OMISSION OF MARKS IN AUGUST 28, 2007, GOVERNMENT PRINTING
OFFICE PRINTED EDITION OF THE TRADEMARK OFFICIAL GAZETTE

Due to an error by the Government Printing Office (GPO), GPO's August 28, 2007 printed version of the Trademark Official Gazette (TMOG) published incorrectly. In particular, Book 2 of GPO’s printed August 28, 2007 TMOG omitted the content intended for publication in that volume, and instead mistakenly contained the content designated to print in Book 2 of the following week’s edition.

All of the content mistakenly omitted from GPO’s printed TMOG was timely and properly included in the USPTO’s electronic TMOG dated August 28, 2007. While the USPTO regrets the inconvenience to GPO’s customers as a result of the GPO printing error, the USPTO’s electronic TMOG is the official version. See 68 FR 37803 (June 25, 2003). The five most recent electronic editions of the TMOG are always easily accessible on the USPTO website at http://www.uspto.gov/web/trademarks/tmog/.

Because the marks in question correctly appeared in the official version of the August 28, 2007 TMOG, the opposition period for these marks remains unchanged, regardless of their omission from GPO’s printed TMOG.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announces plans to provide Trademark bulk data at lower cost. Effective January 1, 2008, the USPTO will change its distribution model for Trademark bulk data by eliminating all charges for downloadable daily files and reducing the price of retrospective data distributed on optical disc.

The following Trademark data files, currently available only by purchased subscription, will be downloadable at no cost as of January 1, 2008:

• Trademark Daily/XML files:
• Trademark Daily Applications file
  (containing text data of applications filed, published for opposition, registrations issued, registrations renewed, registrations cancelled, registrations amended or corrected, registrations issued new certificates)
• Trademark Daily Assignments file
  (containing text data of ownership transfers)
• Trademark Daily TTAB file
  (containing text data of Trademark Trial and Appeals Board adversary proceedings)


• Trademark Daily Application Image 24 Hour Box
  (containing images processed through the Trademark Image Capture and Retrieval System (TICRS) in a 24-hour Period, in JPEG (black and white, grey-scale, or color)) and TIFF (black and white) formats)

In order to improve access to these downloadable data files, USPTO will implement a new account management and file retrieval system. New customers will be able to establish their own accounts online beginning January 1; existing customers will be transitioned to the new system.

The USPTO also offers optical discs containing Trademark Retrospective/XML files (Applications, Assignments, and TTAB), which are updated annually. After January 1 these discs will be available at a substantially lower cost; the ordering process for all optical discs will remain as described in the products and services catalog at http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/catalog/index.html.

Additional details will be provided later this fall - for the latest information, see “What's New at CIS” on the USPTO website at http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/cio/cis/prodsvc.htm. Please direct any questions or comments to Electronic Information Products Division, 571-272-5600 or ipd@uspto.gov.

The Office expects the size of each of the July issues of the T rademark Official Gazette (OG) to be somewhat larger than usual.   During the last six months, issues of the OG have generally included between 4,000 and 5,000 marks published for opposition.  The Office expects that 6,000 - 7,000 marks may publish for opposition each week during July.  In addition, the number of registration certificates issued each week in July will be larger than normal.

The larger OGs arise out of the Office's elimination of an unnecessary review of OG data, a cost-cutting, efficiency measure in the production of the OG.  This measure decreases  the time between approval for publication by the Examining Attorney and publication in the OG by about one week.  The larger OGs in July result from a temporary overlap of work processed  under the old and new production systems.  After July, the size of the OG is expected to decrease, and will reflect work processed only under the new production system.

(08Jun2007)

View and/or download a PDF of this notice at the following url:

http://www.uspto.gov/web/trademarks/reports/reportcongress20070604.pdf

On May 26, 2007 , the USPTO will begin the transition to a new method of notification of applicants who have authorized e-mail communication with the USPTO of each issued Trademark Office action or Examining Attorney's Appeal Brief by an e-mail message containing a direct link to the Office action or Appeal Brief in Trademark Document Retrieval (TDR) ( http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/tow ).  The USPTO will not send a separate e-mail with the Office action or Appeal Brief attached.  Implementation will begin with a small number of USPTO attorneys using the new e-mail communication method for Office actions and Examining Attorney's Appeal Briefs.  Full implementation with all USPTO attorneys using the new e-mail communication is expected in June 2007. 

