Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 37081

cost-savings associated with avoided to an on-line system for PVO PART 203—[REMOVED] audit expenses. When estimates for PVO registration. USAID’s online PVO- staff time and financial audits are registration system required that PVOs ■ For the reasons discussed in the combined, the cost savings for affected provide the same information requested preamble, and under the authority of PVOs ranges from $2,005,120 to on AID Form 1550–2, including Sec. 621, Public Law 87–195, 75 Stat. $11,360,240. When added to the financial data. As such, the public- 445, (22 U.S.C. 2381), as amended; E.O. expected costs internal to USAID of reporting burden for collection of 12163, Sept. 29, 1979, 44 FR 56673, 3 $779,406, the annual total of information remained the same under CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 435, USAID incremental cost savings as a result of the on-line system. removes 22 CFR part 203. the rescission ranges from $2,784,526 to Carrie Thompson, $12,139,646. Therefore, the rescission of 5. Administrative Procedures Act our PVO-registration rule would Acting Assistant Administrator, Bureau for USAID is issuing this deregulatory Economic Growth, Education, and the benefits USAID and our PVOs by action to remove an unneeded hurdle to Environment. streamlining processes and achieving doing business with the Agency that significant cost-savings. [FR Doc. 2019–15685 Filed 7–30–19; 8:45 am] imposes unnecessary and excessive BILLING CODE 6116–01–P 2. Executive Order (E.O.) 13771 costs on the private sector with no value This rule is considered an E.O. 13771 to the Government. The rescinded rule deregulatory action. Details on the originally called for the collection of DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE estimated cost-savings of this rule information, such as a company’s make- appear in the rule’s economic analysis. up of volunteers—since obviated once Patent and Trademark Office statutory changes removed the volunteer 3. Regulatory Flexibility Act requirement. Apart from that 37 CFR Parts 2 and 7 requirement, statutory references to the Because the rescission of this [Docket No. PTO–T–2017–0004] regulation removes, rather than registration of PVOs (such as those in imposes, the collection of information, Sections 123 or 607 of the FAA) provide RIN 0651–AD15 USAID certifies that the rescission no further guidance or requirements to Changes to the Trademark Rules of would not have a significant economic the Agency on what such registration Practice To Mandate Electronic Filing impact on a substantial number of small should entail. By rescinding this rule, entities. the Agency would be free to simplify AGENCY: Patent and Trademark Office, and streamline registration to remove Commerce. 4. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) barriers that impose expenses on ACTION: The Paperwork Reduction Act (44 smaller organizations that wish to Final rule. U.S.C. 3507) applies to this rule, compete for USAID funds. SUMMARY: The United States Patent and because it removes information- USAID also conducted surveys of the Trademark Office (USPTO or Office) collection requirements formerly primary stakeholders to the registration amends the Rules of Practice in approved by OMB. Rescission of this process—that of Agency’s internal Trademark Cases and the Rules of rule would reduce paperwork stakeholders and the PVO community. Practice in Filings Pursuant to the significantly and eliminate information- Surveys of registered PVOs in 2012 and Protocol Relating to the Madrid collection requirements on the 550 2017 showed that the PVO community Agreement Concerning the International PVOs that currently register with the did not see significant value in the Registration of Marks to mandate Agency. USAID collects information registration program delineated by 22 electronic filing of trademark from all registered PVOs as part of the CFR part 203, and internal stakeholders applications and all submissions registration requirement, such as for the Agency determined that the associated with trademark applications financial data and a costly external information collected in accordance and registrations, and to require the financial audit, to determine whether with 22 CFR 203 served no purpose for designation of an email address for the PVO meets the conditions of the Agency. These findings contributed receiving USPTO correspondence, with registration. Under the revised to the decision to remove both the limited exceptions. This rule advances approach, only organizations that apply registration program and the rule that the USPTO’s IT strategy to achieve for the Agency’s LEPP or OFR, or to required such a rigorous registration complete end-to-end electronic other U.S. Government Departments and process. Additionally, USAID does not processing of trademark-related Agencies that seek to provide foreign plan to replace the current rule with any submissions, thereby improving assistance (about 50 organizations in other. administrative efficiency by facilitating total) would have to certify they meet electronic file management, optimizing USAID’s PVO requirements through the For the LEPP, the OFR, and PVOs that apply to other U.S. Government workflow processes, and reducing new, streamlined certification process processing errors. described earlier. USAID would not Departments and Agencies that are DATES: This rule is effective on October collect any other data or demand extra seeking to provide foreign assistance 5, 2019. financial audits from these under Section 607(a) of the FAA, all of organizations. which still require registration because FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: USAID previously collected of legislative requirements, as provided Catherine Cain, Office of the Deputy information for to register PVOs under above, the Agency has developed a Commissioner for Trademark the OMB-approved AID Form 1550–2 simplified registration process as part of Examination Policy, TMPolicy@ (OMB Approval Number 0412–0035), the application process. uspto.gov, (571) 272–8946. but inadvertently operated in non- List of Subjects for 22 CFR Part 203 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: compliance with the PRA when OMB Purpose: The USPTO revises the rules approval of this form expired, and Foreign aid, Nonprofit organizations, in parts 2 and 7 of title 37 of the Code USAID did not seek extension of the Reporting and recordkeeping of Federal Regulations to require OMB approval when the Agency moved requirements. electronic filing through the USPTO’s

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:26 Jul 30, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR1.SGM 31JYR1 37082 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

Trademark Electronic Application registration must be filed through TEAS filings, expedite processing, shorten System (TEAS) of all trademark and outgoing USPTO correspondence pendency, minimize manual data entry applications based on section 1 and/or regarding the registration will be sent by and potential data-entry errors, and section 44 of the Trademark Act (Act), email. eliminate the potential for lost or 15 U.S.C. 1051, 1126, and submissions Although more than 99% of missing papers. filed with the USPTO concerning applications under section 1 or section This rule also requires the designation applications or registrations. These 44 are now filed electronically, just of an email address for receiving USPTO submissions include, for example, under 88% are currently prosecuted correspondence concerning these responses to Office actions, registration electronically from end to end. This submissions, which is either that of the maintenance filings, international means that approximately 12% of these applicant or registrant, if unrepresented, applications, subsequent designations, filings still involve paper processing. or an authorized attorney, if one has and direct filings with the USPTO Prior reductions in the filing fees for been appointed. Currently, in order to relating to extensions of protection electronic submissions resulted in receive a filing date for a new through the international registration almost 100% of new applications being application under section 1 or section system. In addition, this rulemaking filed electronically, but have not 44, the USPTO requires, among other requires the designation of an email achieved complete end-to-end things, that the applicant designate an address for receiving USPTO electronic processing. By mandating ‘‘address for correspondence.’’ 37 CFR correspondence concerning these electronic filing of trademark 2.21(a)(2). Applicants who filed using submissions. applications and submissions the TEAS Plus or TEAS Reduced Fee The requirement to file an initial concerning applications or registrations (TEAS RF) filing options have been application through TEAS does not through TEAS, the amended rules will required to designate an email address apply to applications based on section reduce paper processing to an absolute for correspondence, while those who 66(a) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 1141f, minimum and thus maximize end-to- filed on paper or through the regular because these applications are initially end electronic processing. TEAS application were permitted to filed with the International Bureau (IB) End-to-end electronic processing of designate a postal address. This rule of the World Intellectual Property all applications, related correspondence, requires applicants and registrants, and Organization and subsequently statutorily required registration parties to a proceeding before the TTAB, transmitted electronically to the maintenance submissions, and other to provide and maintain an email USPTO. However, section 66(a) submissions will benefit trademark address for correspondence. The applicants and registrants are required customers and increase the USPTO’s requirement to designate an email to electronically file all subsequent administrative efficiency by facilitating address for receiving USPTO submissions concerning their electronic file management, optimizing correspondence benefits the USPTO and applications or registrations and to workflow processes, and reducing its customers by reducing costs and designate an email address for receiving processing errors. Paper submissions increasing efficiency. Email USPTO correspondence. This hinder efficiency and accuracy and are correspondence can be sent, received, rulemaking does not encompass more costly to process than electronic and processed faster than paper electronic filing of submissions made to submissions because they require correspondence, which must be printed, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board manual uploading of scanned copies of collated, scanned, and uploaded to the (TTAB) in ex parte or inter partes the documents into the USPTO electronic records system, and mailed proceedings. Such submissions are electronic records system and manual domestically or internationally, at currently required to be filed through data entry of information in the greater expense. Under this rule, the USPTO’s Electronic System for documents. Electronic submissions applicants and registrants, and parties to Trademark Trials and Appeals (ESTTA). through TEAS, on the other hand, a proceeding before the TTAB, are also This rule is intended to maximize generally do not require manual required to provide and maintain a end-to-end electronic processing of processing and are automatically postal address. The domicile address applications and related submissions, as categorized, labeled, and uploaded specified for an applicant, registrant, or well as registration maintenance filings. directly into an electronic file in the party to a proceeding will be treated by Achieving complete end-to-end USPTO electronic records system for the Office as the postal address for the electronic processing of all trademark review by USPTO employees and the applicant, registrant, or party. In the rare submissions is an IT objective of the public. If a TEAS submission contains circumstance where mail cannot be USPTO. End-to-end electronic amendments or other changes to the delivered to its domicile address, the processing means that an application information in the record, often those applicant, registrant, or party may and all application- and registration- amendments and changes are request to designate a postal address related submissions are filed and automatically entered into the electronic where mail can be delivered. processed electronically, and any records system. Furthermore, TEAS A qualified practitioner representing related correspondence between the submissions are more likely to include an applicant, registrant, or party also is USPTO and the relevant party is all necessary information because the required to provide and maintain a conducted entirely electronically. Thus, USPTO can update its forms to postal address. This requirement an application that is processed specifically tailor the requirements for a ensures the USPTO’s ability to contact electronically end to end would be filed particular submission and require that the applicant, registrant, party, or through TEAS, and all submissions the information be validated prior to practitioner by mail in certain limited related to the application, such as submission. Consequently, preparing circumstances, such as when an voluntary amendments, responses to and submitting an application or related appointed practitioner is suspended or Office actions, or allegations of use, document, or a registration maintenance excluded from practice before the would also be filed through TEAS. With filing, through TEAS is likely to result USPTO and is no longer the this change, outgoing USPTO in a more complete submission and take correspondent, or when the Office sends correspondence regarding the less time than preparing and mailing the a physical registration certificate. application will be sent by email. paper equivalent. Thus, TEAS Previous Initiatives to Increase End- Likewise, all submissions related to a submissions help ensure more complete to-End Electronic Processing: The

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:26 Jul 30, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR1.SGM 31JYR1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 37083

