Tweet
On December 16, 2015 GM filed for a trademark for the “Corvette E-Ray.” It was reported in CorvetteBlogger and many other major automedia. While the application was filed on that date, it was not granted by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) until much later.
Consistent with the general trademark granting pattern of “use it or lose it,” it appears that GM filed for an extension for an additional time from for the Corvette E-Ray name.
What that trademark extended? Or was it ended? Today we learned, with thanks from sleuth Alex Hatt, of a USPTO April, 2017 possible action regarding not extending GM E-Ray trademark; however he quickly added, “if I am reading this right.”
Today three attorneys, all however not patent/trademark attorneys read this document, and all thought it appears to have some internal ambiguity within it, for while it used the word “granting” within it, it also uses the word “termination” too.
Here is the latest USPTO document we have yet to find on this, so you please be the judge — especially if you are a patent and trademark attorney, providing us an accurate interpretation of what the below screen print means?
* Might it mean, since it uses the word “termination” at the very top of it, the USPTO terminated GM’s “Corvette E-Ray” trademark it had earlier granted?
OR,
Might it conversely mean that some third party first appealed GM’s request to continue to have that patent extended, for after all two years had elapsed (in fact now three years since the original filling application by GM, and GM has still not used the E-Ray name on a Corvette. Or, for whatever reason, did that third party later decide to drop their appeal, and hence why we also see the words, “Second Extension — Granted” within the latest document.
Also very curious about this whole issue is the seemingly-conflicting timing, as follows:
December 16, 2015 original trademark application filed, and noted on that original application it states, “Published for opposition on June 6, 2017”;
Yet, the second document, covering only the dates of April, 2017, talks about “termination, yet also “second extension granting.”
Might we have a patent and trademark attorney help us interpret these seeming disparate dates and actions?
Separately, and looking forward, do you think we will see a Corvette E-Ray within the next two years, for the chances of a third extension of this trademark, if it was again re-granted but not actually in use for a Corvette by 2019, become slimmer. Or might GM somehow get or have authority to transfer part of that trademark and create a Cadillac E-Ray within the next year or so? If the later, please note the actual trademark name on this last document is no longer Corvette E-Ray, but now just “E-Ray”?
What do you think would be the most likely GM mid engine sports car to bear the name of “E-Ray?”
Consistent with the general trademark granting pattern of “use it or lose it,” it appears that GM filed for an extension for an additional time from for the Corvette E-Ray name.
What that trademark extended? Or was it ended? Today we learned, with thanks from sleuth Alex Hatt, of a USPTO April, 2017 possible action regarding not extending GM E-Ray trademark; however he quickly added, “if I am reading this right.”
Today three attorneys, all however not patent/trademark attorneys read this document, and all thought it appears to have some internal ambiguity within it, for while it used the word “granting” within it, it also uses the word “termination” too.
Here is the latest USPTO document we have yet to find on this, so you please be the judge — especially if you are a patent and trademark attorney, providing us an accurate interpretation of what the below screen print means?
* Might it mean, since it uses the word “termination” at the very top of it, the USPTO terminated GM’s “Corvette E-Ray” trademark it had earlier granted?
OR,
Might it conversely mean that some third party first appealed GM’s request to continue to have that patent extended, for after all two years had elapsed (in fact now three years since the original filling application by GM, and GM has still not used the E-Ray name on a Corvette. Or, for whatever reason, did that third party later decide to drop their appeal, and hence why we also see the words, “Second Extension — Granted” within the latest document.
Also very curious about this whole issue is the seemingly-conflicting timing, as follows:
December 16, 2015 original trademark application filed, and noted on that original application it states, “Published for opposition on June 6, 2017”;
Yet, the second document, covering only the dates of April, 2017, talks about “termination, yet also “second extension granting.”
Might we have a patent and trademark attorney help us interpret these seeming disparate dates and actions?
Separately, and looking forward, do you think we will see a Corvette E-Ray within the next two years, for the chances of a third extension of this trademark, if it was again re-granted but not actually in use for a Corvette by 2019, become slimmer. Or might GM somehow get or have authority to transfer part of that trademark and create a Cadillac E-Ray within the next year or so? If the later, please note the actual trademark name on this last document is no longer Corvette E-Ray, but now just “E-Ray”?
What do you think would be the most likely GM mid engine sports car to bear the name of “E-Ray?”