Thank you for attending the first in what
we hope to be a periodic webinar series for

For the USPTO Trademark user community

Welcome.

We have 266 people online.

So if you are online welcome to you.

If you have any technical problems and you
can actually hear me, please call, 571-272-2222.

That's for technical problems.

If you can't hear or see or you have a friend
who can't hear, please share that phone number

with them.

It's 571-272-2222.

My name is Meryl Hershkowitz.

I'm the deputy commissioner for trademark
operations.

It means I'm responsible for the law offices
and the services units including post-registration.

I will be in moderating today's program on
the USPTO post-registration proof of use audit

program.

We have a wonderful panel here.

After the presentation we will answer your
questions.

For those who are here, there are index cards
on which to write your questions.

Please pass them to the aisle, and Angela
will pick them up.

For those at home, please use the chat box
on the webinar which you should be able to

see on the program like in the webinar.

It is either at the top or bottom of the screen.

First off I want to introduce my colleagues
who will discuss the audit program.

First, Dan Brody come he the managing attorney
of law office 150.

He's one of the managers of the audit program.

He began at the USPTO in 2000.

He became a senior attorney in 2009, and a
managing attorney in 2016.

Dan graduated from the Boston University school
of law, and is a member of the California

bar.

Next to him is Jordan Baker who is a trademark
examining attorney and law office 124.

He is currently on a special work project
working on the audit.

He began at the USPTO in 2005 with experience
as a summer intern in 2004.

He graduated from George Mason University
school of Law, and is a member of the Virginia

bar.

Next to him is Montia Pressey.

Who is acting trademark chief of staff for
the trademark commissioner.

They help develop and manage this through
audit programs.

She began at the office in 1995 as a attorney.

And then was in private practice with a law
firm in D.C.

Then return to the office again in 2004.

Where she currently is officially a petition
attorney and senior staff attorney in the

office of trademark review and training.

Where she has served as a liaison for the
post-registration division.

Her law degree is from Georgetown University
Law Center, and she's a member of the D.C.

and Virginia bar.

Before I begin, I would like to remind everyone
that the United States has a use-based federal

trademark system.

The trademark law derived from the authority
given to the federal government under the

commerce clause of the Constitution.

Use and commerce means use between the states
or between the United States and a foreign

country.

To maintain a trademark registration, trademark
owner must use the mark in commerce on each

good and service that the registration claimed.

Inaccurate claims of use contribute to a cluttered
trademark register.

And lessen the utility of the register with
the business and for the public.

We would like to start the panel discussion
with Dan Brody.

Can you tell us how we began the post-registration
audit program?

And what we were trying to find out?

Can you please tell us what proof of use means.

Thank you, Meryl.

After the decision roughly 10 years ago change
the standard of fraud, USPTO decided to study

whether there was an issue with the integrity
of the register and if so what could be done.

After deliberations with stakeholders, the
USPTO launched a pilot program in 2012 to

assess the accuracy of claims abuse.

were randomly selected to provide additional

proof of use.

Of the 500 registrations, 51 percent were
unable to provide the proof of use requested.

The 51 percent included the 35 percent of
deleted goods of services queried in the 16

percent who failed to respond which resulted
in the cancellation of the registrations.

The chart on this slide shows the result of
the pilot broken down by basis.

The first column shows the percentage of once
a deleted some or all of the goods or services

queried.

The second shows registrations that canceled.

The third showed the percentage of registrations
in the pilot that received notices and the

last shows the percentage that did not comply
with the audit.

Whether by deleting goods or services queried
or not responding at all.

With 45 percent of registrations based on
section 1A unable to provide the request of

use the results revealed a problem across
the board and not just with those registrations

based on a foreign registration.

The pilot results revealed that to ensure
the accuracy of the register, there was a

need for ongoing measures.

To that end, USPTO reached out to the public
as well as stakeholder groups to explore possible

options.

A decision was made with widespread support
to institute a permanent audit program.

The trademark rules of practice were amended
on March 21st of 2017 to authorize the USPTO

to require additional proof and evidence to
support claims.

The rules enable the office to provide owners
of information exhibits, affidavits or deck

relations and additional specimens to assess
the accuracy and integrity of the registration.

