Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherAbout the NetworkJoin the NetworkProductsSub-MenuProducts OverviewBlog ProBlog PlusBlog PremierMicrositeSyndication PortalsAbout UsContactSubscribeSupport
Book a Demo
Search
Close

USPTO Clarifies Domicile Address Requirements in Trademark Applications

By Fox Rothschild LLP on August 30, 2023
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

The Lanham Act requires the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) to collect the domicile information of all trademark applicants. This provides the evidence necessary to show the applicant is a real person or corporation domiciled in the United States or has authorized, licensed, U.S. representation.

On August 30, 2023, the USPTO issued a Bulletin containing an 8-page examination guide that clarifies the necessary steps attorneys and examiners will follow to evaluate the domicile information of both trademark applicants and owners. The guide offers in-depth guidance, and importantly notes “[a]ddresses that do not identify an actual street address or that function as a mail-forwarding address are presumptively unacceptable as domicile addresses.”

Notably, these presumptively unacceptable addresses include common entities such as post office (P.O. boxes) and “care of” (c/o) addresses. However, the USPTO does accept P.O. box addresses for U.S. government entities and federally recognized American Indican and Alaska Native tribes. Additionally, a detailed explanation that the applicant or registrant has “no fixed physical address” is no longer sufficient to satisfy the domicile address requirement. The USPTO provides two reasons for this change. Trademark counsel can change over time, sometimes multiple times over the lifetime of a trademark. A domicile address assists the USPTO in determining if the trademark owners need a new attorney licensed in the United States after they drop or change their original representation. Additionally, the USPTO stated “the domicile address requirement is crucial to our efforts to fight the unprecedented increase in trademark filing scams we’ve experienced over the last few years, primarily originating overseas.” USPTO trademark enforcement teams have uncovered thousands of examples of foreign applicants using fake United States addresses in applications or using the credentials of United States attorneys without the attorney’s knowledge or permission.

  • Posted in:
    Corporate & Commercial, Intellectual Property
  • Blog:
    Above the Fold
  • Organization:
    Fox Rothschild LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Have questions? Call 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.
Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
  • About LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Careers
  • Press
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Privacy Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • RSS Terms of Service
  • Syndication Terms of Service
  • Blog Pro
  • Blog Plus
  • Blog Premier
  • Microsite
  • Syndication Portals
  • LexBlog Community
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
  • Resource Center
  • Blogging 101
Copyright © 2025, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo