[E-trademarks] 2024 USPTO filings (mostly not from this list)
Pamela Chestek
pamela at chesteklegal.com
Mon Jan 20 23:28:11 UTC 2025
Thanks Emil, that's very interesting. For what it's worth, I find Amazon
to be a fairly useless marketplace for this very reason. Nowadays the
results list is garbage. You used to be able to scan for reputable
sellers but I can't find them anymore. Whenever I search, virtually all
the results are for consonant-only products, generally with spelling or
grammatical errors in the listing. I'm not going to buy consonant-only
computer cables because they might fry my electronics, or eye hooks
because they will be made of inferior metal, or a replacement stylus
because it might not mate with my tablet. I recently read an article
published in the TMR
<https://www.inta.org/resources/the-trademark-reporter/> suggesting
there would be a post-trademark world because AI will be so good at
ascertaining what product we need we won't need to rely on trademarks,
but we aren't there yet.
So in IMHO, while many of the trademarks are actually legitimately used
for products, Amazon has successfully fostered a marketplace so full of
crap that it has become completely unreliable. Perhaps they should
direct their efforts at verifying the legitimacy of vendors and the
reliability of their products (gee - isn't that what stores used to
do?), not using a trademark registration as a proxy for it.
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 1/20/2025 11:55 AM, Emil Ali via E-trademarks wrote:
>
> I think I have some insight to what everyone might consider a problem.
>
> First, we have to understand why “these applicants” file trademark
> applications with the USPTO. It can easily be explained, not by the
> USPTO’s inaccurate suggestion that China is subsidizing filings, but
> because “these applicants” want to sell on Amazon.com, and that
> company requires (currently) a pending application with a trademark
> authority. In the US, it would be the USPTO.
>
> Why Amazon requires a trademark application is simple—they rely on the
> government to be the determining factor (to save them money) on who
> owns a TM, and hopefully to make the takedown process easier. So if I
> want to sell my Tumi Backpack on their website, I cannot—because I
> don’t have the Amazon Brand Registry Code from Tumi’s mark. When
> people ask why there are so many gibberish trademarks filed—one can
> just see that those are the easiest to fly through the USPTO.
>
> Next, not all the attorneys who get involved are bad. Many are down on
> their luck, and many more have their identity stolen. Others also work
> with larger staff to get what their clients want—a filed application
> to get onto ABR. I have seen all ends of the spectrum—not everyone who
> represents applicants from China are “bad.”
>
> I also understand that Amazon is feeling the pressure of their
> mistake. On of their outside counsels, Brad Behar, has been filing
> “anonymous” grievances against attorneys who practice before the
> USPTO—usually ones that complained to Amazon about being on a
> blacklist (remember that for a while if you took over the POA in an
> application subject to sanctions, you were placed on a blacklist).
> They have since expanded their grievance submission process to anyone
> who has filed a large number of trademark applications from China.
>
> Finally, the USPTO is obligated, under the APA, to allow attorneys
> licensed in any state or territory to appear before them in non-patent
> matters. As such, I don’t believe an exam is possible, absent
> congressional intervention. I also don’t know how much that would help.
>
> My take—solve the problem by telling Amazon to stop abusing the
> trademark system. If sellers in China did not need to apply for a
> trademark application, we would not have the flood of applications.
> Unfortunately, though, Amazon has outsized influence at the USPTO, and
> many people on this listserv may also see a lower volume of
> applications, because non-Chinese sellers are looking for the same ABR
> code.
>
> *Emil J. Ali*
>
> PARTNER
> *P:* 310.596.1234 | *C:* 202.556.3645 | *F:* 310.649.7890
> emil at mccabeali.com
>
> McCabe & Ali, LLP
>
> 13337 South Street, Suite 555, Cerritos, CA 90703
> O: 877.633.4097 | mccabeali.com
>
> *From: *E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> on
> behalf of Miriam Richter, Esq. via E-trademarks
> <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> *Date: *Monday, January 20, 2025 at 11:41 AM
> *To: *Annette Heller <tmattorneyheller at aol.com>, For trademark
> practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice.
