On May 8, 2023, USPTO Director Kathi Vidal submitted to the Trademark Public Advisory Committee (“TPAC”) the USPTO’s proposed revisions to its trademark prosecution and TTAB fee tables. The USPTO’s Fee Setting and Adjustment page has been updated to include Director Vidal’s Letter (“Letter”), the full Table of Proposed Fee Adjustments (“Fee Table”), Executive Summary, Background Information and a table comparing Current, Proposed and Unit Costs embedded in trademark fees (“Unit Costs”). The proposed increases in these trademark fees resulted from the USPTO’s “comprehensive trademark fee review” and were deemed necessary “to increase aggregate revenue and refine certain fees to efficiently finance ongoing operations.” See Letter at 1. Continue reading
Category Archives: Prosecution
What to Expect from the U.S. Trademark Application Process
[Updates an earlier Post from December 30, 2015]
So, you’ve decided to launch a brand name in the U.S. and are contemplating registering it in the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (“USPTO”). What can you expect? Not every application is the same, so there will be variations in exactly what happens in the prosecution of your application, but hopefully this article will serve as a “Trademark 101 Primer” to describe the basic process overall. (Note – this post is for general information purposes only and does not provide any specific legal advice. Contact your trademark attorney to discuss any areas of specific concern.)
Basics
What is a Trademark? It’s a word, phrase, symbol or design, or a combination of words, phrases or designs, that identifies and distinguishes the source of the goods of one party from those of others. A service mark performs the same function as a trademark, but applies to the source of a service rather than of a product. (For simplicity, this post refers to trademarks and service marks collectively as “trademarks.”)
How Valuable is a Good Trademark? The value of a good trademark lies in its ability to convey to the public a single source of a particular good or service. The key is to develop a mark unique enough that customers associate it with your goods or services – and only your goods and services. While temptingly simple, choosing a mark that just describes your goods and services will not create any trademark value. Customers won’t know to distinguish your goods from others in the same market. Instead, pick something that’s arbitrary, or otherwise completely unique. Even coin a new word or phrase as the new brand for your goods or services. Avoid choosing words with simple dictionary meanings, which you might be planning to use exactly as they are defined – because the risk is that you may be selecting a generic term, which can never develop any trademark meaning.
Can Rights Develop Based on Use? Federal registration is not a requirement to protect trademarks in the U.S. – instead, rights in a particular trademark can be established simply based on use in connection with particular goods or services in the marketplace (aka “common law trademark rights”). Nevertheless, federal registration offers more comprehensive protection than reliance upon common law rights, including providing nationwide notice of the owner’s claim to the mark and some other valuable presumptions. Continue reading
New Response Deadlines for Trademark Office Actions on the Horizon (and Changes to Attorney Recognition)
Revised November 14, 2022 to take into account a new Federal Register Notice published by the USPTO on October 13, 2022. Originally published Aug. 12, 2022
On November 17, 2021, the USPTO published its Final Rule relating to the implementation of the Trademark Modernization Act (TMA) (part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021, Pub. L. No. 116-260 (Dec. 27, 2020) – 2,126 pages long (!) – see p. 1020 for the text of the TMA). Nov. 17, 2021 Final Rule, “Changes To Implement Provisions of the Trademark Modernization Act of 2020,” 86 FR 64300, pp. 64300-64334 (also available in PDF form).
Prior posts on this blog previously described the two new TTAB proceedings created by the TMA (i.e., expungement and ex parte reexamination based on allegations of non-use) as well as the new non-use grounds for cancellation. This post addresses the changes in the standard deadlines to respond to an Office action issued by the Trademark Office (either during the application process or in connection with post-registration filings) (aka “flexible response periods”) and withdraws the USPTO’s stated intention to change the “attorney recognition rules” under 37 C.F.R. § 2.17(g). Some key points are summarized below regarding these two provisions, but we recommend reading the full Final Rule (35 pages) and the USPTO’s updated Trademark Modernization Act Page in order to get a more complete picture of these two aspects of the amendments.
Flexible Response Periods
The TMA amended 15 U.S.C. § 1062(d) to permit the USPTO to reduce the periods of time to respond to Office actions to between 60 days and 6 months, although the final response periods had to be set by regulation, rather than the whim/discretion of any individual Examining Attorney on a case-by-case basis. Prior USPTO requests for public comment on proposed rulemakings offered several options for these response periods.
In its Final Rule, the USPTO outlined the final selection: Instead of the traditional six (6) months we’ve always had to respond to any Office action issued by the USPTO, applicants for certain types of applications shall have an initial three (3) month period to respond, but a single-three (3) month extension is available upon request and payment of additional government fees ($125 for TEAS applications or $225 for paper filings). See pages 7 and 17 of the Final Rule discussing the flexible response periods (and public comments received) in more detail, and page 26 discussing amendments to 37 C.F.R. § 2.6 for new fees to be imposed as of December 3, 2022. (NB: October 13, 2022 Federal Register Notice changed the effective date from December 1 to December 3). Failure to file a response to the Office action or to request the extension and pay the fee before the initial three-month period expires will result in abandonment of the application.
UPDATED: This same three-month period (followed by a single-three-month extension upon timely request and payment of the fee) will also apply to post-registration Office actions but only after October 7, 2023.
In contrast, however, applications filed under Section 66 (Madrid Protocol) are not subject to the shorter response period (plus extension and additional fee) apparently because of U.S. treaty obligations; those applicants can still rely on the original six-month response period.
37 C.F.R. § 2.93 (relating to responding to Office actions issued in connection with the new reexamination proceedings) has already been updated to reflect the deadline to respond and the new fee requirements for extensions. We would anticipate that the regulations implementing the flexible response periods generally will track the language of 37 C.F.R. § 2.93(b)(1).
Given the differences in response deadlines for Office actions issued in different kinds of cases, it will be very important to confirm (quickly, after an Office action is received) which response period applies so that complete responses or requests for extension (and payment of the required fee) can be accomplished timely.
As the Deputy Commissioner for Trademark Operations, Dan Vavonese confirmed during the Trademark Public Advisory Committee (TPAC) Meeting on July 29, 2022, this amendment will go into effect on December 1, 2022. (NB: October 13, 2022 Federal Register Notice delayed the implementation of this Rule until December 3). Continue reading