[E-trademarks] Change of Representative snafu?

Mon Apr 8 15:23:15 EDT 2024

All I can say is OY!

Best,
Miriam

Miriam Richter, Attorney at Law, P.L.
Make Your Mark! ®
Trademark, Copyright, and other Intellectual Property Matters
2312 Wilton Drive, Suite 9
Wilton Manors, Florida 33305

954-977-4711 office
954-240-8819 cell
954-977-4717 facsimile

NOTICE: This e-mail message and any attachment to this e-mail message contains confidential information that may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not review, retransmit, convert to hard copy, copy, use or disseminate this e-mail or any attachments to it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail or by telephone at 954-977-4711 and delete this message. Please note that if this e-mail message contains a forwarded message or is a reply to a prior message, some or all of the contents of this message or any attachments may not have been produced by the sender.

From: E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> On Behalf Of Pamela Chestek via E-trademarks
Sent: Monday, April 8, 2024 3:18 PM
To: 'For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice.' <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
Cc: Pamela Chestek <pamela at chesteklegal.com>
Subject: [E-trademarks] Change of Representative snafu?

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<mailto:pamela at chesteklegal.com>
www.chesteklegal.com<http://www.chesteklegal.com>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240408/53dc0ede/attachment.htm>