http://tess2.uspto.gov/tmdb/dscm/dsc_24.htm
(1) Can someone tell me what the point of this page is?
(2) And can someone tell me if a guideline can be changed .... just thinking out loud.
It seems to be internal instructions for coding of designs by the Patent and Trademark Office for the purpose of searching whether a similar design has previously been registered. I don.t see that it suggests that arms as such are entitled to any protection beyond other trademarks.
Jay Bohn;66522 wrote:
It seems to be internal instructions for coding of designs by the Patent and Trademark Office for the purpose of searching whether a similar design has previously been registered. I don.t see that it suggests that arms as such are entitled to any protection beyond other trademarks.
I was reflecting on what it could say. Could this be more educational?
The patent office is not a place for finding education nor information on subjects represented within the emblems it records. It is not the purpose of that office. If they post on arms, then they would be obliged to post on other entries as well. The rules for a patent do not follow rules in heraldry, and so an emblem can resemble heraldry without actually being so.
This makes my graphic design life a little easier. 
Nifty way of coding elements in a design. Think of it as a kind of numeric blazon. It’s not a perfect system, but it sure could narrow things down in a hurry… once you figure out what language they are speaking.
As far as the classification of specific heraldic symbols used in logos and marks. I don’t think they would have a reason to do such a thing. Now sure, it would be possible to "blazon" this way, but not as exactly as intended (as it lacks a way to determine placement of specific elements within a mark). You would codify the essential elements and it would be referenced that way. It’s really an interesting system.
Ditto. Remember that a trademark registration deals only with one specific piece of art—heraldically similar "arms" drawn in a different style or within a different shield or banner shape, are in the trademark context different, & their search categories are based on those artistic differences with no regard for what we would see as heraldic implications.
One should also recall the ancient ruling by the English Kings-of-Arms that when a personal coat-of-arms is used in trade or professional service that it is no longer an actual coat-of-arms, that is an honour from the Crown and a sign of gentillity, but rather a common trademark that does not fall within the perview of the Court of Chivalry.
David Pritchard;66582 wrote:
One should also recall the ancient ruling by the English Kings-of-Arms that when a personal coat-of-arms is used in trade or professional service that it is no longer an actual coat-of-arms, that is an honour from the Crown and a sign of gentillity, but rather a common trademark that does not fall within the perview of the Court of Chivalry.
Interesting…. So a distinguished merchant cum liveryman could become armigerous under the English model and therefore be regarded as gentle, but could not use his arms in promoting his trade. So it’s okay for the man to wallow in a vulgar profession like trade, but not the arms…. But aren’t arms just a sign of gentility? Isn’t it the man himself who is gentle?
On a modern day level, I recall the Canadian Heraldic Authority saying that arms granted/recorded by the CHA can also be registered as trademarks. Presumably this could be done without a reduction in the status of the arms (ie, CHA granted arms remain hereditary honours).
If I could remember in what book I read about this case, I would provide more details. I believe that the issue before the Kings-of-Arms was the use of the gentleman’s arms on a printed label by a business competitor in imitation of the gentleman’s own commercial products.