• Find the point of novelty
  • Broadcast your rights
  • Turn ideas into assets
  • Drive forward
  • Draw the future

Tag: trademark application

Trademark Office Changes Rules About Personal Emails

Descanso Gardens

About two months ago, the Trademark Office announced entities would have to begin disclosing their personal email addresses in trademark applications and trademark registrations.  I joined almost 200 trademark attorneys in protest of this rule.  We argued that it would expose clients and pro se applicants to spam emails, would eliminate applicants’ privacy, and would provide no real benefits.  The Trademark Office caved on some filings, but not all, and we were required to disclose applicants’ email addresses.

On Friday, the Trademark Office altered course.  While still requiring that personal email addresses be disclosed in trademark applications and trademark registrations, those addresses will be hidden from public view.  The exception is if a trademark applicant files an application on his or her own.

The announcement from the Trademark Office:

We’re taking steps to address your concerns about owner email addresses being visible in TSDR. The owner email address field is now masked in TEAS and TEASi documents viewable in TSDR, including submissions viewable in the documents tab, application programming interfaces (APIs), and PDF downloads. Unrepresented owner email addresses will still be viewable in the correspondence email address field. When you open a TEAS or TEASi document in TSDR, you’ll see ‘XXX’” in the owner email address field. We believe this will help reduce the number of solicitations you receive.



Protecting Cannabis-Related Intellectual Property

Many say cannabis is the next “Wild West.”  Although a convenient metaphor, it is not entirely appropriate.  Expansion into the American West was full of risk, speculation, and fraud.  The growth of the cannabis industry has been continuous and risky, and while some of the players in the industry have questionable practices and ethics, most are sophisticated business people strategically watching the market and the law.

No Clear Roads Ahead for Cannabis Trademark Protection (photo: Grand Tetons)

For cannabis, companies must negotiate a complex and evolving patchwork of state and federal laws.  Both levels of protection can be used to gain greater security.  Federal protection is advantageous because it is centralized, national, and thus likely to be cheaper and easier to maintain and administer.  However, federal protection has been slow to evolve, and has been risky to pursue.

The availability of federal cannabis trademark registration has waxed and waned in the past ten years, and in the last year has been completely thrown for a loop.  While THC-related trademarks have always been impossible to register, CBD-related ones could be through certain avenues.  Trademark Examiners began issuing rejections against THC marks under the Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”) a few years ago – but did so inconsistently.  The industry hoped that the 2018 Farm Bill would remove the CDA blockade, and it did, but only for trademarks used in connection with products that contain certain minimal levels of CBD only.  However, the Trademark Office also began citing the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act (“FDCA”), administered by the FDA, which prevents the sale of anything containing a product that is under clinical investigation by the FDA.  As such, any CBD-containing product which is edible or ingestible – and some CBD products which are topically applicable – now cannot be registered for trademark protection.  Federal law has been a moving target for the past year or two, which has caused trademark owners to file trademark applications, change strategy midstream, split applications into risky and less risky new applications, and generally just keep their fingers crossed during the whole process.  While average processing time for most trademark applications can be 6-12 months, cannabis trademark applications are much longer.

State trademark protection can be much easier to obtain, but it has to be done on a state-by-state basis, obviously.  This can become expensive and more difficult to keep track of.  Additionally, some of the states have changed their rules governing what is and is not permissible, requiring trademark owners to continually re-evaluate their approach.

Patent and copyright protection is much more straightforward, because they are not dependent on some of the same vulnerabilities that trademark protection has.  While trademark protection must be based on use – and thus lawful, permitted use – patent and copyright protection is not so limited.  A CBD or THC related invention is a patentable invention (presuming it meets all requirements of patentability) – and its quasi-legal subject matter does not negate that.  Same with copyrights – as long as the subject matter is something which is original and creative, it can be protected with copyright.