USPTO previously amended its rules to filing option and will be renamed below in the explanation of the limited encourage electronic filing through ‘‘TEAS Standard’’ on the effective date exceptions to the amended TEAS and email communication by of this rule. The filing fee for this option requirements. establishing the TEAS Plus and TEAS remains at $275 per class. The TEAS Although this rule requires RF filing options for applications based Plus option also remains at $225 per correspondence to be filed through on section 1 and/or section 44. See 37 class, while the TEAS option under 37 TEAS, current USPTO practice CFR 2.6. These filing options have lower CFR 2.6(a)(1)(ii) at $400 per class is regarding informal communications is application fees than a regular TEAS eliminated. However, the per-class fee unchanged. Thus, for example, an application, but, unlike a regular TEAS of $400 in § 2.6(a)(1)(ii), which is the applicant or an applicant’s attorney may application, they require the applicant current filing fee for applications under still conduct informal communications to (1) provide, authorize, and maintain section 66(a), is retained as the filing fee with an examining attorney regarding a an email address for receiving USPTO for such applications. particular application by telephone or correspondence regarding the Under this rule, an application filed email. See Trademark Manual of application and (2) file certain on paper under section 1 and/or section Examining Procedure (TMEP) § 709.05. application-related submissions through 44 will not receive a filing date unless (4) Email Correspondence Address. TEAS. See 37 CFR 2.22, 2.23. If the it falls under one of the limited This rule amends §§ 2.21, 2.23, and 7.4 applicant does not fulfill these exceptions discussed below. to require that applicants and registrants requirements, the applicant must pay an (2) Additional Processing Fee. provide a valid email address for Previously, the additional processing fee additional processing fee. See 37 CFR themselves and any appointed under § 2.6(a)(1)(v) applied to TEAS 2.6, 2.22, 2.23. practitioner for receipt of Plus and TEAS RF applications that Despite these additional correspondence from the USPTO. Thus, failed to meet the requirements under requirements, and the potential except in the case of nationals from § 2.22(a) or § 2.23(a) at filing, and to additional processing fee for exempted treaty countries, as discussed TEAS Plus and TEAS RF applications noncompliance, the TEAS RF filing below, the USPTO’s required method of when certain submissions were not filed option is now the most popular filing corresponding with applicants and option among USPTO customers, through TEAS or when the applicant registrants is via Office actions and followed by TEAS Plus. These two filing failed to maintain a valid email address notices sent to the designated email options currently account for nearly for receipt of communications from the address. If the email transmission were 99% of all new trademark applications Office. Under this rule, the processing to fail because, for example, the filed under section 1 and/or section 44, fee applies only to TEAS Plus applicant or registrant provided an suggesting that applicants are applications that fail to meet the incorrect email address, the recipient’s comfortable with filing and amended filing requirements under mailbox is full, or the email provider communicating with the USPTO § 2.22(a). All applicants and registrants, has a service outage, the USPTO will electronically. except those specifically exempted, are Furthermore, in January 2017, the now required to electronically file any not attempt to contact the correspondent USPTO revised its rules to increase fees submissions in connection with an designated pursuant to § 2.18(a) by other for paper filings to bring the fees nearer application or registration and to means. Instead, pursuant to amended to the cost of processing the filings and designate and maintain an email § 2.23(d), the applicant or registrant is encourage customers to use lower-cost address for correspondence. A TEAS responsible for monitoring the status of electronic options. As a result of these Plus or TEAS Standard (previously the application or registration using the rule changes, the USPTO is now TEAS RF) applicant who meets the USPTO’s Trademark Status and processing nearly 88% of applications amended filing requirements, but Document Retrieval (TSDR) system, filed under section 1 and/or section 44 thereafter seeks acceptance of a which displays any USPTO Office electronically end to end. submission filed on paper, pursuant to actions and notices that have issued, new § 2.147, or a waiver of the any submissions properly filed with the Discussion of Rule Changes requirement to file such submissions USPTO, and any other actions taken by (1) New Applications. Under this rule, electronically, must then pay the the USPTO. § 2.21 is amended to require applicants relevant paper filing fee and the paper As noted above, applications under to file electronically, through TEAS, any petition fee for any submission filed on section 66(a) are processed and trademark, service mark, certification paper. transmitted electronically to the USPTO mark, collective membership mark, or (3) Submissions Required to Be Filed from the IB. These applications do not collective trademark or service mark Through TEAS. This rule amends § 2.23 include an email address for receiving application for registration on the to also require that correspondence USPTO correspondence, and the Principal or Supplemental Register concerning a trademark application or USPTO does not anticipate the IB will under section 1 and/or section 44. As registration under section 1, section 44, update its systems to include email noted above, the requirement to file an or section 66(a) be filed through TEAS, addresses prior to implementation of application through TEAS does not except for correspondence required to this rule. In addition, only 2.9% of apply to applications based on section be submitted to the Assignment Madrid applications were approved for 66(a) because they are initially Recordation Branch or through ESTTA. publication upon first action in fiscal processed by the IB and subsequently Although all correspondence is required year 2017. Therefore, the USPTO transmitted electronically to the to be filed electronically, the USPTO believes it is appropriate to waive the USPTO. recognizes that there may be certain requirement for an email address prior The TEAS RF filing option, which circumstances when a paper filing is to publication in this limited situation required applicants to maintain an necessary. For those instances, the and until such time as the IB’s systems email address for receiving USPTO Office codifies a new regulatory section, are updated. However, Madrid correspondence regarding the at 37 CFR 2.147, which sets out a applicants are subject to the application and to file the application procedure for requesting acceptance of requirements under §§ 2.23(b) and and related submissions through TEAS, paper submissions under particular 2.32(a)(2), (4) to file all submissions will become the default, or ‘‘standard,’’ circumstances. This section is discussed electronically and to provide an email

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:26 Jul 30, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR1.SGM 31JYR1 37084 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

address on such submissions for receipt USPTO will permit paper submissions requesting acceptance of a specimen of correspondence from the USPTO. of applications and correspondence in filed on paper or waiver of the Under § 2.18(c), an applicant, limited situations. This rule establishes requirement to file the specimen registrant, or party to a proceeding must a process for filing paper submissions in electronically. This exception does not maintain a current and accurate such situations. apply to specimens for sound marks, correspondence address for itself and its (1) International Agreements: The which can be attached to the TEAS form qualified practitioner, if one is United States (U.S.) is a member of both as an electronic file. designated. the Trademark Law Treaty (TLT) and (3) Petition to Accept a Paper (5) Changes from the Proposed Rule. the subsequent Singapore Treaty on the Submission: This rule includes a new The USPTO further amends § 2.22(a) by Law of Trademarks (STLT), which regulatory section titled ‘‘Petition to the revising amended paragraph (a)(3) to treaties constitute two separate Director to accept a paper submission,’’ limit the requirement for the names and international instruments that may be which is codified at § 2.147. Under this citizenship of general partners to ratified or acceded to independently by section, an applicant or registrant may domestic partnerships and to add a member countries. One provision of file a petition to the Director requesting requirement for the names and TLT mandates that its members accept acceptance of a submission filed on citizenship of active members of paper trademark applications from paper in three situations. domestic joint ventures. These changes nationals of other TLT members. STLT, Under new § 2.147(a), the petition are added for consistency with current on the other hand, allows its members may be submitted if TEAS is §§ 2.32(a)(3)(iii) and (iv). The USPTO to choose the means of transmittal of unavailable on the date of the deadline also revises § 2.22(a)(4) to set out the communications, whether on paper, in for the submission specified in a requirements for sole proprietorships in electronic form, or in any other form. regulation in parts 2 or 7 of this chapter order to further clarify the requirements This incongruity between the treaties or in a section of the Act. Under this for TEAS Plus applicants at filing. was addressed in Article 27(2) of STLT, provision, the applicant or registrant is The USPTO amends § 2.32(a)(3)(i) to which provides that any Contracting required to submit proof that TEAS was require the applicant’s legal entity type Party to both STLT and TLT shall unavailable because a technical in addition to its citizenship and adds continue to apply TLT in its relations problem, on either the USPTO’s part or § 2.32(a)(1)(v) to require the state of with Contracting Parties to TLT that are the user’s part, prevented the user from organization of a sole proprietorship not parties to STLT. Accordingly, submitting the document electronically. and the name and citizenship of the sole nationals of TLT members that are not Generally, if users receive an error proprietor. These requirements are also members of STLT at the time of message the first time they attempt to added for consistency with current submission of the relevant document to submit a filing electronically, the § 2.22(a)(2) and new § 2.22(a)(4). the USPTO are not required to file USPTO expects that they will try to The USPTO further amends § 2.56(a) applications electronically or receive resolve any failures due to user error. In to include cross references to § 2.160 communications from the USPTO via situations where the inability to submit and § 7.36 and also amends § 2.56(b) email, nor are they required to submit the filing was not due to user error, the and (c) to update these paragraphs with a petition with a paper filing, until such USPTO encourages users to try to criteria for electronic submissions and time as their country joins STLT. submit the document again better conform them to existing Currently, the USPTO must accept electronically before resorting to the requirements in the Trademark Act and paper trademark applications from paper petition process. precedential case law for specimens of nationals of the following countries: The second scenario applies to the use, including that web pages must Bahrain, Bosnia and Herzegovina, specific documents with statutory show the URL and access or print date. Burkina Faso, Chile, Colombia, Costa deadlines identified in new § 2.147(b) The amendments also more clearly Rica, Cyprus, Czech Republic, when such a document was timely conform the rule language to the Dominican Republic, Egypt, El submitted on paper, but not examined statutory requirements for use in Salvador, Guatemala, Guinea, Honduras, by the Office because it was not commerce by requiring that the Hungary, Indonesia, Monaco, submitted electronically in accordance specimen show use of the mark placed Montenegro, Morocco, Nicaragua, with § 2.21(a) or § 2.23(a). The Office on the goods, on containers or Oman, Panama, Slovenia, Sri Lanka, will issue a notice informing the packaging for the goods, or on labels or Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, and applicant, registrant, or petitioner for tags affixed to the goods. Uzbekistan. cancellation that the paper submission The USPTO further amends (2) Specimens for Scent, Flavor, or will not be processed or examined § 2.147(b)(2) to require a copy of the Other Non-Traditional Marks: This rule because it was not submitted previously mailed paper submission allows for the separate submission of electronically. The applicant, registrant, since the USPTO will not process the physical specimens when it is not or party may file a petition to request original submission and will destroy it possible to submit the specimens using that the timely filed paper submission after 90 days. This requirement is TEAS because of the nature of the mark. be accepted only if the applicant, analogous to the requirements in For example, if the application or registrant, or party is unable to timely §§ 2.64(a)(2)(i), 2.197(b)(2), and registration is for a scent or flavor mark, resubmit the document electronically by 2.198(e)(2) for a copy of previously because the required specimen must the statutory deadline. submitted correspondence in order to show use, or continued use, of the flavor Finally, under new § 2.147(c), when establish timeliness. or scent, it cannot be uploaded an applicant or registrant does not meet The USPTO further amends § 7.25 to electronically. In that situation, the the requirements under § 2.147(a) or (b) delete the proposed cross reference to applicant may submit the application for requesting acceptance of the paper § 2.198 and to delete the cross reference through TEAS and indicate that it is submission, the applicant or registrant to § 2.197 since these sections could be mailing the specimen to the USPTO. In may petition the Director under applicable to extensions of protection in these circumstances, all other § 2.146(a)(5), requesting a waiver of some circumstances. requirements of this rulemaking apply. § 2.21(a) or § 2.23(a) and documenting Limited Exceptions for Paper However, the applicant or registrant is the nature of the extraordinary situation Submissions: As discussed below, the not required to submit a petition that prevented the party from