The permanent audit program was launched on
November first of 2017.

Under the program the registration may be
subject to audit when a section 8 or 71 declaration

of use is filed if the registration includes
one class with four or more goods or services

or includes two classes with two or more goods
or services.

Chosen for the audit, they are required to
provide proof of use for additional goods

or services in the registration.

As a review, the mark that is in use in commerce
must be used in the autumn - - ordinary course

of trade.

A mark not used for example the imager specimen
created nearly to reserve a right in the mark.

It is not itself for use in commerce.

To satisfy proof of use if audited, the evidence
of proof of use must, once again show the

mark as it is used in commerce.

To satisfy proof of use an owner can provide
photographs that show the mark on a label

affixed to the goods.

The webpage printout or screenshot showing
the mark use in connection with goods at the

point-of-sale in a matter that associates
the mark with the goods.

If this is provided the image should also
show the URL address as well as the date the

image was taken or printed.

Or photographs on packaging where the goods
are physical through the packaging for services

evidence of proof of use must show the mark
also at is actually used in commerce this

is used in a matter that associates the mark
or services.

If photograph showing the mark on signage
or a screenshot or printout of a website showing

the mark use any actual sale or advertising
of the services.

Be careful if you crop the image that the
printout or screenshot which also shows the

URL and the access of printing.

Please note the USPTO will be amending trademark
rules concerning specimens, which is expected

to become effective in October of 2019.

The rules will require for electronic submissions
the webpages must show the URL.

The role requires a specimen for goods show
use of the mark placed on the goods containers

or packaging for the goods or labels or tags.

With regard to the labels or tags, the photograph
showing use of the mark on a label or tag

that is not affixed to the goods would not
be acceptable.

Thank you, Dan.

Jordan, would you 
please explain to us

how the audit process actually works.

>>. We will talk about the first office actions
to start with the audit.

The file has now been assigned to an examiner
whose reviewed the registration affidavit.

So it goes to ordinary review and then it's
selected for the often it will now get a query

for proof of use and in a single class registration,
the audit will ask for two goods or services

and if it's a multi-class registration, the
audit may ask for only one good or service

in the circumstances where there's only two
items in the registration.

So the proof of use for one item but not the
other they will ask for use of one of those

goods or if it is only a situation where there
is one item in the class, if the specimens

submitted is not acceptable for proof of use,
that item will get asked for proof of use

in the audit.

An example of that would be in a multiclass
application, if you have suitcases in class

XVIII, and if the mark is engraved on the
suitcase itself, that is fine.

It goes forward.

There is no audit of that.

If the specimen submitted is a tag or something
that is not acceptable, we would ask for proof

of use for that.

In your first action letter, it is an advisory
that says that in your response delete any

goods or services that you are not able to
show proof of use for.

This is a proactive warning that if you are
having a response that's not acceptable you

will get a second office action that will
require proof of use for everything else in

the registration.

We will move on to responses.

In the first office action if you simply provide
proof of use that resolve the issue and the

notice of acceptance will go out.

However, if you did not make it through the
audit you get to a second situation.

They come in two different forms.

If you asked to delete the items requested
and no other action then the examiner will

look to the audit for proof of use for everything
or not.

If there are items that do not have proof
of use because they haven't satisfy the audit,

they will get a second office action letter.

It could be that the request to delete the
items asked for in the audit but everything

else does have proof of use.

Where they have made deletion so that there
is no issue over anything lingering without

proof of use.

So then the acceptance would issue in that
situation.

You have the mix-and-match were you delete
one item you have asked for but you provided

proof of use.

That doesn't satisfy the audit either.

It just triggers the second one to be issued.

Also in clear language it is noted that the
response is required or else the registration

will be canceled in its entirety.

Now we have a second office action which includes
the list of the goods or services remaining

that need proof of use.

In the response to that, again the examiner
will go through the process of the response

and the second office action and is it what
we asked for quest if it does and acceptances

issued, if it doesn't, we get to a third action
situation.

The third action is your final one.

It will list all the goods or services that
do not have proof of use.

You have three different pathways at this
point.

