Offices of Barlow, Josephs and Holmes


Here is the latest firm news

Congratulations to Farmer Willie’s Ginger Beer for their big win in the 2017 Rhode Island Business Plan Competition!!!

Winning the Entrepreneur Track was Farmer Willie's, based in Pawtucket and led by Max Easton, which is marketing a craft ginger beer that has less sugar and fewer calories than others already commercially available.


Non-USPTO Solicitations

Reprinted from USPTO

WARNING: Non-USPTO Solicitations That May Resemble Official USPTO Communications

Please be aware that private companies not associated with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) often use trademark application and registration information from the USPTO's databases to mail or e-mail trademark-related solicitations. Trademark applicants and registrants continue to submit a significant number of inquiries and complaints to the USPTO about such solicitations, which may include offers: (1) for legal services; (2) for trademark monitoring services; (3) to record trademarks with U.S. Customs and Border Protection; and (4) to "register" trademarks in the company's own private registry.

These companies may use names that resemble the USPTO name, including, for example, one or more of the terms "United States," "U.S.," "Trademark," "Patent," "Registration," "Office," or "Agency." Increasingly, some companies attempt to make their solicitations mimic the look of official government documents rather than the look of a typical commercial or legal solicitation by emphasizing official government data like the USPTO application serial number, the registration number, the International Class(es), filing dates, and other information that is publicly available from USPTO records. Many refer to other government agencies and sections of the U.S. Code. Most require "fees" to be paid.

Some applicants and registrants have reported paying fees to these private companies, mistakenly thinking that they were paying required fees to the USPTO. So, be sure to read trademark-related communications carefully before making a decision about whether to respond. All official correspondence will be from the "United States Patent and Trademark Office" in Alexandria, VA, and if by e-mail, specifically from the domain ""

The USPTO cannot help you obtain a refund from these private entities if you have been misled into paying money or signing up for their services based on a misleading communication. But if this happens to you, the USPTO encourages you to file with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) an on-line consumer complaint (link is external). Although the FTC does not resolve individual consumer complaints, it may institute, as the nation's consumer protection agency, investigations and prosecutions based on widespread complaints about particular companies or business practices. In 2015, the operators of the Trademark Compliance Center were prosecuted (link is external)  for their trademark renewal scam. A bank branch manager was also charged (link is external) for his role in laundering the profits of the scam.  In addition, the USPTO encourages recipients of deceptive trademark-related solicitations to contact their states' consumer protection authorities. Many, if not all, states have the authority to issue investigative subpoenas and file complaints against companies engaged in deceptive practices directed toward state residents.

More news broadcast-style videos about the federal trademark application process are available on the Trademark Information Network (TMIN) series webpage.

In our effort to educate the public and help trademark owners identify these non-USPTO solicitations, the USPTO posts below several examples of just some of the non-USPTO solicitations about which we have received complaints within the past several months. None of these are official U.S. government or international governmental notices. Please click on the name below if you wish to see an image of that entity's solicitation. If you have been misled into paying money to any companies not appearing on this list, we encourage you to email us at (link sends e-mail) and include copies of the notice and the envelope it came in, so that we may assess whether to add the sender(s) to the list.

PLEASE NOTE ALSO that some of non-USPTO solicitations may refer to upcoming deadlines concerning your registration or application.  The USPTO cannot vouch for the accuracy of what these solicitations say about such deadlines.  Although not required, most applicants and registrants use private trademark attorneys for legal advice regarding filing an application and maintaining any registration issued to you.  If you are unfamiliar with deadlines concerning your application or registration, you may want to consult your local telephone listings or contact the attorney referral service of a state bar or local bar association to assist in identifying a qualified attorney who can help you.  For more information about the importance of checking the status of your application or registration, please visit the USPTO webpage entitled “Checking the Status of an Application or Registration.”

Patent & Trademark Resource Center (Seattle & Woodinville, WA) NEW

Patent and Trademark Organization (New York, NY) NEW

Trademark Office Ltd. (New York, NY) NEW

U.S. Trademark Compliance Office (Wilmington, DE) NEW

Patent & Trademark Bureau (Philadelphia, PA) NEW

Patent & Trademark Office (555 Madison Ave., New York, NY) 

Patent & Trademark Office (299 Park Ave., New York, NY) NEW

Patent & Trademark Agency (New York, NY)

Trademark and Patent Office (Los Angeles, CA)

P.T.M.A. Patent and Trademark Association (New York, NY) NEW

Trademark Compliance Center (version 1) (Alexandria, VA)  

Trademark Compliance Center (version 2) (Alexandria, VA)

Trademark Compliance Center (Washington, DC)

Trademark Compliance Office (Arlington, VA)  NEW

Trademark Registration and Monitoring Office (Past Due Notice) (Los Angeles, CA)

Trademark Registration and Monitoring Office (Intellectual Property Rights Recordation Alert) (Los Angeles, CA)

United States Trademark Registration Office (Los Angeles, CA)

Trademark Renewal Service (Washington, DC)

Trademark Renewal Service (New York, NY)

Intellectual Property Services USA Incorporated (Alexandria, VA)

Intellectual Property Agency Ltd. (London, U.K.)