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:26 Jul 30, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR1.SGM 31JYR1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 37085

submitting the correspondence circumstances and posts the notices on Requirements for Paper Submissions: electronically. The Office addresses the ‘‘Operating Status’’ page of the Because paper submissions are petitions under § 2.146(a)(5) on a case- USPTO website. permitted in the limited circumstances by-case basis because the assessment of (5) Applications and Post-Registration described above, the current rules what would qualify as an extraordinary Maintenance Documents Filed Prior to addressing the requirements for paper situation depends on the specific facts the Effective Date of this Rule. Paper, submissions are retained and modified, and evidence presented. TEAS Regular, and Madrid applications as necessary, for consistency with the With respect to USPTO technical filed prior to the effective date of this other revisions in this rulemaking. In problems that render TEAS unavailable, rule are not subject to the requirements addition, the rules governing the the USPTO intends to continue to to provide an email address for the certificate-of-mailing and Priority Mail ® follow its current approach. For applicant and its attorney, if Express procedures, 37 CFR 2.197 and example, when verifiable issues with represented, or to communicate with the 2.198, are amended to make filing with USPTO systems prevent electronic filing USPTO electronically. Such a certificate of mailing or via Priority ® for extended periods, the Office has applications are ‘‘grandfathered’’ under Mail Express available for all waived non-statutory deadlines on the prior rules until the application submissions, including new petition, such as the deadline for registers or is abandoned and cannot be applications, on the rare occasions response to a post-registration Office revived or reinstated pursuant to 37 CFR when filing on paper is permitted. This action, as well as petition fees. Such 2.64, 2.66, or 2.146. Similarly, post- rule also simplifies how the filing date measures help avoid negatively registration maintenance documents of a submission utilizing these impacting applicants and registrants in submitted prior to the effective date of procedures is determined. Streamlining the event of USPTO technical problems. the rule are not subject to the the requirements for filing with a Because the impact of technical certificate of mailing or via Priority Mail requirements and are grandfathered ® problems varies depending on the under the prior rules until the document Express provides greater clarity to specific facts, the USPTO cannot has been accepted or the registration has parties who seek to use these provide advance guidance about all been cancelled or expired and cannot be procedures and make the rules easier to possibilities or specific measures the revived or reinstated pursuant to 37 CFR administer for the Office. Although the USPTO may take in the future. 2.64, 2.66, or 2.146. certificate-of-mailing and Priority Mail Moreover, applicants and registrants ® However, on the effective date of this Express procedures are retained, must be mindful of the fact that rule, because all new applications and facsimile transmissions, which are statutory deadlines, such as those for post-registration maintenance currently permitted for certain types of submission of a statement of use or an documents are required to be filed trademark correspondence, are not affidavit or declaration of use under electronically through TEAS, all TEAS permitted under this rule for any section 8 or section 71, cannot be applications or submissions. Continuing forms will be updated to require the waived. The USPTO strongly to accept fax transmissions would be applicant’s or registrant’s email address encourages applicants and registrants to counterproductive to maximizing end- and the email address of applicant’s or ensure that they are able to timely to-end electronic processing because registrant’s attorney, if represented. submit the relevant document by mail such submissions require manual Therefore, if a grandfathered applicant using the certificate of mailing or processing similar to paper submissions. Priority Mail procedures in § 2.197 and or registrant files a TEAS document § 2.198 in the event of an unexpected after the effective date of this rule, the Proposed Rule: Comments and technical problem to avoid missing a TEAS form will not validate for Responses statutory deadline. submission without the email The USPTO published a proposed Furthermore, the inability to submit address(es) being provided. rule on May 30, 2018, at 83 FR 24701, an application or submission Furthermore, if such an applicant, soliciting comments on the proposed electronically due to USPTO regularly registrant, or attorney chooses to amendments. In response, the USPTO scheduled system maintenance correspond electronically with the received comments from four groups generally does not qualify for relief Office using one of the TEAS forms, the and ten individual commenters, under new § 2.147 or as an USPTO will presume that email representing law firms, organizations, extraordinary situation under § 2.146. communication is authorized and will individuals, and other interested The USPTO routinely performs system send all future correspondence to the parties. Some commenters expressed maintenance between midnight and email address of the applicant, general support for the amendments, 5:30 a.m. Eastern Time on weeknights registrant, or attorney, as appropriate. while raising concerns or providing and at all hours on Saturdays, Sundays, Applicants who filed an application suggestions about particular provisions. and holidays. Advance notice of the prior to the effective date of the rule Other commenters objected to the maintenance is generally posted on the using the TEAS RF or TEAS Plus option amendments mandating electronic filing USPTO Systems Status and Availability are currently subject to the requirement because of concerns about the stability page on the USPTO website. to correspond electronically with the and usability of the USPTO’s current (4) Postal-service Interruptions or USPTO, as well as all the other electronic filing systems or the Emergencies. The Office intends to requirements in current § 2.22(a)–(b) possibility that some parties may not continue the approach it has employed and § 2.23(a)–(b). After the effective date have adequate access to the internet. In when there has been a postal-service of this rule, if a TEAS Plus or TEAS RF addition, some commenters objected to interruption or emergency related to a applicant submits a response to an the requirement that an email address natural disaster. In such events, the Office action or other document on be provided for correspondence, Office has generally waived certain paper, the applicant will no longer be because of concerns that this would be requirements of the rules for those in charged the additional processing fee burdensome to applicants or that the the affected area, such as non-statutory under prior § 2.22(c) or § 2.23(c), but public availability of email addresses deadlines and petition fees. The Office must submit a petition requesting will be misused by third parties also issues notices regarding the specific acceptance of the paper filing under engaging in scams or unwanted procedures to be followed in such § 2.146 or § 2.147, as appropriate. solicitations. Similar or related

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:26 Jul 30, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR1.SGM 31JYR1 37086 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

comments have been grouped together Comment: A commenter suggested for paper filings if the primary systems and summarized below, followed by the that the USPTO has already sufficiently experience an outage. USPTO’s responses. All comments are advanced its objective of electronic Response: The USPTO recognizes that posted on the USPTO’s website at filing by increasing the fees associated the successful implementation of https://www.uspto.gov/trademark/ with paper filing. mandatory electronic filing requires trademark-updates-and- Response: As noted above, the USPTO reliable, well-functioning electronic announcements/comments-proposed- previously revised its rules to increase filing and payment systems. To that rulemaking-related-changes-trademark. fees for paper filings to bring the fees end, the USPTO is actively engaged in Comment: Several commenters nearer to the cost of processing the enhancing the Office’s systems to objected to the requirement to file filings and to encourage customers to significantly improve reliability and submissions electronically because they use lower-cost electronic options. stability with the result of reducing believe it will adversely affect parties Despite these fee increases, unscheduled outages and instabilities who do not have adequate internet approximately 12% of applications and and mitigating any that do occur. For access or are otherwise unable to file registrations under section 1 and/or example, the USPTO recently upgraded electronically. section 44 of the Act still involve some the main server that houses the TEAS Response: The USPTO appreciates the paper processing. Fee increases have not and payment systems, which will concerns raised in these comments and been effective in eliminating the volume significantly enhance reliability and has given them careful consideration. of non-application paper submissions. responsiveness. As noted above, more than 99% of all Therefore, the USPTO has determined The USPTO also acknowledges the initial applications based on section 1 that mandatory electronic filing is comments concerning the general and/or section 44 of the Act are now necessary to attain, as closely as usability of TEAS forms and is filed electronically. For example, in possible, its goal of end-to-end enhancing its electronic systems to fiscal year 2018, a total of 468,926 electronic processing. accommodate the requirements of applications were filed, with only 144 Comment: The USPTO received mandatory electronic filing, and also applications filed on paper. several comments regarding its plans to improve the overall Accordingly, the USPTO has electronic systems. Some commenters functionality of the TEAS forms. In determined that, as a general matter, the expressed concerns that the USPTO’s addition, remedies are already available requirement to file all submissions current electronic systems, including to customers who are unable to file a electronically would not be the payment system, are not sufficiently TEAS submission because of incorrect impracticable or burdensome for the reliable to support a mandate of status information in the USPTO USPTO’s customers, most of whom electronic filing, noting that removing electronic record. To request assistance, already file electronically. the paper filing option eliminates a such as correction of the status Customers who do not have personal failsafe way to file if the internet or the information so that TEAS will allow access to the internet have the option to electronic filing system is unavailable. submission of the appropriate form, use the internet at one of the 85 Patent Other commenters suggested that the customers may call or email the USPTO. and Trademark Resource Centers usability of TEAS forms should be Furthermore, when a party is unable to (PTRC) around the U.S. to electronically improved and stated that TEAS file electronically because of an file submissions with the USPTO. A currently lacks forms to address all extraordinary situation, § 2.147(c) PTRC is part of a nationwide network of filing situations. Some commenters allows the party to petition the Director public, state, and academic libraries noted that TEAS sometimes will not under § 2.146(a)(5), requesting that the designated by the USPTO to support the allow submissions due to erroneous Director waive § 2.23(a) and accept a public with federal trademark- and status information in the USPTO’s paper submission. patent-filing assistance. Although PTRC electronic record. Relatedly, a Regarding the commenter’s request to representatives are not attorneys and commenter urged that any rulemaking retain fax transmission, the rule cannot provide legal advice, they can that would remove the paper filing removes this submission option. As provide access to USPTO resources and option should be accompanied by the noted above, continuing to accept fax explain the application process and fee provision of a ‘‘none of the above’’ transmissions would be schedule. Public libraries provide TEAS form to address the circumstances counterproductive to maximizing end- another resource for parties without when the internet or TEAS is to-end electronic processing because internet access. According to the unavailable, and that every TEAS form such submissions require manual American Library Association Fact should include a ‘‘miscellaneous’’ processing similar to paper submissions. Sheet 26, ‘‘Internet Access and Digital section in which free-text comments If a significant outage or other Holdings in Libraries,’’ 98% of libraries and evidence can be provided. One emergency occurs, the USPTO may offer free public internet access and commenter asked whether fax consider waiving the relevant rules to 76% of libraries assist patrons in using transmission will remain as an accept certain submissions by fax or online government programs and alternative method for filing if the another means for specific purposes. services (http://www.ala.org/tools/ electronic system is not available and Regarding the comment requesting the libfactsheets/alalibraryfactsheet26; suggested that the USPTO either rule allow for a deadline extension accessed Sept. 24, 2018). Applicants, provide an alternative method that is when the TEAS system is not registrants, or parties also have the electronic but not tied to the TEAS operational at the time of deadline, the option to hire an attorney to file system or allow for a deadline extension USPTO has previously waived non- electronically on their behalf. Finally, if when the TEAS system is not statutory deadlines on petition when an extraordinary situation requires a operational at the time of deadline. verifiable issues with USPTO systems particular applicant, registrant, or party Finally, a commenter suggested that the prevented electronic filing for extended to file on paper, the rule allows such USPTO implement contingency servers periods. The USPTO may make this submissions to be considered on and systems that would serve as a option available, if appropriate. petition by the USPTO on a case-by-case backup to the USPTO’s primary However, the USPTO has no authority basis. electronic systems and reduce the need to extend deadlines set by statute.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:26 Jul 30, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR1.SGM 31JYR1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 37087

