[E-trademarks] 2024 USPTO filings (mostly not from this list)
Pamela Chestek
pamela at chesteklegal.com
Mon Jan 20 23:56:16 UTC 2025
Oh, we're there.
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 3:41 PM, Orvis wrote:
> For the reasons you stated, I wish somebody would start a competitive
> service where the results are based on what you searched for, not what
> the algorithm suggests. If the marketplace rules are what they are,
> brands for a lot of things don't matter. That's why you see a ton of
> nonsensical brand names for low dollar product. I am concerned that
> one day those will be the only results you see.
>
> Jan 20, 2025 6:29:39 PM Pamela Chestek via E-trademarks
> <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>:
>
> 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/20250120/590078c1/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/20250120/590078c1/attachment.jpg>
More information about the E-trademarks
mailing list