This new approach should benefit both applicants and the USPTO.   For example, discontinuing the sending of an e-mail with the Office action/Appeal Brief attached will eliminate problems stemming from very large e-mails, when, for example, the Office action includes voluminous evidence.  Currently, such situations require dividing the Office action and its evidentiary attachments into multiple e-mails to ensure delivery, which, in turn, necessitates opening different e-mails and files.  TDR will provide direct access to the complete Office action/Appeal Brief and all attachments, either for direct viewing or downloading. Also, TDR gives easy access to all other information in the application file.  TDR is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year.

On or about May 26, 2007 , the USPTO will notify applicants who have authorized e-mail communication with the USPTO of each issued Trademark Office action or Examining Attorney's Appeal Brief by an e-mail message containing a direct link to the Office action or Appeal Brief in Trademark Document Retrieval (TDR) (http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/tow).  The USPTO will not send a separate e-mail with the Office action or Appeal Brief attached.

This new approach should benefit both applicants and the USPTO.   For example, discontinuing the sending of an e-mail with the Office action/Appeal Brief attached will eliminate problems stemming from very large e-mails, when, for example, the Office action includes voluminous evidence.  Currently, such situations require dividing the Office action and its evidentiary attachments into multiple e-mails to ensure delivery, which, in turn, necessitates opening different e-mails and files.  TDR will provide direct access to the complete Office action/Appeal Brief and all attachments, either for direct viewing or downloading. Also, TDR gives easy access to all other information in the application file.  TDR is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year.

The USPTO intended these new options to help filers recognize where a proposed signatory lacks authority, so as to prevent situations where the USPTO cannot accept and consider the substance of the response. Examples of unauthorized persons include the following:

* non-attorneys who lack authority under Rule 10.14 to practice before the USPTO in trademark cases, except as an applicant representing himself/herself;

* foreign attorneys who are not members of the bar of any U.S. state and who do not qualify under the limited exception for reciprocally recognized Canadian attorneys/agents under Rule 10.14(c); and

* attorneys who attempt to replace another attorney of record without the appropriate filings for the substitution of counsel.

By requiring the confirmations directly within the new signature options, the USPTO seeks to ensure the legitimacy and propriety of the responses submitted. See Examination Guide NO. 3-06 Representing an Applicant/Registrant Before the USPTO (November 13, 2006).

The USPTO acknowledges that the changes introduced on March 3rd generated some confusion and concern. As an initial matter, the USPTO notes that the language for the new signature options had been posted in full under "Upcoming Enhancements" since January 3, 2007. The USPTO received no comments prior to the March 3rd deployment, and therefore was surprised by the outcry over the new options upon their implementation. Based on feedback received, the USPTO plans to modify the language for the three (3) buttons in the response signature section within an up-coming deployment, currently planned for March 24th, 2007 (see further information, below).

However, the USPTO maintains that, when the options as currently posted are considered in their entirety, including the bold heading that is part of each option, they comprehensively address the appropriate signatory situations. In particular, many commenters have expressed concern that no option seemed to apply to an authorized U.S. attorney who has represented the applicant since the filing of the application. The proper option is #2, which reads: "Attorney - No Other Attorney Has Previously Appeared: I hereby confirm that I am either (1) an attorney who is a member in good standing of the bar of the highest court of a U.S. state; or (2) a Canadian attorney/agent who has been granted reciprocal recognition under 37 C.F.R. §10.14(c) by the USPTO's Office of Enrollment and Discipline. I further confirm that (1) the applicant has not previously been represented in this matter by an authorized attorney; and (2) I am the applicant’s attorney or an associate of that attorney."

In focusing solely on the confirmation that "the applicant has not previously been represented in this matter by an authorized attorney," the commenters seemed to overlook both that the statement for the second option is made under the heading "No Other Attorney Has Previously Appeared" (emphasis added), and that the only two choices that apply to attorneys are "New Attorney -- Change of Attorney Has Occurred" and "Attorney -- No Other Attorney Has Previously Appeared." In context, the selection of the second option, where no other attorney has previously appeared, is appropriate and truthful for an authorized U.S. attorney who has represented the applicant throughout.