The first pathway is filing a petition to
the director and you of a few months ago.

As a matter of expediency you can file the
response asking that all goods or services

be deleted.

That is the only response you can file.

It's a typical kind of response filing to
asked for the deletion.

Any kind of response that is substantive will
be acknowledged.

It will not be reviewed.

You'll get another office action thanking
you for submitting the response.

It is not reviewed and a petition will be
a way to make these arguments.

The third action is there if there's time
left for the expiration of the grace period,

you can file an affidavit.

So if you followed the declaration and you
are at the beginning of the year, you can

take advantage of that by filing the new decoration.

However it doesn't get you out of the audit.

The registration will prepare you for the
audit.

The process will continue a new.

Not only that, you have to pay the fees for
filing and then any deletions that were made

at that point they all remain in the registration.

Even though you are following a new affidavit
you are bound by the deletions.

The key part there was if you don't respond
at all, and all the deadlines passed, they

will enter the deletions for all of the goods
of services that don't have proof of use and

then [Indiscernible].

If you do not respond to the first or second
office action, it will either cancel or if

you have time left with the expiration you
can file a new affidavit.

You also can file a petition if it falls under
the extraordinary circumstances.

That can be the office action was never received
or something like a hurricane weather-related

standard.

The same thing if no response is submitted
then the new affidavit is filed, you are bound

by a deletion and you still have to pay the
fee.

Then we have tips and the first tip is the
big one.

Help us out by clearly letting us know what
is you are submitting.

This is easy for bags will get to industrial
equipment, medical equipment, we have to dig

in to match images up with what is on the
registration..

More effort that you put in is best for medication.

Buildout the record and give us the most information
we have so we can make a determination.

The one example I want to bring up is that
we had a PDF submitted with 20 items and it

was a table on the left side.

The actual goods.

If we don't know what is their we can't determine
if proof of use was met.

We've exhausted the resources looking at the
website and material we end up rejecting it

and the first office action can be significant.

There should not be any proof of use evidence.

Something previously submitted in a prior
filing.

So if it's in section 815 and several years
later you are filing your eight and nine and

including images that are the same from a
few years earlier, that is not current proof

of use evidence.

The last tip is mentioned in the first office
action.

Once you get the audit letter you get through
the process delete anything you have figured

out that does not have proof of use.

That will save you a lot of time and effort.

Thank you, Jordan.

Finally , Montia, can you let us know what
the results of the audit have been ? I think

it would be helpful for people to know how
they can prepare in case they are audited.

When the 
permit program started in 2017 through June


We received about 2700 responses.

About 50 percent of those responses they are
deleting those in response to the audit.

And troubling also is 79 percent of the cases
are represented by an attorney.

The thing about the 50 percent number also
is it tracks that 51 percent we saw in that

pilot program which prompted us to begin the
permanent program in the first place.

When we drill down to the deletion percentages
by registration basis, we see the basis do

have the highest percentages with rates in
the 60s but the 1 A registrations are not

doing great either with 45 percent deleting.

One of the things we are seeing so far is
the deletion rate despite the presence of

an attorney representing their client.

The troubling statistics suggest that there's
a lack of care, a lack of knowledge perhaps

about what the law requires or potentially
bow.

Unfortunately that's both for the owners and
accounts.

One thing we're looking at is in really egregious
cases we may refer attorneys to the office

of enrollment and discipline for investigations.

In terms of total audit numbers, we've audited
about 5500 registrations to date if we consider

both the pilot as the permit program.

Going forward we are planning on auditing

That means the chances of getting an audit
will be increasing.

We want to encourage everyone to prepare now
for a possible audit.

Also keep in mind when signing a section 8
or 71 declaration of use the owners and the

attorneys for [Indiscernible] that the mark
is in use with goods and services identified

in the declaration, that the specimen show
the mark as currently used in commerce on

the connection with goods and services and
the finer is subject to criminal penalties

if they knowingly or willfully make full status.

Whoever signs the files is certifying that
to the best of their knowledge information

and belief formed after an inquiry reasonable
under the circumstances the factual contentions

of evidentiary support.

So two things to highlight in that last bullet.

