[E-trademarks] "Coworking" offices and domicile

[Tim Ackermann]

James,
 I think what is happening here is the ExAtty is just relying
without thought on the TMEP but that section expressly does not preclude
such addresses from being a domicile. The section you quote says "but
generally may not", not "may not." Have you submitted evidence that the
client does actually direct and control the entity's activities from that
specific location?
Tim Ackermann
The Ackermann Law Firm

E:  tim at ackermannlaw.com
P:  817.305.0690
F:  214.453.0810
W: ackermannlaw.com
O: 1701 W. Northwest Hwy. Ste. 100
     Grapevine TX 76051


On Fri, Dec 6, 2024 at 5:57 PM Laura Geyer via E-trademarks <
e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:

> 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
>
> ___________________________________________
>
> James Creedon
>
> *Deputy Managing Partner*
>
> Scale LLP | www.scalefirm.com
>
> jcreedon at scalefirm.com
>
> 972.850.6864
> --
> E-trademarks mailing list
> E-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com
> http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20241206/ef39967e/attachment.html>