In any event, in an effort to address the confusion and concern with the new options, the USPTO posted both on the "Important Notices" section of TEAS and on the "News and Notices" section of the USPTO website a Notice on March 8, 2007, namely, “Clarification of ROA Signature Options,” which includes among its guidance the instruction that "If you are an authorized attorney, and either you or an associated attorney or firm have appeared in this matter (e.g., by filing the original application), and the applicant was not previously represented by any other authorized attorney or agent, you should select Option 2. Option 2 is also proper where another attorney who is a member of the firm is filing the response on behalf of the attorney of record." The USPTO also plans to publish clarifying information in a Notice in the Official Gazette, as some attorneys have expressed a desire that the clarification be memorialized more formally.

As part of a deployment currently planned for March 24, 2007, the USPTO will modify the language within the form as shown below. In the future, the USPTO plans to expand this approach to all other forms requiring a similar authorized signature.

O Unrepresented Applicant,: I hereby confirm that

* No authorized attorney or Canadian attorney/agent represents me in this matter, and that I am either (1) the applicant or (2) a person(s) with legal authority to bind the applicant; and
* If an authorized U.S. attorney or Canadian attorney/agent previously represented me in this matter, either I have filed a signed revocation of power of attorney with the USPTO or the USPTO has granted the request of my prior representative to withdraw.

ADVISORY: You may click this first button only if you are the applicant or legally authorized to bind the applicant, e.g., an officer of the applicant corporation or association, or a general partner of the applicant partnership. See TMEP §§712.01.

O Authorized U.S. Attorney: I hereby confirm that

* I am an attorney who is a member in good standing of the bar of the highest court of a U.S. state, which includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and other federal territories and possessions; and
* I am currently the applicant’s attorney or an associate thereof; and
* To the best of my knowledge, if prior to my appointment another U.S. attorney or a Canadian attorney/agent not currently associated with my company/firm previously represented the applicant in this matter: (1) the applicant has filed or is concurrently filing a signed revocation of or substitute power of attorney with the USPTO; (2) the USPTO has granted the request of the prior representative to withdraw; (3) the applicant has filed a power of attorney appointing me in this matter; or (4) the applicant’s appointed U.S. attorney or Canadian attorney/agent has filed a power of attorney appointing me as an associate attorney in this matter.

O Authorized Canadian Attorney/Agent: I hereby confirm that

* I am a Canadian attorney/agent who has been granted reciprocal recognition under 37 C.F.R. §10.14(c) by the USPTO’s Office of Enrollment and Discipline to represent Canadian applicants before the USPTO; and
* I am currently the applicant’s Canadian attorney/agent, or an associate thereof; and
* To the best of my knowledge, if prior to my appointment another Canadian attorney/agent or a U.S. attorney not currently associated with my company/firm previously represented the applicant in this matter: (1) the applicant has filed or is concurrently filing a signed revocation of or substitute power of attorney with the USPTO; (2) the USPTO has granted the request of the prior representative to withdraw; (3) the applicant has filed a power of attorney appointing me in this matter; or (4) the applicant’s appointed Canadian attorney/agent or U.S. attorney has filed a power of attorney appointing me as an associate attorney in this matter.

ADVISORY: Foreign attorneys (other than authorized Canadian attorneys/agents) cannot sign this response and are prohibited from representing an applicant before the USPTO in trademark matters.

The purpose of this notice is to clarify the options on the Response Signature section of the TEAS Response to Office Action form2 entitled Unrepresented Applicant (Option 1); Attorney - No Other Attorney Has Previously Appeared (Option 2); and New Attorney - Change of Attorney Has Occurred (from attorney previously recognized by USPTO) (Option 3).

The term “attorney” refers to an individual who is a member in good standing of the bar of the highest court of any “state,” which includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and other federal territories and possessions. See 37 C.F.R. §10.1(c). References in the signature section to “authorized” attorneys and agents refer only to such U.S. attorneys or Canadian attorneys or agents authorized to practice before the USPTO under 37 C.F.R. §10.14.