Comment: One commenter who Consequently, preparing and submitting for that group rather than impose assists ‘‘low-wealth entrepreneurs’’ with an application or related document additional costs. trademark matters noted that, while through TEAS is likely to result in a Response: The USPTO believes that most of these entrepreneurs have more complete submission and take less the overall economic impact on affected computer access and an email address, time than preparing and mailing the parties will be minimal. As noted above, some have little understanding of the paper equivalent. In addition, the in fiscal year 2018, more than 99% of application and prosecution process and USPTO is dedicated to providing future all initial applications based on section the rules governing this process. This enhancements to its online filing 1 and/or section 44 of the Act were filed commenter expressed concern that these systems to further simplify the process electronically—only 144 out of 468,926 entrepreneurs would be required to for applicants by, for example, applications were filed on paper. Thus, handle email communications from the providing more informative, interactive, as a practical matter, almost all USPTO USPTO that may significantly impact and user-friendly forms. customers who may use the USPTO’s their ability to conduct their business. Regarding the comment suggesting electronic systems to file their The commenter urged that USPTO that applicants be permitted to file trademark applications have already communications be written in a way completed applications in .pdf form, done so. Moreover, under the current that ensures understanding by a lay this approach would be system TEAS filers are subsidizing those person. Other commenters expressed counterproductive to maximizing end- who file on paper because current fees concerns that the current TEAS forms to-end electronic processing because for paper filers do not cover the full cost are too complicated for the lay person, submissions in .pdf form require of processing paper filings. The change with one commenter suggesting that the manual processing similar to paper to mandatory electronic filing also will USPTO permit applicants to file already submissions. improve the quality of Trademark completed applications in .pdf form. Comment: A commenter noted that applications and registrations because Response: The USPTO is dedicated to the electronic filing requirement may paper filings require manual uploading making its communications lead to librarians being asked legal of scanned copies into USPTO comprehensible for all customers, but questions by those filing electronic electronic systems and manual data recognizes that the trademark submissions with the USPTO using a entry of information in the documents, application process is legal in nature library computer and that referring these which results in data-entry errors. and can be complex and difficult to patrons to a PTRC might not be an Thus, given the additional costs understand for some applicants, effective solution to this problem. associated with filing applications and regardless of whether submissions are Response: The USPTO acknowledges related submissions by paper, including filed on paper or electronically. Filing a the possibility that library patrons may higher fees, a requirement to file trademark application with the USPTO ask librarians legal questions about the electronically will likely result in starts a legal proceeding that is governed trademark process, but does not believe reduced costs overall for most by U.S. law. Therefore, it may be this is an impediment to implementing customers who previously filed on advisable for an applicant to hire a mandatory electronic filing. The USPTO paper. qualified trademark attorney licensed to presumes that if a librarian is asked for Comment: Some commenters objected practice law in the United States who legal information regarding trademark to the changes to §§ 2.21, 2.23, and 7.4, can give legal advice, help avoid pitfalls law, or any other area of law, he or she requiring the provision of an email with the filing and prosecution of an would direct the patron to a local bar address for applicants and registrants. application, and help enforce trademark association or other appropriate One commenter noted that, when an rights. Applicants may also seek to avail resource. As noted above, filing a applicant or registrant is represented by themselves of free or reduced-fee legal trademark application with the USPTO counsel, and counsel has provided a services through such resources as the starts a legal proceeding that is governed correspondence email address, the rule USPTO’s Law School Clinic by U.S. law. It is therefore advisable for changes impose additional burdens on Certification Program, the list of Pro their patrons to seek legal guidance from both the trademark owner and its Bono IPL Resources provided by the a qualified private trademark attorney. counsel. Another commenter stated that American Bar Association, and the If a patron has questions regarding the the TEAS system appears to be open to International Trademark Association trademark application process, a abuse and fraud, and some commenters trademark pro bono clearinghouse pilot librarian can direct the patron to the were concerned that the requirement to program. USPTO website for information, provide the applicant’s email address Further, the USPTO believes that the including the email address and toll-free for correspondence would lead to an requirement to file electronically phone number for the Trademark increase in scams and misleading benefits those applicants who are Assistance Center. In addition, although solicitations by third parties. One unable to hire an attorney and must PTRC library representatives cannot commenter had similar concerns about represent themselves. Specifically, provide legal advice, they can: (1) applicants’ telephone numbers. electronic filing costs less than paper Provide access to USPTO resources such Response: The amended rules include filing, especially if the lower-fee TEAS as search systems and demonstrate how a requirement for the applicant’s email Plus application filing option is utilized. to use search tools to conduct a address, even when the applicant is In addition, electronic filing simplifies trademark search; (2) direct patrons to represented by an attorney. This and increases the efficiency of the website information and explain the requirement ensures that the USPTO application process for applicants. application process/timeline and fees; has an electronic means of contacting Those who file electronically are more and (3) offer classes on intellectual the applicant if the attorney’s email likely to provide the necessary property in some locations. address cannot be used, such as when information in their submissions Comment: One commenter the attorney is suspended or excluded because the USPTO can update its recommended that the proposed rule from practice before the USPTO or electronic forms to specifically tailor the include information on the economic when representation otherwise ceases. requirements for a particular submission impact on entities who still choose the The USPTO does not undertake double and require that the information be paper filing option and also provide correspondence with both the applicant validated prior to submission. means to reduce the economic burden or registrant and the attorney of record.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:26 Jul 30, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR1.SGM 31JYR1 37088 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

Accordingly, if an applicant or input an email address into a TEAS However, the USPTO also agrees with registrant is represented by an attorney, form should be restricted to forms for the commenters that the petition the USPTO corresponds and conducts which doing so actually updates the process may be simplified by the use of business only with the attorney. Once information. a standard preformatted petition form, representation ceases, under this rule, Response: Under amended § 2.151, a listing the most common reasons for the USPTO will correspond only with certificate of registration will be issued requesting acceptance of a paper the applicant or registrant. Therefore, to the owner of record, as indicated in submission. The user could complete the applicant or registrant must provide the USPTO electronic record at the time the form by selecting the appropriate an email address belonging to the the certificate is issued. reason and include the completed form applicant or registrant itself for receipt The USPTO appreciates the with the paper submission. The USPTO of correspondence from the USPTO in suggestion to use broader terminology is working to make such a form such a circumstance. than ‘‘email address,’’ but has available before this rule takes effect. The USPTO appreciates the determined that ‘‘email address’’ is The USPTO appreciates the commenters’ concerns that scams and sufficiently accurate and will serve the suggestion that the rules should be misleading solicitations may increase if intended purpose under the rule. The modified to provide specific examples the email addresses required under USPTO also appreciates the suggestion of documentation a user can provide to these rules are publicly available in the regarding the ability to input and update satisfy the USPTO’s requirement for USPTO’s systems. Currently, all owner email addresses in TEAS forms, and proof that TEAS was unavailable for email addresses that appear in the will take that feedback into account electronic filing because of a ‘‘technical ‘‘status’’ view of USPTO records are when considering enhancements to problem.’’ However, considering the masked from public view. In addition, TEAS. type and nature of evidence that may the USPTO plans to similarly mask from Comment: One commenter stated the suffice will differ depending on the public view in application and USPTO should provide another filing circumstances, the USPTO believes it is registration files the correspondence mechanism to ensure that customers preferable to enact a rule that provides email addresses of applicants and have access to protect their trademark flexibility as to the type of evidence the registrants who are not represented by rights without having to incur the USPTO may accept as proof. However, counsel to reduce the likelihood that uncertainty or additional fees and time the Office will consider adding such they will be subjected to scams and associated with filing a separate examples in other USPTO materials, other unwanted solicitations. The petition, if having to file on paper. This such as web pages or the TMEP, to contact information of attorneys commenter suggested that a more provide guidance. appearing in USPTO records, including predictable and desirable remedy in this Comment: One commenter urged the email addresses and telephone numbers, situation may include submitting with USPTO to continue its practice of will remain publicly available and the relevant filing a declaration or other attempting to contact the correspondent viewable, as this information is publicly statement attesting to the outage, lack of by other means if a transmission to the available from other sources already and access, or other reason for not filing email address of record fails, including could be used for legitimate purposes by electronically, and that the filer may physical correspondence by mail. This third parties. also include evidence of the problem, commenter noted that email addresses Comment: One commenter stated that, such as a screen shot. The commenter frequently change due to companies to the extent that the USPTO does not noted that, to ease the administrative adopting new domain names and already comply with the European burden on the USPTO and add certainty staffing changes, and that technical Union’s General Data Protection for applicants and counsel as to issues due to hardware malfunction, Regulation (GDPR), mandating the permissible exceptions, any USPTO software bugs, or malicious cyberattacks provision of email addresses of form could acknowledge clear increase the chances of electronic individuals associated with applicants exceptions through use of a box to be communication being disrupted. and registrants, will subject the USPTO checked, but for unusual or unique Response: Although the USPTO to this regulation, as well as to the circumstances, a free-form text box previously attempted to contact the penalties and obligations associated could be provided in the relevant form. correspondent by other means if an with any data breach. Relatedly, one commenter email transmission failed and, in some Response: The USPTO is aware of the recommended that the rules be modified cases, sent a paper copy of the GDPR and has taken into account any to provide specific examples of correspondence to the physical address implications it might have for the documentation the user can provide to of record, it no longer does so. As the implementation of these amended rules. satisfy the USPTO’s requirement for commenter indicated, email Comment: Regarding the proposed proof that TEAS was unavailable for transmissions may fail for a variety of amendment of § 2.151 to state that the electronic filing because of a ‘‘technical reasons outside of the USPTO’s control. USPTO will issue ‘‘to the owner’’ a problem.’’ This commenter suggested Even if the number of failed certificate of registration, one that such documentation might include transmissions are relatively low, commenter asked how the Office will screenshots showing the time and date attempting to contact the applicant or know who ‘‘the owner’’ is, noting that, and the error statement encountered by registrant in every instance is at most, the Office will know only who the user, or a signed declaration under administratively burdensome to the the owner of record is. This commenter 37 CFR 2.20 indicating the USPTO. In addition, continuing to send also noted that, to avoid the need for circumstances of the unsuccessful paper correspondence after future rulemaking, the USPTO should electronic filing. implementing mandatory electronic consider broadening the requirement for Response: The USPTO believes that a filing would be counterproductive to the an email address, so that the petition describing the reasons for a goal of maximizing end-to-end requirement also encompasses an paper submission is the most efficient electronic processing. ‘‘alphanumeric identifier that is capable and effective mechanism for providing Moreover, under § 2.18(c), applicants of receiving electronic the information necessary to enable the and registrants are required to maintain communications.’’ The commenter then USPTO to determine whether the a current and accurate correspondence suggested that the ability of users to submission should be accepted. email address, and to monitor the status

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:26 Jul 30, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR1.SGM 31JYR1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 37089

of their applications or registrations for specified in a regulation in parts 2 or 7 address to which correspondence will any notices issued or action taken by the of this chapter or in a section of the Act. be sent. The USPTO revises § 2.18(a)(1) USPTO, in accordance with § 2.23(d). If an extraordinary situation prevents to define when the Office will send Comment: One commenter stated that, an applicant or registrant from waiting correspondence to the applicant, for a paper filed during a time when until the deadline for a submission to be registrant, or party to a proceeding and TEAS is unavailable, a petition eligible for an exception to the § 2.18(a)(2) to define when the Office requirement is unneeded and requirement to file electronically, or will send correspondence to an burdensome because the USPTO will otherwise postponing a TEAS attorney. The USPTO also deletes usually already be aware of instances submission, § 2.147(c) provides that the current paragraphs (a)(3)–(a)(5), when its filing system is broken. This applicant or registrant may petition the redesignates current § 2.18(a)(6) as commenter suggested that, when the Director under § 2.146(a)(5), requesting § 2.18(b), adds the title ‘‘Ex parte USPTO is unaware of an outage, the a waiver of § 2.21(a) or § 2.23(a) and matters,’’ and rewords the text for USPTO could respond to a paper filing documenting the nature of the clarity, and deletes current paragraph with a request for a showing by the filer extraordinary situation that prevented (a)(7). The USPTO redesignates current as to the nature and time of the outage. the party from submitting the § 2.18(b) as § 2.18(c), changes the title to Some commenters objected to any correspondence electronically at the ‘‘Maintaining and changing the requirement that the filer postpone a relevant time. Because petitions for correspondence addresses,’’ and deletes filing until such time as a TEAS outage extraordinary situations are not current § 2.18(b)(1)–(4). The USPTO is repaired and another commenter automatically granted, and the redesignates current § 2.18(c)(1) as stated that an applicant or registrant assessment of what would qualify as an § 2.18(d), deletes the word ‘‘Trademark’’ should not be required to wait until the extraordinary situation depends on the in the first sentence, deletes the second day of the deadline to be eligible for an specific facts, the Office will address and third sentences in current exception to the electronic filing particular situations on a case-by-case § 2.18(c)(1), clarifies that the Office will requirement when TEAS is unavailable. basis. change the address if a new address is Response: When a paper submission Discussion of Regulatory Changes provided, adds a cross reference to § 2.18(a), and deletes current is necessary because of an unscheduled The USPTO amends § 2.2 to revise § 2.18(c)(2). TEAS outage or some other technical paragraph (e) to include the problem, the USPTO believes that the abbreviation ‘‘USPTO’’ and paragraphs The USPTO amends § 2.21(a) to mechanism of a petition, which permits (f) and (g) to indicate that the definitions require that applications under section inclusion of a description of the reasons of ‘‘TEAS’’ and ‘‘ESTTA’’ include all 1 or section 44 be filed through TEAS, for the paper submission, is the only related electronic systems required to to require the domicile and email appropriate mechanism for providing complete an electronic submission addresses for each applicant, and if the the information necessary to enable the through each and to delete the URLs. applicant is represented by a qualified USPTO to determine whether the The USPTO also adds: § 2.2(q), defining practitioner, to require the postal and particular submission should be ‘‘ETAS;’’ § 2.2(r), defining ‘‘Eastern email addresses for the practitioner. The accepted. Time;’’ § 2.2(s), defining ‘‘electronic USPTO rewords § 2.21(a)(5) for clarity, Regarding known TEAS outages, the submission;’’ and § 2.2(t) defining rewords § 2.21(b) and includes a USPTO intends to continue to follow ‘‘USPS.’’ The paragraph designations (q) reference to § 2.21(c), and adds § 2.21(c), the approach employed in the past. For through (t) do not correspond to the which sets out an exemption for certain example, when verifiable issues with proposed changes published at 83 FR countries. USPTO systems prevent electronic filing 24701. The revisions to these The USPTO amends § 2.22(a) to for extended periods, the USPTO has designations reflect additional changes specify that TEAS Plus applications waived non-statutory deadlines on published in an intervening rule must satisfy the requirements of § 2.21, petition, such as the deadline for published at 84 FR 31498. to delete current paragraphs (a)(1), response to a post-registration Office The USPTO amends § 2.6 to clarify (a)(5), and (a)(6) and renumber the action, as well as petition fees. Even that § 2.6(a)(1)(ii) applies to applications remaining paragraphs, to change ‘‘an when the USPTO is aware of an outage, filed under section 66(a) of the Act. The individual’’ and ‘‘a juristic’’ to ‘‘each a petition would typically still be USPTO also changes the wording individual’’ and ‘‘each juristic’’ in required, because the party requesting ‘‘Reduced Fee (RF)’’ to ‘‘Standard’’ and redesignated paragraph (a)(2), to clarify relief would need to establish that the deletes the reference to § 2.23 in that the requirement in redesignated outage prevented electronic filing of the § 2.6(a)(1)(iii), rewords § 2.6(a)(1)(iv) for paragraph (a)(3) applies to domestic particular submission. However, clarity, and deletes the reference to partnerships and to add a requirement because the impact of technical § 2.23(c) in § 2.6(a)(1)(iv). for the names and citizenship of the problems varies depending on the The USPTO deletes the wording ‘‘and active members of a domestic joint specific facts, the Office cannot provide attorney’’ and the reference to TEAS in venture, to add a requirement for the advance guidance about all possibilities current § 2.17(d)(1), because it is citizenship of a sole proprietorship and or specific measures the USPTO may unnecessary in view of amended for the name and citizenship of the sole take in the future. § 2.23(a), redesignates § 2.17(d)(1) as proprietor to redesignated paragraph The USPTO acknowledges the § 2.17(d), and deletes § 2.17(d)(2) as (a)(4), to correct the cross reference in commenters’ concerns about waiting unnecessary as a result of updates to the redesignated paragraph (a)(8) to until the date of the deadline to be electronic form for filing a power of § 2.6(a)(1)(iv), to delete the first sentence eligible for an exception to the attorney. and the reference to a particular format requirement to file electronically. The USPTO amends the title to in redesignated paragraph (a)(10), and to However, this requirement applies only § 2.18(a) to ‘‘Establishing the delete the URL in redesignated if the party is relying on § 2.147(a), correspondent’’ and adds introductory paragraph (a)(11). The USPTO revises which provides that the petition may be text indicating that the following § 2.22(b) to indicate that the applicant submitted if TEAS is unavailable on the paragraphs set out the procedures by must comply with amended § 2.23(a) date of the deadline for the submission which the Office will determine the and (b), to delete § 2.22(b)(1) and (2),

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:26 Jul 30, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR1.SGM 31JYR1 37090 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

and to delete the second sentence in revises § 2.62(c) for consistency with signature.’’ The USPTO amends the § 2.22(c). amended § 2.23 and to add that introductory text of § 2.193(e) to clarify The USPTO amends the title of § 2.23 responses filed via facsimile will not be that documents must be signed as to ‘‘Requirement to correspond accorded a date of receipt. specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through electronically with the Office and duty The USPTO amends § 2.111(c)(2) for (9). The USPTO amends the title and to monitor status’’ and deletes the consistency with § 2.147(b). introductory text of § 2.193(e)(5) to add current text of the section. The USPTO The USPTO amends § 2.146(a) to add ‘‘or § 2.147’’ after the wording ‘‘§ 2.146.’’ revises § 2.23(a) to require that, unless the words ‘‘in a trademark case’’ and The USPTO also deletes § 2.193(e)(10), stated otherwise, all trademark revises § 2.146(a)(2) and (4) to specify rewords § 2.193(g)(1) for clarity, and correspondence must be submitted that the regulation applies to ‘‘parts 2, revises § 2.193(g)(2) to change through TEAS; revises § 2.23(b) to 3, 6, and 7’’ of Title 37. ‘‘correspondence’’ to ‘‘documents’’ and require that applicants, registrants, and The USPTO adds § 2.147 to set out the to delete the last sentence. parties to a proceeding provide and requirements for submitting a petition The USPTO amends the title of maintain a valid email correspondence requesting acceptance of a paper § 2.195 to ‘‘Filing date of trademark address; revises current § 2.23(c) to set submission. correspondence.’’ The USPTO deletes out an exemption for nationals of a The USPTO amends § 2.148 to clarify current § 2.195(a)–(d) and sets out the country that has acceded to the that it applies to ‘‘parts 2, 3, 6, and 7 procedures for determining the filing Trademark Law Treaty, but not to the of this chapter.’’ date of electronic and paper Singapore Treaty on the Law of The USPTO amends § 2.151 to submissions in § 2.195(a) and (b)(1) Trademarks; and adds § 2.23(d) to indicate that the certificate of through (b)(2), indicates when the Office indicate that applicants and registrants registration will issue to the owner, to is closed in § 2.195(b)(3), indicates that are responsible for monitoring the status reword the second and third sentences email and facsimile submissions are not of their applications and registrations. for clarity, and to change the wording permitted in § 2.195(c), redesignates The USPTO amends § 2.24(a) to ‘‘accompany’’ in the last sentence to current § 2.195(e)(1) through (e)(2)(iii) as clarify that only an applicant or ‘‘issue with.’’ § 2.195(d)(1) through (3) and changes registrant that is not domiciled in the The USPTO amends § 2.162 to change U.S Postal Service and United States U.S. may designate a domestic the word ‘‘includes’’ to ‘‘issues with the Postal Service to USPS. The USPTO representative. The USPTO deletes certificate’’ and to add the wording ‘‘or deletes current § 2.195(e)(3). § 2.24(a)(1)(i), redesignates section 71’’ after ‘‘section 8’’ for The USPTO amends the title of § 2.24(a)(1)(ii) as § 2.24(b) and revises it consistency with § 2.151. § 2.197 to ‘‘Certificate of mailing.’’ The to require an email and postal address The USPTO amends § 2.190(a) to USPTO deletes current § 2.197(a) for a designated domestic clarify that the paragraph refers to paper through (c) and sets out the representative, and deletes § 2.24(a)(2). documents, and to clarify that the stated requirements for obtaining a filing date The USPTO redesignates § 2.24(a)(3) as mailing address is for documents to be based on a certificate of mailing in § 2.24(c) and rewords it for clarity, and sent by mail and that the address for § 2.197(a), the procedure when deletes current § 2.24(b). hand delivery is the address for delivery correspondence is mailed in accordance The USPTO amends § 2.32(a)(2) to by private courier or another delivery with paragraph (a) of this section but add a statement that if the applicant is service. The USPTO amends § 2.190(b) not received by the Office in § 2.197(b), a national of a country that has acceded to state that trademark documents filed and the filing date when the certificate to the Trademark Law Treaty, but not to electronically must be submitted of mailing does not meet the the Singapore Treaty on the Law of through TEAS and that documents requirements in § 2.197(c). Trademarks, the requirement to provide related to TTAB proceedings must be The USPTO deletes current § 2.198(a) an email address does not apply. The filed through ESTTA, and to delete the through (f) and clarifies the filing date USPTO amends § 2.32(a)(3)(i) to require URLs. The USPTO rewords § 2.190(c) of correspondence submitted under this the legal entity as well as the citizenship for clarity and to delete the mailing section in amended § 2.198(a) and (b) of the applicant(s), deletes ‘‘or’’ from address and URL. The USPTO amends and the procedures when there is a § 2.32(a)(3)(iii), adds ‘‘or’’ to § 2.190(d) to add ‘‘certified’’ to the title discrepancy, error, or non-receipt in § 2.32(a)(3)(iv), and adds § 2.32(a)(3)(v) and to delete the first sentence and the amended § 2.198(c)–(e). to require the state of organization of a wording ‘‘or uncertified’’ in the second The USPTO amends § 7.1(c) to sole proprietorship and the name and sentence and to change ‘‘should’’ to indicate that the definition of TEAS citizenship of a sole proprietor. The ‘‘must.’’ The USPTO corrects the includes all related electronic systems USPTO amends § 2.32(d) to add the mailing address in § 2.190(e). required to complete an electronic word ‘‘the’’ before ‘‘fee.’’ The USPTO amends the title of submission through TEAS and to delete The USPTO amends § 2.56(a) to § 2.191 to ‘‘Action of the Office based on a URL. The USPTO amends § 7.1(d) to indicate that the specimen must show the written record’’ and revises the add ‘‘or the abbreviation USPTO.’’ the mark as actually used in commerce section to state that all business must be The USPTO amends the title of § 7.4 for the identified goods or services and recorded in writing, to reword for to ‘‘International applications and to add cross references to §§ 2.160 and clarity, and to delete the last sentence. registrations originating from the 7.36. The USPTO amends § 2.56(b) and The USPTO amends § 2.193(a)(2) and USPTO—Requirements to electronically (c) to codify existing requirements for (b) to delete wording regarding file and communicate with the Office.’’ specimens. The USPTO amends submission of a photocopy or facsimile The USPTO amends § 7.4(a) to specify § 2.56(d) to set out the requirements for or by facsimile transmission. The that all correspondence relating to submitting a specimen through TEAS, USPTO amends § 2.193(c)(1) to change international applications and revises current § 2.56(d)(1) and (2) to set the wording ‘‘he or she’’ to ‘‘the signer,’’ registrations originating from the out the exceptions to the requirements, and revises § 2.193(d) to require USPTO must be submitted through and deletes § 2.56(d)(3) and (4). submission of the first and last name TEAS and include a valid email The USPTO amends the title of § 2.62 and the title or position of the signatory correspondence address. The USPTO to ‘‘Procedure for submitting response,’’ and to delete the wording ‘‘in printed or amends § 7.4(b) to require that revises § 2.62(a) slightly for clarity, and typed form’’ and the wording after ‘‘the applicants and registrants provide and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:26 Jul 30, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR1.SGM 31JYR1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 37091

