The Trademark Office just issued a warning this week about a new trademark scam.

Our family foster dog for the week

Trademark scams are nothing new; trademark owners have for years received mailings that appear to be from the Trademark Office but are from scam companies instead (I’ve written about other ones here and here and here).  However, scammers have recently started actually calling owners of trademark applications and registrations, falsely claiming to be employees with the Trademark Office.  The scammers spoof the phone line, which causes your phone to display a faked name, number, and location.

These call look like it’s coming straight from Trademark Office.  The scammers then request personal information and fee payments.  People are falling victim to it because they do, indeed, have applications at the Trademark Office – the calls are not just random inquiries.

The US Patent and Trademark Office is a critical part of the federal government that helps to protect and promote innovation and creativity.  The Office is responsible for granting patents and trademarks to inventors, artists, and entrepreneurs to help them protect their ideas and creations.  This spoofing is especially dangerous because the call appears to be coming from such a trusted government agency.  Moreover, the scammers call people they know have business with the Trademark Office, so from the trademark owner’s perspective, it is not completely unreasonable to receive such a call.

The Office has provided the following tips on their website (https://www.uspto.gov/subscription-center/2023/beware-spoofed-calls-impersonate-uspto) to help people avoid falling victim to these scams:

1. Do not give out personal information over the phone, especially in response to unsolicited calls.
2. If you receive a call from someone claiming to be from the USPTO, hang up and call the Trademark Assistance Center using a legitimate phone number; you can look this number independently on the USPTO website.
3. Do not respond to text messages or emails that ask for personal information. The USPTO never asks for sensitive information through text or email.
4. If you have already fallen victim to one of these scams, you can do these things:
   1. Report it to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and file a complaint on their website at https://www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov.
   2. Email TMScams@uspto.gov.The information will be sent to a Trademark Office task force investigating suspicious activity.
   3. Contact your financial institutions, such as your bank or credit card company, to determine if you can dispute the charges.
   4. Check with the Trademark Office or a license trademark attorney to confirm that your trademark application or registration has not been affected.
   5. You can file a spoofed-call complaint with the Federal Communications Commission.
   6. Contact your state consumer protection authorities and your state’s Attorney General. Most states have the authority to investigate companies involved in deceptive solicitations.

This isn’t the first type of trademark scam, and it won’t be the last.  It is important to be vigilant and aware of the tactics used by scammers to try to trick you into giving them your personal and financial information.  By following the tips provided by the USPTO and being aware of the dangers of spoofed calls, you can help protect yourself and others from becoming victims of these scams.

Kami writes this post –

Christmas Tree for a TCH House

For many years, I oversaw an extensive holiday giving program for my former law firm which involved coordinating the purchase of gifts for hundreds of people in need.  With the help of my colleagues, we fulfilled wish lists that contained everything from toys to tube socks to towels.  The individuals we helped changed every year with one exception: a small group of adult men with significant mental and physical disabilities who lived together in a group home in Tempe, Arizona.

We first “adopted” this group home around 2008 through a wonderful local organization called The Centers for Habilitation.  Even after changing law firms in 2019, I made sure to take this group home with me, and my new firm agreed to adopt them.  When I joined Thomas W. Galvani P.C. in 2021, I again couldn’t leave these men behind.  Tom and I have now begun helping these men out all on our own for the holidays.

Each year for the last 14 years, I have purchased gifts for and had a little pizza party with the gentlemen living in this group home.  Some men have come and gone, but there have been a few I have known for at least a decade.  Their wish lists for the 2022 holiday season were humbling as always and included new clothing, lunchboxes, puzzles, and keys and keychains to add to an ever-growing collection.

I was excited to take my daughter to the party with me this year, and I hope she will continue our family tradition of helping others when she becomes an adult.  While we don’t really believe in New Year’s resolutions at our house, if you are looking to start off 2023 by helping someone in need, we encourage to look at some folks that are often overlooked.  If you have any questions about TCH, please get in touch and we can help.  We hope your new year is off to a great start!