Despite this, we find that trademark protection is the one that cannabis companies usually want.  We work with a number of clients in this space and find that copyright is a secondary concern and patents a tertiary one, if at all.  Generally, protecting the name, the logo, and the brand is of the highest importance.  As a result, we spend a lot of time discussing strategy, short- and long-term risks, and what the road ahead holds for the client.



US Trademark Office Proposes Requiring Foreign Trademark Applicants to Use a US Attorney

About two months ago, the US Patent and Trademark Office proposed a rule change for representation of foreign-domiciled trademark applicants. The rule would affect trademark applicants, registrants, or parties to a proceeding such as an opposition or cancellation, whose domicile or principal place of business is not located within the United States or its territories. If the rule is implemented, these parties – or their foreign attorneys – would need to seek an attorney who is licensed to practice within the US.

The change has three stated goals. First, to increase “customer compliance” with federal trademark law. The second goal is to ensure the accuracy of submissions to the USPTO, and the third is to ensure the integrity of the US trademark register.

These goals all strike me as a little impersonal and machine-like, which may be the purpose behind an efficiency-driven rule change. They really just boil down to the hope that using a US attorney will increase the likelihood that the trademark application or registration, or proceeding flows smoothly through the Trademark Office because the person responsible for it will more likely be familiar with the Trademark Office’s rules. Of course, I’m not sure that these rules are effective measure for achieving the goals: plenty of US attorneys file trademark applications but shouldn’t – just because an attorney is barred in a US state does not mean that he or she is qualified to file a trademark application with the USPTO. We see lots of non-trademark attorneys that screw up filings because they just don’t know what they are doing. I am sure there are many foreign-based trademark attorneys who are better at prosecuting US trademarks than US non-trademark attorneys.

Many practitioners believe this is a response to the influx of Chinese sellers on Amazon and their use of protections offered through the Amazon Brand Registry 2.0 platform. This seems possible. We have seen more cases filed by Chinese applicants without an attorney of their own. Last week, we filed two actions against trademarks owned by Chinese-based applicants without any attorney at all. In both cases, the applications included specimens that appeared fraudulent, digitally-created photograph mock-ups meant to trick a US Examiner into accepting the application. And, both were instances where the applicants were also selling knock-off products on Amazon of my clients’ products. More so, it is well known that, while it costs as little as $225 to file a trademark application pro se, the Chinese government will award around $800 to a successful registration. Therefore, filing fake applications can be a revenue source for a Chinese resident.

The rule change is certainly good news for US attorneys, because it will drive more business to us. Much of that business likely doesn’t really need us – it can probably be competently handled by an experienced foreign attorney. But, some foreign applicants will benefit. And, some fraudulent trademark applications will be curtailed. If the Trademark Office were to require foreign applicants to first find a US attorney, this would raise the bar for filing slightly and would undoubtedly reduce the number of junk trademark applications.

We handle trademark applications in the US and outside the country frequently, both for domestic and foreign clients.  If you have questions about this rule change, or if you are in need of a US attorney, please don’t hesitate to contact us or call +1-602-281-6481.



Changing a Trademark From One Word to Two, or Two Words to One

Trademark applications frequently are filed and then need to be amended slightly. Sometimes these amendments are to change the identification of goods or services for the application, or to change the way the mark is described. Changes such as these are usually straightforward.

Sometimes, though, the trademark itself needs to be amended. This always needs to be done with extreme care and planning. This need usually arises in the context of an intent-to-use application, where an entity files a trademark application on a mark it is planning to use. Sometimes, the company or person is planning on using one form of a mark but then when the product actually goes to market, the form changes. Many times, I’ve seen a mark get filed as one word or as two words and then need to be switched to two words or one word, respectively. In other words, an application may be filed in the form ONE TWO and then need to be changed to ONETWO, or be changed from ONETWO to ONE TWO.

Changes like this are often driven by the way the mark is eventually actually used in commerce. Of course, preferably these changes can be anticipated and dealt with early; the timing of the change within the course of prosecution of the application can affect the ability and ease of making the change. Since the mark is usually already being used, changing the actual trademark is usually not an option. In other words, re-branding to keep the trademark consistent with the application is usually not an option – the costs of new designs, new printing, new labels, new stickers, new stitching, etc. are prohibitive. So usually the trademark application must be amended.