Formed after reasonable inquiry.

And evidentiary support for the factual contentions
in the declaration.

I will talk about those items a little bit
more in a second.

As we know, accurately listing goods and services
is critical to the validity of a registration.

Registration owners and attorneys have an
obligation to confirm the mark is in use with

each good and service listed in the registration
before signing or filing that declaration

of use.

Some things you may want to consider doing
to confirm use our consult sales records.

Determine if there is ongoing use of each
listed good and service.

If there are not, could there be a reason
that might excuse [Indiscernible]?

Also confirm the sales are for goods and services
that bear the mark you are seeing to maintain

in the declaration.

What is an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances?

A attorney may rely on information provided
by a properly educated client unless the attorney

has reason to believe that such information
is inaccurate or incomplete.

Attorney should include that the client understand
that the use as to all goods and services

in a registration assuming no claim of excusable
nonuse, and the client has taken steps appropriate

to confirm use.

Something else that may be useful is to consider
creating a checklist.

Identify the goods and services on a separate
line.

You can cut in space from TSDR.

And we use of the mark is confirmed after
the specific good or service take a photo.

Print the supporting webpage with URL and
data printing.

Keep it for your records like sales information
so you have it.

Also ensure every good and service for which
current use cannot be confirmed and for which

excusable nonuse cannot be supported is deleted
in that initial section 8 -71 declaration.

Before filing you may want to consider confirming
the specimens approved are actually legitimate.

On page 2 of the recent exam guide, the specimens
for use in commerce provide tips that you

can look to to potentially identify created
markup space cements.

Pieces of the item disappear near or around
the market the image includes exhalation around

the mark.

We will give you a list of items you may want
to consult as you are reviewing those prior

to submission.

And a reminder that reasonable inquiry obligation
applies to attorneys when filing specimens

for proof of use as well as declaration.

So next I'm going to end by providing information
about two cautionary tales.

That illustrate the importance of attorneys
submitting accurate information including

information supporting claims of use.

Both are OED case.

And then among the laundry list of disciplinary
roles he was charged with violating, it was

failing to adequately supervise the employees
to adequately reviewer.

Permitting them to create fake specimens that
did not depict the mark as used in commerce.

He was excluded on consent for practice before
the office in trademark and nonpatent matters.

And the legal conclusions there included the
attorney failed to conduct an inquiry reasonable

under the circumstances to determine whether
there was evidentiary support for the verified

statement attesting to the distinctiveness.

In that case the attorney was privately recommended.

Both of these illustrate it's critical that
the owners and attorneys ensure that accurate

filings are submitted to the office.

I want to thank you for your attention to
the program and learning more and being here.

>> Thank you, Montia.

We are now at the question portion.

I've gotten a question regarding the slides
and information about the post registration

audit program.

The slides are currently posted on the events
page on the USPTO .gov portion of the events

page that talks about this program.

You can find additional information by going
to USPTO.gov and putting in the search box

post registration proof of use audit.

I think we may have other questions.

Dan, if you are selected for an audit how
does the office determine which goods and

services are on it?

The examiner will typically choose goods or
services that are desperate from each other

as well as different from the specimen that
was already submitted.

A good example would be in class IX, if there's
a list of various computer related goods and

sunglasses that very likely the sunglasses
would be part of the audit.

I think Jordan may want to take this one.

Can a single use specimen be acceptable for
more than one good or service?

Or most separate evidence be provided for
each item?

If it was the kind of good that could be shown,
classified in multiple classes.

There are goods like that.

Proof of evidence fits that situation we could
take it.

Generally speaking - -

That is pretty exceptional and not the ordinary.

Have another one.

What happens if I disagree with the rejection
of the proof of use specimen?

If you get the second office action letter
and the examiner rejected some of the evidence

provided, an explanation of why it was not
acceptable, you can file a response arguing

that it should've been accepted and I would
encourage supplementing that response with

reasons why you did submit additional information
if you can to support the context of the original

proof of use evidence.

Here is an interesting question.

I think Montia may be able to handle it.

The question is, what do you do if your client
wants certain technologies protected, but

there's no way of knowing whether or not that
technology will be outdated in the future?