> <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> *Cc: *Miriam Richter, Esq. <mrichter at richtertrademarks.com>
> *Subject: *Re: [E-trademarks] 2024 USPTO filings (mostly not from this
> list)
>
> All good points and some of the reasons I gave up on it. My crusade
> was actually not because of the fraud issues but was, as Pam describes
> it, the knowledge gap. It was also before the US attorney requirement.
> I can’t tell you how many meetings I attended where the quality of
> applications was the source of our angst. As Carl can confirm (because
> he is an exception) my gripes started with the patent attorneys and
> the others who do trademark work on the side. Those of us who are 100%
> trademark do a lot of damage control for applications filed by the
> non-TM practitioners.
>
> Since then, however, our collective focus (and mine) has been shifted
> to bigger and more pressing issues. I don’t think we will find a
> solution but rather, will continue chopping away at the problem in
> small bites by making small changes.
>
> Into the breach we must charge!
>
> Best,
>
> Miriam
>
> Miriam Richter, Attorney at Law, P.L.
>
> /Make Your Mark!// ®/
>
> Trademark, Copyright, and other Intellectual Property Matters
> 2312 Wilton Drive, Suite 9
> Wilton Manors, Florida 33305
>
> 954-977-4711 office
>
> 954-240-8819 cell
> 954-977-4717 facsimile
> *
> **NOTICE: This e-mail message and any attachment to this e-mail
> message contains _confidential information_ that may be _legally
> privileged_. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not
> review, retransmit, convert to hard copy, copy, use or disseminate
> this e-mail or any attachments to it. If you have received this e-mail
> in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail or by
> telephone at 954-240-8819 and delete this message. Please note that if
> this e-mail message contains a forwarded message or is a reply to a
> prior message, some or all of the contents of this message or
> anyattachments may not have been produced by the sender.*
>
> *From:*E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> *On
> Behalf Of *Annette Heller via E-trademarks
> *Sent:* Monday, January 20, 2025 2:27 PM
> *To:* e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com; e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com
> *Cc:* Annette Heller <tmattorneyheller at aol.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [E-trademarks] 2024 USPTO filings (mostly not from this
> list)
>
> I agree with Pam's reasoning. An exam won't solve any of the problems
> and would become another administrative expense
>
> Annette P. Heller
> Trademark/Copyright Attorney
> TM Law & Associates
> 400 Chesterfield Center Ste 400
> Chesterfield [St Louis] MO 63017
>
> www.TrademarkAtty.com <http://www.trademarkatty.com/>
>
> 314-469-2610 Fax 314-469-4850
>
> In a message dated 1/20/2025 12:15:42 PM Central Standard Time,
> e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com writes:
>
> As one of only 25 certified trademark specialists in the country,*
> and having been on the committee that prepares the questions and
> grades the exams, I think I can speak with some authority!
>
> I don't think the problem is one of knowledge but one of identity
> of the filer, and the PTO claims to be addressing the latter
> problem (in part by diligently rooting out those virtual
> addresses). The difficulty of an exam is where you draw the line
> on knowledge. Will you draw it where those business lawyers who
> file 2-3 applications are year, and surely don't know the TMEP
> (and, god forbid, are still filing paper applications) will fail,
> or not bother to take it? Who does that serve? (Well us, for
> starters.) How huge is the administrative burden and cost of
> testing tens of thousands of people?
>
> The data you cited revealed very few offices filing a lot of
> applications. IMHO, what the attorney representation requirement
> did was turn a cottage industry into a consolidated industry that
> works way more efficiently than those individuals ever did. The
> industrial machine will have a lawyer take (and pass) the exam and
> still file just as many fraudulent applications. Crooks gonna
> crook and there are plenty of lawyers who would be willing to
> flout the ethical rules to do it - I mean, it's not like they send
> you to jail for it. So you won't have solved the problem but you
> will have reduced the number lawyers available to the public for
> legitimate work. So I don't see testing as a step that will
> actually do much to address the problem.
>
> Pam
>
> *AFAIK, North Carolina is the only state to have a trademark
> specialty and there are currently 25 of us on the list. 👋👋 my
> fellow NC specialists!
>
> 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 <http://www.chesteklegal.com>
>
> On 1/20/2025 9:36 AM, Lara Pearson via E-trademarks wrote:
>
> Perhaps the list serv can pick up the mantle if there is consensus
> here that this might be a viable solution.
