The Patent Ideas 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 will otherwise be allowed to file trade marks directly with the USPTO without engaging a licensed US attorney.
The NPR Summary reads: The Usa Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO or Office) proposes to amend the Rules of Practice in Trademark Cases and 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 be represented by an attorney who may be an energetic member in good standing from the bar in the highest court of any state within 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 way of a qualified U.S. attorney will instill greater confidence inside the public that U.S. registrations that issue to foreign applicants are not subjected to invalidation for reasons like improper signatures and utilize claims and encourage 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 that will still help with expanding protection of our own client’s trade marks into America . No changes to those arrangements is going to be necessary so we remain accessible to facilitate US trade mark applications for our local clients.
United States Of America designations filed through the Madrid protocol will fall within the proposed new requirements. However, it really is anticipated that this USPTO will review procedures for designations which proceed right through to acceptance at the first instance in order that a US Attorney need not be appointed in cases like this. Office Actions must be responded to by qualified US Attorneys. This transformation will affect self-filers into the USA – our current practice of engaging Inventhelp Intromark to answer Office Actions for our local clients is not going to change.
A huge change is defined in the future 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 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 will soon not be possible.
This amendment for the Trade Marks Act will take consistency across the Australian Patents Act, Designs Act, Plant Breeder’s Rights Act and the Trade Mark Act, which so far, was the only act to allow this defense. We expect that removing this section of the Trade Marks Act allows the “unjustified threats” provisions of the Trade Marks Act to get interpreted just like the Inventor Ideas. Thus, we believe chances are that in the event that infringement proceedings are brought against a celebration who vafnjl ultimately found to not be infringing or even the trade mark can be found to become invalid, the trade mark owner will be deemed to get made unjustified or groundless threats.
Additionally, 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 legal court the energy to award additional damages in case a person is deemed to get made unjustified threats of proceedings for infringement. The court will consider a number of factors, like the conduct from the trade mark owner after making the threat, any benefit derived from the trade mark owner through the threat and the flagrancy from the threat, in deciding whether additional damages should be awarded against the trade mark owner.