The Inventhelp Invention Stories recently proposed changes which will 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 way of 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 and the rules regarding Representation of Others Before the USA Patent and Trademark Office to require applicants, registrants, or parties to some proceeding whose domicile or principal place of business is not located within the United States or its territories (hereafter foreign applicants, registrants, or parties) to be represented by a lawyer that is an energetic member in good standing from the bar of the highest court of the state within the U.S. (like the District of Columbia and any Commonwealth or territory in the U.S.). A requirement that such foreign applicants, registrants, or parties be represented with a qualified U.S. attorney will instill greater confidence within the public that U.S. registrations that issue to foreign applicants are certainly not susceptible to invalidation for reasons including improper signatures and utilize claims and encourage the USPTO to more efficiently 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 will still aid in expanding protection in our client’s trade marks into the United States . No changes to such arrangements is going to be necessary so we remain available to facilitate US trade mark applications for our local clients.
United States Of America designations filed by way of the Madrid protocol will fall inside the proposed new requirements. However, it is anticipated that the USPTO will review procedures for designations which proceed to acceptance in the first instance to ensure that a US Attorney do 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 the USA – our current practice of engaging Ideas Inventions to respond to Office Actions for our local clients is not going to change.
A big 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 can soon no longer be possible.
This amendment to the Trade Marks Act brings consistency over the Australian Patents Act, Designs Act, Plant Breeder’s Rights Act and also the Trade Mark Act, which so far, was the sole act to permit this defense. We expect that the removing of this section of the Trade Marks Act will permit the “unjustified threats” provisions in the Trade Marks Act to be interpreted similar to the Inventhelp Innovation. Thus, we feel chances are that in the event infringement proceedings are brought against a party who vafnjl ultimately found never to be infringing or perhaps the trade mark is located to become invalid, the trade mark owner will be deemed to get made unjustified or groundless threats.
Additionally, a brand new provision will be added to the Patents Act, Designs Act, Trade Marks Act and Plant Breeder’s Rights Act affording the court the power to award additional damages when a person is deemed to have made unjustified threats of proceedings for infringement. The court will consider a number of factors, like the conduct in the trade mark owner after making the threat, any benefit derived through the trade mark owner from your threat as well as the flagrancy of the threat, in deciding whether additional damages should be awarded up against the trade mark owner.