Registration of International Trademark WDTP (Praha, Czech Republic)

WIPT World Patents Trademarks (Bratislava, Slovak Republic)

WPAT World Patents Trademarks (Bratislava, Slovak Republic) (version 1)

WPAT World Patents Trademarks (Bratislava, Slovak Republic) (version 2) NEW

GLOPAT Global Patents & Trademarks (Bratislava, Slovak Republic) NEW

United States Trademark Maintenance Service (version 1) (Arizona)

United States Trademark Maintenance Service (version 2) (Arizona)

U.S. Trademark Compliance Service (Phoenix, AZ)

IPTO International Patent & Trademark Organization (Brno, Czech Republic)

TM Collection (Szombathely, Hungary)

Patent Trademark Register

Register of International Patents and Trademarks (Bratislava, Slovak Republic)

Trademark Safeguard - Trademark Monitoring Service (New York, NY)

USTM Information Services (Idaho Falls, ID)

Brand Registration Office (Trademark Selection Edition) (Washington, DC)

TM Edition (2012 version) (Szentendre, Hungary)

TM Edition (2015 version) (Szentendre, Hungary)

TM-DB Register of Protected Trademarks (Minneapolis, MN)

TM-DB Register of Protected Trademarks (Washington, DC)

TM-DB Register of Protected Trademarks (Wilmington, DE)

TM-DB Register of Protected Trademarks (Pearland, TX)

IOPR - Intellectual Office Property Register (Beaverton, OR)

GBO, Inc., Trademark and Patent Dep. (Miami, FL)

IPTI - International Patent & Trademark Index (Czech Republic)

IP Direct - Registration of the International Trademark (Czech Republic) NEW

RPT Servis - Registration of the International Trademark (Czech Republic)

TPP - Trademark & Patent Publications (Poland)

For additional examples of private solicitations concerning international applications and registrations, please see the official World Intellectual Property Organization "Warning" webpage (link is external).

Barlow, Josephs & Holmes Secures Complete Reversal Of All Patent Claim Rejections At The Court Of Appeals For The Federal Circuit



Providence, RI June 29, 2016

Arguing before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Barlow, Josephs & Holmes, Ltd., attorneys Stephen J. Holmes and Joshua A. Stockwell secured a complete reversal of all claim rejections for U.S. Patent No. 8,079,311, owned by LF Centennial Limited.  The ‘311 patent describes and claims a modular furniture kit for supporting and mounting an LCD television in various configurations. The kits are popular items for apartments where renters cannot mount LCD televisions on the walls. The ruling is a major win for LF Centennial, who had asserted the ‘311 patent against several competitors in the Southern District of California.  In defense of that litigation, one of the defendants, Bell’O International Corp., instituted an Inter Partes Reexamination of the ‘311 patent in an effort to invalidate all of the claims. The litigation was eventually settled, but the Reexamination continued on at the Patent Office.

In the Reexamination proceeding, the Examiner rejected claims 1–16 of the ’311 patent based on prior art. On a first appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, several of the rejections were reversed, giving LF Centennial a partial win.  However, the Board maintained several rejections based on tenuous comparison of elements within the prior art. The Board adopted a reasoning that equated a “leg” or a “side panel” as disclosed in the prior art with a “spine” as recited in the claims, saying the two elements were the same.  

On Appeal to the Federal Circuit, the Court found the Board’s reasoning “fallacious” because “it employs a version of the fallacy of the undistributed middle, under which the two statements, ‘a dog is a four-legged pet’ and ‘a cat is a four-legged pet,’ are asserted to give rise to the inference that a dog is a cat”, the court wrote.  The Court further added “A common characteristic of a spine and a side panel does not allow a conclusion that one can be the other”.  The cancelation of the claims is now reversed and the Patent will head back to the Patent Office to be reinstated.
The Case is In re LF Centennial Ltd., case number 2015-1931 before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.  Circuit Judges Pauline Newman, Alvin A. Schall and Richard G. Taranto sat on the Federal Circuit panel.

LF Centennial is represented by Barlow, Josephs & Holmes attorneys Stephen J. Holmes and Joshua A. Stockwell.  
For more information on LF Centennial and the products involved, please visit the website of their subsidiary Whalen Furniture, Inc. at  

For more information on Barlow, Josephs & Holmes, Ltd., please visit their website at
Stephen J. Holmes
Barlow, Josephs & Holmes, Ltd.
101 Dyer Street, 5th Floor
Providence, RI 02903
PH:  401-273-4446

Inter Partes Review (IPR) Onslaught Awaits Patents With Undiscovered Prior Art

Read Article

New Website

Welcome to our new website. The new improved site is designed to better serve the needs of Barlow, Josephs & Holmes, Ltd. clients.

In the coming days we will be adding news about the firm, as well as articles of interest.

In the meantime if you have any questions please feel free to contact us.

Thank you for visiting and please check back often.

Barlow, Josephs, & Holmes, Ltd.