[E-trademarks] "Coworking" offices and domicile

[Laura Geyer]

Yup, I just got one of these myself. In our case, the client was only using the space for mail, so the objection was annoying but reasonable.  But I wondered the same myself - my firm’s DC office  is in just the sort of space you describe because there’s no need for a full time brick and mortar space. But there are plenty of businesses around me that are renting from Regus/Spaces and this is their everyday place of work and headquarters. Why should it matter that some people use such a space as a mailing address  when another applicant uses it as a permanent workspace? I would write the supervising attorney, because this is nuts if it is someone’s regular business location. Are they going to demand that the lease be at least X months long? What’s the difference from whom you are renting the space?

Or maybe another list member with more USPTO-fu might have a suggestion for something truly ridiculous that’s apparently been made sweeping among Examiners. 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄

Oh, and are they going to start charging for you having to argue about the domicile requirement? It’s as if they are going out of their way to make sure as many home addresses as possible get to be part of the, what, 5th major databreach?

Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
________________________________
From: E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> on behalf of James Creedon via E-trademarks <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
Sent: Friday, December 6, 2024 6:20:47 PM
To: e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
Cc: James Creedon <jcreedon at scalefirm.com>
Subject: [E-trademarks] "Coworking" offices and domicile

EXTERNAL EMAIL

Team Trademark,

My client rents a solely-controlled, closed-door office through a Regus/WeWork type facility — similar to many coworking spaces where companies can rent an entire area and control it as an actual corporate office. The leadership meets there, coordinates corporate activities there (cloud software), holds client meetings there, and receives mail there. I confess that I have many similarly-situated clients.

I have received my first-ever final refusal alleging that these types of office arrangements cannot demonstrate domicile. The specific reference is TMEP 601.01(c)(i):

"These addresses, along with virtual office and shared workspace addresses, can be a mailing address, but generally may not serve as domicile addresses because they do not identify . . . the location of a juristic entity’s headquarters where the entity’s senior executives or officers ordinarily direct and control the entity’s activities (for a juristic entity)."

Despite protestations and proofs, the office action states:

"Domicile address cannot be accepted. Applicant must provide its current domicile street address because the domicile address of record identifies an address for a coworking facility, which is not an acceptable type of domicile address for a juristic applicant. TMEP §601.01(c)(i). That is, this address does not identify applicant’s principal place of business."

Thoughts? Experiences? My read of the TMEP is that a mere hot desk coworking situation (which we don't have here) may be insufficient, but why would a real, existing office offered by a WeWork or Regus not function for domicile?

James

___________________________________________

[https://lh7-rt.googleusercontent.com/docsz/AD_4nXd6xetKQCbGmeaK3u-H7Bb8GenG9--kFFp1er-cWXflkeQWf94AwTXQPElPKb1ZgJ1Brgneja0ILRuW6OGu3mcbm-8sME7E17m1tEjahL6TD0cazTqnaqpW-8-yScOrvzNS0F-9OrXhesFIz5uSDKw4vFik?key=hJUUZvfa00FXdaeZu3jXxQ]

James Creedon

Deputy Managing Partner

Scale LLP | www.scalefirm.com<http://www.scalefirm.com/>

jcreedon at scalefirm.com<mailto:jcreedon at scalefirm.com>

972.850.6864
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20241206/65e330e0/attachment.html>