[E-trademarks] paralegals that think they are smarter than lawyers

[Carl Oppedahl]

On 1/2/2024 9:40 AM, Carl Oppedahl via E-trademarks wrote:
> [... ]  I phoned up the Assignment Division reaching a different 
> person than the signer of the Notice.  She confidently affirmed the 
> propriety of the bounce, lecturing me that the word "goodwill" simply 
> must appear in the document or it will not legally achieve the 
> intended change of ownership.  Doubling down, she then offered to 
> email to me an exemplary assignment document that she said would be 
> legally effective.
>
> Yes, we have unauthorized practice of law going on here at the USPTO.
>
The email arrived.  Attached is what the USPTO paralegal sent to me, 
with her legal advice that this document from her was legally correct 
and that the one that I had e-filed was not.

/*Who is doing the agreeing? */ The document recites that "the Assignor 
and the Assignee hereby agree as follows", but there is no signature 
line for the Assignee.  This seems inconsistent.

*Where the document is legally sufficient. *I guess the USPTO paralegal 
is opining that this document is legally sufficient in all fifty states 
of the US (including Louisiana, whose legal tradition is from the 
Napoleonic Code), and is also opining that this document is legally 
sufficient in every country of the world where the sufficiency might 
matter.  In this particular case the assignor and assignee are both in 
Europe.  I imagine that most attorneys who are members of this listserv 
would hesitate to opine across all geographic areas, given that the 
attorney is probably not admitted to practice in more than one or two 
states.  But the paralegal who emailed this to me, who is probably not 
admitted to practice anywhere outside of the US (and probably not 
admitted to practice in Louisiana or any other state of the US) had no 
hesitation in rendering such advice.

I am told by some European practitioners that to be legally sufficient 
in some places in Europe, an assignment must be signed not only by the 
Assignor but also by the Assignee.

/*The payment of one dollar ($1.00) and for good and valuable 
consideration. */Seems to me that for parties located outside the US, a 
recitation that folding money in US currency was passed between the 
parties is inapt.

/*Ending with a comma.*/  I note that the USPTO's recommended Assignment 
document ends with a comma.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240102/dbedb537/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: TM Sample Assignment.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 39223 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240102/dbedb537/attachment.pdf>