[E-trademarks] Domicile Address

[Louis Levy]

Thanks to everyone for responding.  Great group!

Lou

Louis J. Levy | Attorney
Symbus Law Group PLLC
1775 I Street, NW, Suite 1150 * Washington, DC 20006
Direct:  240.453.9211* Mobile:  202.258.6547
llevy at symbus.com<mailto:eraynes at symbus.com%0dwww.symbus.com> * www.symbus.com<mailto:eraynes at symbus.com%0dwww.symbus.com>
From: E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> On Behalf Of Katherine Markert via E-trademarks
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2025 12:11 PM
To: Janice Housey <jhousey at litmuslaw.com>; For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice. <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
Cc: Katherine Markert <km at markertcominolli.com>
Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] Domicile Address

Janice, Thanks for the additional information from your experience!  The Examiner who shared the information from me was clearly frustrated with the domicile requirement, which we can all relate to!

Katie Markert
Partner

Markert & Cominolli PLLC
Phone: 585-504-2507
Email: km at markertcominolli.com<mailto:km at markertcominolli.com>
Web: www.markertcominolli.com<http://www.markertcominolli.com/>
75 S. Clinton Ave., Suite 510, Rochester, NY 14604

From: Janice Housey <jhousey at litmuslaw.com<mailto:jhousey at litmuslaw.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2025 12:09 PM
To: For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice. <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>>
Cc: Katherine Markert <km at markertcominolli.com<mailto:km at markertcominolli.com>>
Subject: Re: Domicile Address

Thank you for adding this explanation.  I am not sure it is completely accurate, though, since I have sometimes been questioned about adding a suite number (and sometimes not!) for the same applicant for applications being reviewed at the same time so it seems like Examiners have at least a little discretion?  But agree with the sentiment that it doesn't seem like a valuable way to flush out the evildoers that the USPTO is seeking to catch.


Janice Housey

Litmus Law PLLC
4 Weems Lane #240
Winchester, Virginia 22601

703.957.5274 office
703.851.6737 cell



ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION
This communication is subject to the attorney-client privilege of confidentiality, and is intended only for the identified recipient.  If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender and destroy all copies, hard and electronic, in your possession.  Thank you.

________________________________
From: E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com>> on behalf of Katherine Markert via E-trademarks <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2025 11:58 AM
To: For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice. <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>>
Cc: Katherine Markert <km at markertcominolli.com<mailto:km at markertcominolli.com>>
Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] Domicile Address


We've received several of these refusals.  A kind Examiner explained to me that there is new software being used before an application ends up in an Examiner's queue that "flags" domicile address issues (and it seems to frequently be occurring with "multi-unit dwellings".  Examiners then have no choice but to issue the refusal when the application is assigned to them if it is "flagged" with the domicile issue.



Katie Markert

Partner



Markert & Cominolli PLLC

Phone: 585-504-2507

Email: km at markertcominolli.com<mailto:km at markertcominolli.com>

Web: www.markertcominolli.com<http://www.markertcominolli.com/>

75 S. Clinton Ave., Suite 510, Rochester, NY 14604



From: E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com>> On Behalf Of Louis Levy via E-trademarks
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2025 11:42 AM
To: Kevin Grierson via E-trademarks <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>>
Cc: Louis Levy <llevy at symbus.com<mailto:llevy at symbus.com>>
Subject: [E-trademarks] Domicile Address



We provided the address of a company HQ as a business address.  It is an office in a multi-dwelling commercial building.  The Examiner "the address does not identify applicant's principal place of business" and is requiring a "domicile address."



Has anyone run into this kind of thing before? Is the PTO randomly questioning legitimate office addresses if they are in multi-dwelling buildings?



Thanks.



Louis J. Levy | Attorney
Symbus Law Group PLLC
1775 I Street, NW, Suite 1150 * Washington, DC 20006
Direct:  240.453.9211* Mobile:  202.258.6547
llevy at symbus.com<mailto:eraynes at symbus.com%0dwww.symbus.com> * www.symbus.com<mailto:eraynes at symbus.com%0dwww.symbus.com>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250429/3e029fca/attachment.html>