[E-trademarks] More "New Application ..." Observations
Ken Boone
boondogles at hotmail.com
Wed Jan 15 20:39:37 UTC 2025
Recall that the (SA:" application assignment" ~5) NOT (SA:" application assignment" ~3) search appears to be fairly effective in retrieving all trademarks with the new application awaiting assignment to an examining attorney status on TSDR, though the search is a bit disappointing since it is not an exact match search. That search currently retrieves 350,614 trademarks. Today, I tried to further refine that search.
As an alternative, SA:( "new application in the record to examin assignment" ~3 ) retrieves that same 350,614 trademarks. Admittedly, I do not have all the terms in the correct order (the ~3 operator) and/or may be missing one or more terms for the phrase. Did the USPTO intentionally spell examine without the final e in the SA - Status field? Maybe someone who speaks USPTO-ese can find the exact order of the terms and/or any missing terms to make that an exact phrase search? After finding the examin spelling error, I've given up for now.
In my previous postings, it appears that I did NOT mention the alternative search with the NOT converted to AND. That is, the search (SA:" application assignment" ~5) AND (SA:" application assignment" ~3) is also significant, as that search appears to retrieve all trademarks with the new application assigned to an examining attorney for examination status on TSDR. Today, that search retrieves 10,638 trademarks, a considerably smaller count than the NOT search, as pretty much any action by the examining attorney will update the status of the trademark.
The search SA:( "new application not assigned for examination" ) appears to capture the same 10,638 trademarks in an exact phrase search, a somewhat cleaner search, except you'll have to ignore the contradiction - that the phrase not assigned for examination retrieves trademarks assigned to examining attorneys for examination. Go figure.
You likely noticed that new application begins both of the updated SA: searches. As it happens, the search SA:( "new application" ) retrieves 361,254 trademarks: all the trademarks of the two updated searches plus 2 additional new application trademarks, namely 97977361 (FOR FIERCELY ORIGINAL BRANDS with the New, divided application undergoing initial processing status on TSDR) and 97977848 ( JURICON with the Application is void because it did not meet minimum filing date requirements. Serial number was assigned in error status on TSDR). Both of these trademarks appear as live, pending applications on Trademark Search. Well, 97977848 - JURICON - is clearly dead, and I suspect 97977361 - FOR FIERCELY ORIGINAL BRANDS - is divisional noise that just hasn't been noticed and deleted yet (or does someone need to wake-up the examining attorney?). Since the USPTO is not inclined to correct the 65 dead 81-series registrations retrieved by the SA:( "cancelled - restored to pendency" ) search, what are the odds they'll be at all concerned about either of these two records?
Happy Trademarking,
Ken Boone
________________________________
From: E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> on behalf of Ken Boone via E-trademarks <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2024 3:47 PM
To: E-Trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
Cc: Ken Boone <boondogles at hotmail.com>
Subject: [E-trademarks] My "New Application Awaiting Assignment To An Examining Attorney" Search
With the announcement that the USPTO soon will be providing a new summary page to Trademark Search, I'm guessing it is time to reveal my new application awaiting assignment to an examining attorney search, namely
(SA:" application assignment" ~5) NOT (SA:" application assignment" ~3)
that retrieves 365,172 trademarks today, where every trademark that I've checked has the new application awaiting assignment to an examining attorney status on TSDR.
More curious is adding a filing date range restriction or other criteria to the search. For example,
FD:[* TO 20201231] AND (SA:" application assignment" ~5) AND OW:usa NOT (SA:" application assignment" ~3)
retrieves the 182 oldest applications filed prior to calendar year 2021 with USA owners, significantly older than the June 23, 2023 - July 07, 2023 filing date range shown on the Current Backlog page.
Assuming the new summary page to be added to Trademark Search displays the SA - Status field, we will see the exact status phrases used in Trademark Search to confirm the accuracy of my new application awaiting assignment to an examining attorney search.
Happy Trademarking,
Ken Boone
________________________________
From: E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> on behalf of Ken Boone via E-trademarks <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2024 8:18 AM
To: For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice. <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
Cc: Ken Boone <boondogles at hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] A "the mark consists" Search Curiosity
Thank you, Carl and Ron, for your interest & comments.
I suspect at least part of the problem is that the USPTO may not have not created new status codes for records under investigation for possible suspension (which is why I included correspondence addresses for 15 oldest trademarks that I listed yesterday). Unfortunately since Trademark Search does not include correspondence addresses, tracking new applications awaiting assignment to an examining attorney status by correspondence addresses is largely a manual operation on TSDR.
Comparing Ron's search (14,331 hits) to my search (13,908 hit), Ron's search retrieved all of my hits plus 423 additional hits, but from my quick review of about a dozen of those additional hits, none had the desired new application awaiting assignment to an examining attorney status on TSDR.
