The Ideas For Inventions 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 through a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) on 15 February 2019, will affect foreign applicants who would otherwise be permitted 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 guidelines of Practice in Trademark Cases as well as the rules regarding Representation of Others Before the USA Patent and Trademark Office to require applicants, registrants, or parties to your proceeding whose domicile or principal workplace will not be located within the USA or its territories (hereafter foreign applicants, registrants, or parties) to be represented by a lawyer who is an active member in good standing of the bar from the highest court of the state within the U.S. (like the District of Columbia and any Commonwealth or territory from the U.S.). A requirement that such foreign applicants, registrants, or parties be represented by a qualified U.S. attorney will instill greater confidence within the public that U.S. registrations that issue to foreign applicants are certainly not subjected to invalidation for reasons like improper signatures and utilize 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 a number of licensed US attorneys who will continue to aid in expanding protection of our own client’s trade marks into the USA . No changes to those arrangements is going to be necessary and that we remain available to facilitate US trade mark applications for our local clients.
U . S . designations filed by way of the Madrid protocol will fall within the proposed new requirements. However, it really is anticipated the USPTO will review procedures for designations which proceed through to acceptance at the first instance in order that a US Attorney will not need to be appointed in this instance. Office Actions must be responded to by qualified US Attorneys. This change will affect self-filers into America – our current practice of engaging Invention Companies to respond to Office Actions for our local clients will not change.
A large change is defined in the future into force for Australian trade mark owners, who, from 25 February 2019, will not be capable of rely on the commencement of infringement proceedings being a defense to groundless threats. Currently, a trade mark owner who commenced infringement proceedings against another party was exempt from a cross-claim of groundless or unjustified threats. However, this may soon not be possible.
This amendment for the Trade Marks Act brings consistency across the Australian Patents Act, Designs Act, Plant Breeder’s Rights Act as well as the Trade Mark Act, which so far, was the only act to allow this defense. We expect that the removing of this section of the Trade Marks Act will permit the “unjustified threats” provisions from the Trade Marks Act to become interpreted similar to the Inventhelp Caveman Commercials. Thus, we believe it is likely that in the event infringement proceedings are brought against a party who vafnjl ultimately found to not be infringing or even the trade mark is located to become invalid, the trade mark owner will likely be deemed to get made unjustified or groundless threats.
In addition, a new provision is going to be added to the Patents Act, Designs Act, Trade Marks Act and Plant Breeder’s Rights Act affording the legal court the energy to award additional damages when an individual is deemed to get made unjustified threats of proceedings for infringement. The legal court will consider numerous factors, including the conduct in the trade mark owner after making the threat, any benefit derived through the trade mark owner from your threat and also the flagrancy of the threat, in deciding whether additional damages should be awarded against the trade mark owner.