I do not recommend making changes to the mark in the application without the assistance of a trademark attorney. Per the trademark examination rules, a proposed amendment cannot materially alter the mark. If an Examiner finds that a proposed amendment materially alters the mark, the Examiner will refuse to enter the amendment, and then the application’s mark and the actual trademark will forever be inconsistent, leading ultimately to trademark application being abandoned. In some cases, depending on the timing of the amendment, the Examiner may not even be able to enter it, even if he or she would otherwise approve it. In other cases, it is better to file a response or a statement of use that shows the mark inconsistently, wait for the Examiner to raise the issue, and then respond.

Though changing the mark may seem like a very simple thing to do, it can have disastrous consequences, including abandonment of the application, and so careful planning and good counseling is absolutely necessary.



Filing an Amendment to a Trademark Application After Issuance of a Notice of Allowance but Before Submission of a Statement of Use

Trademark applications which are filed on an intent-to-use basis always present slight risks since the application is filed before the owner has begun using the trademark and before the owner knows 100% how the trademark will be used. There is always the possibility that the trademark will be changed somehow when the mark is actually used.

Generally, once a trademark application is filed, only limited changes can be made to the application, such as removing goods or services, amending the mark description, very minor changes to the mark itself, changing the attorney, some changes to the owner identification. These changes become more difficult to make the longer the application processes. Usually, the changes are most easily made before examination occurs (typically in the first 3-4 months). Once examination has begun, Examiners will often be more reluctant to approve changes. Of course, some changes may be necessitated by issues raised in an Office Action from the Examiner. After examination, most marks are scheduled for publication. Any changes should really tried to be made before publication, because once the trademark application is published, the application can only be changed on very limited grounds. Some changes cannot be made at all. Some changes require a petition to the Director.

Once publication ends, and a Notice of Allowance has issued in an intent-to-use trademark application, changes become even more limited. Generally, the only amendments that may be entered in an application between the issuance of the notice of allowance and the submission of a statement of use are: (1) the deletion of specified goods or services, or the entire description of the nature of the collective membership organization, from the identification; (2) the deletion of a basis in a multiple-basis application; and (3) changes of attorney and changes of address. The Trademark Office will enter other amendments during this period, but only with the express permission of the Director. This requires filing a petition laying out facts and reasons for the change, as well as payment of the petition fee. If the Director determines that the amendment requires review by the examining attorney, the petition will be denied and the amendment may be resubmitted with the statement of use in order for the applicant to preserve its right to review.



Registered Trademarks for the Amazon Brand Registry

Earlier this year, Amazon rolled out its Amazon Brand Registry, which is an effort to work with registered trademark owners to protect the customer experience on Amazon’s site. Since that time, as the official correspondence address on my clients’ trademark registration, I have received many requests from Amazon asking to validate and verify trademark owners for the registry. Enrollment in the Amazon Brand Registry provides trademark owners with improved tools for fighting trademark infringement.

It is well known that having a listing removed or a seller flagged for trademark infringement has often been a difficult endeavor on Amazon. Common types of trademark infringement or misuse I’ve seen there include:

  • Someone sells their own product using your name, logo, or trademark
  • Someone sells their own product using a name, logo, or trademark that is similar, but not identical, to yours
  • Someone hijacks your listing but ships a different product
  • Someone improperly lodges an infringement claim against a trademark you own

Handling things like the above generally required contacting Amazon’s automated service, eventually getting through to a person, and having the listing or complaint analyzed and then potentially taken down. This process was slow and cumbersome, especially if there was infringement by multiple users. And trademark owners could find themselves in a game of whack-a-mole with listings subsequently popping up under different seller’s accounts. The Amazon Brand Registry is intended to ease and speed the process of finding and handling potentially trademark infringement on Amazon.com.