That is a program that is unrelated to the
audit but we have a technological evolution

program where you can file a petition to the
director along with the section 7 request

to seek amendments of your ID to reflect the
involved technology or what you propose may

be the proposed technology.

Angela any more questions?

>> Thank you.

>> Dan, on my business , what would be considered
proof of use?

Can you give some examples?

If it's an online business, from your website,
if it's an online retail store, you would

submit an image of the website printed with
the URL and a date stamp.

It would hopefully show the mark used in conjunction
with the online retail store.

Montia, can you say more about when the use
must have occurred?

Anytime within the grace period?

What is the proof of use and its printed after
the end of the grace.

During the time to respond to the office action,
but nonetheless shows how the mark was used.

Let's back up and do the first part.

Was the first part?

When would use occurred ?

It's between the statutory filing.

For the mark.

That's between the fifth and sixth year.

The grace period is considered a part of that
statutory filing..

In the case of your puke - - proof of use,
we want to see it generally within that period,

if you printed it but you are attesting by
your test session it's a representation of

your box of cereal as it is currently being
used even though is printed before by declaration

we would accept that.

Even if it was outside as long as it's a representation
of a good or service that you are currently

offering during that statutory filing.

So if I filed early, Jordan, what options
does that give me?

I filed early in the grace.

If you're at the situation where you have
time left you can take advantage of that by

filing a new affidavit.

If you got to the point where it may be burdensome
to file and respond to a second or third action

you can take advantage by filing a new affidavit
. It will start the audit process over.

You can go through the deletion if you need
to make more than the filing.

I think that was understandable.

Maybe.

Allison is looking puzzled.

I think the ideas if you have time left you
can refile.

I want to point out that if you've deleted
anything in the filing that is a record, you

cannot put those back in.

They are gone by virtue of refiling.

If you get around deleting things.

>>
I think, Montia, you said this.

The applicant and attorney make the declaration.

Please clarify since only one party signs
the declaration.

There is filing and signing and attorneys
have obligations to ensure that the submissions

are accurate.

Again we talked about the inquiry reasonable
under the circumstances.

You can rely on the fact that your educated
client to the right thing.

Its obligations based on the fact that they
are representing that which we are looking

to pick

The first office actions specifies two services
based on the proof of use for to do.

The registration has 10, should we provide
proof of all tend to avoid receiving the second?

If you have - - if you are not deleting the
two services you are showing proof of use,

there really is no need to submit the additional
proof of use.

You can at your option.

If you are deleting one or both of the services
to expedite the process , it is good practice

to go ahead and submit the proof of use for
everything remaining within that class.

Montia, you said not to submit - - I think
it was you, maybe it was Jordan.

Not to submit the specimens ? With that you,
Jordan?

Yes.

Meaning ones that were submitted before.

If that image continues to show the mark is
used, why wouldn't be effective?

Certainly in goods like a can of vegetables
and the can has not changed and you could

submit the new image of the same packaging.

It would - - subsequently nothing has changed.

What we do not want to see is the same digital
image with all of the traces of the file was

three years earlier resubmitted.

That image itself is not current proof of
use.

Does the audit also apply to section 8 affidavit
at the time?

Does it also apply at time of renewal ?

I think the question if I understand correctly
- -

Can you be audited?

Yes.

You can be audited at any stage of renewal.

So if it is the fifth or sixth year affidavit
or the 10th year or 20 year, 30 year it could

be any stage.

Who had slide 15?

That was probably Jordan?

In the example if the evidence shows that
would that be acceptable?

Yes.

Okay.

[Laughter] in that case, if the label or tag
is affixed to the goods, that satisfies the

requirement for proof of use.

If the client has a specimen for only one
item, for example the ID says clothing mainly

in the owner has a specimen for a jacket,
do we need to delete?

Yes.

It creates a list of independent goods.

Everything after the name was presented in
a way that described independent goods.

It's subject to the audit consideration.

If you don't have it, delete it.

Okay.

How are registration selected for audit?

We use a computer program which will generate
a list of registrations that fall into the

parameters of for more goods in a class?

Or two more goods in multiple classes.