Yesterday evening, I started a fresh search session and ran 2 version of my new application awaiting assignment to an examining attorney search, namely the full search and the search restricted to only OW:usa hits (as I figure we're more interested in USA applications than foreign applications, especially applications from China). I kept that session running overnight and repeated those 2 searches again. Below are the results.
Id
Query
ResultCount
Diff
1
Full Search on Monday
13,908
2
Just OW:usa on Monday
5,581
3
Full Search Today
13,866
(42)
4
Just OW:usa Today
5,541
(40)
5
( 1 ) NOT ( 3 )
0
6
( 2 ) NOT ( 4 )
0
Assuming my searches are accurate, the counts of new applications awaiting assignment to an examining attorney filed before 1 Jan 2023 did decline slightly. Unfortunately, since back reference in Trademark Search merely repeats the search, the back references in searches 5 and 6 did not identify the differences in the search results between Monday and today. To track/analyze changes in the search results over time implies downloading the serial numbers for the search and then checking any changes in status for those serial numbers. I did download several hundred of the OW:usa hits yesterday, but I'm not too anxious to try to detect any status changes for those downloaded records. (None of the 50 oldest hits for my search were updated on Trademark Search today.)
Another curiosity. I recently noticed that the descriptions of the mark drawing codes on TSDR were revised. Why? The table below summarizes the mark drawing code descriptions from the online help of the new Trademark Search System and TSDR.
MDC
Trademark Search Online Help
TSDR
0
unknown
UNKNOWN MARK DRAWING TYPE
1
typed drawing
TYPESET WORD(S) /LETTER(S) /NUMBER(S)
2
design only
AN ILLUSTRATION DRAWING WITHOUT ANY WORDS(S)/ LETTER(S) /NUMBER(S)
3
design plus words, letters, and/or numbers
AN ILLUSTRATION DRAWING WHICH INCLUDES WORD(S)/ LETTER(S) /NUMBER(S)
4
standard character mark
STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
5
words, letters, and/or numbers in stylized form
AN ILLUSTRATION DRAWING WITH WORD(S)/LETTER(S)/NUMBER(S) IN STYLIZED FORM
6
no drawing
NO DRAWING
Does anyone else find the expression ILLUSTRATION DRAWING redundant? How about the term WORDS(S) - is WORDSS supposed to be the plural of WORDS? Are punctuation characters considered letters or numbers?
Happy Trademarking,
Ken Boone
PS - My new application awaiting assignment to an examining attorney search includes two SA terms but NOT the term new used by Ron.
PPS - Today the search LD:true NOT (GS:* SN:8900* SN:81* ) retrieves 1151 hits, mostly newer applications with NULL goods/services entries? Any guesses of why automated processing of new applications frequently fails to load goods/services included in the raw applications to either Trademark Search or TSDR?
________________________________
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: Monday, March 4, 2024 12:24 PM
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] A "the mark consists" Search Curiosity
Thank you, Ken and Ron. This is fascinating.
One wonders how it can be that the Trademark Office clearly does not do such "boundary condition checking" itself. Anybody who administers any system that tracks tasks or production would normally incorporate a variety of boundary condition checks into the routine workflow.
This includes things like cross-checking to see whether characters are rendered legibly in one part of the system but are rendered unintelligibly in some other part of the system. This includes things like identifying entries in the database that have had no changes to the entry in more than X number of weeks or months. In a system where there are easy-to-see starting points and end points for tasks, here for example the filing date and the registration date, there are simple and easy-to-do reports that could be generated to try to identify cases that deviate widely from the normal life span of the tasks.
This stuff is easy to do (Ken does it, Ron does it, others on the listserv do it) and easy to automate. Yet it is clear the Trademark Office snoozes through stuff like this.
There ought to be automated reports, maybe once per month, that land on the desk of somebody in the office of the Commissioner for Trademarks. And the reports would list stuff like this. And somebody somewhere would figure out why this category of cases or that category of cases ends up languishing.
On 3/4/2024 11:01 AM, Ron Kadden via E-trademarks wrote:
The closest I can come is the following, which picks up unassigned applications and applications that have been assigned with no further action:
14,331 results for LD:true AND FD:[* TO 20221231] AND SA:new.
Ron Kadden
On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 11:57 AM Ken Boone via E-trademarks <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>> wrote:
The search WD: "the mark consists" AND LD:true AND FD:[* TO 20221231] retrieves a single pending trademark with the drawing
[Image for 97681714, select for more details]
Curiously, this 17 November 2022 application (approaching 16 months old) has yet to be assigned to an examining attorney. Why? Just guessing, but maybe Pre-Exam set this application aside for review by an attorney as a likely informal application (as the drawing does not resemble any portion of the specimen provided by my quick review). There is only a single entry in the prosecution history, namely NEW APPLICATION ENTERED dated 4 days following the filing date. (More typically, a second NEW APPLICATION OFFICE SUPPLIED DATA ENTERED prosecution history entry is added when Pre-Exam has performed their processing.) This is NOT a pro se application, though I only see 8 total trademarks by that attorney of record. (The good news is that this is the only "the mark consists" wordmark hit over 14 month old.)
