recipient. Thank you.
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2025 14:44:53 +0000
> From: Kevin Grierson<kgrierson at cm.law>
> To: "For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek
> 	legal advice."<e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> Cc: Edward Timberlake<ed at timberlakelaw.com>
> Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] Licensing of Intellectual Property Rights?
> Message-ID:
> 	<MN2PR12MB41275D0181688CD56C25961AD2C22 at MN2PR12MB4127.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
> 	
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Interesting that the PTO doesn?t consider the licensing of one?s own IP to be ?licensing of intellectual property,? but one can register ?retail store services? (particularly online ones) when the only products sold are the mark owner?s.
>
>
> Kevin Grierson????
>
> |
>
> Partner
>
> [cid:image001.png at 01DB8833.13C440E0]<https://www.cm.law/>
>
> [Mobile:]
>
>    757-726-7799<tel:757-726-7799>
>
> [Fax:]
>
>    866-521-5663<fax:866-521-5663>
>
> [Email:]
>
>    kgrierson at cm.law<mailto:kgrierson at cm.law>
>
> Please note: Culhane Meadows is now CM Law<https://www.cm.law/cm-law-formerly-culhane-meadows-launches-second-decade-with-fresh-name-and-modern-brand/>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2025 12:16:29 -0800
> From: asarabia2<asarabia2 at gmail.com>
> To:e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com
> Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] E-trademarks Digest, Vol 16, Issue 25
> Message-ID:<814cfd7c-38d6-49f6-910b-0081b65ec944 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>
> But licensing is to third parties in the same way that shopping is to third parties. In the latter, the trademark owner is the shop owner and selling its own goods to shoppers. In the former, the trademark owner is the licensor doing deals with other companies.
>
> On 2/26/2025 11:54 AM, Diane Gardner via E-trademarks wrote:
>> But Kevin, the retail services (regardless of whose goods are being sold) are provided to retail shoppers, a.k.a. "others."
>>
>> If I cannot silently include the words "for others" after a proposed identification, it usually isn't a registrable service. For example, my pharma clients often propose reciting some kind of in-house research activities. But those activities are not offered to third parties, they simply support the in-house development of the eventual goods that will be recited/branded.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Diane L. Gardner
>> Reg. No. 36,518
>> _____________________________________________________________
>> Please note our new corporate address as of February 1, 2023:
>> Mastermind IP Law P.C., 440 N. Barranca Ave. #6387, Covina, CA 91723
>> 760.294.5160 tel. 706.955.9666 tel. 803.226.0741 tel.?
>> ?diane at mmip.com? e-mail CA Lic. No. 196214?? DC Lic. No. 470855??
>> USPTO Reg. No. 36518
>>
>> Please note our expedited mail processing address as of February 1, 2023:
>> Mastermind IP Law P.C., 532 Forest Bluffs Rd., Aiken, SC 29803
>> ______________________________________________________________________
>> ____________________________________
>> This communication is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. ??2510-2521.? It is sent by a law firm for its intended recipient only, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this communication to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.? If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone (706) 955-9666 or e-mail reply, delete it from your system, and destroy any hard copy you may have printed.? Absent an executed engagement agreement with Mastermind IP Law P.C., this message does not constitute legal advice, and it does not establish any previously non-existent professional relationship with, or representation of the recipient. Thank you.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>
>> Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2025 14:44:53 +0000
>> From: Kevin Grierson<kgrierson at cm.law>
>> To: "For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek
>> 	legal advice."<e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
>> Cc: Edward Timberlake<ed at timberlakelaw.com>
>> Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] Licensing of Intellectual Property Rights?
>> Message-ID:
>> 	
>> <MN2PR12MB41275D0181688CD56C25961AD2C22 at MN2PR12MB4127.namprd12.prod.ou 
>> tlook.com>
>> 	
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>
>> Interesting that the PTO doesn?t consider the licensing of one?s own IP to be ?licensing of intellectual property,? but one can register ?retail store services? (particularly online ones) when the only products sold are the mark owner?s.
>>
>>
>> Kevin Grierson????