If a foreign attorney (other than an authorized Canadian attorney/agent) is the only representative who has appeared on behalf of the applicant in this matter (e.g., a foreign attorney who is listed as the correspondence address in a §66 application), the foreign attorney is not authorized to practice before the USPTO under the rules, and the Office considers the applicant to be unrepresented. In this scenario, if you are either the applicant or a person(s) with legal authority to bind the applicant and you are not an authorized attorney, you should select Option 1; if you are an authorized attorney or agent, you should select Option 2.

If you are an authorized attorney, and either you or an associated attorney or firm have appeared in this matter (e.g., by filing the original application), and the applicant was not previously represented by any other authorized attorney or agent, you should select Option 2. Option 2 is also proper where another attorney who is a member of the firm is filing the response on behalf of the attorney of record.

If an authorized attorney or agent has been appointed or otherwise appeared on behalf of the applicant, the USPTO will not recognize a different attorney or agent who is not associated with that attorney or agent, until a new power of attorney, naming the new authorized attorney or agent and signed by the applicant, is submitted. Option 3 is intended to apply to scenarios in which a change of attorney has occurred from an authorized attorney or agent previously recognized by the USPTO. Changes to a firm’s name do not constitute a change of attorney.
____________________________________________________________________

1Changes were made within the signature section as part of a TEAS update on March 3, 2007. The form now requires for successful validation that the signatory “check off” one of three different options, to confirm that the signatory is authorized pursuant to the rules governing representation of others before the USPTO to sign this response. 37 C.F.R. Part 10. See Examination Guide 03-6 (Representing an Applicant/Registrant before the USPTO, issued November 13, 2006).
2The Petition To Revive Abandoned Application - Failure To Respond Timely To Office Action was similarly modified.

Beginning in late spring, the USPTO will notify applicants who have authorized e-mail communication with the USPTO of each issued Trademark Office action by an e-mail message containing a direct link to the Office action in Trademark Document Retrieval (TDR) (http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/tow ). The USPTO will not send a separate e-mail with the Office action attached.

This new approach should benefit both applicants and the USPTO. For example, discontinuing the sending of an e-mail with the Office action attached will eliminate problems stemming from very large e-mails, when, for example, the Office action includes voluminous evidence. Currently, such situations require dividing the Office action and its evidentiary attachments into multiple e-mails to ensure delivery, which, in turn, necessitates opening different e-mails and files. TDR will provide direct access to the complete Office action and all attachments, either for direct viewing or downloading. Also, TDR gives easy access to all other information in the application file. TDR is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year.

(08Mar2007)

The purpose of this notice is to clarify the options on the Response Signature section of the TEAS Response to Office Action form² entitled Unrepresented Applicant (Option 1); Attorney - No Other Attorney Has Previously Appeared (Option 2); and New Attorney - Change of Attorney Has Occurred (from attorney previously recognized by USPTO) (Option 3).

The term “attorney” refers to an individual who is a member in good standing of the bar of the highest court of any “state,” which includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and other federal territories and possessions. See 37 C.F.R. §10.1(c). References in the signature section to “authorized” attorneys and agents refer only to such U.S. attorneys or Canadian attorneys or agents authorized to practice before the USPTO under 37 C.F.R. §10.14.

If a foreign attorney (other than an authorized Canadian attorney/agent) is the only representative who has appeared on behalf of the applicant in this matter ( e.g ., a foreign attorney who is listed as the correspondence address in a §66 application), the foreign attorney is not authorized to practice before the USPTO under the rules, and the Office considers the applicant to be unrepresented . In this scenario, if you are either the applicant or a person(s) with legal authority to bind the applicant and you are not an authorized attorney, you should select Option 1; if you are an authorized attorney or agent, you should select Option 2.

If you are an authorized attorney, and either you or an associated attorney or firm have appeared in this matter ( e.g ., by filing the original application), and the applicant was not previously represented by any other authorized attorney or agent, you should select Option 2. Option 2 is also proper where another attorney who is a member of the firm is filing the response on behalf of the attorney of record.

If an authorized attorney or agent has been appointed or otherwise appeared on behalf of the applicant, the USPTO will not recognize a different attorney or agent who is not associated with that attorney or agent, until a new power of attorney, naming the new authorized attorney or agent and signed by the applicant, is submitted. Option 3 is intended to apply to scenarios in which a change of attorney has occurred from an authorized attorney or agent previously recognized by the USPTO. Changes to a firm's name do not constitute a change of attorney.

