[E-trademarks] Refusal because examiner claims that actual street address is really virtual

[Judith S]

I had this issue with my SAM registration as well for the firm, and what I
ended up doing is sending a copy of the lease agreement showing the
property we were leasing as well as photos of the list of occupants from
the lobby.

It's dumb, but they do assume that if there are multiple companies shown at
a location it's virtual.

Judith


On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 3:33 PM carla calcagno via E-trademarks <
e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:

> More fundamentally, her assumption that it is a "*virtual address"*  and
> thus "*n**ot the location of applicant’s headquarters where its senior
> executives or officers ordinarily direct and control applicant’s
> activities" is unfounded.*
>
> I think the Examiner may be equating shared office premises with virtual
> locations.  Many small businesses especially startups actually rent space
> in and work out of such offices. I would come back with my client's
> affidavit to this effect. It should be hard for her to maintain her refusal
> in light of a client statement under oath that directly contradicts her
> incorrect factual assumptions.
>
> Good luck!  ( I share your pain)
>
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 5:07 PM Jessica R. Friedman via E-trademarks <
> e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:
>
>> An application is being refused because the examining attorney maintains,
>> on the basis of I know not what, that *Applicant’s provided address
>> appears to be that of a virtual office claimed by various businesses, and
>> therefore is not the location of applicant’s headquarters where its senior
>> executives or officers ordinarily direct and control applicant’s
>> activities. *
>>
>>
>>
>> The address, which includes street number and suite number, is that of my
>> client’s law firm, from which she also runs the applicant company. This
>> same address has been the basis for other trademark applications without
>> any such objection.
>>
>>
>>
>> Of all the objections I’ve received in my more than 40 years of doing
>> this work, this has to be the most asinine. Since when does/can an EA claim
>> that an actual street address isn’t an actual street address? Does someone
>> actually have to go and take a photo of the building to prove that it’s a
>> real address?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Jessica R. Friedman
>>
>> Attorney at Law
>>
>> 300 East 59 Street, Ste. 2406
>>
>> New York, NY 10022
>>
>> Phone: 212-220-0900
>>
>> Cell: 917-647-1884
>>
>> E-mail: *jrfriedman at litproplaw.com <jrfriedman at litproplaw.com>*
>>
>> URL: *www.literarypropertylaw.com <http://www.literarypropertylaw.com>*
>>
>>
>>
>> [image: 1479430908386_PastedImage]
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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/20250912/be09eca0/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001[53].png
Type: image/png
Size: 8892 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250912/be09eca0/attachment.png>