Patent Bar v. “Trademark Bar” « The Legal Satyricon

August 1, 2007 on 12:32 am | In Trademarks, USPTO |

Excellent thoughts (from a non-patent practitioner) regarding his frustrations with the patent bar vs “trademark bar” system we have: Patent Bar v. “Trademark Bar” « The Legal Satyricon. Although, his characterization of an average patent attorney being essentially a bumbling idiot when it comes to trademark law is a bit ridiculous and biased…

My thoughts:

When an individual holds herself out as “registered to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office.”

Does someone do that? I’ve never seen it. It is always “registered patent attorney.” It certainly isn’t a widespread practice.

Competency to file trademark applications comes not from being legally entitled to file the applications (any attorney), but from experience. The average patent attorney files considerably more applications (and thus has more experience) than the average business law attorney (filing 1-3 trademark applications a year) [note: I'm not talking about practitioners with a substantial trademark practice but about general corporate/business law types who perform any "business" function a client will pay for]. If neither (the average patent attorney or the average business law attorney) are competent…neither should be filing the applications.

I say, bring on a trademark bar exam!

Other, reasonable minds may disagree…

On a side note, the “patent” attorney (myself) who filed my trademark application for me gave me some good news…THE INVENT BLOG® registered yesterday.

Print This Post Print This Post | Email This Post Email This Post | | Subscribe via e-mail

Related Posts:

3 Comments

  1. Hey! I never characterized patent attorneys as bumbling idiots! Remember this part of my post?

    Patent lawyers are generally smarter than the rest of us. What they do is difficult. What they do requires that they use both halves of their brains with equal skill. They are a bright bunch. Brighter than I am, for certain.

    My point was, and perhaps it wasn’t made well, that a patent attorney is not a trademark attorney. Not that you can’t be both.

    If there ever is a Trademark Bar exam, I’m sure that any patent attorney who put more than three days into studying would pass it.

    Comment by Marc J. Randazza — August 1, 2007 #

  2. I guess I misinterpreted your tone.

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure you’ve dealt with some real a-hole patent attorneys before. I know the type…the “I’m a patent attorney so I’m better than you” jerks. I’m sure THOSE patent attorneys do have a “I passed the patent bar so I am an expert in all intellectual property matters” attitude. I just hope that (with respect to the patent bar as a whole) is the exception and not a widespread defect we have as a class.

    I did enjoy your post…excellent thoughts regarding the need for a separate trademark bar examination.

    Comment by Stephen M. Nipper — August 1, 2007 #

  3. I guess I can see how my tone might have been misinterpreted. I get that a lot. You oughta meet me in person, I’m even worse in the flesh! I can’t even tell my girlfriend that she looks nice without her saying “are you trying to be sarcastic?”

    And yes, it is the exception, not the rule. Most of the lawyers I run into are cool, and I’ve rarely run into a patent lawyer that wasn’t.

    If you have a suggestion as to how I might be able to not “push the patent lawyer’s buttons” in this post, I’d love to hear it. It seems that despite my attempts to make my respect (nay, admiration) for patent lawyers clear, I seem to be making a LOT of them mad!

    That wasn’t my intent at all. My intent was to criticize the USPTO’s lumping the two “IP” and the occasional (although not infrequent enough) smug-ness of some patent guys that the lumping seems to encourage.

    Comment by Marc J. Randazza — August 1, 2007 #

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Powered by WordPress with Pool theme design by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds. Valid XHTML and CSS. ^Top^