This week the law firm was recognized as a Green Business by the City of Phoenix. We are the second law firm in Phoenix to be recognized for its efforts in diverting material away from area landfills. We emphasize all three important elements of reduce, reuse, and recycle to conserve resources here at the office.  We’re thrilled with the recognition, but more concerned that other businesses may be missing the opportunity to reduce their footprints.

If you’d like more information about our efforts or the efforts of the City of Phoenix, please give us a call and we’d be happy to talk with you about how you can help.

Today I came across this article from Inventors Digest featuring podcast star Adam Carolla.  It captions his life as a metaphor for invention – the ability to try, fail, and improve.  And it makes a good point that America, and each of us living in it, are all constant inventions.  Some fail, some succeed, most are trying to improve.  Carolla proposes his own metaphor for the country-countrymen symbiosis: some of us are pushing it along, some are freeriding inside, and some are out front getting in the way.  Which are you?

Unlike oppositions in trademark examinations, there is no formal opposition proceeding in patent examinations.   Patent applicants can consent to protests or pre-issuance oppositions on a case-by-case basis and reexamination proceedings after issuance can occur, but generally, third-party communications concerning an application are disregarded.  Nevertheless, if/when an examiner is made aware of prior art which is relevant to patentability, it can be difficult to ignore and is sometimes considered.  Trademark-like opposition procedures have been proposed, but have not yet been adopted.

A case that recently worked through the Federal Circuit has illustrated this “can’t unring that bell” problem.  In Radio Systems Corp v. Accession, Inc., the two named companies had been considering a license agreement involving a patent owned by Accession’s sole employee.  Radio Systems applied for a patent on a similar device near the end of the negotiations in 2007.  In 2009, Radio Systems received a notice of allowance on its patent application.  Accession hired a patent attorney who corresponded with the Patent Office concerning the Radio Systems patent application and Accession’s own issued patent.  The Patent Office subsequently withdrew its notice of allowance and issued a rejection on one of the Radio Systems’ patent’s claims.  The claim was withdrawn without argument and the patent proceeded to issuance.

The case highlights the problem that an examiner can’t unsee prior art obtained in violation of administrative rules.  Though the Accession prior art really shouldn’t have been presented to the examiner, it was, and once it was, it was impossible for the examiner to ignore.  Arguably, the right result was reached – a patent was issued on valid claims, where, had the prior art not been raised, a patent would have been issued with an invalid claims.  But do the ends justify the means, and in what circumstances can or should the examiner attempt to turn a blind eye?

Following on very nicely with what I wrote yesterday, today I found an example of a mouthful of a trademark.  You can decide how many of Steve’s characteristics this mark upholds / violates:

The Word Mark: JUST PLAIN JOE COFFEE COMPANY “GOURMET COFFEE AT A REASONABLE PRICE” THE JUST PLAIN JOE COFFEE COMPANY, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE CAROLINA COFFEE ROASTING COMPANY, GOES ALL-OUT TO BRING YOU THE FRESHEST WHOLE BEAN COFFEE WITHOUT ALL THE PRICEY TRAPPINGS. OUR IDEA IS THAT A FIRST-RATE CUP OF COFFEE SHOULDN’T COST AN ARM AND A LEG AND OUGHT NOT FORCE YOU TO HOCK YOUR STUFF TO BUY A POUND OR TWO. OUR HOPE IS THAT YOU ENJOY THIS REASONABLY PRICED COFFEE AS MUCH AS WE ENJOY PRODUCING IT FOR YOU PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN COMPANY P.O. BOX 884, STEVENSVILLE, MD 21666 NET. WT. 1 LB

Yep, that’s the whole thing.  I don’t think it sets the record for the longest trademark ever, but it has to be up there.  Sorry for the poor quality enlargement.

Please, lawyers, please, stop writing “X statute provides in pertinent part.”  Several reasons.   First,you’re probably not using it right, because you’re quoting the whole statute.   Second, if you’re only quoting part of the statute, then your use of ellipses will let us all know and your “pertinent part” becomes redundant.  Third, the cliched alliteration just sounds ridiculous.

I’ve now linked this blog to twitter.   I’ll be sending out periodic updates from my blog on patent, trademark, and copyright news and tips.