Now, users who are enrolled with the Amazon Brand Registry will be able to create and upload unique videos and photos that are keyed to their accounts. Misuse of that content by others is easier to find and stop. Enrollment also gives you a faster takedown process, letting you clear infringement more quickly than with the old system. Enrolled sellers have access to text searches, image searches, and automated responses to potential intellectual property infringement. Sellers who are enrolled will also appear more legitimate to prospective customers, who may opt to purchase from that seller rather than one with a cheaper price but a more questionable status.

Some points and prerequisites concerning the Amazon Brand Registry:

  • Only owners of federally registered trademarks are eligible to participate in the Amazon Brand Registry. Common law trademarks and pending federal applications do not provide an enrollment basis.
  • Word marks are definitely eligible – these are sometimes known as “standard character marks” because they usually appear simply as capital letters without claim to style or font.
  • Composite marks appear to be eligible. Amazon says that “words, letters, or numbers in a stylized form” and “illustration drawing[s] which include[] words, letters, and/or numbers” are eligible. This seems to imply that a mark or logo having both text and graphical elements will qualify.
  • It appears that pure design marks – graphical elements which have no text, words, or letters – may not qualify.
  • You will need to provide proof of your registered trademark, as well as proof of how the mark is actually being used on the product or packaging for the product.
  • I’ve seen discussion that your trademark has to be registered on the Principal Register, not the Supplemental Register. I have not been able to verify this with Amazon, however.

If you are a trademark owner, consider the following for moving forward:

  • Registering your trademark. Registration is a fundamental requirement for enrollment now, so this action must be taken.
  • Filing the application for trademark registration now. This process typically takes at least 6-7 months, and Amazon’s requirement that your mark be registered means you should start the registration process sooner rather than later. The longer you wait to file, the longer it will take before you can enroll.
  • Registering a word mark version of your mark, if you only have a design or composite mark registered. The word mark will not only be definitely eligible for enrollment in the Amazon Brand Registry, but it typically offers the best and broadest protection for you trademark in the larger marketplace.
  • Does the way you use your trademark on listings, products, and packaging match the registered trademark? Different spelling, spacing, hyphenation, or other variations can limit your ability to use, or potentially even enroll, in the Amazon Brand Registry.
  • Failure to enroll in the Amazon Brand Registry does not mean you cannot report alleged trademark infringement on Amazon, it just means you won’t have all of Amazon’s potential tools available to you for finding and combating that infringement. Typically, clients find it difficult and cumbersome to monitor and remove trademark infringement.
  • If your trademark is on the Supplemental Register, consider moving it to the Principal Register. Not all marks are eligible for this and so attempting the move requires careful analysis together with a use and filing strategy.
  • If you were enrolled in the Amazon Brand Registry before April 2017, you will not be automatically re-enrolled. You have to manually re-enroll.

The firm has successfully filed and prosecuted many trademark applications for clients selling on Amazon and assisted in registering for Amazon Brand Registry status.  If you are in need of an attorney to guide you through this process, please don’t hesitate to contact Tom or call 602-281-6481. More info is also available at https://services.amazon.com/brand-registry.html



Specimens Showing Use of Service Marks

As part of the trademark application process, trademarkalmost all marks must be used to eventually be registered. The Trademark Office requires that a trademark applicant submit evidence in the application showing acceptable use of the mark. This evidence is called a specimen, and there are many requirements for what it must show.

The Trademark Office yesterday released examination guidelines for Service Mark Specimens, which attempts to describe the elements of an acceptable specimen for services, discusses specific issues and potential refusals, addresses commonly submitted specimens for modern technology-related services, and provides examples of acceptable and unacceptable specimens. The examination guidelines are manuals for trademark examiners to use when evaluating a trademark application, and together, with the TMEP and other trademark laws and rules, inform how an application is received and analyzed. You can read the new guidelines here.