My first question: Is this an informal application? Alternatively, could the filer submit a preliminary amendment with Princess Egypt Closet (or some other phrase occurring in the specimen provided) as the word mark for a standard character drawing? If the latter, wouldn't the filing date have to be amended to the date the amended drawing was received at the USPTO? (No reply expected.)
My usual follow-up question: How many other new applications filed prior to 1 January 2023 (i.e., now over 14 months old) have yet to be assigned to an examining attorney for examination?
Are aware of a search on the new trademark search system that answers that question?
The two solutions that I have mentioned before: (1) add the prosecution histories to trademark search and (2) add the TSDR status to trademark search whenever a trademark is updated on trademark search, versus the current SA - Status field that is NOT displayed and whose exact content is unknown. (In this case, it would be nice to search the status new application awaiting assignment to an examining attorney for a particular filing date range to find other older applications yet to be assigned to an examining attorney for examination.)
As it happens, I have a candidate SA - Status field search that appears to retrieve all live applications with the new application awaiting assignment to an examining attorney status. Today, that search retrieves 381,616 pending trademarks. Restricting those hits to applications filed prior to 1 January 2023, that search retrieves 13,908 new applications over 14 months old that have not been assigned to a USPTO examining attorney for examination. Sorry, but I'm still reviewing those 13,908 applications to verify that each has the new application awaiting assignment to an examining attorney status on TSDR, but here are the 15 oldest applications retrieved by my search.
#
SN
FD
WM
Comment
1
90202945
09/23/20
FAT ALBERT
Attorney Name: Mary R. Bonzagni
2
90230047
10/01/20
CHUCKLECIDE
Correspondent e-mail: Legal at theblitzdesign.com<mailto:Legal at theblitzdesign.com>
3
90230467
10/01/20
AFFAIRE BIKINIS
Correspondent e-mail: Legal at theblitzdesign.com<mailto:Legal at theblitzdesign.com>
4
90230590
10/01/20
IGNITE
Correspondent e-mail: Legal at theblitzdesign.com<mailto:Legal at theblitzdesign.com>
5
90230860
10/01/20
I.ANDROID.LIVE FREQUENCY BASED MUSIC
Correspondent e-mail: Legal at theblitzdesign.com<mailto:Legal at theblitzdesign.com>
6
90231937
10/02/20
TMC TERRA METALS CORP.
Correspondent e-mail: Legal at theblitzdesign.com<mailto:Legal at theblitzdesign.com>
7
90235170
10/05/20
M MYCHMAR
Correspondent e-mail: Legal at theblitzdesign.com<mailto:Legal at theblitzdesign.com>
8
90235341
10/05/20
L..O. QUEINT DEFINED FASHION
Correspondent e-mail: Legal at theblitzdesign.com<mailto:Legal at theblitzdesign.com>
9
90235429
10/05/20
MINDFUL LUNATIC
Correspondent e-mail: Legal at theblitzdesign.com<mailto:Legal at theblitzdesign.com>
10
90235569
10/05/20
BOOKGASM
Correspondent e-mail: Legal at theblitzdesign.com<mailto:Legal at theblitzdesign.com>
11
90237546
10/06/20
SPA BEAUTY
Correspondent e-mail: Legal at theblitzdesign.com<mailto:Legal at theblitzdesign.com>
12
90238108
10/06/20
SPA BEAUTY NYC
Correspondent e-mail: Legal at theblitzdesign.com<mailto:Legal at theblitzdesign.com>
13
90238486
10/06/20
NEW YORK PODIATRY GROUP
Correspondent e-mail: tyler.ross at designproficient.com<mailto:tyler.ross at designproficient.com>
14
90239836
10/07/20
HEAVENLY VOICE GLOBAL MINISTRIES.
Correspondent e-mail: Legal at theblitzdesign.com<mailto:Legal at theblitzdesign.com>
15
90239912
10/07/20
ENTREPRENEUR CONNECTIONS NETWORK
Correspondent e-mail: tyler.ross at designproficient.com<mailto:tyler.ross at designproficient.com>
Hmmm ... perhaps I should generate a more random sample of those 13,908 new applications over 14 months old that have not been assigned to a USPTO examining attorney for examination. Stay tuned.
Happy trademarking,
Ken Boone
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250115/eb814ab1/attachment.html>
More information about the E-trademarks
mailing list