The letter to the Commissioner for Trademarks is now locked

Okay, folks, the letter to the Acting Commission for Trademarks is now locked, but for correction of clear errors such as misspelled words or factual mistakes.  There is a new paragraph in the middle about the rulemaking timeline and I would be grateful if people can check it for correctness.

Anyway the point now is to round up a lot of signatures.  As of just now on Monday afternoon we have more than eighty-five signers who collectively represent about eighty-seven thousand trademark filings and prosecutions-to-issuance over ten years and who collectively represent about sixty million dollars in fees paid to the USPTO over ten years.

So let’s please have a real push now to get as many signers as possible.  Of course one cannot know for sure what might make a difference to the Acting Commissioner for Trademarks, but having a larger number of signers might make a difference.

To see the letter, and to see how to sign it, click here.

 

One thought on “The letter to the Commissioner for Trademarks is now locked

  1. Comment re Personal E-Mail for Applicant:
    A lawyer may not communicate with a person the lawyer knows is represented by counsel, unless that person’s counsel has consented to the communication or the communication is authorized by law or court order. ABA Model Rule 4.2 (sometimes called the “no contact” rule). Further, a lawyer may not use an intermediary, i.e., an agent or another, to communicate directly with a represented person in violation of the “no contact” rule.
    ****
    Many client’s do not want to be bothered with or do not understand communications from the USPTO. When I get a communication from the USPTO of significance I tend to explain it in plain English to the client what they need to do, if anything. Sometimes, I will not even send them the document, e.g., publication confirmation. Additionally, how can they distinguish USPTO correspondence from scam notifications? When the examining attorney sends a twenty page office action, how is the unsophisticated client going to decipher what he has received? What is the client to do when he/she receives an email from the Examining Attorney on a”minor” issue? Does he/she respond inappropriately? Is the client jeopardizing a legal position?
    The “bottom line” unauthorized communications from the USPTO to the client interferes with the attorney-client relationship. It is an ethical violation to do so. A lawyer, i.e., the Examining attorney, may not communicate with a person, i.e., the Applicant, the lawyer, i.e., the Examining attorney, knows is represented by counsel, unless that person’s counsel has consented to the communication or the communication is authorized by law or court order. ABA Model Rule 4.2.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.