>>
>> |
>>
>> Partner
>>
>> [cid:image001.png at 01DB8833.13C440E0]<https://www.cm.law/>
>>
>> [Mobile:]
>>
>>     757-726-7799<tel:757-726-7799>
>>
>> [Fax:]
>>
>>     866-521-5663<fax:866-521-5663>
>>
>> [Email:]
>>
>>     kgrierson at cm.law<mailto:kgrierson at cm.law>
>>
>> Please note: Culhane Meadows is now CM
>> Law<https://www.cm.law/cm-law-formerly-culhane-meadows-launches-second 
>> -decade-with-fresh-name-and-modern-brand/>
>>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:<http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250226/c30271d6/attachment-0001.htm>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2025 20:52:50 -0500
> From: Diane Melnick<dbmelnick at gmail.com>
> To: Carl Oppedahl<e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> Subject: [E-trademarks] fees for ex parte appeals to the TTAB
> Message-ID:
> 	<CA+MtzVdq2YaPX9pEy=-wVe1JHJ83aJaA4qZcAYdxf3cuLaHaRQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Hello list-mates.  I wanted to ask if anyone has noticed a new fee associated with the filing of an ex parte appeal in the TTAB.  I am quite familiar with the now $225 per class fee for an electronically-filed Notice of Appeal, which appears (with a slightly different name) in the list below as 37 C.F.R. 2.6(18)(ii), which is from  I now see a second fee in item 37 C.F.R. 2.6(18)(vii) which is $200 per class for the filing of the brief.
> Am I seeing this correctly?
>
> (18) *Ex parte appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.*
>
> (i) For filing an ex parte appeal on paper, per class$325.00
>
> (ii) For filing an ex parte appeal electronically, per class$225.00
>
> (iii) For filing a first request for an extension of time to file an appeal brief, per application$0.00
>
> (iv) For filing a second or subsequent request for an extension of time to file an appeal brief on paper, per application$200.00
>
> (v) For filing a second or subsequent request for an extension of time to file an appeal brief electronically, per application$100.00
>
> (vi) For filing an appeal brief on paper, per class$300.00
>
> (vii) For filing an appeal brief electronically, per class $200.00
>
> --
> Diane Melnick
> Practus LLP
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:<http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250226/d1e07f85/attachment-0001.htm>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2025 01:10:22 -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] fees for ex parte appeals to the TTAB
> Message-ID:<413ceb24-a954-4102-a973-8e55cc73ee00 at oppedahl.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>
> Thank you for posting.
>
> I guess the source of the fees is 89 FR 91062 (November 18, 2024) which you can see here<https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/11/18/2024-26644/setting-and-adjusting-trademark-fees-during-fiscal-year-2025>.
> I read that FR notice carefully and did not see any particular explanation or discussion of that fee.? But yes it looks like there are now /*two*/ per-class fees for the filer that needs to pursue an appeal before the TTAB.
>
> On 2/26/2025 6:52 PM, Diane Melnick via E-trademarks wrote:
>> Hello list-mates.? I wanted to ask if anyone has noticed a new fee
>> associated with the filing of an ex parte appeal in the TTAB.? I am
>> quite familiar with?the now $225 per class fee for an
>> electronically-filed Notice of Appeal, which appears (with a slightly
>> different name) in the?list below as 37 C.F.R. 2.6(18)(ii), which?is
>> from? I now see a second fee in item 37 C.F.R. 2.6(18)(vii) which is
>> $200 per class for the filing of the brief.? Am I seeing this correctly?
>>
>> (18) /Ex parte appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board./
>>
>> (i) For filing an ex parte appeal on paper, per class$325.00
>>
>> (ii) For filing an ex parte appeal electronically, per class$225.00
>>
>> (iii) For filing a first request for an extension of time to file an
>> appeal brief, per application$0.00
>>
>> (iv) For filing a second or subsequent request for an extension of
>> time to file an appeal brief on paper, per application$200.00
>>
>> (v) For filing a second or subsequent request for an extension of time
>> to file an appeal brief electronically, per application$100.00
>>
>> (vi) For filing an appeal brief on paper, per class$300.00
>>
>> (vii) For filing an appeal brief electronically, per class $200.00
>>
>>
>> --
>> Diane Melnick
>> Practus LLP
>>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:<http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250227/6a33c243/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/20250227/6a33c243/attachment-0001.p7s>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2025 14:20:31 +0000
> From: Erik Pelton<erik at erikpelton.com>
> To: "For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek
> 	legal advice."<e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] fees for ex parte appeals to the TTAB
> Message-ID:
> 	<CH3PR17MB7193F621F58EE023DDE00F0FB9CD2 at CH3PR17MB7193.namprd17.prod.outlook.com>
> 	
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> This fee (Ex Parte Appeal Brief) was actually part of the January 2021 fee changes from the USPTO. Seehttps://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/laws/updated-trademark-ttab-fees-processes
>
> Erik Pelton
>
>
> From: E-trademarks<e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> On Behalf Of Carl Oppedahl via E-trademarks
> Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2025 3:10 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] fees for ex parte appeals to the TTAB
>
> Thank you for posting.?
