<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple style='word-wrap:break-word'><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>I would investigate whether an expungement proceeding is available. I have used this successfully. Do your homework and put the package together: including wayback machine downloads.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b>From:</b> E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com> <b>On Behalf Of </b>John Smith via E-trademarks<br><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, July 2, 2024 6:13 PM<br><b>To:</b> for trademark practitioners <E-trademarks@oppedahl-lists.com><br><b>Cc:</b> John Smith <johnsmithemail1982@gmail.com><br><b>Subject:</b> [E-trademarks] "Anonymous" Inter partes Non-Use Cancellation Procedure Filing?<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>As we all know, the standing requirement for an Inter partes cancellation procedure is reduced when only non-use is alleged. This is due to the fact that bringing proceedings based on non-use serves the public interest by removing dead marks from the United States and Patent Office ("USPTO") Register and improves the reliability of trademark searching.<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><a href="https://www.ny-trademark-lawyer.com/the-standing-requirement-for-oppositions-and-cancellation-procee.html">https://www.ny-trademark-lawyer.com/the-standing-requirement-for-oppositions-and-cancellation-procee.html</a><o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Accordingly, in practice, does this mean that if "Party A" wishes to cancel a trademark registration owned by "Party B" based on non-use through an Inter partes proceeding, "Party A" may remain anonymous by engaging an attorney who files the petition in the attorney's name only, thereby keeping the name of "Party A" out of the public record?<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>(similar to what is done on the patent side for third-party submissions)<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Have any non-use cancellation petitions been bounced or proceedings been dismissed for lack of standing when this tactic was used?<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Thank you in advance for your time and insight!<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></body></html>