[E-trademarks] [EXT] Proposed shortening of Request for Reconsideration to Final Appeal

Tue Jan 7 12:52:58 EST 2025

Why this appears in the TMOG for December 31, 2024, I don’t understand, but this text, including the docket number and RIN, corresponds to an NPRM published in the Federal Register on February 14, 2007 at 72 Fed. Reg. 6,984. It looks like this proposal was withdrawn and a supplemental NPRM was issued to require $50 for a request for reconsideration on paper but no fee on TEAS. Institution of a Fee To File on Paper a Request for Reconsideration of a Final Office Action in a Trademark Case, 73 Fed. Reg. 22,894 (Apr. 28, 2008). I couldn’t easily find a follow-up on the 2008 supplemental NPRM.

[A picture containing person, person, wall, indoor  Description automatically generated][A picture containing text, screen  Description automatically generated]<https://www.cfraresearch.com/>
Michael R. Gordon
Assistant General Counsel
Licensed to practice only in Maryland, North Carolina, and the District of Columbia
michael.gordon at cfraresearch.com<mailto:michael.gordon at cfraresearch.com>
o: +1.646.517.2461<tel:+1.646.517.2461>
Clients First • Integrity • Courage • Excellence
[LinkedIn]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/cfra-research/>[Twitter]<https://twitter.com/cfraresearch>[YouTube]<https://www.youtube.com/@CFRAResearch>

From: E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> On Behalf Of Crane, Susan via E-trademarks
Sent: Tuesday, January 7, 2025 12:34 PM
To: For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice. <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
Cc: Crane, Susan <susan.crane at wyndham.com>
Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] [EXT] Proposed shortening of Request for Reconsideration to Final Appeal

CAUTION: EXTERNAL MESSAGE
Does look like a draft given comment deadline is in brackets, etc.

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<mailto:e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com>> On Behalf Of Pamela Chestek via E-trademarks
Sent: Tuesday, January 7, 2025 12:20 PM
To: For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice. <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>>
Cc: Pamela Chestek <pamela at chesteklegal.com<mailto:pamela at chesteklegal.com>>
Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] [EXT] Proposed shortening of Request for Reconsideration to Final Appeal

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
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!nKaETtDB5cAxZSbdWtNnnD24fV_8PjR9516uMhPOD5af9nGek4otyrdCLpe0gX6xJ6ploUSmR9_iOEv7qrCQLubzR7DQfu1qXlmr88Vuvvrq$>   ‌
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
That still doesn't make sense. These things are reviewed extensively, and no one caught it? It removes information that is on a different topic and still relevant, and doesn't have the title they claim it has. It's not on the PTO website as a pending notice of rulemaking.  I searched the Federal Register website<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.federalregister.gov/documents/search?conditions*5Bterm*5D=trademark&conditions*5Btype*5D*5B*5D=PRORULE*__;JSUlJSUlIw!!Nf401RNTQFE14GfWW3o!jBtVAa3qeR7llTvfqiIWWvK5CBOQa43fb4Lv2U92yzZy1ZKTqJ4rp7whuWFn0LeD2o7s8MfTtrpOQuXG7-ftpPGoha4IIkI$> 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<mailto:pamela at chesteklegal.com>
www.chesteklegal.com<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.chesteklegal.com__;!!Nf401RNTQFE14GfWW3o!jBtVAa3qeR7llTvfqiIWWvK5CBOQa43fb4Lv2U92yzZy1ZKTqJ4rp7whuWFn0LeD2o7s8MfTtrpOQuXG7-ftpPGoiNwHiKA$>
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><mailto: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<mailto:e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
Cc: Pamela Chestek <pamela at chesteklegal.com><mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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$>.

[https://ci3.googleusercontent.com/mail-sig/AIorK4y4Iv_kGzA33LVGak2vMhpl9pJRxSsauquJ4IauN3cCjPL9RMrW0WOjQAJU4eQui-VHV5Wu9jk]

On Mon, Jan 6, 2025 at 9:02 PM Alex Butterman <abutterman at dbllawyers.com<mailto: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
DUNLAP BENNETT & 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]
[cid:image010.png at 01DB6101.965DC1B0]<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<mailto: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<mailto:e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>>
Cc: Lara Pearson <lara at brandgeek.net<mailto: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<mailto: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$>.

[https://ci3.googleusercontent.com/mail-sig/AIorK4y4Iv_kGzA33LVGak2vMhpl9pJRxSsauquJ4IauN3cCjPL9RMrW0WOjQAJU4eQui-VHV5Wu9jk]

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.

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/20250107/4b7f4e8b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 1104 bytes
Desc: image004.gif
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250107/4b7f4e8b/attachment.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image006.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1513 bytes
Desc: image006.png
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250107/4b7f4e8b/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image007.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1645 bytes
Desc: image007.png
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250107/4b7f4e8b/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image008.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1510 bytes
Desc: image008.png
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250107/4b7f4e8b/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image009.png
Type: image/png
Size: 34793 bytes
Desc: image009.png
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250107/4b7f4e8b/attachment-0003.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image010.png
Type: image/png
Size: 160153 bytes
Desc: image010.png
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250107/4b7f4e8b/attachment-0004.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 107626 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250107/4b7f4e8b/attachment-0005.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6605 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250107/4b7f4e8b/attachment-0006.png>