Hi Cynthia, I would like to schedule a call with you for next week to follow-up on our discussion of false ‘Statements of use’. We just finished deposing the In-House Legal Counsel for Macy’s, Jay Moniz for our Federal Court case next month and they admitted the ‘Statements of Use’ were false for many of the marks they renewed. We have enough proof from both their own documents and financials which were submitted into evidence to show the statements filed by Macy’s were false. This should be an interesting discussion for you since [once again], it shows how rampant the filings of false statements within the USPTO offices have become. tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn74668816&docId=SPE20060811082058 Above is the sample Macy’s used to renew their trademark for Filene’s. They renewed it in 2006, but you can clearly see they used two advertisements which say, “Make no payment until August 1995.” Your office should have easily caught this. Macy’s simply said today in their deposition, “Well, it was approved by the USPTO.” You can also see this in their false filing for Marshall Field’s here. They submitted a shopping bag from 10 years earlier. When they filed for the renewal, there were no Marshall Field’s in the US as they were converted to Macy’s. We have all the proof as well as their depositions to prove this as well. tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn73410309&docId=SPE20080429185557#page=2 Same with Foley’s: USPTO Stamp says 1993. They used the same specimens for the new renewal and they were approved even though a simple search by the examiner would find they were no longer in-business. tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn74355438&docId=SPE20070717163352#docIndex=1&page=1 Here, they also used the same specimen from 1993 They also filed a renewal of the May Company stores in 2002, even though they converted all the stores to Robinson’s –May in 1993 so the stores were gone 8 years and the USPTO still granted the renewal: tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn74186035&docId=SPE20080317211956#docIndex=2&page=4 tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn74186035&docId=SPE20080317211956#docIndex=3&page=1 In 2011, Jay Moniz, (the same person we deposed today), assigned both the May and Robinson’s –May trademarks to Macy’s, knowing full well, both stores were no longer in existence: assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/assignment-tm-4580-0363.pdf If [in-fact] the USPTO is simply accepting the old specimens as a new submission with the renewal, or allowing the use of the old specimens without and ‘due-diligence’ on their part, it shows a huge hole in the trademark renewal process which needs fixing. I’m open next week, but I hope it’s clear how companies are willfully signing ‘Proof of Use’, knowing full well, they are lying. Please tell me when we can discuss this next week. Regards, Ellia Ellia Kassoff Strategic Marks, LLC President/CEO E-mail: kassoff@strategicmarks Website: strategicmarks Skype: ellia.kassoff Phone: 949-424-1664
Posted on: Sat, 22 Jun 2013 02:55:05 +0000