<div dir="ltr"><div>That is true and I've spent an untold number of hours (and the client's money) fighting this, after two refusal and a final office action, requiring a notice of appeal in case we don't succeed. Or yeah, and it was for 10 similar applications. <br></div><div><br></div><div>I submitted declarations of the owner and the chief operating officer who physically works at the address on behalf of owner, and bank statements showing the address as the owner / company address. Mail to that address would also be helpful, I was told (even though that seemed wrong, since mere mail drops don't work), so I did not use. I am waiting to see if we are successful.</div><div><br></div><div>When will this madness stop?</div><div><br></div><div>Andy<br clear="all"></div><div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div><br></div><div dir="ltr">_______________________________<br>Andrew G. McCormick<br>Winslett Studnicky McCormick & Bomser</div><div>1177 Avenue of the Americas, 5th Floor</div><div>(at West 46th Street)</div><div dir="ltr">New York, New York 10036<br>p 212.229.2953 <br>c 917.881.5389 <br><a href="http://www.wsmblaw.com" target="_blank">www.wsmblaw.com</a><br><br>This transmission may contain privileged and confidential information. It is intended only for the use of the person(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or duplication of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.</div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Jun 5, 2025 at 3:11\u202fPM carla calcagno via E-trademarks <<a href="mailto:e-trademarks@oppedahl-lists.com">e-trademarks@oppedahl-lists.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"> Good afternoon Greg<div><br></div><div>Thank you for sharing this information. Does anyone know how one may overcome this ( nonsensical) rebuttable presumption? </div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Jun 5, 2025 at 2:13\u202fPM Greg William via E-trademarks <<a href="mailto:e-trademarks@oppedahl-lists.com" target="_blank">e-trademarks@oppedahl-lists.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>(Apologies in advance to any equine aficionados, but I'm gonna beat the dead horse.). </div><div><br></div><div>I don't believe this specific point has been discussed here, but after speaking with someone at the USPTO I wanted to bring it to everyone's attention. If the street address listed as domicile in an application is flagged by the USPTO's address verification software/service as being associated with, <i>e.g.</i>, a mail delivery address, it doesn't matter if a floor/suite number is also included when the application is filed. Basically, if <i>any</i> occupant of a commercial building is a coworking space or mail service (and the USPTO's verification system knows that), it creates a rebuttable presumption that the address is impermissible for use as a domicile by <i>any other</i> occupants..</div><div><br></div><div>Discuss.</div><div><br></div><div>-Greg</div><div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><br>Gregory S. William, Esq.*<br>Danielson Legal LLC<br>One Mifflin Place, Suite 400<br>Cambridge, MA 02138<br>w: <a href="http://www.danielsonlegal.com" target="_blank">www.danielsonlegal.com</a><br>e: <a href="mailto:greg@danielsonlegal.com" target="_blank">greg@danielsonlegal.com</a><br>t: (617) 714-9579<br>direct: (508) 865-2204<br>f: (888) 742-8097<br><br>*Licensed to practice in Massachusetts</div><div dir="ltr"><br>This message is intended only for the designated recipient(s). It may contain confidential or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or other confidentiality protections. If you are not a designated recipient, you may not review, copy or distribute this message. If you receive this in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you.<br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
-- <br>
E-trademarks mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:E-trademarks@oppedahl-lists.com" target="_blank">E-trademarks@oppedahl-lists.com</a><br>
<a href="http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
-- <br>
E-trademarks mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:E-trademarks@oppedahl-lists.com" target="_blank">E-trademarks@oppedahl-lists.com</a><br>
<a href="http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com</a><br>
</blockquote></div>