[E-trademarks] [EXT] Proposed shortening of Request for Reconsideration to Final Appeal
Pamela Chestek
pamela at chesteklegal.com
Tue Jan 7 17:19:32 UTC 2025
That still doesn't make sense. These things are reviewed extensively,
and no one caught it? It removes information that is on a different
topic and still relevant, and doesn't have the title they claim it has.
It's not on the PTO website as a pending notice of rulemaking. I
searched the Federal Register website
<https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/search?conditions%5Bterm%5D=trademark&conditions%5Btype%5D%5B%5D=PRORULE#>
and didn't find it. I wonder if it was a draft that somehow ended up on
the website?
Perhaps the kind PTO lurkers on the list can privately message one of us
whether this was an error.
Pam
Pamela S. Chestek
Chestek Legal
PLEASE NOTE OUR NEW MAILING ADDRESS
4641 Post St.
Unit 4316
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
+1 919-800-8033
pamela at chesteklegal.com
www.chesteklegal.com
On 1/7/2025 9:11 AM, Crane, Susan wrote:
>
> I think it was just a typo and they meant to say 2.63. They are
> apparently renaming the section and eliminating (b)3 and (b)4.
>
> *Susan L. Crane*
>
> *Group Vice President, Legal*
>
> *Intellectual Property, Brands & Marketing*
>
> Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, Inc.
>
> 22 Sylvan Way
>
> Parsippany, NJ 07054
>
> *O*(973) 753-6455
>
> *M*(973) 879-3420
>
> Susan.Crane at wyndham.com <mailto:Susan.Crane at wyndham.com>
>
> *From:*E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> *On
> Behalf Of *Pamela Chestek via E-trademarks
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 7, 2025 11:48 AM
> *To:* e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com
> *Cc:* Pamela Chestek <pamela at chesteklegal.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [E-trademarks] [EXT] Proposed shortening of Request for
> Reconsideration to Final Appeal
>
> Is it me, or does the whole thing not make sense? The current rule is
> titled "Reinstatement of applications and registrations abandoned,
> cancelled, or expired due to Office error. " Section (a) is request
> for reinstatement of an abandoned application
>
> ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
>
> *This Message Is From an External Sender *
>
> Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender
> and know the content is safe.
>
> * Report Suspicious *
> <https://us-phishalarm-ewt.proofpoint.com/EWT/v1/Nf401RNTQFE14GfWW3o!nKaFJFHg5WEbxcbXUDNnXH2iGE-7YI5TaCzDIYv-O4CVWOtpFtL5b-nqEoYnBcMAVvlEMmGEkD6Dvo93Nm_Nj9O53jjpO7inawUAmiTki_tI$>
>
>
> ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
>
> Is it me, or does the whole thing not make sense? The current rule
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TFSR/current*/current/r-b4d5f73a-8360-499f-ab67-97240ad8800c.html__;Iw!!Nf401RNTQFE14GfWW3o!gd_D4QXVw_Hn7FKsfUfr2IVqhWwJhzzupJta15YgLi5P-vLuEAVJVzwjxgi62wAEkB4F1c9E_-5Up0E5vGUl2LCAzNxycrA$>
> is titled "Reinstatement of applications and registrations abandoned,
> cancelled, or expired due to Office error." Section (a) is request for
> reinstatement of an abandoned application where there is an Office
> error, section (b) is request for reinstatement of cancelled or
> expired registration due to Office error, and (c) is request for
> reinstatement may be construed as a petition. And there is no (c)(i).
>
> Section 2.63
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TFSR/current*/current/r-ad80a6fe-ef1d-41bf-b515-5db1487bcc95.html__;Iw!!Nf401RNTQFE14GfWW3o!gd_D4QXVw_Hn7FKsfUfr2IVqhWwJhzzupJta15YgLi5P-vLuEAVJVzwjxgi62wAEkB4F1c9E_-5Up0E5vGUl2LCAl0Alass$>
> is titled "Action after response" (not Final Action"), but it still
> doesn't make much sense because it eliminates relevant information
> formerly in the revised sections, as well as b(3) and b(4).
>
> There is no CFR section titled "Final action." The TMEP has section
> 714
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/current*/current/TMEP-700d1e1814.html__;Iw!!Nf401RNTQFE14GfWW3o!gd_D4QXVw_Hn7FKsfUfr2IVqhWwJhzzupJta15YgLi5P-vLuEAVJVzwjxgi62wAEkB4F1c9E_-5Up0E5vGUl2LCAe16A1p4$>
> titled "Final Action," which refers to CFR section 2.63(b), not 2.64.
