Re: Re: responsiveness of trademark attorneys

Subject: Re: Re: Re: responsiveness of trademark attorneys

Comments:
: : : My client has a trademark attorney in the United States who is responsible for correspondance between our client and USPTO. Our client has instructed her to contact USPTO to delete one basis (in the ITU section) in order to have her two marks in the phase of final approval get registered soon without having to go through the procedure of filing statments of use. : : : The attorney promised to contact USPTO about this matter very soon. However, we have found from USPTO's website there is still no action from USPTO (it is supposed to withdraw Notice of Allowance on our request) . I sent two e-mails and made numerous calls to that attorney, but the only response I got was the same voicemail message both in and after usual business hours. I do not know what has happened to that attorney. But I think being a trademark attorney, a professional offering legal service should be responsive to his/her clients' needs. Even he/she is away on vacation or business trip, he/she should periodically check his/her e-mails or voicemails. : : : This type of situation is really frustrating, especially for us here in emerging markets. Your input or suggestion as to the resolution of this matter is cordially invited. : : : Best regards, : : : Jiwen Huang, a trademark counsel in China : : Dear Mr. Huang, : : I believe that most Intellectual Property Lawyers in the US that deal with applicants outside the US are usually reputable. : : I believe that it is the attorneys obligation to keep the client informed. : : Intent to use applications do not result in trademark registrations, they reserve the right to register. The papers would have to be gone over in order do understand what is or is not happening. : : If contacted directly the situation could be gone over. There may be only a misunderstanding. Most Intellectual Property lawyers the deal with foreign filing a reputable. : : M. Arthur Auslander : : Auslander & Thomas-Intellectual Property Law Since 1909 : : 3008 Johnson Ave., New York, NY 10463 : : 7185430266, aus@auslander.com : : ELAINE's Workshop?: E arly L egal A dvice I s N ot E xpensive?: Reality Check? : Yes, I agree with you on this point. I have finally located the attorney I deal with. Sorry for the remarks here that are somewhat impolite. I would like now to add something more to another topic, that is filing based both on intent to use and prior foreign registration. : My clients filed for registration two marks based on both section 1(b) and 44(e), that is both on intent to use and foreign registration. The attorney has indicated to USPTO clearly that we wish to register the marks on foreign registration. However, USPTO's examining attorneys have not told us to delete basis 1(b). Instead, they issued notice of allowance right away. Now, our attorney has petitioned before USPTO about this matter, but the officers there have not made any response. : What do you think about the efficiency and effectiveness of USPTO? They have wrongly given abandoned status to our applications before. They have been slow in response and more and more...

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

Do not disclose any details of any trademark or any facts relating to your circumstances. See a lawyer.
Before you post a message you must agree to the Terms of Use.