maintain a valid email correspondence § 2.22 (‘‘Requirements for a TEAS Plus Counsel for Regulatory and Legislative address and to delete current paragraphs Application’’), which was revised by the Affairs, Office of General Law, of the (b)(1) and (b)(2). The USPTO amends earlier rule, to streamline the USPTO has certified to the Chief § 7.4(c) to set out an exemption for regulations and improve clarity. As a Counsel for Advocacy of the Small nationals of a country that has acceded result of this reorganization, paragraphs Business Administration that this rule to the Trademark Law Treaty, but not to (a)(19), (20), and (21) of § 2.22 of the will not have a significant economic the Singapore Treaty on the Law of earlier rule are being redesignated— impact on a substantial number of small Trademarks and § 7.4(d) to set out the without change—as paragraphs (a)(17), entities. See 5 U.S.C. 605(b). procedure if TEAS is unavailable or (18), and (19). Also, the requirement for This rule amends the regulations to when there is an extraordinary the applicant’s name and domicile require that applications filed under situation, and to delete paragraphs address, which was in § 2.22(a)(1) of the section 1 or section 44 of the Act, and (d)(1)–(d)(6). The USPTO also deletes earlier rule, is now a requirement of all submissions regarding an application § 7.4(e). § 2.21(a)(1) of this rule, and applies to or registration under section 1, section The USPTO amends § 7.11(a) to delete all applicants. Finally, we note that the 44, and section 66(a), be filed the word ‘‘either,’’ to add a cross regulatory revisions that were made in electronically. The rule also requires reference to § 7.4(a), and to specify that that earlier rule are going into effect on that applicants, registrants, and parties the Office will grant a date of receipt to August 3, 2019, whereas the regulatory to a proceeding maintain a valid email an international application typed on revisions in this rule are going into correspondence address and continue to the official paper form issued by the IB effect on October 5, 2019. receive communications from the Office if a paper submission is permitted under by email. The rule applies to all § 7.4(c) or accepted on petition pursuant Rulemaking Requirements applicants and registrants unless to § 7.4(d). The USPTO also adds the A. Administrative Procedure Act: The acceptance of a submission filed on word ‘‘and’’ to § 7.11(a)(10), deletes the changes in this rulemaking involve rules paper or a waiver of the proposed word ‘‘and’’ from § 7.11(a)(11), and of agency practice and procedure, and/ requirements is granted on petition, the deletes § 7.11(a)(12). or interpretive rules. See Perez v. Mortg. applicant/registrant is a national of a The USPTO amends § 7.21(b) to Bankers Ass’n, 135 S. Ct. 1199, 1204 country to which the requirements will delete the word ‘‘either,’’ to add a cross (2015) (Interpretive rules ‘‘advise the not apply, or the requirement to file reference to § 7.4(a), and to specify that public of the agency’s construction of electronically is otherwise excepted, as the Office will grant a date of receipt to the statutes and rules which it for certain types of specimens. a subsequent designation typed on the administers.’’ (citation and internal Applicants for a trademark are not official paper form issued by the IB if a quotation marks omitted)); Nat’l Org. of industry specific and may consist of paper submission is permitted under Veterans’ Advocates v. Sec’y of Veterans individuals, small businesses, non- § 7.4(c) or accepted on petition pursuant Affairs, 260 F.3d 1365, 1375 (Fed. Cir. profit organizations, and large to § 7.4(d). The USPTO also adds the 2001) (Rule that clarifies interpretation corporations. The USPTO does not word ‘‘and’’ to § 7.21(b)(7), deletes the of a statute is interpretive.); Bachow collect or maintain statistics on small- word ‘‘and’’ from § 7.21(b)(8), and Commc’ns Inc. v. FCC, 237 F.3d 683, versus large-entity applicants, and this deletes § 7.21(b)(9). 690 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (Rules governing an information would be required in order The USPTO revises § 7.25 to delete application process are procedural to determine the number of small the reference to § 2.23 and replace it under the Administrative Procedure entities that would be affected by the with a reference to § 2.22 and to delete Act.); Inova Alexandria Hosp. v. proposed rule. the reference to § 2.197. Shalala, 244 F.3d 342, 350 (4th Cir. The burdens to all entities, including This rule revises sections of 37 CFR 2001) (Rules for handling appeals were small entities, imposed by these rule parts 2 and 7 that were revised in the procedural where they did not change changes will be minor procedural final rule entitled Requirement of U.S. the substantive standard for reviewing requirements on parties submitting Licensed Attorney for Foreign claims.). applications or documents and Trademark Applicants and Registrants, Accordingly, prior notice and communications in connection with an published at 84 FR 31498 (July 2, 2019). opportunity for public comment for the application or registration. The vast The revisions published here changes in this rulemaking are not majority of users already file and supplement the changes implemented required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b) or prosecute applications electronically in in that earlier rule and do not change (c), or any other law. See Perez, 135 S. response to previous initiatives to the requirements for obtaining U.S. Ct. at 1206 (Notice-and-comment increase end-to-end electronic counsel. However, this rule has resulted procedures are required neither when processing. For example, the USPTO in a few changes to the revisions that an agency ‘‘issue[s] an initial amended its rules to encourage were made in the earlier rule. In this interpretive rule’’ nor ‘‘when it amends electronic filing through TEAS and regard, USPTO in the earlier rule had or repeals that interpretive rule.’’); email communication by establishing revised § 2.32(a)(2); under that revision, Cooper Techs. Co. v. Dudas, 536 F.3d the TEAS Plus and TEAS RF filing an application would be required to 1330, 1336–37 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (stating options for applications that are based include the ‘‘name and domicile address that 5 U.S.C. 553, and thus 35 U.S.C. on section 1 and/or section 44. See 37 of each applicant.’’ In this rule, USPTO 2(b)(2)(B), does not require notice and CFR 2.6. The TEAS RF filing option is is amending § 2.32(a)(2) to require an comment rulemaking for ‘‘interpretative now the most popular filing option application to also include the ‘‘email rules, general statements of policy, or among USPTO customers, followed by address of each applicant’’ (as discussed rules of agency organization, procedure, TEAS Plus. These two filing options above, the requirement to provide an or practice’’ (quoting 5 U.S.C. currently account for approximately email address does not apply if the 553(b)(A))). However, the Office has 97% of all trademark applications filed applicant is a national of a country that chosen to seek public comment before under section 1 and/or section 44, and has acceded to the Trademark Law implementing the rule to benefit from more than 99% of trademark Treaty, but not to the Singapore Treaty the public’s input. applications under section 1 and/or on the Law of Trademarks). In addition, B. Regulatory Flexibility Act: For the section 44 in total are now filed this rule includes a reorganization of reasons set forth herein, the Senior electronically through TEAS, suggesting