> I guess the source of the fees is 89 FR 91062 (November 18, 2024) which you can seehttps://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/11/18/2024-26644/setting-and-adjusting-trademark-fees-during-fiscal-year-2025.? I read that FR notice carefully and did not see any particular explanation or discussion of that fee.? But yes it looks like there are now two per-class fees for the filer that needs to pursue an appeal before the TTAB.
> On 2/26/2025 6:52 PM, Diane Melnick via E-trademarks wrote:
> Hello list-mates.? I wanted to ask if anyone has noticed a new fee associated with the filing of an ex parte appeal in the TTAB.? I am quite familiar with?the now $225 per class fee for an electronically-filed Notice of Appeal, which appears (with a slightly different name) in the?list below as 37 C.F.R. 2.6(18)(ii), which?is from? I now see a second fee in item 37 C.F.R. 2.6(18)(vii) which is $200 per class for the filing of the brief.? Am I seeing this correctly?
>
> (18) Ex parte appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.
> (i) For filing an ex parte appeal on paper, per class$325.00
> (ii) For filing an ex parte appeal electronically, per class$225.00
> (iii) For filing a first request for an extension of time to file an appeal brief, per application$0.00
> (iv) For filing a second or subsequent request for an extension of time to file an appeal brief on paper, per application$200.00
> (v) For filing a second or subsequent request for an extension of time to file an appeal brief electronically, per application$100.00
> (vi) For filing an appeal brief on paper, per class$300.00
> (vii) For filing an appeal brief electronically, per class $200.00
>
> --
> Diane Melnick
> Practus LLP
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2025 09:44:11 -0600
> From: Kelcey Patrick-Ferree<kpf at patrickferreelaw.com>
> To: "For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek
> 	legal advice."<e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] Duplicating applications in the new
> 	Trademark Center
> Message-ID:
> 	<CAOs1ubd9YxiGWOBrTXF_i6O92-yTTdVs2bd-qVv_4PRW6LvYgg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Yes, this is basically what I've been doing, except I'm just leaving a
> draft in the Drafts tab permanently labeled "Client X Info" for each of my
> frequent filers. That way I have the info prefilled and ready to go when
> needed by making a copy of it. I just have to remember to go in and fill
> out the reference number for each new application.
>
> Warm regards,
> Kelcey
>
> *Kelcey Patrick-Ferree*
>
> kelcey at rubriclegal.com
>
> Office: 612.465.0074
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 11:03?AM Clarkin, Cheryl via E-trademarks <
> e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:
>
>> I just filed several applications on behalf of the same client.  My
>> workaround was to:
>>
>>
>>
>> Start application and save as draft prior to payment
>>
>> I then went back to drafts, selected the saved draft, and selected ?save
>> as new draft? under ?Actions?
>>
>> I then edited the draft to change the mark name and continued to payment
>>
>> My original draft stays under ?drafts and dockets? but the second draft
>> that was filed disappears.
>>
>> I still have the original draft that I can ?save as a new draft? again to
>> then file another application.
>>
>>
>>
>> Hope that helps.
>>
>>
>>
>> CHERYL A. CLARKIN, SHAREHOLDER????
>>
>> V-CARD<https://www.apslaw.com/wp-content/uploads/Cheryl-a-Clarkin.vcf>
>>
>>   |
>>
>> BIO<https://www.apslaw.com/attorney/cheryl-a-clarkin/>
>>
>>   |
>>
>> WEBSITE<http://www.apslaw.com/>
>>
>>   |
>>
>> CCLARKIN at APSLAW.COM <http://www.apslaw.com/>
>>
>> 175 Federal Street, 10th Floor
>>
>> ,
>>
>> Boston
>>
>>
>>
>> MA
>>
>>
>>
>> 02110
>>
>> Direct 401.427.6131
>>
>>   |
>>
>> Main 401.274.7200
>>
>> PROVIDENCE ? BOSTON ? NEWPORT ? NEW HAMPSHIRE
>>
>> <https://www.facebook.com/AdlerPollockSheehanPc?ref=hl>
>>
>> <https://twitter.com/AdlerPollock>
>>
>>
>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/66598?trk=tyah&trkInfo=tarId%3A1403724428414%2Ctas%3Aadler%20pollock%2Cidx%3A1-1-1>
>>
>> This e-mail message is confidential and is intended only for the named
>> recipient(s). It may contain information that is subject to the attorney
>> client privilege or the attorney work-product doctrine or that is otherwise
>> exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you have received this
>> e-mail message in error, or are not the named recipient(s), please
>> immediately notifyCClarkin at apslaw.com and delete this message from your
>> computer and destroy all copies. Thank you.