> And the TMEP doesn't use that numbering format.
>
> This rule is not listed under the "Proposed Rules" on the PTO Law &
> Regulations
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.uspto.gov/trademarks/laws__;!!Nf401RNTQFE14GfWW3o!gd_D4QXVw_Hn7FKsfUfr2IVqhWwJhzzupJta15YgLi5P-vLuEAVJVzwjxgi62wAEkB4F1c9E_-5Up0E5vGUl2LCAD_dnEzo$>
> website.
>
> I'm leaning towards the fact this is an errant publication.
>
> Pam
>
> Pamela S. Chestek
> Chestek Legal
> PLEASE NOTE OUR NEW MAILING ADDRESS
> 4641 Post St.
> Unit 4316
> El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
> +1 919-800-8033
> pamela at chesteklegal.com
> www.chesteklegal.com
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.chesteklegal.com__;!!Nf401RNTQFE14GfWW3o!gd_D4QXVw_Hn7FKsfUfr2IVqhWwJhzzupJta15YgLi5P-vLuEAVJVzwjxgi62wAEkB4F1c9E_-5Up0E5vGUl2LCAjAIdxyk$>
>
> On 1/6/2025 9:18 PM, Lara Pearson via E-trademarks wrote:
>
> Here is the actual proposed text of the Proposed Amended Rule:
>
> 2. Amend Sec. 2.64 by revising paragraphs (b) and (c)(1) to read as
>
> follows:
>
> Sec. 2.64 Final action.
>
> * * * * *
>
> (b)(1) During the three-month period after issuance of a final
> action,
>
> the applicant may request that the examining attorney reconsider
> the final
>
> action. The request must be filed through TEAS. The filing of a
> request
>
> for reconsideration will not extend the time for filing an appeal or
>
> petitioning the Director.
>
> (2) During the six-month period after issuance of a final
> action, the
>
> applicant may submit amendments. Any such amendments will be
> examined, and
>
> will be entered if they comply with the rules of practice in trademark
>
> cases and the Act of 1946. The filing of such an amendment will
> not extend
>
> the time for filing an appeal or petitioning the Director.
>
> (c)(1) If an applicant in an application under § 1(b) of the
> Act files
>
> an amendment to allege use under Sec. 2.76 during the six-month period
>
> after issuance of a final action, the examiner shall examine the
> amendment.
>
> The filing of such an amendment will not extend the time for filing an
>
> appeal or petitioning the Director.
>
>
> Lara Pearson (she/her/hers)[Why pronouns
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/medium.com/gender-inclusivit/why-i-put-pronouns-on-my-email-signature-and-linkedin-profile-and-you-should-too-d3dc942c8743__;!!Nf401RNTQFE14GfWW3o!gd_D4QXVw_Hn7FKsfUfr2IVqhWwJhzzupJta15YgLi5P-vLuEAVJVzwjxgi62wAEkB4F1c9E_-5Up0E5vGUl2LCAQX1xiZw$>?]
> (Hear how I say my name
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/namedrop.io/larapearson__;!!Nf401RNTQFE14GfWW3o!gd_D4QXVw_Hn7FKsfUfr2IVqhWwJhzzupJta15YgLi5P-vLuEAVJVzwjxgi62wAEkB4F1c9E_-5Up0E5vGUl2LCAEfeYCho$>)
>
> Law Office of Lara Pearson Ltd, PBC
>
> Leader, Brand Geek
>
> Lara at BrandGeek.net | Ph: 775.833.1600 |My bio
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/brandgeek.net/about/__;!!Nf401RNTQFE14GfWW3o!gd_D4QXVw_Hn7FKsfUfr2IVqhWwJhzzupJta15YgLi5P-vLuEAVJVzwjxgi62wAEkB4F1c9E_-5Up0E5vGUl2LCAOxvHxGo$>
>
>
> This e-mail may contain information that is *privileged* or
> *confidential*. If you received this communication in error,
> please immediately notify the sender and delete/destroy all copies
> of this correspondence. Thank you.
