MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2753771498 · doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpx140

Trade mark-related developments in the United States Patent and Trademark Office: 2016–17

2017· article· en· W2753771498 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntellectual Property Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrademarkAppealBusinessQuarter (Canadian coin)Service (business)MarketingLawPolitical scienceHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The USPTO has continued to fulfil its core mission of servicing clients and has maintained a particularly high level of service in trade mark matters. It expects applications comprising approximately 568,000 fee-paid classes in the fiscal year 2017, representing a 7.1 per cent increase from the previous year. Metrics indicate that, despite an increased caseload in the first quarter of 2017, the USPTO was meeting or exceeding its targets for timeliness and accuracy in disposing of new applications. The USPTO’s internal adjudicative body, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB), anticipates a corresponding increase in matters, but is similarly meeting or surpassing its targets for issuing decisions and disposing of cases. Even so, the USPTO is not satisfied with this excellent performance and remains focused on improving its trade mark services. The USPTO has undertaken to address the high number of trade mark registrations that are maintained despite the owners’ failure to make bona fide use of the marks in commerce as required by the Trademark Act.1 In connection with the Proof-of-Use Pilot Program,2 the USPTO recently found that, of a random sample of trade mark owners claiming use of their marks in commerce, 51 per cent failed to provide further proof of use when the USPTO requested it.3 In part of its ongoing effort to clear such ‘dead wood’ registrations, the USPTO issued modifications to the Trademark Rules, effective 21 March 2017, that permit the USPTO to request additional specimens of use as reasonably necessary to confirm that the requirements for Section 8 and 71 Declarations or Affidavits of Continued Use or Excusable Non-Use are being met.4 These requests will be made in connection with a permanent audit programme, whereby the USPTO will initially review up to one tenth of Section 8 and 71 filings at random by requesting information, exhibits, affidavits or declarations, and specimens showing use in commerce. These requests will come in the form of an Office action affording the owner of a mark six months to respond. Brand owners and their attorneys should be aware that they might receive Office actions auditing their renewal applications and, hopefully, will take greater care in ensuring that they have sufficient basis for maintaining their registrations.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.760
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.083
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.240 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it