¹ Changes were made within the signature section as part of a TEAS update on March 3, 2007. The form now requires for successful validation that the signatory “check off” one of three different options, to confirm that the signatory is authorized pursuant to the rules governing representation of others before the USPTO to sign this response. 37 C.F.R. Part 10. See Examination Guide 03-6 (Representing an Applicant/Registrant before the USPTO, issued November 13, 2006) . .

² The Petition To Revive Abandoned Application - Failure To Respond Timely To Office Action was similarly modified .

Trademark Search Library in Arlington, VA (06Mar2007)

View and/or download a PDF of this notice at the following url:

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/notices/72fr9932.pdf

United States Patent and Trademark Office Celebrates One-Millionth Electronically Filed Trademark Application
Milestone Underscores Success of Award-Winning Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS)

Washington, D.C.-- The Department of Commerce's United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will mark an important milestone in its history today-the one-millionth Web-based trademark application using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS). This achievement will be commemorated today at a 5 p.m. (ET) ceremony at the USPTO headquarters in Alexandria, VA.

Donald Junck, an entrepreneur from Sioux Falls, SD, filed the one-millionth electronic trademark application in November 2006 to protect his trademark, Bait Craft, which is used for fishing tackle boxes. As many small business owners have done, he filed the application himself, demonstrating how easy and convenient TEAS is to use--regardless of the applicant's location or resources.

Mr. Junck will join the most active corporate and law firm users of TEAS-Mattel, Inc., and the New York City-based law firm Fross Zelnick Lehrman & Zissu, P.C.-in being recognized in today's ceremony.

"As Donald Junck's story so perfectly illustrates, TEAS is designed to make the trademark application system easy and accessible, no matter how large or small the business or where it is located," said Jon Dudas, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO. "We are gratified that TEAS has reached this important milestone, and are proud that today 94% of all new trademark applications are filed electronically."

"TEAS proved to be an important and effective tool in protecting my brand," said Mr. Junck. "I would encourage other entrepreneurs to use this system as well, as it saved me both time and money."

TEAS launched as a pilot program in November 1997. It allows anyone in the world with Internet access to file applications electronically 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Developed with the goal of increasing participation in the trademark registration process, TEAS also has enhanced the quality of initial trademark applications and improved the speed and accuracy of their processing.

The USPTO has received numerous awards and recognitions for TEAS. These include: the Excellence.gov competition (2005 winner), the eGovernment Fellows Program (2004), the Government Technology Leadership Award (2000), the Innovations in American Government Award (2000 semi-finalist), and the Rochester Institute of Technology/USA Today Quality Cup Competition (2000 finalist).

For more information on TEAS, visit www.uspto.gov/teas/ .

Please note that U.S. Customs & Border Protection (CBP), a bureau of the Department of Homeland Security, maintains a trademark recordation system for marks registered at the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Parties who register their marks on the Principal Register may record these marks with CBP, to assist CPB in its efforts to prevent the importation of goods that infringe registered marks. The recordation database includes information regarding all recorded marks, including images of these marks. CBP officers monitor imports to prevent the importation of goods bearing infringing marks, and can access the recordation database at each of the 317 ports of entry.

In October 2005, CBP released the Intellectual Property Rights e-Recordation (lPRR) system, located at https://apps.cbp.gov/e-recordations/.  This new system allows right holders to electronically file IPR recordation applications, thus significantly reducing, the amount of time normally required to process paper applications. Some additional benefits of the new system include:

• 
  
  Elimination of paper applications and supporting documents.


• 
  
  Copies of the certificate issued by the registering agency (U.S. Patent and Trademark Office or the Copyright Office) are retained by the right holder, not submitted to CBP.


• 
  
  Payment by credit card (preferred), check or money order.


• 
  
  Ability to upload images of the protected work or trademark, thus obviating the need to send samples to CBP.


• 
  
  Reduced time from filing of the application to enforcement by field personnel.

Information about how to obtain a recordation, and about CBP's Intellectual Property Rights border enforcement program, is available at CBP's web site, www.cbp.gov.