Just launched is our new TM search tool to assist your clearance and knockout searches, by providing you with one-of-a-kind information to help you predict prosecution outcomes. Armed with examples of similar marks that have been previously opposed or refused by the examiner under 2(d) or 2(e), you can now make more informed decisions and have the inside scoop on potential obstacles you may encounter! Moreover, using this info to prepare your response to office actions or appeals can save you considerable time down the road, and we can easily refresh your results months later with the most up-to-date information from the PTO. Results are delivered to you within 24 hours (in many cases even same day) on our secure online portal. See first hand how this amazing tool can streamline and augment your own clearance process.
Just returned from the annual INTA conference where we had the opportunity to network with some of our existing clients as well as to meet potential new ones. As you can imagine, having the opportunity to meaningfully engage your client base, especially attorneys pressed for time, is a real challenge to most service providers. But it can be a very rewarding and insightful exercise… in a word, invaluable. We have some interesting new idea kernels to chew on, which will no doubt lead to more innovative products we hope to soon launch! Thanks to everyone we had the opportunity to meet, present to, and dialogue with. You ideas help incubate and evolve our products, so stayed tuned.
Here’s a notable observation we’ve come across while parsing through PTO data used each week to generate our popular 2(d) Citation Watch: Applicant’s frequent use of another’s registered trademark within the identification and classification of goods. Notable examples of this (mal)practice are just about any product by APPLE Inc. (iPhone, iPad,etc.,) and apparently those of HOODIES USA. Using the example of APPLE, we’ve seen the following notations by the examiner countless times. The wording “IPHONE” in the identification of goods is a registered mark not owned by applicant. See enclosed registration. In its own application, an applicant may use its own registered mark in an identification of goods or services, but may not use a registered mark owned by another party. A registered mark indicates origin in one party and cannot be used to define goods or services that originate in a party other than the registrant. TMEP §1402.09; see Camloc Fastener Corp. v. Grant, 119 USPQ 264, 264 n.1 (TTAB 1958). Therefore, applicant must amend the identification of goods by deleting the wording “IPHONE” and substituting the common commercial or generic name for the goods. In general, isn’t this a basic tenet of TM-101? Is there sufficient awareness by […]