The adverse effects of the proposed shortening to six months of the one year due diligence requirement would significantly outweigh its benefits:
1. It would penalize unsophisticated pro se applicants and registrants who assume they are safe after filing with the PTO at the proper address.
2. To the extent that the TARR database contains errors or delays in updating, the proposed six month period would create a flood of inquiries about filings that were, in fact, received by the PTO but not accurately recorded in TARR. This would be a drain on the Office's resources.
3. The six month rule would have little if any effect where the PTO lost a document after it was received and recorded in TARR. The applicant or registrant, after verifying the receipt of its filing, would have a recurring obligation to make TARR searches every six months. But those searches would not alert the applicant or registrant to the PTO's loss of the document filed.
If the six months rule is adopted, clarification should be provided about the rule's application to documents filed in the PTO before the rule's effective date. For registrations and applications in which a document was filed before the effective date of the proposed rule, the first status check deadline after the rule's effective date should be either twelve months from the document's filing or six months from the new rule's effective date, whichever comes sooner.


Respectfully submitted,

Ronald S. Kadden
60 East 42nd Street
Suite 4410
New York, New York 10165