[E-trademarks] Latest Domicile Address Fun

[Andrew McCormick]

That is true and I've spent an untold number of hours (and the client's
money) fighting this, after two refusal and a final office action,
requiring a notice of appeal in case we don't succeed. Or yeah, and it was
for 10 similar applications.

I submitted declarations of the owner and the chief operating officer who
physically works at the address on behalf of owner, and bank statements
showing the address as the owner / company address.  Mail to that address
would also be helpful, I was told (even though that seemed wrong, since
mere mail drops don't work), so I did not use.  I am waiting to see if we
are successful.

When will this madness stop?

Andy

_______________________________
Andrew G. McCormick
Winslett Studnicky McCormick & Bomser
1177 Avenue of the Americas, 5th Floor
(at West 46th Street)
New York, New York 10036
p 212.229.2953
c 917.881.5389
www.wsmblaw.com

This transmission may contain privileged and confidential information. It
is intended only for the use of the person(s) named above. If you are not
the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review,
dissemination, distribution or duplication of this communication is
strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact
the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.


On Thu, Jun 5, 2025 at 3:11 PM carla calcagno via E-trademarks <
e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:

>  Good afternoon Greg
>
> Thank you for sharing this information. Does anyone know how one may
> overcome this ( nonsensical) rebuttable presumption?
>
> On Thu, Jun 5, 2025 at 2:13 PM Greg William via E-trademarks <
> e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:
>
>> (Apologies in advance to any equine aficionados, but I'm gonna beat the
>> dead horse.).
>>
>> I don't believe this specific point has been discussed here, but after
>> speaking with someone at the USPTO I wanted to bring it to everyone's
>> attention.  If the street address listed as domicile in an application is
>> flagged by the USPTO's address verification software/service as being
>> associated with, *e.g.*, a mail delivery address, it doesn't matter if a
>> floor/suite number is also included when the application is filed.
>> Basically, if *any* occupant of a commercial building is a coworking
>> space or mail service (and the USPTO's verification system knows that), it
>> creates a rebuttable presumption that the address is impermissible for use
>> as a domicile by *any other* occupants..
>>
>> Discuss.
>>
>> -Greg
>>
>> Gregory S. William, Esq.*
>> Danielson Legal LLC
>> One Mifflin Place, Suite 400
>> Cambridge, MA 02138
>> w: www.danielsonlegal.com
>> e: greg at danielsonlegal.com
>> t: (617) 714-9579
>> direct: (508) 865-2204
>> f: (888) 742-8097
>>
>> *Licensed to practice in Massachusetts
>>
>> This message is intended only for the designated recipient(s). It may
>> contain confidential or proprietary information and may be subject to the
>> attorney-client privilege or other confidentiality protections. If you are
>> not a designated recipient, you may not review, copy or distribute this
>> message. If you receive this in error, please notify the sender by reply
>> e-mail and delete this message. Thank you.
>> --
>> 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/20250605/30fb4e23/attachment.html>