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:26 Jul 30, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR1.SGM 31JYR1 37092 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

that most applicants are comfortable innovation; (8) considered approaches Accountability Office. The changes in with filing and communicating with the that reduce burdens and maintain this notice are not expected to result in USPTO electronically. flexibility and freedom of choice for the an annual effect on the economy of 100 Furthermore, in January 2017, the public; and (9) ensured the objectivity of million dollars or more, a major increase USPTO revised its rules to (1) increase scientific and technological information in costs or prices, or significant adverse fees for paper filings to bring the fees and processes. effects on competition, employment, nearer to the cost of processing the E. Executive Order 13771 (Reducing investment, productivity, innovation, or filings and encourage customers to use Regulation and Controlling Regulatory the ability of United States-based lower-cost electronic options and (2) Costs): This rule is not an Executive enterprises to compete with foreign- require that all submissions to the TTAB Order 13771 regulatory action because based enterprises in domestic and be filed through ESTTA. As a result of this rule is not significant under export markets. Therefore, this notice is these rule changes, the USPTO is now Executive Order 12866. not expected to result in a ‘‘major rule’’ processing approximately 88% of F. Executive Order 13132 as defined in 5 U.S.C. 804(2). applications filed under section 1 and/ (Federalism): This rulemaking does not M. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of or section 44 electronically end to end. contain policies with federalism 1995: The changes set forth in this The changes enacted herein do not implications sufficient to warrant notice do not involve a Federal impose any additional economic burden preparation of a Federalism Assessment intergovernmental mandate that will unless the applicant or registrant fails to under Executive Order 13132 (Aug. 4, result in the expenditure by State, local, file electronically. In such cases, the 1999). and tribal governments, in the aggregate, economic burden to the applicant or G. Executive Order 13175 (Tribal of 100 million dollars (as adjusted) or registrant would be the higher paper fee Consultation): This rulemaking will not: more in any one year, or a Federal for the submission (if a fee is required) (1) Have substantial direct effects on one private sector mandate that will result and the fee for the petition seeking or more Indian tribes; (2) impose in the expenditure by the private sector acceptance of a submission filed on substantial direct compliance costs on of 100 million dollars (as adjusted) or paper or a waiver of the requirement to Indian tribal governments; or (3) more in any one year, and will not file electronically. However, as preempt tribal law. Therefore, a tribal significantly or uniquely affect small mentioned above, since the vast summary impact statement is not governments. Therefore, no actions are majority of current users already file required under Executive Order 13175 necessary under the provisions of the and prosecute applications (Nov. 6, 2000). Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of electronically, the economic impact of H. Executive Order 13211 (Energy 1995. See 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. filing on paper is expected to be small. Effects): This rulemaking is not a N. National Environmental Policy Moreover, this rule will lead to a greater significant energy action under Act: This rulemaking will not have any adoption of lower filing-fee options and Executive Order 13211 because this effect on the quality of the environment therefore outweigh any cost burdens rulemaking is not likely to have a and is thus categorically excluded from and likely save applicants and significant adverse effect on the supply, review under the National registrants money. For these reasons, distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, Environmental Policy Act of 1969. See this rule is not expected to have a a Statement of Energy Effects is not 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. significant economic impact on a required under Executive Order 13211 O. National Technology Transfer and substantial number of small entities. (May 18, 2001). Advancement Act: The requirements of C. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory I. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice section 12(d) of the National Planning and Review): This rulemaking Reform): This rulemaking meets Technology Transfer and Advancement has been determined to be not applicable standards to minimize Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) are not significant for purposes of Executive litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and applicable because this rulemaking does Order 12866 (Sept. 30, 1993). reduce burden as set forth in sections not contain provisions that involve the D. Executive Order 13563 (Improving 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order use of technical standards. Regulation and Regulatory Review): The 12988 (Feb. 5, 1996). P. Paperwork Reduction Act: This Office has complied with Executive J. Executive Order 13045 (Protection rulemaking involves information Order 13563 (Jan. 18, 2011). of Children): This rulemaking does not collection requirements that are subject Specifically, the Office has, to the extent concern an environmental risk to health to review by the Office of Management feasible and applicable: (1) Made a or safety that may disproportionately and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork reasoned determination that the benefits affect children under Executive Order Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 justify the costs of the rule; (2) tailored 13045 (Apr. 21, 1997). et seq.). The collection of information the rule to impose the least burden on K. Executive Order 12630 (Taking of involved in this rule has been reviewed society consistent with obtaining the Private Property): This rulemaking will and previously approved by OMB under regulatory objectives; (3) selected a not affect a taking of private property or control numbers 0651–0009, 0651–0050, regulatory approach that maximizes net otherwise have taking implications 0651–0051, 0651–0054, 0651–0055, benefits; (4) specified performance under Executive Order 12630 (Mar. 15, 0651–0056, and 0651–0061. This objectives; (5) identified and assessed 1988). rulemaking has an overall change on the available alternatives; (6) involved the L. Congressional Review Act: Under public burdens within these approved public in an open exchange of the Congressional Review Act collections including a reduction of 862 information and perspectives among provisions of the Small Business in burden hours and a reduction of experts in relevant disciplines, affected Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of $5,175 in cost burdens. stakeholders in the private sector and 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), prior to Notwithstanding any other provision the public as a whole, and provided on- issuing any final rule, the USPTO will of law, no person is required to respond line access to the rulemaking docket; (7) submit a report containing the final rule to nor shall a person be subject to a attempted to promote coordination, and other required information to the penalty for failure to comply with a simplification, and harmonization United States Senate, the United States collection of information subject to the across government agencies and House of Representatives, and the requirements of the Paperwork identified goals designed to promote Comptroller General of the Government Reduction Act unless that collection of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:26 Jul 30, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR1.SGM 31JYR1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 37093

information displays a currently valid § 2.6 Trademark fees. proceeding must maintain current and OMB control number. (a) * * * accurate correspondence addresses, as required by § 2.23, for itself and its List of Subjects (1) * * * (ii) For filing an application under attorney, if one is designated. If any of 37 CFR Part 2 section 66(a) of the Act, per class— these addresses change, a request to Administrative practice and $400.00 change the address, signed in procedure, Courts, Lawyers, (iii) For filing a TEAS Standard accordance with § 2.193(e)(9), must be Trademarks. application, per class—$275.00 promptly filed. (iv) For filing a TEAS Plus application (d) Post registration filings under 37 CFR Part 7 under § 2.22, per class—$225.00 sections 7, 8, 9, 12(c), 15, and 71 of the Administrative practice and (v) Additional processing fee under Act. Even if there is no new power of procedure, Trademarks. § 2.22(c), per class—$125.00 attorney or written request to change the * * * * * correspondence address, the Office will For the reasons stated in the preamble ■ change the correspondence address and under the authority contained in 15 4. Amend § 2.17 by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows: upon the examination of an affidavit U.S.C. 1123 and 35 U.S.C. 2, as under section 8, 12(c), 15, or 71 of the amended, the Office amends parts 2 and § 2.17 Recognition for representation. Act, renewal application under section 7 of title 37 as follows: * * * * * 9 of the Act, or request for amendment or correction under section 7 of the Act, PART 2—RULES OF PRACTICE IN (d) Power of attorney relating to if a new address is provided, in TRADEMARK CASES multiple applications or registrations. The owner of an application or accordance with paragraph (a) of this ■ 1. The authority citation for part 2 registration may appoint a section. continues to read as follows: practitioner(s) qualified to practice ■ 6. Revise § 2.21 to read as follows: under § 11.14 of this chapter to Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1113, 15 U.S.C. 1123, § 2.21 Requirements for receiving a filing 35 U.S.C. 2, Section 10(c) of Pub. L. 112–29, represent the owner for all existing date. unless otherwise noted. applications or registrations that have the identical owner name. (a) The Office will grant a filing date ■ 2. Amend § 2.2 by revising paragraphs to an application under section 1 or * * * * * (e), (f), and (g) and adding paragraphs section 44 of the Act that is filed (q) through (t) to read as follows: ■ 5. Revise § 2.18 to read as follows: through TEAS, is written in the English § 2.18 Correspondence, with whom held. language, and contains all of the § 2.2 Definitions. following: * * * * * (a) Establishing the correspondent. (1) The name, domicile address, and (e) The term Office or abbreviation The Office will send correspondence as email address of each applicant; USPTO means the United States Patent follows: (2) If the applicant is represented by and Trademark Office. (1) If the applicant, registrant, or party a practitioner qualified under § 11.14 of (f) The acronym TEAS means the to a proceeding is not represented by an this chapter, the practitioner’s name, Trademark Electronic Application attorney qualified to practice before the postal address, and email address; System and, as used in this part, Office under § 11.14(a) of this chapter, (3) A clear drawing of the mark; includes all related electronic systems the Office will send correspondence to (4) A listing of the goods or services; required to complete an electronic the applicant, registrant, or party to the and submission through TEAS. proceeding. (5) The filing fee required under § 2.6 (g) The acronym ESTTA means the (2) If an attorney is recognized as a for at least one class of goods or Electronic System for Trademark Trials representative pursuant to § 2.17(b)(1), services. and Appeals and, as used in this part, the Office will correspond only with (b) If the applicant does not satisfy all includes all related electronic systems that attorney. A request to change the the elements required in paragraph (a) required to complete an electronic correspondence address does not revoke of this section, the Office will deny a submission through ESTTA. a power of attorney. Except for service filing date to the application unless the of a cancellation petition, the Office will * * * * * applicant meets the requirements of not correspond directly with the paragraph (c) of this section. (q) The acronym ETAS means the applicant, registrant, or a party to a (c) If the applicant is a national of a Electronic Trademark Assignment proceeding, or with another attorney country that has acceded to the System and, as used in this part, from a different firm, unless: Trademark Law Treaty, but not to the includes all related electronic systems (i) The applicant or registrant files a Singapore Treaty on the Law of required to complete an electronic revocation of the power of attorney Trademarks, the requirements of submission through ETAS. under § 2.19(a) and/or a new power of paragraph (a) of this section to file (r) Eastern Time means Eastern attorney that meets the requirements of through TEAS and provide an email Standard Time or Eastern Daylight § 2.17(c); address do not apply. Time, as appropriate. (ii) The attorney has been suspended ■ 7. Revise § 2.22 to read as follows: (s) The term electronic submission as or excluded from practicing in used in this part refers to any trademark matters before the USPTO; or § 2.22 Requirements for a TEAS Plus submission made through an electronic (iii) Recognition of the attorney has application. filing system available on the Office’s ended pursuant to § 2.17(g). (a) A trademark/service mark website, but not through email or (b) Ex parte matters. Only one application for registration on the facsimile transmission. correspondence address may be Principal Register under section 1 and/ (t) The abbreviation USPS as used in designated in an ex parte matter. or section 44 of the Act that meets the this part means the U.S. Postal Service. (c) Maintaining and changing the requirements for a filing date under ■ 3. Amend § 2.6 by revising paragraphs correspondence addresses. The § 2.21 will be entitled to a reduced filing (a)(1)(ii) through (v) to read as follows: applicant, registrant, or party to a fee under § 2.6(a)(1)(iv) if it includes:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:26 Jul 30, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR1.SGM 31JYR1 37094 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