>
> *Brand Geek practices flex-time and a 4-day work week
> Mon-Thurs. If you see us working weekends, that's our choice. We
> do not expect anyone (including you!) to work/respond on the
> weekend. Please respond at a time that works for you. *
>
> *Protecting the Brands that are Changing the World®*
>
> *Protecting the Businesses that are Changing the World®
> Protecting the Brands of Soulfulpreneurs**®*
>
> *Leading the way, we belong to 1% for the Planet (since January
> 2006), SVN (since Spring 2007), Certified B Corporation (since
> February 2008).*
>
> *Save the planet! Please don't print.*
>
> *I acknowledge my privilege to live, work and play on the unceded
> traditional lands of the first people of Lake Tahoe, the Washoe or
> Wašišiw ("people from here," pronounced Wa She Shu). With humility
> and gratitude, I honor this sacred land, and the Washoe Tribe
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/washoetribe.us/__;!!Nf401RNTQFE14GfWW3o!gd_D4QXVw_Hn7FKsfUfr2IVqhWwJhzzupJta15YgLi5P-vLuEAVJVzwjxgi62wAEkB4F1c9E_-5Up0E5vGUl2LCAZbLfAdA$>.
> *
>
> **
>
> On Mon, Jan 6, 2025 at 9:02 PM Alex Butterman
> <abutterman at dbllawyers.com> wrote:
>
> I think that proposed rule skips a step because the period
> from final OA to appeal is only 6 months if the applicant
> files an extension request *_BEFORE_* filing the Request for
> Reconsideration. Is the rule saying that the filing of a RFR
> by 3 months automatically extends the appeal deadline to six
> months? And with or without payment of the $125 fee?
>
> That rule does sound like the PTO making the applicant pay for
> the PTO’s inability to process a RFR and Notice of Appeal
> simultaneously rather than just fix internally whatever is
> screwing up that process. Maybe the PTO should alter is
> examiner jurisdiction rules.
>
> *Alex Butterman*
>
> Partner**
>
> *DUNLAPBENNETT&LUDWIG
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.dbllawyers.com/__;!!Nf401RNTQFE14GfWW3o!gd_D4QXVw_Hn7FKsfUfr2IVqhWwJhzzupJta15YgLi5P-vLuEAVJVzwjxgi62wAEkB4F1c9E_-5Up0E5vGUl2LCAmt4IYJg$>*
>
> /211 Church St., SE; Leesburg, VA 20175/
>
> T: 703-777-7319– *BIO*
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.dbllawyers.com/attorney/alex-butterman/__;!!Nf401RNTQFE14GfWW3o!gd_D4QXVw_Hn7FKsfUfr2IVqhWwJhzzupJta15YgLi5P-vLuEAVJVzwjxgi62wAEkB4F1c9E_-5Up0E5vGUl2LCAl0uOfjM$>
>
> A blue and white logo Description automatically generated
>
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.dbllawyers.com/empowering-innovators/__;!!Nf401RNTQFE14GfWW3o!gd_D4QXVw_Hn7FKsfUfr2IVqhWwJhzzupJta15YgLi5P-vLuEAVJVzwjxgi62wAEkB4F1c9E_-5Up0E5vGUl2LCAkrNuj8E$>
>
> This electronic message contains information from Dunlap
> Bennett & Ludwig PLLC and may be confidential or privileged.
> If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure,
> copying, or use of the contents is prohibited. If you have
> received this e-mail in error, please notify us and delete the
> message without copying or disclosing it.
>
> *From:*E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com>
> *On Behalf Of *Lara Pearson via E-trademarks
> *Sent:* Monday, January 6, 2025 10:57 PM
> *To:* Carl Oppedahl <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> *Cc:* Lara Pearson <lara at brandgeek.net>
> *Subject:* [EXT] [E-trademarks] Proposed shortening of Request
> for Reconsideration to Final Appeal
>
> Happy New Year list friends:
>
> I hope you all had a delightful holiday break and are finding
> things to look forward to this year.
>
> I have a response to a Final OA and was researching whether
> there'd been a change in the response time from 6 to 3 months,
> and came across this Dec 31, 2024 USPTO Notice of Proposed
> Rule
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/og/2024/week53/TOCCN/item-469.htm__;!!Nf401RNTQFE14GfWW3o!gd_D4QXVw_Hn7FKsfUfr2IVqhWwJhzzupJta15YgLi5P-vLuEAVJVzwjxgi62wAEkB4F1c9E_-5Up0E5vGUl2LCApkpZ6rs$>,
> which I don't recall seeing discussed here (forgive me if it
> was, and I missed it):
>
> The United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO")
> proposes to
>
> amend 37 C.F.R. Sec. 2.64 to require a request for
> reconsideration of
>
> an examining attorney's final refusal or requirement to be
> filed through
>
> the Trademark Electronic Application System ("TEAS") within three
>
> months of the mailing date of the final action. ***
>
> A request for reconsideration of a final action does not
> extend the time
>
> for filing an appeal or petitioning the Director on that
> action. Under the
>
> current version of the rule, wherein the applicant may file a
> request for
>
> reconsideration at any time between the final action and the
> six-month
>
> deadline for appealing or petitioning, many applicants
> simultaneously seek
>
> reconsideration and file an appeal. Because the examining
> attorney loses
>
> jurisdiction over the application upon the filing of an appeal
> to the TTAB,
>
> this simultaneous pursuit of reconsideration and appeal often
> necessitates
>
> a remand by the TTAB to the examining attorney for a decision
> on the
>
> request for reconsideration. If the request is denied, then
> the case is
>
> transferred back to the TTAB. If the request is granted, and
> the examining
>
> attorney reconsiders the final action, the appeal or petition
> may become
>
> moot. The need for these remands and transfers contributes to
> the burden on
>
> the applicant and the USPTO, and prolongs the pendency of the
> case.
