Public Comments on Miscellaneous Changes to Trademark Rules of Practice and the Rules of Practice in Filings Pursuant to the Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks

From: Victoria Katz [mailto:victoria.katz@aderant.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 5:59 PM
To: TM FR Notices
Subject: Comment on Proposed Rulemaking - FR 3750; Docket No. PTO-T-2013-0026

Good afternoon,

We reviewed the proposed rules published in the Federal Register on January 23, 2014 (FR 3750; Docket No. PTO-T-2013-0026), and write to point out an inconsistency in the proposed revision to 37 CFR 2.63. As proposed, 37 CFR 2.63(a)(2) provides that when a petition to the Director for relief from repeated requirements is denied, an applicant has six months from the "date" of the non-final Office action which repeated the requirements or 30 days from the date of the decision on the petition, whichever is later, to comply with the requirements.

A nearly identical deadline is included in proposed 37 CFR 2.63(c) with respect to final actions. However, in proposed 37 CFR 2.63(c), the triggering event for the 6-month portion of the deadline is the "date of issuance" of the final action that repeated the requirements.

For the sake of consistency, and to avoid any possible confusion, we respectfully suggest that these two deadlines should be worded identically. Both deadlines should trigger the respective 6-month deadline from either the "date" of the action or the "date of issuance" of the action.

Thank you for your time and consideration of this matter.

Sincerely,

 Aderant

Victoria Katz
Rules Attorney
Aderant

310-553-3355
victoria.katz@aderant.com
www.aderant.com

CompuLaw, Client Profiles, CRM4Legal, and RainMaker Software
are now part of the Aderant organization