208 Essential Element Omitted
Extension requests filed through ESTTA cannot be electronically transmitted to the Office unless all required fields, including the signature field, are completed, and therefore, ESTTA will not process a request that is missing an essential element (e.g., allegation of consent, extraordinary circumstance). As a result, extension requests successfully filed using ESTTA will rarely, if ever, be deficient for failure to supply an essential element of the request.
Where filing in paper form is undertaken and permitted, if any element (e.g., identification of potential opposer, showing of good cause, showing of extraordinary circumstances, applicant’s written consent, statement that applicant has consented) essential to a particular request for extension of time to oppose is omitted from the request, the Board can allow the defect to be corrected only if the correction is made prior to the expiration of the time for filing the request, that is, prior to the expiration of the thirty-day opposition period following publication of the subject mark, in the case of a first request, or prior to the expiration of the previous extension, in the case of a request for a further extension. [ Note 1.]
In the circumstance where a permitted paper filing of an extension of time to oppose is missing the required signature, the unsigned paper request will not be refused consideration if a signed copy is submitted to the Office within the time limit set in the written notification of this defect by the Board. [ Note 2.] See TBMP § 106.02. See also TBMP § 114;TBMP § 203.03.
NOTES:
1. In re Societe Des Produits Nestle S.A., 17 USPQ2d 1093, 1094 (Comm’r 1990) (extraordinary circumstances not shown for extension; subsequently obtained consent insufficient); In re Spang Industries, Inc., 225 USPQ 888 (Comm’r 1985) (potential opposer not identified with reasonable certainty; defect not curable after time for filing extension expired).
2. See 37 C.F.R. § 2.119(e).