[E-trademarks] Prospective Assignments

Tue Jan 7 18:39:37 EST 2025

Thank you, all.  You start to feel a little crazy when another attorney insists it is possible (and normal!).

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> on behalf of Laura Geyer via E-trademarks <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 7, 2025 5:59 PM
To: For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice. <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
Cc: Laura Geyer <lgeyer at ndgallilaw.com>; voyer at keganlaw.com <daniel at keganlaw.com>
Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] Prospective Assignments

Well, since “tunc” just means “then”, I’d say we have a nunc pro tunc, it’s just the “tunc” is a future “then”. Just for laughs, I just pretend went through the first few steps of the process for an assignment “nunc pro tunc”. So, I can confirm that the date can’t be in the future for a “nunc pro tunc” with a future effective date.

[cid:image005.png at 01DB610C.4D47BB10]

I think you can file for recordation almost anything (even if it is really a non-right) under whatever is closest to the “misc” category, if you don’t have to state an effective date (like, I think the regular assignment you just enter the execution date). But why would you record something like this? Speaking as someone who’s done a lot of IP side due diligence, a non-assignment recorded as an assignment really could throw a spanner into the works – it seems to me that it’s fundamentally misleading (even if permissible) to record an interest that isn’t an interest yet and may never be. Even though interests in trademarks are not perfected at the PTO, it still serves a key “notice” function.

Just thinking out loud!

Laura Talley Geyer | Of Counsel

ND Galli Law LLC

1200 G Street, N.W., Ste 800

Washington, DC 20005

Tel: (202) 599-9019 (direct)

https://ndgallilaw.com/laura-geyer/

https://ndgallilaw.com/

From: E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> On Behalf Of Welch, John L. via E-trademarks
Sent: Tuesday, January 7, 2025 1:45 PM
To: For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice. <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
Cc: Welch, John L. <John.Welch at WolfGreenfield.com>; voyer at keganlaw.com <daniel at keganlaw.com>
Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] Prospective Assignments

EXTERNAL EMAIL

Would you call it “nunc pro futurum”?

I agree with Carl.

Would the USPTO record it? Once you put in the effective date in the recordation cover sheet, I think it would be kicked out.

JLW

[cid:image001.png at 01DB610B.6F4355E0]

John L. Welch

Senior Counsel

Admitted to Practice: Massachusetts, New York, and Washington, DC

jwelch at WolfGreenfield.com<mailto:jwelch at WolfGreenfield.com>

Tel. 617.646.8285

[cid:image002.jpg at 01DB610B.6F4355E0]<http://thettablog.blogspot.com/>

Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C.

BOSTON | NEW YORK | WASHINGTON DC

wolfgreenfield.com<https://www.wolfgreenfield.com/>  [cid:image003.png at 01DB610B.6F4355E0] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/wolf-greenfield/>  [cid:image004.png at 01DB610B.6F4355E0] <https://twitter.com/wolfgreenfield>

Please consider the environment before printing this email.

This e-mail message and any attachments may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify me immediately by replying to this message and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments. Thank you.

From: E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com>> On Behalf Of voyer--- via E-trademarks
Sent: Tuesday, January 7, 2025 1:31 PM
To: Oppedahl Carl <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>>
Cc: voyer at keganlaw.com<mailto:voyer at keganlaw.com> <daniel at keganlaw.com<mailto:daniel at keganlaw.com>>
Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] Prospective Assignments

Seems an “asssignment” as of a future date is a promise to assign, not an actual assignment.

Losts can happen before then. Death, change of mind, assignment to another. There might be

an action for breach of promise, but thee contingent assignee won’t have a confirmed property interest

by the earlier document.

Daniel Kegan

Kennett Sq PA

On Jan 7, 2025, at 12:44 PM, Janice Housey via E-trademarks <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>> wrote:

All--

I have recorded many nunc pro tunc assignments over the years but is it possible to record a PROSPECTIVE assignment e.g., a typical assignment document but with the effective date being in the future?  Any other issues beyond recordation?  It does not seem like "best practice" maybe—  but are there any legal/USPTO problems with doing so?

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.

--
E-trademarks mailing list
E-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto: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/20250107/b0d8d263/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1575 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250107/b0d8d263/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 23449 bytes
Desc: image002.jpg
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250107/b0d8d263/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 590 bytes
Desc: image003.png
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250107/b0d8d263/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.png
Type: image/png
Size: 735 bytes
Desc: image004.png
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250107/b0d8d263/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image005.png
Type: image/png
Size: 71723 bytes
Desc: image005.png
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250107/b0d8d263/attachment-0003.png>