>
> In order to eliminate some appeals and petitions and reduce
> the need for
>
> these remands and transfers, the proposed rule provides that a
> request for
>
> reconsideration must be filed within three months of the final
> action,
>
> while the six-month period for appeal or petition remains
> unchanged.
>
> Comments must be received by [60 days from the date of
> publication in the Federal Register] to ensure consideration.
>
> I agree with the rationale here, but I'm not sure the process
> is the best to meet the stated goals, given the shortened
> evidentiary timeline.
>
> Curious what others think.
>
> Cheers!
>
> Lara Pearson (she/her/hers)[Why pronouns
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/medium.com/gender-inclusivit/why-i-put-pronouns-on-my-email-signature-and-linkedin-profile-and-you-should-too-d3dc942c8743__;!!Nf401RNTQFE14GfWW3o!gd_D4QXVw_Hn7FKsfUfr2IVqhWwJhzzupJta15YgLi5P-vLuEAVJVzwjxgi62wAEkB4F1c9E_-5Up0E5vGUl2LCAQX1xiZw$>?]
> (Hear how I say my name
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/namedrop.io/larapearson__;!!Nf401RNTQFE14GfWW3o!gd_D4QXVw_Hn7FKsfUfr2IVqhWwJhzzupJta15YgLi5P-vLuEAVJVzwjxgi62wAEkB4F1c9E_-5Up0E5vGUl2LCAEfeYCho$>)
>
> Law Office of Lara Pearson Ltd, PBC
>
> Leader, Brand Geek
>
> Lara at BrandGeek.net | Ph: 775.833.1600 |My bio
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/brandgeek.net/about/__;!!Nf401RNTQFE14GfWW3o!gd_D4QXVw_Hn7FKsfUfr2IVqhWwJhzzupJta15YgLi5P-vLuEAVJVzwjxgi62wAEkB4F1c9E_-5Up0E5vGUl2LCAOxvHxGo$>
>
>
> 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.
>
> *Brand Geek practices flex-time and a 4-day work week
> Mon-Thurs. If you see us working weekends, that's our choice.
> We do not expect anyone (including you!) to work/respond on
> the weekend. Please respond at a time that works for you. *
>
> *Protecting the Brands that are Changing the World®*
>
> *Protecting the Businesses that are Changing the World®
> Protecting the Brands of Soulfulpreneurs**®*
>
> *Leading the way, we belong to 1% for the Planet (since
> January 2006), SVN (since Spring 2007), Certified B
> Corporation (since February 2008).*
>
> *Save the planet! Please don't print.*
>
> *I acknowledge my privilege to live, work and play on the
> unceded traditional lands of the first people of Lake Tahoe,
> the Washoe or Wašišiw ("people from here," pronounced Wa She
> Shu). With humility and gratitude, I honor this sacred land,
> and the Washoe Tribe
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/washoetribe.us/__;!!Nf401RNTQFE14GfWW3o!gd_D4QXVw_Hn7FKsfUfr2IVqhWwJhzzupJta15YgLi5P-vLuEAVJVzwjxgi62wAEkB4F1c9E_-5Up0E5vGUl2LCAZbLfAdA$>.
> *
>
> **
>
>
>
> This email message (including all attachments) is for the sole use of
> the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential information. If
> you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply
> email and destroy all copies of the original message. Unless otherwise
> indicated in the body of this email, nothing in this communication is
> intended to operate as an electronic signature and this transmission
> cannot be used to form, document, or authenticate a contract. Wyndham
> Hotels and Resorts and/or its affiliates may monitor all incoming and
> outgoing email communications in the United States, including the
> content of emails and attachments, for security, legal compliance,
> training, quality assurance and other purposes.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250107/059fa6db/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 34793 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250107/059fa6db/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 160153 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250107/059fa6db/attachment-0001.png>
More information about the E-trademarks
mailing list