I'm thinking that maybe you don't know what "anonymous" means, and you believe it is an insult. Kyle Tully is not anonymous. That's his name. Using his name, and his interest in domains, you can pretty much narrow down who he is on other social media etc. Now, unless you are known as "the" Yanosh, which I understand is otherwise a surname, an Eastern European variant of my own first name, etc., then it's not as if anyone is going to know the person behind the postings.
That has an unfortunate consequence in situations where someone is asking a question that, in a worst case scenario, could get them into a lot of personal trouble if they get bad answers.
For example, if someone said "hey, I have a sore throat" and some rando on a message board says "drink drain cleaner" and the person is poisoned, then fortunately, that rando is never going to be held accountable for being irresponsible and, yes,
rude to that person by giving them flippant advice.
So, I have on many occasions here suggested that taking advice from Rando4u on the internet is chancy.
One of the hallmarks of bad advice is that it is simple, short, and easy to understand.
But that relates to another point here. You could come back and say "Oh, but there's a bunch of people named Kyle Tully on Linkedin" or something like that.
Well, yes, there are, but you have to use some common sense and what you already know in order to figure out which one, unless the profile picture doesn't help you.
I'm not anonymous either, as my name is J. Berryhill, and I am certainly rude, sarcastic and a horrible human being. I believe Namepros has an ignore feature, and I urge you to use it if you don't find my idea of humor to be your cup of tea. I post on Namepros for entertainment and, in general, do not owe anyone my time or attention concerning what I have otherwise done for the past, oh, thirty years, to make a living after a change of careers from engineering.
And
THAT brings us to the point that there are
more people named Kyle Tully than there are US trademark applications which were filed on Aug. 10, 2015 and abandoned on Sep. 07, 2016.
First off, those two dates right there should tell you that we are talking about an application which never made it to registration in the first place. The initial term of registration of a mark in the US is six years. So, if the application was abandoned within 13 months, that means it was never a registered mark in the first place.
And, incidentally....
Unless it says cancelled, you're not in the clear to use.
....no, abandoned applications are "cancelled", because they were never registered in the first place.
Using the same sort of reasoning by which we can easily determine Kyle Tully not to be anonymous, if we apply those two dates to the "field search" feature of the new USPTO trademark search system, we get exactly two records of abandoned applications.
For those folks who still can't get off of the idea that the USPTO is some "database of trademarks" as opposed to a database of a subset of trademarks for which people filed applications to register them, then I have to say that the general search features of the newer system are an absolute disaster. However, if you are decent at Boolean logic or Unix regular expressions, then the field tag search is better than it used to be, and it allows you to search by a combination of any data points in the record, such as:
"FD:20150810 AND AD:20160907"
...which are the filing date and abandonment date in question.
Now, I'm pretty sure we aren't talking about the one on the left as a domain name, so that leaves one unique possibility.
I hope that clears up the difference between whether something is "anonymous" or whether a data point uniquely identifies something or someone.
Also, "anonymous" is not an insult anyway. Technically, I should use "pseudonymous" since people here tend to have pseudonyms as handles, but I find that stretching the limits of people's vocabularies doesn't make me well understood.
Now, as long as we are here, it may be worth discussing the kind of information one can, and can't, get from a trademark record. The really laudable part of the OP, and something everyone should do, is that instead of looking at a record in a government database and basing a conclusion on that, he had the chops to go look to see if the applicant for the potential mark is still actually using it.
That's a brilliant move. As I have discussed many times, if my city requires me to renew my dog license every five years, I might let that license lapse, but I still have a dog. Likewise, my dog might die and I still have a valid dog license. Whether I have a valid dog license is actually a different question than whether I have a dog. Trademark registration works much the same way. You can have a trademark and no registration, and you can have a registration and no trademark. That is the key to beginning to understand the utility of USPTO (or other) database information and its limits. It is a tool, not a magic oracle.
Looking deeper into the record here, you can then navigate to this screen:
https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=...TION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch
Two things are of note here. The first, obviously, is that it says the application was abandoned due to failure to file an acceptable response to an Office action. Now, sure, that could mean a lot of things, but also notice that the "attorney of record" appears to be someone in the marketing department who, quite possibly, didn't really have a good idea of what they were doing in the first place. (and, to make a long story short, they didn't)
To drill even DEEPER on what happened, you can click on the "documents" tab, and access the entire file history of the application:
Each entry is a clickable link to a piece of correspondence in the application - the original application, the specimen of use (since this was not an intent-to-use application) an office action, a response, and then a final office action since the response didn't overcome the objections in the action.
Skipping to the end, brings us to the document noted above, in which a refusal based on descriptiveness was maintained.
The devices are fluorescence meters and the proposed mark is FluoroSense, which I think is pretty clever. The problem is that the person handling the application (a) didn't do a good job of explaining that "fluorescence" is not directly descriptive of a piece of equipment, (b) didn't even try to establish acquired distinctiveness by continuous, longstanding, substantially exclusive use, and (c) didn't take the final alternative of amending to the Supplemental Register in order to maintain a deterrent presence in the database
UNTIL they could come back again and try for a claim of acquired distinctiveness.
Now, if that sounds like a lot of boring, detailed and hard-to-understand crap, you are absolutely right. The problem is that it is all relevant to trying to understand the OP's situation - and we have only finished scratching the surface before we can
really dig into the analysis...
...but the grits are ready, and I'm going to have breakfast. Maybe I'll come back later on this one, but there's a reason these things can take time and expertise to sort out, and require more than flippant offhand uninformed nudges in the wrong direction, even if it is a "simple question".
As a newbie you should know who is who here. You just berated one of the longtime and best domain name lawyers in the domaining industry. You won't find any other lawyer giving as much spot-on and free domain advice. smh.
