The IPKat visits INTA 2: do trade mark attorneys really matter?

Experience is almost as
important as qualifications,
in the long run
Does the success of a trade mark application depend on whether the applicant instructs a professional trade mark attorney and, if so, to what extent? These questions lay at the heart of some fascinating research in progress from Deborah Gerhardt and Jon P. McClanahan (both of the UNC School of Law, United States). Using a vast database of statistics from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Deborah and Jon examined and contrasted filings by pro se applicants and those in which legal assistance was engaged between 1984 and 2012, contrasting their success rates in terms of getting as far as publication -- where objections from the USPTO might be encountered -- and grant, by which time third-party challenges might have to be met.

In short, the figures offered by Deborah and Jon show that, in general, attorney-represented applications fare better at both stages, but that experience is also important: between non-attorneys such as skilled paralegals filing 30 or more applications and their legally qualified counterparts, the success rate of the latter is only marginally higher.

The study takes into account the various changes in US law and practice, including the shift towards allowing intent-to-file applications, and  market effects such as the dotcom bubble.  The success rates of applications from applicants who took both pro se and attorney routes is also addressed.

This Kat hugely looks forward to the publication of this piece in 17 STAN. TECH. L. REV. (abstract here).

The IPKat visits INTA 2: do trade mark attorneys really matter? The IPKat visits INTA 2: do trade mark attorneys really matter? Reviewed by Jeremy on Monday, May 06, 2013 Rating: 5

No comments:

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.