>>
>> *From:* E-trademarks<e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> *On Behalf
>> Of *Keller, Scott via E-trademarks
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 19, 2025 10:34 AM
>> *To:*e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com
>> *Cc:* Keller, Scott<SKeller at wnj.com>
>> *Subject:* [E-trademarks] Duplicating applications in the new Trademark
>> Center
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Is there a way to duplicate an application in the USPTO Trademark Center
>> after it has been filed?  The only links I see are to TSDR and all of
>> ?drafts? in ?My Drafts? are blank even though each application I prepare
>> gets ?saved? to drafts after each step.  Then they are gone after they are
>> filed.
>>
>>
>>
>> *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 | 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> E-trademarks mailing list
>> E-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com
>> http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com
>>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:<http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250227/59800c22/attachment-0001.htm>
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: image003.jpg
> Type: image/jpeg
> Size: 3230 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL:<http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250227/59800c22/attachment-0001.jpg>
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: image863453.png
> Type: image/png
> Size: 1622 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL:<http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250227/59800c22/attachment-0003.png>
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: image333660.png
> Type: image/png
> Size: 1604 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL:<http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250227/59800c22/attachment-0004.png>
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: image230871.png
> Type: image/png
> Size: 1636 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL:<http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250227/59800c22/attachment-0005.png>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2025 10:45:23 -0500
> From: Diane Melnick<dbmelnick at gmail.com>
> To: "For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek
> 	legal advice."<e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] fees for ex parte appeals to the TTAB
> Message-ID:
> 	<CA+MtzVcvsvdySkDukFTXsBKf4JwMqKknyPzsrJxvkGbL9qe=uw at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Thanks for that information -- just goes to show how long it's been since I
> filed an appeal brief.  That said, $525 per class is a heavy lift for
> clients with limited resources.
>
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 9:23?AM Erik Pelton via E-trademarks <
> e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:
>
>> This fee (Ex Parte Appeal Brief) was actually part of the January 2021 fee
>> changes from the USPTO. See
>> https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/laws/updated-trademark-ttab-fees-processes
>>
>> Erik Pelton
>>
>>
>> From: E-trademarks<e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> On Behalf Of
>> Carl Oppedahl via E-trademarks
>> Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2025 3:10 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] fees for ex parte appeals to the TTAB
>>
>> Thank you for posting.
>> I guess the source of the fees is 89 FR 91062 (November 18, 2024) which
>> you can see
>> https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/11/18/2024-26644/setting-and-adjusting-trademark-fees-during-fiscal-year-2025.
>> I read that FR notice carefully and did not see any particular explanation
>> or discussion of that fee.  But yes it looks like there are now two
>> per-class fees for the filer that needs to pursue an appeal before the TTAB.
>> On 2/26/2025 6:52 PM, Diane Melnick via E-trademarks wrote:
>> Hello list-mates.  I wanted to ask if anyone has noticed a new fee
>> associated with the filing of an ex parte appeal in the TTAB.  I am quite
>> familiar with the now $225 per class fee for an electronically-filed Notice
>> of Appeal, which appears (with a slightly different name) in the list below
>> as 37 C.F.R. 2.6(18)(ii), which is from  I now see a second fee in item 37
>> C.F.R. 2.6(18)(vii) which is $200 per class for the filing of the brief.
>> Am I seeing this correctly?
>>
>> (18) Ex parte appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.
>> (i) For filing an ex parte appeal on paper, per class$325.00
>> (ii) For filing an ex parte appeal electronically, per class$225.00
>> (iii) For filing a first request for an extension of time to file an
>> appeal brief, per application$0.00
>> (iv) For filing a second or subsequent request for an extension of time to
>> file an appeal brief on paper, per application$200.00
>> (v) For filing a second or subsequent request for an extension of time to
>> file an appeal brief electronically, per application$100.00
>> (vi) For filing an appeal brief on paper, per class$300.00
>> (vii) For filing an appeal brief electronically, per class $200.00
>>
>> --
>> Diane Melnick
>> Practus LLP
>>
>>
>> --
>> E-trademarks mailing list
>> E-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com
>> http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250227/796823d4/attachment.html>