Comments to Proposed Rule Making Concerning Part 7 of 37 CFR,
Namely Section 7.4
Dear Madam or Sir:
I submit my comment to the USPTO via an electronic method. We live in
world where anyone with Internet access can operate at any time of day,
regardless of time zone of the recipient.
The USPTO's TEAS system is successful because it offers productive
communications with the Trademark Office at all times of the day and night.
As legal counsel for my clients, I can search marks and file applications
any time of the day or night, regardless of time zone.
The entire adoption of the Madrid Protocol implementation appears pegged
the use of TEAS. This is very good.
But proposed Section 7.4 imposes an arbitrary standard on the users of
and a premature deadline for significant portions of the USA population.
Proposed Section 7.4 artificially penalizes those persons who live and
West of the Eastern Time Zone. Proposed 7.4 fails to provide the equal
protection of the laws to those persons who are outside of the Eastern
Surely, computers today can log the receipt time of any item communicated
over TEAS. I know that to be true, because my experience with TEAS provides
me with such day AND TIME stamps on my communications over TEAS.
Most of the USA's population resides West of the Eastern Time Zone;
therefore, most of the USA is DISADVANTAGED by the arbitrary selection
the Eastern Time Zone, merely because the Trademark Office physically
in the Eastern Time Zone.
If we are to break our bonds with the physical realm in transacting business
with the USPTO, as TEAS has attempted to do, then the virtual realm can
should provide greater flexibility on the TIME OF DAY for the user of
Therefore, I submit
that Proposed 7.4 should be predicated on the Time Zone
at that moment of the User of TEAS, not where the USPTO physically sits
The denial of equal protection resides in the argument that the ONLY way
participate in Madrid Protocol is to use TEAS. For those West of the
Eastern Time Zone, the use of Express Mail is unavailable, and the
"effective day" for such TEAS users is 23, 22, 21, 20, or 19
hours long. (I
do not include Time Zones of the Middle Pacific, East of the International
Date Line, because I am unaware of them as containing USA territories
possessions, but my argument applies to them as well, if such exist.)
A person in Oregon has a 21 hour day in which to use the benefit of the
Madrid Protocol. Is that what the Trademark Office intends?
I urge the USPTO to consider the location of the user, not the location
the office, as the time when things are due. Otherwise, we will revert
the 19th Century, when every train station had two clocks, one showing
time and the other showing New York Time. And the Trains ran on New York
No one has any reason to wait to the last moment of a day to do something,
but it happens sometimes. Attorneys and clients should not be penalized
because they live beyond the arbitrary Time Zone line established in 1884,
as revised since. That is a physical ream relic; we live today in a virtual
The Proposed 7.4 could place the burden on the applicant to prove compliance
with local Midnight time at the time the TEAS transaction is completed.
That would address those portions of the country where movement between
Savings and Daylight time is not consistent with other parts of the country.
I have argued, unsuccessfully, for this point within the construct of
Patent Cooperation Treaty; I argue it now out of FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS
all USA TEAS users, wherever they may be located.
And I argue for this change even though I live and work in the Eastern
Thank you for reading.
John H. Hornickel
Reg. No. 29,393