Foreign Trademark Applicants to be represented by U.S. licensed Attorneys

A new rule has been announced by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) requiring that any foreigner who applies for trademark registration or appears before a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in the United States can only be represented by a lawyer who is licensed to practice in the United States. This rule has been announced for those parties whose principal place of business or permanent address is outside the United States. Further, the attorneys, who will be representing these foreign parties, are required to show that they are in good standing of their bar and are an active member as well. Let us discuss the reasoning for these new rules by the USPTO.

ACCURACY AND INTEGRITY OF THE TRADEMARK REGISTER

The foremost reason given by the USPTO for coming up with this new rule is the maintenance of accuracy and integrity of the trademark register. The office has claimed that a large number of foreign parties, not authorised to represent trademark applicants have been submitting inaccurate information. Such information is detrimental to the interests of both, the trademark owner and the user of the trademark register for verifying the uniqueness of his own trademark.

The office has said that when a person uses the trademark register, he might come across a trademark that has identified goods and services in its registration with which it has no connection to, in reality. This will lead to unnecessary financial burdens upon the user of the register who might have to investigate the actual use of the trademark, initiate proceeding for the cancelling the trademark or might have to choose a different mark all together in order to avoid conflicts that were not there in the first place. The new rule will protect such users of the trademark register. On the other hand, the owner of the trademark will be protected against cancellation of his trademark which he may face quite easily if he makes fraudulent or incorrect claims. Hence, the USPTO claims that the new rules will benefit both, the user and the owner, by reducing costs and increasing the reliability of the trademark register.

EFFECTIVE SANCTIONS

The USPTO has stated that its current mechanisms for investigation and enforcement against fraudulent trademark filing are very limited and ineffective. Although the current law under 35 U.S.C. 3(b)(2)(A) allows the Commissioner for Trademarks to issue show cause notice to applicants or their representatives in case of a violation of the law, the language barrier, as well as the foreign location of the applicant, has made the notice very unsuccessful.

Making it mandatory for the foreign applicant to be represented by a US licensed attorney will help in solving this issue. Since the Office of Enrolment and Discipline (OED), on finding that a practitioner has been involved in unwanted practice of law, can exclude or suspend them from practice before office, censure them or probate them, such instances are likely to reduce after the introduction of these new rules. The OED can further inform the state bar that the practitioner is registered to take appropriate action in the face of the malpractice that they have involved themselves in.

RULE OF RECIPROCITY

The new rules have allowed foreign attorneys, who are in good standing before the trademark office of the country to which they belong, to represent clients of their countries in the trademark proceedings in the United States as long as there exists an official understanding between USPTO and the trademark office of that country, whereby substantially similar privileges are being extended by the trademark office of that country to US licensed attorneys as well.

At the moment, only attorneys from Canada have been extended this privilege; however it is limited to trademark attorneys alone. Canadian Patent agents have also .been excluded from representing Canadian parties in trademark matters.

A WAY TO CURB TRADEMARK REGISTRATION BY CHINESE CITIZENS

This move has been seen by many as the strategy by which the USPTO is aiming to reduce the number of trademarks filed by Chinese citizens in expectations of the Chinese municipal government subsidies. It costs approximately $325 for a Chinese citizen to file a US trademark application. The Chinese municipal government, in return for every successful registration, pays its citizens $790. Hence, there was an increasing number of trademark application filed by the Chinese residents who were only interested in the monetary benefit and not in the rights that ensues a successful registration. This new rule, by involving the cost of hiring a US licensed attorney, will raise the cost involved in filing a registration application and hence will deter such unscrupulous applicants in the future.

It is still to be seen how the trademark offices of the other countries will react to these new rules and whether or not, will there be agreements reached to extend reciprocity and what will be the impact of such reciprocity on the domestic circuits of such countries.

Author: Varun Sharma, LL.B., 3rd Year, Campus Law Centre, University of Delhi, Intern at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys. In case of any queries please contact/write back to us at
niharika@khuranaandkhurana.com

References :

[1] https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/07/02/2019-14087/requirement-of-us-licensed-attorney-for-foreign-trademark-applicants-and-registrants

[2] https://www.uspto.gov/trademark/laws-regulations/trademark-rule-requires-foreign-applicants-and-registrants-have-us

[3] https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2018/11/03/uspto-rule-require-foreign-trademark-applicants-u-s-licensed-attorneys/id=102872/

[4] https://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/enforcement-and-litigation/necessary-move-uspto-require-foreign-trademark-applicants-use-us

Leave a Reply

Archives

  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010