ABANDONMENT
An application that has been declared abandoned is “dead” and no longer pending. For example, abandonment occurs when:
a.) the USPTO does not receive a response to an Office Action letter from an applicant within 6 months from the date the Office action letter was mailed.
b.) when the USPTO does not receive a Statement of Use or request for an extension of time to file a statement of use from an applicant within 6 months from the issuance of a Notice of Allowance.
Applications abandoned for failure to respond to an Office Action or a Notice of Allowance can be revived or reinstated in certain circumstances.


back to top

ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE
A brief statement of a technical disclosure that summarizes the invention.

back to top

ACCEPTABLE IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS AND SERVICES MANUAL
A manual of USPTO-approved categories of goods and services that qualify for trademark applications and registrations.

back to top

AIPLA
American Intellectual Property Law Association.

back to top

ALLEGATION OF USE
A sworn statement signed by the applicant (or a person authorized to sign on behalf of the applicant) confirming the use of a trademark in commerce. The allegation of use must include:
a.) an example of how the mark was used in commerce for each class of goods/services identified in the application, and b.) the required fee.
If the allegation of use is filed before the mark is approved for publication, the statement is called an “Amendment to Allege Use”; If it is filed after the mark issues, its is called a “Statement of Use".


back to top

APPEAL OF A TRADEMARK
A process that allows an applicant to dispute a final refusal from the USPTO. An appeal is taken by filing a Notice of Appeal and paying the appeal fee within six months of the mailing date of the action from which the appeal is taken.

back to top

APPLICANT
Patent - Inventor(s) applying for a patent on an invention, or, the individual mentioned in 37 CFR 1.42, 1.43 or 1.47 who is applying for a patent in place of inventor(s).
Trademark - The person applying for a trademark on goods or services.


back to top

CONTINUATION APPLICATION
(a.k.a. file wrapper continuation application) – An application that is filed after the final office action of an earlier filed application that consists of the same disclosure. The claims may be the same or new but all will be directed to the same invention stated in the prior application. Continuation applications must be filed prior to the abandonment of the earlier application and can not contain new matter. The filing date of the continuation application is the same as the earlier (parent) filed application.

back to top

DILUTION
Dilution by blurring - the weakening of the unique association of a famous trademark with the mark owner, as when a restaurant takes the name of the famous jewelry store Tiffany's. Hypothetical examples include the following: Dupont Shoes, Buick Aspirin, and Kodak Pianos.

Dilution by tarnishment - when a famous trademark is associated with unsavory or poor quality goods/services. Courts have found the following to be dilution by tarnishment: the sale of posters reading "ENJOY COCAINE" in a script and color identical to that used by Coca-Cola^TM, and use of the phrase Victor's Little Secret in connection with the sale of adult novelties.

Dilution by cybersquatting - where a person reserves domain names for famous trademarks (e.g. deltaairlines.com, crateandbarrell.com, etc.) with the intent to sell them to the trademark owner.

back to top

ENABLEMENT
The requirement of the United States Patent Statute stating that a patent application must give an adequately clear description of the invention so as to enable a person skilled in that particular art or technology to make and use the invention without undue experimentation.

back to top

GENERIC MARKS
Generic "marks" are really not trademarks at all. Instead, they are terms that are the actual name of a particular good or service. Examples of terms that would be considered “generic” and therefore incapable of functioning as a trademark would include “thermos” for a container that insulates beverages, “escalator” for a moving stairway, or “e-mail” for electronic mail. The rationale for not allowing trademark protection for such terms is that no manufacturer or service provider should be given exclusive right to use words that generically identify a product.

Even a valid trademark can become generic if the consuming public misuses the mark sufficiently for the mark to become the generic name for the product. Prime examples of former trademarks that became the generic name for a product are ASPIRIN and CELLOPHANE. Current trademarks that were once considered to be candidates for becoming generic are XEROX and KLEENEX. XEROX has spent a great deal of advertising money to prevent misuse of its mark. By doing so, XEROX has likely avoided the loss of trademark rights in its name.

INEQUITABLE CONDUCT
Inequitable conduct occurs when a patentee withholds information material to the examination of a patent application from the PTO with an intent to deceive the Patent Office. If a patent is obtained via inequitable conduct, it is unenforceable.

back to top

MISAPPROPRIATION
A common law form of unfair competition in which an individual or firm, without authorization or permission, copies or appropriates some creation of another that is not protected by patent, copyright, or trademark law, or any other traditional theory of exclusive rights.

back to top

PRIOR ART
Prior Art is an undefined term in the patent statues, but must be understood since it may preclude patentability of an invention. Prior art is information that existed before an invention was made. Information is also prior art if it existed more than one year before the filing date of a U.S. patent application. Generally, prior art includes patents, printed publications, public uses and offers for sale. Patents and publication may be from anywhere in the world, whereas uses and sales must be within the United States.

back to top

PROCESS CLAIM
A claim of a patent that covers an inventive method by defining the procedural steps to be followed, in contrast to a product claim or apparatus claim, which covers the structure of a product.

back to top