<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 1/2/2024 9:40 AM, Carl Oppedahl via
E-trademarks wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7fc53271-9676-4e5d-8f37-fba04573dc2b@oppedahl.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
[... ] I phoned up the Assignment Division reaching a different
person than the signer of the Notice. She confidently affirmed
the propriety of the bounce, lecturing me that the word "goodwill"
simply must appear in the document or it will not legally achieve
the intended change of ownership. Doubling down, she then offered
to email to me an exemplary assignment document that she said
would be legally effective.<br>
<p>Yes, we have unauthorized practice of law going on here at the
USPTO.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The email arrived. Attached is what the USPTO paralegal sent to
me, with her legal advice that this document from her was legally
correct and that the one that I had e-filed was not. <br>
</p>
<p><i><b>Who is doing the agreeing? </b></i> The document recites
that "the Assignor and the Assignee hereby agree as follows", but
there is no signature line for the Assignee. This seems
inconsistent.<br>
</p>
<p><b>Where the document is legally sufficient. </b>I guess the
USPTO paralegal is opining that this document is legally
sufficient in all fifty states of the US (including Louisiana,
whose legal tradition is from the Napoleonic Code), and is also
opining that this document is legally sufficient in every country
of the world where the sufficiency might matter. In this
particular case the assignor and assignee are both in Europe. I
imagine that most attorneys who are members of this listserv would
hesitate to opine across all geographic areas, given that the
attorney is probably not admitted to practice in more than one or
two states. But the paralegal who emailed this to me, who is
probably not admitted to practice anywhere outside of the US (and
probably not admitted to practice in Louisiana or any other state
of the US) had no hesitation in rendering such advice.<br>
</p>
<p>I am told by some European practitioners that to be legally
sufficient in some places in Europe, an assignment must be signed
not only by the Assignor but also by the Assignee. <br>
</p>
<p><i><b>The payment of one dollar ($1.00) and for good and valuable
consideration. </b></i>Seems to me that for parties located
outside the US, a recitation that folding money in US currency was
passed between the parties is inapt.</p>
<p><i><b>Ending with a comma.</b></i> I note that the USPTO's
recommended Assignment document ends with a comma.</p>
</body>
</html>