[E-trademarks] Latest Domicile Address Fun

[carla calcagno]

Good luck!

 Such a waste of time and money, in my humble opinion.

On Thu, Jun 5, 2025 at 3:57 PM Andrew McCormick <amccormick at wsmblaw.com>
wrote:

> 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/20250605/3521efd2/attachment.html>