Reviving an Abandoned Trademark Application

A trademark application will be abandoned by the Trademark Office if a deadline passes without you taking certain action. This can happen, for instance, if the Trademark Office has issued you an Office Action that requires a response, and the normal 6-month period for response elapses. It will also happen if you filed an intent-to-use trademark application, the Trademark Office sent you a Notice of Allowance, but you failed to submit a Statement of Use within 6 months showing that you were properly using the mark in commerce.

 An abandoned trademark application isn’t necessarily lost and gone forever. While in some cases you may have to re-file the application anew, in other cases, you may be able to petition for the revival of the application.

There are limitations on these petitions to revive. They must be filed within 2 months of the abandonment, or within 2 months of the Notice of Abandonment. Your failure to make the original response deadline must have been unintentional, and you must swear to this. The petition has to be accompanied by a petition fee, and by whatever response or action was due on the original deadline.

Time is of the essence when a trademark application has been abandoned. It is therefore important that you act quickly to revive the application if it is your intent to do so. Additionally, you should respond correctly. For those reasons, consider hiring a trademark attorney to handle the petition to revive, to help ensure that the time and money you’ve already invested in the trademark application up to this point isn’t unnecessarily wasted.



Ascribing a Date of First Use to a Trademark

All trademark registrations filed under Sections 1(a) or 1(b) of the Lanham Act carry a date of first use. In those registrations that are filed as intent-to-use applications, the date that the mark is first used is typically very easy to pinpoint. However, for registrations that begin as in-use applications, the date of first use is sometimes difficult to remember. If a company has been using a mark for several years, it can often be quite hard to pinpoint when that use first began, especially if the date wasn’t linked to a major launch (companies often launch a new product or brand at conventions and can remember the date of the convention).

When an application is filed, the applicant must specify the date that it first used the mark anywhere and the date that it first used the mark in commerce. These dates must be accurate and definite. It isn’t enough to say “June 1999” or “2010.” Instead, the date should be entered as the last day in that period. For instance, if the business knew it started using a mark sometime in June 1999, then the acceptable way to enter that date would be as the last day of June 1999: 06/30/1999. The application will then state that the mark was in use “at least as early as 06/30/1999.”



Insurance Extension Requests in Section 1(b) Trademark Applications

When an Section 1(b) intent-to-use trademark application receives a Notice of Allowance, the applicant has six months to file an acceptable statement of use to prove that the applied-for mark is being used in commerce. Applicants that fail to file by the six-month deadline can request a six-month extension, and indeed, can continually file those requests extending the time for a statement of use out to a maximum of three years from the Notice of Allowance.

A statement of use can be filed anytime during a currently pending six-month period. However, any corrections to a filed statement of use must also be filed within that six-month period or within an extension period following afterward (if available – an extension period can’t extend past the 3-year mark). Applicants place themselves in risky situations when they file on the last day of the six-month period or close to the last day of a six-month period – if anything goes wrong, it will likely be impossible to correct the deficiency within the period.

To dampen that risk, an “insurance extension request” can be filed. An insurance extension request is a hedge against your statement of use. If the request granted, the extension provides you with an extra six months to correct any problems with your statement of use.

Why would you file an insurance extension request, especially there are filing fees associated with it that might be forfeited if you don’t need it? Well, there is a certain amount of processing time in the Trademark Office. It is highly unlikely that a statement of use will be evaluated and accepted or rejected the same day it is filed. The statement of use is first assigned to ITU staff and is then forwarded to the Trademark Examiner assigned to the application. This can take often take a week or two. If you file a statement of use one or two days before it is due, there is little chance that the filing will even land on the Trademark Examiner’s desk before that deadline has already passed. If the statement of use is acceptable, that’s fine. But if the specimen doesn’t show the mark quite right, or the Examiner thinks that the goods shown in the specimen are different from the goods identified in the application, there may be a problem that can’t be cured. So there is a chance that you will lose out the $100 / class fee for the insurance extension request, but failing to file one could cost you the application if there are problems in the statement of use.