USPTO releases new rules for non-US domiciled TM applicants

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

USPTO releases new rules for non-US domiciled TM applicants

uspto thumb

Non-US domiciled trademark applicants, registrants and parties to Trademark Trial and Appeal Board proceedings will have to be represented by a US-qualified lawyer

uspto

The new rules were announced on July 2 and will come into force on August 3. 

According to the USPTO, the rules will help safeguard the "accuracy and integrity" of its trademark register. 

It also pointed out that other trademark offices require foreign-domiciled applicants to use local representation for filing. 

“Many other countries worldwide have had this requirement for decades,” said USPTO commissioner for trademarks, Mary Boney Denison, in a press release.

The office has published guidance notes on who will be classed as 'foreign-domiciled', the information a US attorney/lawyer must provide to satisfy the new rules, and the position of Canadian patent and trademark attorneys/agents. The guidance notes and likely questions concerning the rules can be found here.


The USPTO also addressed some concerns, such as the costs of appointing a US attorney and Madrid System applications, highlighted during the consultation period (see the official rule document published in the Federal Register). 


Previous Managing IP coverage on this issue can be found here and here

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Chris Moore at HGF reflects on the ‘spirit of collegiality’ that led to an important ruling in G1/24, a case concerning how European patent claims should be interpreted
The court ruled against the owner of the ‘Umbro’ mark, despite noting that post-sale confusion can be a legitimate ground for infringement
Shem Otanga discusses the importance of curiosity and passion, and why he would have loved to have been a professional recording artist
Practitioners say the Bombay High Court shouldn’t have refused well-known trademark recognition for TikTok simply because the app is banned in India
In-house counsel explain why firms should provide risk management advice that helps them achieve their goals
Attorneys at four firms explain the AI trends they expect in the future, including a potential shift in who plaintiffs sue for copyright infringement
The dispute at the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court pits Dryrobe against D-Robe and will include a ‘genericide’ element
Novo Nordisk losing patent rights covering Ozempic in Canada and a US Supreme Court decision favouring Ed Sheeran were also among the top talking points
The court will hand down its ruling in Iconix v Dream Pairs on Tuesday, June 24, in a case that concerns post-sale confusion
Developments included a stay in a row concerning the UPC’s jurisdiction and a timeline for the rollout of the long-awaited new CMS
Gift this article