From those what is chosen to be part of the
audit.

Montia, is there a way to suggest registrations
by others be audited?

When we see goods that may not be in use?

The two closest friends.

No.

We cannot recommend cases for audit.

It really is a random program.

As we were mentoring, the computer is generating
the potential registration.

But if there's a case that an application
where you think there is some suspicious things

going on with assessment, we do have a protest
program that we could potentially consider.

We are not recommending cases for audit.

>> I want to emphasize that we are actually
talking about the registration.

Correct.

Nothing for recommending registration being
audited at this point.

Someone was asking again, Dan, and I think
you may have answered it.

How do you provide proof of use for services?

Services you need to show use in the advertising
of the services.

There are several different means to do that.

Often if your client has a webpage it will
show services being advertised on that page.

It could be flyers, other promotional materials
that are sent.

If it's a retail establishment picture of
the sign where it is evident what the establishment

is in the photo that could work.

There is a whole slew to show the means.

>> This is a question on proof of use for
goods this time.

The person says thanks for putting this together.

You are welcome.

Had one question.

Does the proof of use filing have to show
use of the mark on the actual section branding

or packaging?

Is it sufficient to show it is in close connection
with the goods?

For example, at the top of the website, in
the description of the goods etc.

Who wants to take that one?

This will depend on context and size and how
the mark is used.

The analysis done is looking to see does that
mark show use in connection with the goods

therefore and it comes up a lot in an online
store where the Mark is the store and doesn't

meet all the other requirements?

Can you order the goods there.

Is there pricing and all the considerations
that go into that?

It's going to be fact heavy.

But it produces a heightened standard.

It's close to the good so that's better.

So Montia, you talked about fixing the mark
to the goods.

What if it's a label on a container?

Do you have to be able to see the product
or the packaging?

The packaging is not translucent what should
we do?

You want to see the goods and you can't see
the goods for the packaging you have to open

it and have the goods come up the sides we
can see it.

We are trying to make sure the actual goods
are in use and so just seeing the closed package

would not do that for us.

If you have time left in the statutory period,
and you file another declaration, is there

anything else you have to file to alert them
that they have chosen to refile the declaration

and are not going to rely on the original
file declaration?

There is no other response required.

The new affidavit that is filed would be assigned
to the same examiner who is working on the

audit.

They will get that filed.

They will know the new submission is essentially
the equivalent of a response like situation.

No other response is required.

I think this gets to that question.

What are the benefits of refiling within the
grace period?

If the goods have been deleted, that could
give you more time to respond.

>> What I can think about is if you've missed
your time for filing a timely response, so

that six months.

Has expired if you have time in the statutory
period, you can file a new declaration that

would keep the registration alive.

Again if there is statutory time remaining,
the only option assuming you don't have an

extraordinary situation that caused you not
to respond, then really refiling that is your

only option.

If you don't the registration would be canceled.

Here is an interesting question.

If services have only been promoted outside
the United States, but the services have been

rendered to U.S. consumers in the United States,
is it okay it is promotional advertising and

that it was done outside the United States?

That's a good one.

I think we can say we don't know.

This is a very fact specific scenario.

Certainly on the face of the specimen or proof
of use, we wouldn't necessarily know that.

I would encourage that within the affidavit
or the response there is a good explanation.

>> Okay we getting toward the end so get the
questions and.

This question involved an issue of what does
the goods definition mean?

For example, would we take a sports bra if
the idea was lingerie?

That is not really my area of expertise [Laughter]
as a linguistics matter we would.

I believe it would fall under that.

This comes up a lot and when we do the analysis
we look at the common marketplace line which

quickly look to see how is it defined in the
dictionary?

How is it defined on common trade areas for
those goods.

A lot of times for interchangeable terms we
will see on a third-party site that term is

it commercially, that they would identify
in that category ?

I think that's a good answer.

This might be one of those examples where
one proof of use may qualify for multiple

goods that were selected.

If you have lingerie and sports bras, it could
potentially fit for both even though you have

one piece of evidence.

A couple more questions.

>> I think we talked about this before but
I think we should clarify.

