On the Timeline of events where I keep track of the chronology of the trademark dispute between Ethiopia and Starbucks/NCA, I recorded that NCA’s letter of protest was filed in 2005. This prompted Robert F. Nelson, National Coffee Association (NCA) President & CEO to write me an email saying that I have the records wrong.
The email further said, “NCA's letters of protest were filed in the later half of 2006 and were not entered into the deliberative process at USPTO until after the USPTO rejected the Ethiopian applications to trademark Sidamo and Harrar.”
So, I did some research in the USPTO libraries and found out that the disputed letter of protest (LOP) does have a Filling Date of March 17, 2005. It is clear that this date has caused all the confusion. I have corrected the record on the Timeline until other evidences reveal themselves otherwise.
However, the President’s claim that, based on the dates indicated, NCA's letters had no bearing on the rejections of Harrar and Sidamo is inaccurate.
The third page of the NCA letter of protest confirms that it was signed by Robert F. Nelson at his capacity as President & CEO on June 12, 2006 and received at the USPTO on June 15, 2006 as evidenced by the mail receipt barcode. The USPTO emailed its Non Final Action on Sidamo about a month later - on July 07, 2006. The assertion that NCA’s protest did not contribute to the USPTO’s refusal of the application simply doesn't hold up.
On the letter the NCA wrote to Professor Douglas Holt, Nelson said, “if you go to the USPTO Web site you will be able to confirm that USPTO refused registration of this term on or about July 17, 2006. The letter of protest was not entered into the deliberative process until on or about August 17, 2006, after the application was denied.”
True, the record on USPTO’s Prosecution History page has the date as July 17, 2006. The problem is, NCA is attempting to use this record to make their case: the application was denied before the LOP was entered into the deliberative process, hence NCA did not block the trademark process at the USPTO. This is misleading.
The NCA letter missed the fact that the dates indicated on the Prosecution History page do not represent the date the NCA filed the LOP. In fact, USPTO’s Trademark Document Retrieval system clearly advises:
“Please note that Mail/Create Date … is the date the document was loaded into the database; it is not necessarily the mailing date from which the response period, if any, flows.”
Meaning, proof of receipt of mail at the USPTO is tracked by the barcode, not by the date documents are scanned in the library system. The truth is, therefore, Ethiopia's application was denied after the NCA filed the LOP.
Apparently, the NCA has its records wrong.
The email further said, “NCA's letters of protest were filed in the later half of 2006 and were not entered into the deliberative process at USPTO until after the USPTO rejected the Ethiopian applications to trademark Sidamo and Harrar.”
So, I did some research in the USPTO libraries and found out that the disputed letter of protest (LOP) does have a Filling Date of March 17, 2005. It is clear that this date has caused all the confusion. I have corrected the record on the Timeline until other evidences reveal themselves otherwise.
However, the President’s claim that, based on the dates indicated, NCA's letters had no bearing on the rejections of Harrar and Sidamo is inaccurate.
The third page of the NCA letter of protest confirms that it was signed by Robert F. Nelson at his capacity as President & CEO on June 12, 2006 and received at the USPTO on June 15, 2006 as evidenced by the mail receipt barcode. The USPTO emailed its Non Final Action on Sidamo about a month later - on July 07, 2006. The assertion that NCA’s protest did not contribute to the USPTO’s refusal of the application simply doesn't hold up.
On the letter the NCA wrote to Professor Douglas Holt, Nelson said, “if you go to the USPTO Web site you will be able to confirm that USPTO refused registration of this term on or about July 17, 2006. The letter of protest was not entered into the deliberative process until on or about August 17, 2006, after the application was denied.”
True, the record on USPTO’s Prosecution History page has the date as July 17, 2006. The problem is, NCA is attempting to use this record to make their case: the application was denied before the LOP was entered into the deliberative process, hence NCA did not block the trademark process at the USPTO. This is misleading.
The NCA letter missed the fact that the dates indicated on the Prosecution History page do not represent the date the NCA filed the LOP. In fact, USPTO’s Trademark Document Retrieval system clearly advises:
“Please note that Mail/Create Date … is the date the document was loaded into the database; it is not necessarily the mailing date from which the response period, if any, flows.”
Meaning, proof of receipt of mail at the USPTO is tracked by the barcode, not by the date documents are scanned in the library system. The truth is, therefore, Ethiopia's application was denied after the NCA filed the LOP.
Apparently, the NCA has its records wrong.
Comments
Post a Comment
Join the conversation