>
> I'd be especially thrilled if we could swap this solution out for
> the ineffective, arduous Domicile Requirement that does nothing to
> achieve it's stated purpose (as Clarivate's table shows) and
> instead causes bona fide applicants time, money and stress.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Lara Pearson, Esq.
>
> Law Office of Lara Pearson Ltd, PBC & Brand Geek
>
> 775.833.1600
>
> Calendly.com/BrandGeek <http://Calendly.com/BrandGeek> (let's meet)
>
> Creative typoing by iPhone
>
> On Jan 20, 2025, at 9:32 AM, Miriam Richter, Esq.
> <mrichter at richtertrademarks.com>
> <mailto:mrichter at richtertrademarks.com> wrote:
>
> Lara,
>
> For years, I was very vocal about this idea (as many on this list
> serve can attest). As hard as I tried, and as many PTO and AIPLA
> officials as I talked to, I could not get any traction. If you
> want to pick up the mantle, you have my full support!
>
> Best,
>
> Miriam
>
> Miriam Richter, Attorney at Law, P.L.
>
> /Make Your Mark!// ®/
>
> Trademark, Copyright, and other Intellectual Property Matters
> 2312 Wilton Drive, Suite 9
> Wilton Manors, Florida 33305
>
> 954-977-4711 office
>
> 954-240-8819 cell
> 954-977-4717 facsimile
> *
> **NOTICE: This e-mail message and any attachment to this e-mail
> message contains _confidential information_ that may be _legally
> privileged_. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not
> review, retransmit, convert to hard copy, copy, use or disseminate
> this e-mail or any attachments to it. If you have received this
> e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail or
> by telephone at 954-240-8819 and delete this message. Please note
> that if this e-mail message contains a forwarded message or is a
> reply to a prior message, some or all of the contents of this
> message or anyattachments may not have been produced by the sender.*
>
> *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 20, 2025 12:21 PM
> *To:* 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>; e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com
> <mailto:e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [E-trademarks] 2024 USPTO filings (mostly not from
> this list)
>
> One of the suggestions I made in my post was that the US PTO
> administer a trademark admissions exam similar in nature to that
> which it uses for patent attorneys.
>
> I would love to know ya'll thoughts on whether that could work to
> address the issue of fraudulent, primarily Chinese, TM apps.
>
> I'm especially curious to hear from Carl and the other patent/TM
> attorneys on the list.
>
> Happy MLK Day.
>
> Warmly,
>
> Lara Pearson, Esq.
>
> Law Office of Lara Pearson Ltd, PBC & Brand Geek
>
> 775.833.1600
>
> Calendly.com/BrandGeek <http://Calendly.com/BrandGeek> (let's meet)
>
> Creative typoing by iPhone
>
> On Jan 19, 2025, at 6:02 PM, Pamela Chestek via E-trademarks
> <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:
>
> Fascinating reading, thanks for posting Lara.
>
> 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
> www.chesteklegal.com <http://www.chesteklegal.com>
>
> On 1/19/2025 5:25 PM, Lara Pearson via E-trademarks wrote:
>
> Hi List friends:
>
> Happy Sunday Funday.
>
> I reposted Robert Reading & Clarivate's data on 2024 US TM
> filings on LinkedIn:
> https://www.linkedin.com/posts/brandgeek_trademarks-activity-7286822761556033536-bRZ3?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_ios
> <https://www.linkedin.com/posts/brandgeek_trademarks-activity-7286822761556033536-bRZ3?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_ios>
>
> Let's discuss (here, and there, and everywhere) and may we
> each find a joyful way to honor MLK tomorrow.
>
> I feel grateful for each of you, and this list brings me
> joy (and so much wisdom).
>
> Cheers!
>
> Lara Pearson, Esq.
>
> Law Office of Lara Pearson Ltd, PBC & Brand Geek
>
> 775.833.1600
>
> Calendly.com/BrandGeek <http://Calendly.com/BrandGeek>
> (let's meet)
>
> Creative typoing by iPhone
>
> --
> E-trademarks mailing list
> E-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com
> http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com
>
> --
> 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/20250120/cb80b454/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 19898 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250120/cb80b454/attachment.jpg>
More information about the E-trademarks
mailing list