The Inventhelp Headquarters recently proposed changes which would force foreign trade mark applicants to engage a US-based attorney, in a bid to limit inaccurate and fraudulent applications by self-filers. The proposed changes, published by means of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) on 15 February 2019, will affect foreign applicants who will otherwise be allowed to file trade marks directly with the USPTO without engaging a licensed US attorney.
The NPR Summary reads: America Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO or Office) proposes to amend the principles of Practice in Trademark Cases and also the rules regarding Representation of Others Before the USA Patent and Trademark Office to require applicants, registrants, or parties to a proceeding whose domicile or principal place of business will not be located within the United States or its territories (hereafter foreign applicants, registrants, or parties) to get represented by legal counsel who may be an active member in good standing in the bar of the highest court of any state inside the U.S. (such as the District of Columbia and any Commonwealth or territory in the U.S.). A requirement that such foreign applicants, registrants, or parties be represented by a qualified U.S. attorney will instill greater confidence inside the public that U.S. registrations that issue to foreign applicants are certainly not subject to invalidation for reasons such as improper signatures and make use of claims and enable the USPTO to better use available mechanisms to enforce foreign applicant compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements in trademark matters.
At Michael Buck IP, we already work closely with numerous licensed US attorneys who can carry on and help with expanding protection of our client’s trade marks into America . No changes to those arrangements will likely be necessary so we remain accessible to facilitate US trade mark applications on behalf of our local clients.
United States Of America designations filed by way of the Madrid protocol will fall within the proposed new requirements. However, it is actually anticipated the USPTO will review procedures for designations which proceed to acceptance on the first instance so that a US Attorney do not need to be appointed in this situation. Office Actions will need to be responded to by qualified US Attorneys. This modification will affect self-filers into the USA – our current practice of engaging Inventhelp Office to respond to Office Actions on behalf of our local clients will never change.
A big change is defined to come into force for Australian trade mark owners, who, from 25 February 2019, will no longer be capable of rely on the commencement of infringement proceedings as being a defense to groundless threats. Currently, a trade mark owner who commenced infringement proceedings against another party was exempt coming from a cross-claim of groundless or unjustified threats. However, this will soon not be possible.
This amendment to the Trade Marks Act brings consistency throughout the Australian Patents Act, Designs Act, Plant Breeder’s Rights Act as well as the Trade Mark Act, which until now, was the sole act to permit this defense. We expect that removing this section of the Trade Marks Act will allow the “unjustified threats” provisions of the Trade Marks Act to get interpreted just like the Inventhelp Inventions Store. Thus, we believe it is likely that in case infringement proceedings are brought against an event who vafnjl ultimately found not to be infringing or the trade mark is located to be invalid, the trade mark owner will be deemed to possess made unjustified or groundless threats.
In addition, a brand new provision will likely be added to the Patents Act, Designs Act, Trade Marks Act and Plant Breeder’s Rights Act affording the court the ability to award additional damages in the event that one is deemed to possess made unjustified threats of proceedings for infringement. A legal court will consider several factors, such as the conduct of the trade mark owner after making the threat, any benefit derived by the trade mark owner through the threat and also the flagrancy of the threat, in deciding whether additional damages have to be awarded from the trade mark owner.