[E-trademarks] Change of Representative snafu?

[Pamela Chestek]

I filed an appearance on behalf of a client and the client, upon 
receiving the notification from the USPTO, mistakenly wrote back to the 
USPTO (as the email suggested they do) to say they hadn't authorized it. 
What I expected would happen is that the USPTO would do ... something?

Instead, the PTO said that, because there was not previously an attorney 
for the matter, they would recognize me as the attorney. All 
correspondence would go to me and if the client had any problem with 
that they would have to take it up with me directly.

Which I suppose is right? But does that mean that if you are 
unrepresented, and someone maliciously files an appearance, the 
unrepresented owner is expected to sort it out directly with some 
malfeasor? I guess the client could then file its own change of 
representation form to move it back, but the email sent to the client 
(on which I was copied) didn't explain that possibility.

The client, in their original email to the PTO, did make a misstatement, 
which was this: "A brief explanation of your relationship to the named 
applicant/registrant of record - We are not related." I think they read 
the question as any relationship to the /newly named attorney/, not the 
person's role at the trademark applicant. So it could be that the PTO's 
non-response was because the person who complained said they had no 
relationship to the applicant, so whatever was happening  was none of 
their business. But if that was the reason not to act on the complaint, 
the PTO should have said that.

Pam

Pamela S. Chestek
Chestek Legal
300 Fayetteville St.
Unit 2492
Raleigh, NC 27602
+1 919-800-8033
pamela at chesteklegal.com
www.chesteklegal.com


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240408/df64734b/attachment.htm>