LAIPLALAIPLA
LAIPLALAIPLA
  • About
    • About LAIPLA
    • Ambassador Outreach Program
    • Board of Directors
    • Committees
    • Administration
    • Member Firms and Companies
    • Past Presidents
    • Recent Past Presidents
    • Public Service Award
    • Diversity Fellowship
    • Bylaws
  • Events
  • Membership
  • Sponsorship
  • IP Blogs
  • Contact
  • About
    • About LAIPLA
    • Ambassador Outreach Program
    • Board of Directors
    • Committees
    • Administration
    • Member Firms and Companies
    • Past Presidents
    • Recent Past Presidents
    • Public Service Award
    • Diversity Fellowship
    • Bylaws
  • Events
  • Membership
  • Sponsorship
  • IP Blogs
  • Contact

Precedential No. 6: Canadian Party Must Have a U.S. Attorney Despite Reciprocity, Says TTAB

February 24, 2020February 26, 2020| in The TTABlog| by John L. Welch
In a three-page Order, the Board ruled that a party domiciled in Canada, despite the appearance of an authorized Canadian trademark attorney/agent on its behalf, must appoint a qualified attorney licensed to practice law in the United States, or in a commonwealth or territory of the United States. The Canadian attorney/agent may represent the petitioner before the Board, but a qualified U.S. attorney must also represent it and must file all documents in the proceeding. Cloudworks Consulting Services Inc. v. Ongoing Operations, LLC, Cancellation No. 92073144 (February 21, 2020) [precedential] (Yong Oh (Richard) Kim, Interlocutory Attorney),

On December 31, 2019, Petitioner Cloudworks, a Canadian corporation domiciled in Toronto, filed a petition for cancellation of a registration for the mark CLOUDWORKS & Design for various computer services, on the grounds of abandonment and fraud. The petition was signed by a Canadian attorney/agent “listed on the Office of Enrollment and Discipline’s roll of recognized Canadian Trademark Agents.” [Currently, only Canadian attorneys and agents are reciprocally recognized under Rule 11.14(c)(1). Any representation must be limited to parties located in Canada.]

The USPTO amended its rules, effective August 3, 2019, to require that all applicants, registrants, or parties to a proceeding before the TTAB whose domicile is not within the United States or its territories to be represented by an attorney who is an active member in good standing of the bar of the highest court of a state in the United States, or the District of Columbia, or any Commonwealth or territory of the United States. See Requirement of U.S. Licensed Attorney for Foreign Trademark Applicants and Registrants, 84 Fed. Reg. 31498 (July 2, 2019), and Trademark Rule 2.11, 37 C.F.R. § 2.11; see also Patent and Trademark Rules 11.1 and 11.14, 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.1 and 11.14.

This requirement is not satisfied if a party, like Petitioner, is represented by a foreign attorney or agent, even if that attorney or agent has been granted reciprocal recognition by the USPTO pursuant to Patent and Trademark Rules 11.14(c) and (f), 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.14(c) and (f). A reciprocally recognized attorney or agent may only appear as an additionally appointed practitioner. A qualified attorney licensed to practice law in the United States, or in any Commonwealth or territory of the United States, must still be appointed as the party’s representative who will file documents with the Board and with whom the Board will correspond. See Patent and Trademark Rule 11.14(c)(2), 37 C.F.R. § 11.14(c)(2).

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlog comment: This rule applies to all TTAB proceedings, even those commenced prior to August 3, 2019, and it applies to pending applications and issued registrations.

Apparently a reciprocally recognized Canadian agent or attorney may take or defend depositions, present oral argument, and negotiate on behalf of a Canadian party. What else is left of reciprocity?

IP Blog Categories

  • Announcements
  • Events
  • LAIPLA News
  • The TTABlog
  • Uncategorized
  • Wegner's Top 10
  • Wegner's Writings

Archives

Previous

TTABlog Test: Which One of These Three Section 2(d) Refusals Was Reversed?

Next

Precedential No. 7: TTAB Grants Cancellation Petition, Respondent Did Not Individually Have Bona Fide Intent to Use the Mark


Since 1934, LAIPLA has been educating and connecting members of the local intellectual property legal community

Pages

About 
Events
Membership
Sponsorship
Contact
Privacy Policy

Search
Contact

LAIPLA
1621 W 25th Street
Box 633
San Pedro, CA 90732
Phone: (323) 285-1654
Fax: ( 310) 878-0517
Email: office@laipla.net

© 2023 Los Angeles Intellectual Property Law Association. All Rights Reserved | Website design by SafeHouse Web.