Regarding the timeframe for specimen to be
considered current and not stale, what are

the webpages that some must be considered
current?

>> If that webpage that was printed out two
or three months ago is still a representation

of what is currently in use, I think we would
accept it as an example.

How about a copy of an online catalog page
that chose the goods and services, and provides

an opportunity to purchase the goods, will
that satisfy the requirement for proof of

use even though the mark is not in use on
the good.

Let's say it's a catalog showing the goods.

If it fits an acceptable specimen, often that
will be okay for proof of use.

The key is the ordering information.

It has to be the ordering information.

It has to be order here.

Something that gets delete.

To make the question.

It does need to show the mark.

But that is a common way that people do show,
especially online goods.

The mark can be associated with the goods
and the ordering information.

That is fine as long as we can see the URL
and we know the date it was printed.

To add on that for catalogs for industrial
equipment that is proof of use.

That catalog has to have the ordering information.

It cannot be a corporate contact number.

It has to be something more about making the
purchase.

The order form or enough material to get into
that step.

This is an audit question.

For audit another post registration examinations,
how are alterations factored into the renewal

process?

At the post registration stage, the key is
whether the alteration is material to the

registered mark.

Would you like to add anything?

Yes.

As long as the essence of the market shown
post registration, that is sufficient for

showing the mark on the specimen.

It doesn't have to match as long as the essence
of the mark post registration is shown on

the specimen.

These are very specific questions.

This one's an interesting one.

If the good is a hazardous material, in an
opaque container, how do you suggest we show

the good?

What a declaration be sufficient?

This is usually where supporting material
comes into play.

It could be a bill or a declaration setting
out how it's purchased.

And then supporting safety data hazard safety
sheets along with containers.

Things to build a record out of what is.

The declaration is helpful because it sets
out how something is purchased in the industry.

If we have that information and it is not
suspicious, we can take it.

We have more questions on what current use
means.

If the use was on day one of the filing period,
but the declaration is not filed until the

last day of the period, of the great period,
is that not considered current use?

Assuming the market is still in use.

Is in period, so it would be acceptable.

Anything else, Angela?

>> Here is one.

This is to all the panels.

Please clarify, must all tag label specimens
going forward show them affixed to the goods

cited in the registration?

Are you saying a picture of the genuine [Indiscernible]
or steam label for example for an item of

closing is not expectable - - clothing is
not acceptable?

This is assuming the genuine label alone is
not attached to the garment.

We are changing with the roles we are changing
the definition and requirements for specimens

to require the actual goods.

That is correct.

A label alone will not be accepted.

If they are going to be requiring the actual
one.

Not just labels or hangtags.

So if you are submitting the label or attack,
it has to be readily apparent what the goods

are.

If you are submitting a tag.

It's on its own, we don't have its use on
clothing, or if you have a closely cropped

tag that shows it attached to a piece of clothing
and we don't know if it's a pant or shirt

or shorts.

It won't be proof of use.

There's a lot of questions about the packaging
and showing.

I think we covered them.

Basically for everyone who is asking the same
questions, sterile goods, chemical goods,

that we can't really show the goods and how
would you suggest we handle that?

They would use the declaration and explain
that the trade and provide supporting information

that you have that would support what the
goods are and then in the case of hazard materials,

you would not want to have the container (you
would support that through actual evidence.

I have a question that's more technical.

We may need Sonia to answer.

If a section 8 declaration is filed, will
the system refuse any attempt to file further

section 8?

The answers no.

>> A lot of people are asking about retail
sales and whether an online retail webpage

can be sufficient.

Again it depends what it looks like.

The requirements are [Indiscernible].

The URL, clear photographs.

The mark or association with the goods and
ordering information.

Did I leave anything out?

Proximity.

Yes and proximity.

If the - - if it would not have been acceptable
as a specimen, it's not going to be acceptable

as proof of use.

For services look to the specimen roles.

>> I think we have come to our time.

We really appreciate everyone's participation.

If you still have a question, please feel
free to use the deck at USPTO.gov.

We will try to get back to.

We will let people know who attended, how
they can ask for a CLE in Virginia.

We will get back to you later.

Otherwise, thank you all so much.