[E-trademarks] "Coworking" offices and domicile

Sat Dec 7 03:48:49 UTC 2024

The Petition fee is going up massively come January, so if that's your
path, best to take it now.

I would try a sworn Declaration signed by the officer stating that this is
the ppb for the entity:

1. I am Joe Schmo, President of YouBetcha. This Decl is personal
knowledge . . .

2. YouBetcha is HQ'd in ___ co-working space.

3. YouBetcha has an actual office / suite of offices, whatever

4. It was my decision to HQ in ___ coworking space b/c

5. I work from the ___ co-working space along with our company's CFO, CTO,
CMO, etc

6. Along with our company's CFO, CTO, CMO, etc. I/we direct and control the
YouBetcha's operations from ____ co-working space.

37/2.20 statement

___________________
Pres, YouBetcha

Good luck!

Lara Pearson (she/her/hers) [Why pronouns
<https://medium.com/gender-inclusivit/why-i-put-pronouns-on-my-email-signature-and-linkedin-profile-and-you-should-too-d3dc942c8743>
?] (Hear how I say my name <https://namedrop.io/larapearson>)

Law Office of Lara Pearson Ltd, PBC

Leader, Brand Geek

Lara at BrandGeek.net | Ph: 775.833.1600 | My bio <http://brandgeek.net/about/>

This e-mail may contain information that is *privileged* or *confidential*.
If you received this communication in error, please immediately notify the
sender and delete/destroy all copies of this correspondence. Thank you.

*Brand Geek practices flex-time and a 4-day work week Mon-Thurs.** If you
see us working weekends, that's our choice. We do not expect anyone
(including you!) to work/respond on the weekend. Please respond at a time
that works for you. *

*Protecting the Brands that are Changing the World**®*

*Protecting the Businesses that are Changing the World*
*®Protecting the Brands of Soulfulpreneurs**®*

*Leading the way, we belong to **1% for the Planet (since January 2006),
SVN (since Spring 2007), **Certified B Corporation (since February 2008).*

*Save the planet! Please don't print.*

*I humbly acknowledge that this email is being sent from the unceded
traditional lands of the first people of Lake Tahoe, the Washoe or Wašišiw
("people from here," sometimes translated as Wa She Shu) of the Great
Basin, past, present, and future. I honor with gratitude this sacred land
itself and the Washoe Tribe <https://washoetribe.us/>.*

On Fri, Dec 6, 2024 at 5:39 PM Tim Ackermann via E-trademarks <
e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
> --
> 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/20241206/8e9a09fd/attachment.html>