(1) The applicant’s legal entity; individual whose name or likeness the their applications and registrations in (2) The citizenship of each individual mark comprises and written consent of the USPTO’s electronic systems during applicant, or the state or country of the individual, or (ii) a statement that the following time periods: incorporation or organization of each the name or portrait does not identify a (1) At least every six months between juristic applicant; living individual (see section 2(c) of the the filing date of the application and (3) If the applicant is a domestic Act). issuance of a registration; and partnership, the names and citizenship (17) If the applicant owns one or more (2) After filing an affidavit of use or of the general partners, or if the registrations for the same mark, and the excusable nonuse under section 8 or applicant is a domestic joint venture, owner(s) last listed in Office records of section 71 of the Act, or a renewal the names and citizenship of the active the prior registration(s) for the same application under section 9 of the Act, members of the joint venture; mark differs from the owner(s) listed in at least every six months until the (4) If the applicant is a sole the application, a claim of ownership of registrant receives notice that the proprietorship, the state of organization the registration(s) identified by the affidavit or renewal application has of the sole proprietorship and the name registration number(s), pursuant to been accepted. and citizenship of the sole proprietor; § 2.36; ■ (5) One or more bases for filing that (18) If the application is a concurrent 9. Revise § 2.24 to read as follows: satisfy all the requirements of § 2.34. If use application, compliance with § 2.42; § 2.24 Designation and revocation of more than one basis is set forth, the and domestic representative by foreign applicant must comply with the (19) An applicant whose domicile is applicant. requirements of § 2.34 for each asserted not located within the United States or (a) An applicant or registrant that is basis; its territories must designate an attorney not domiciled in the United States may (6) Correctly classified goods and/or as the applicant’s representative, designate a domestic representative (i.e., services, with an identification of goods pursuant to § 2.11(a), and include the a person residing in the United States and/or services from the Office’s attorney’s name, postal address, email on whom notices or process in Acceptable Identification of Goods and address, and bar information. proceedings affecting the mark may be Services Manual, available through the (b) In addition to the filing served). TEAS Plus form. In an application based requirements under paragraph (a) of this (b) The designation, or a request to on section 44 of the Act, the scope of the section, the applicant must comply with change or revoke a designation, must set goods and/or services covered by the § 2.23(a) and (b). section 44 basis may not exceed the (c) If an application does not fulfill forth the name, email address, and scope of the goods and/or services in the the requirements of paragraph (a) of this postal address of the domestic foreign application or registration; section, the applicant must pay the representative and be signed pursuant to (7) If the application contains goods processing fee required by § 2.6(a)(1)(v). § 2.193(e)(8). and/or services in more than one class, (d) The following types of (c) The mere designation of a compliance with § 2.86; applications cannot be filed as TEAS domestic representative does not (8) A filing fee for each class of goods Plus applications: authorize the person designated to and/or services, as required by (1) Applications for certification represent the applicant or registrant. § 2.6(a)(1)(iv); marks (see § 2.45); ■ 10. Amend § 2.32 by revising (9) A verified statement that meets the (2) Applications for collective paragraphs (a)(2) and (3) and (d) to read requirements of § 2.33, dated and signed trademarks and service marks (see as follows: by a person properly authorized to sign § 2.44); on behalf of the owner pursuant to (3) Applications for collective § 2.32 Requirements for a complete § 2.193(e)(1); membership marks (see § 2.44); and trademark or service mark application. (10) If the applicant does not claim (4) Applications for registration on the (a) * * * standard characters, the applicant must Supplemental Register (see § 2.47). (2) The name, domicile address, and attach a digitized image of the mark. If ■ 8. Revise § 2.23 to read as follows: email address of each applicant. If the the mark includes color, the drawing applicant is a national of a country that must show the mark in color; § 2.23 Requirement to correspond has acceded to the Trademark Law (11) If the mark is in standard electronically with the Office and duty to Treaty, but not to the Singapore Treaty monitor status. characters, a mark comprised only of on the Law of Trademarks, the characters in the Office’s standard (a) Unless stated otherwise in this requirement to provide an email address character set, typed in the appropriate chapter, all trademark correspondence does not apply; must be submitted through TEAS. field of the TEAS Plus form; (3)(i) The legal entity type and (b) Applicants, registrants, and parties (12) If the mark includes color, a citizenship of the applicant(s); and statement naming the color(s) and to a proceeding must provide and (ii) If the applicant is a corporation, describing where the color(s) appears on maintain a valid email address for association, partnership or other juristic the mark, and a claim that the color(s) correspondence. person, the jurisdiction (usually state or is a feature of the mark; (c) If the applicant or registrant is a (13) If the mark is not in standard national of a country that has acceded nation) under the laws of which the characters, a description of the mark; to the Trademark Law Treaty, but not to applicant is organized; (14) If the mark includes non-English the Singapore Treaty on the Law of (iii) If the applicant is a domestic wording, an English translation of that Trademarks, the requirements of partnership, the names and citizenship wording; paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section do of the general partners; (15) If the mark includes non-Latin not apply. (iv) If the applicant is a domestic joint characters, a transliteration of those (d) Notices issued or actions taken by venture, the names and citizenship of characters; the USPTO are displayed in the the active members of the joint venture; (16) If the mark includes an USPTO’s publicly available electronic or individual’s name or portrait, either (i) systems. Applicants and registrants are (v) If the applicant is a sole a statement that identifies the living responsible for monitoring the status of proprietorship, the state of organization

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:26 Jul 30, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR1.SGM 31JYR1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 37095

of the sole proprietorship and the name organization performed the work or paper submission, if relevant to a and citizenship of the sole proprietor. labor on the goods or services. ground asserted in the petition to * * * * * (c) A clear and legible photocopy, cancel, will be determined in (d) The application must include the photograph, web page printout, or other accordance with §§ 2.195 through 2.198. fee required by § 2.6 for each class of similar type of reproduction of an actual (ii) For a petition to cancel a goods or services. specimen that meets the requirements of registration on the fifth year anniversary paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section is * * * * * of the date of registration of the mark, acceptable. The reproduction must ■ a petitioner for cancellation who meets 11. Revise § 2.56 to read as follows: show the entire specimen or enough of the requirements of § 2.147(b) may 2.56 Specimens. the specimen that the nature of the submit a petition to the Director to (a) An application under section 1(a) specimen, the mark, and the good or accept a timely filed paper petition to of the Act, an amendment to allege use service with which the mark is used are cancel. under § 2.76, a statement of use under identifiable. A web page must include * * * * * the URL and access or print date. An § 2.88, an affidavit or declaration of ■ 14. Amend § 2.146 by revising artist’s rendering, a printer’s proof, a continued use or excusable nonuse paragraph (a) to read as follows: under § 2.160, or an affidavit or computer illustration, digital image, or declaration of use or excusable nonuse similar mockup of how the mark may be § 2.146 Petitions to the Director. under § 7.36 must include one specimen displayed, or a photocopy of the (a) Petition may be taken to the per class showing the mark as actually drawing required by § 2.51, are not Director in a trademark case: used in commerce on or in connection proper specimens. (1) From any repeated or final formal (d) The specimen must be submitted with the goods or services identified. requirement of the examiner in the ex through TEAS in a file format When requested by the Office as parte prosecution of an application if designated as acceptable by the Office, reasonably necessary to proper permitted by § 2.63(a) and (b); unless: examination, additional specimens must (2) In any case for which the Act of (1) The mark consists of a scent, 1946, Title 35 of the United States Code, be provided. flavor, or similar non-traditional mark (b)(1) A trademark specimen must or parts 2, 3, 6, and 7 of Title 37 of the type, in which case the specimen may show use of the mark on the goods, on Code of Federal Regulations specifies be mailed to the Office, pursuant to containers or packaging for the goods, that the matter is to be determined § 2.190(a), without resort to the on labels or tags affixed to the goods, or directly or reviewed by the Director; procedures set forth in § 2.147; or (3) To invoke the supervisory on a display associated with the goods. (2) Submission on paper is permitted authority of the Director in appropriate To constitute a display associated with under § 2.23(c) or is accepted on circumstances; the goods, a specimen must show use of petition pursuant to § 2.147. the mark directly associated with the (4) In any case not specifically ■ 12. Revise § 2.62 to read as follows: goods and such use must be of a point- defined and provided for by parts 2, 3, of-sale nature. The Office may accept § 2.62 Procedure for submitting response. 6, and 7 of Title 37 of the Code of another document related to the goods (a) Deadline. The applicant’s response Federal Regulations; or or the sale of the goods when it is to an Office action must be received by (5) In an extraordinary situation, impracticable to place the mark on the the USPTO within six months from the when justice requires and no other party goods, packaging for the goods, or issue date. is injured thereby, to request a displays associated with the goods. (b) Signature. The response must be suspension or waiver of any (2) A service mark specimen must signed by the applicant, someone with requirement of the rules not being a show the mark as used in the sale of the legal authority to bind the applicant requirement of the Act of 1946. services, including use in the (e.g., a corporate officer or general * * * * * performance or rendering of the partner of a partnership), or a ■ 15. Add § 2.147 to read as follows: services, or in the advertising of the practitioner qualified to practice under services. The specimen must show a § 11.14 of this chapter, in accordance § 2.147 Petition to the Director to accept a paper submission. direct association between the mark and with the requirements of § 2.193(e)(2). the services. (c) Form. Responses must be (a) Paper submission when TEAS is (3) A collective trademark or submitted through TEAS pursuant to unavailable on the date of a filing collective service mark specimen must § 2.23(a). Responses sent via email or deadline. (1) An applicant or registrant show how a member uses the mark on facsimile will not be accorded a date of may file a petition to the Director under the member’s goods or in the sale of the receipt. this section requesting acceptance of a services, including use in the ■ 13. Amend § 2.111 by revising submission filed on paper if: performance or rendering of the paragraph (c)(2) to read as follows: (i) TEAS is unavailable on the date of services, or advertising of the member’s the deadline for the submission services. § 2.111 Filing petition for cancellation. specified in a regulation in part 2 or 7 (4) A collective membership mark * * * * * of this chapter or in a section of the Act; specimen must show use by members to (c) * * * and indicate membership in the collective (2)(i) In the event that ESTTA is (ii) The petition is timely filed, organization. unavailable due to technical problems, pursuant to § 2.197 or § 2.198, on the (5) A certification mark specimen or when extraordinary circumstances date of the deadline. must show how a person other than the are present, a petition to cancel may be (2) The petition must include: owner uses the mark to reflect filed in paper form. A paper petition to (i) The paper submission; certification of regional or other origin, cancel a registration must be (ii) Proof that TEAS was unavailable material, mode of manufacture, quality, accompanied by a Petition to the on the date of the deadline; accuracy, or other characteristics of that Director under § 2.146, with the fees (iii) A statement of the facts relevant person’s goods or services; or that therefor and the showing required under to the petition, supported by a members of a union or other this paragraph (c). Timeliness of the declaration under § 2.20 or 28 U.S.C.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:26 Jul 30, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR1.SGM 31JYR1 37096 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

1746 that is signed by the petitioner, (iv) The required fee(s) under § 2.6 for private courier, or other delivery service someone with legal authority to bind the the paper submission; and may be delivered during the hours the petitioner (e.g., a corporate officer or (v) The relevant petition fee under Office is open to receive correspondence general partner of a partnership), or a § 2.6(a)(15). to the Trademark Assistance Center, practitioner qualified to practice under (c) Petition under § 2.146. If the James Madison Building—East Wing, § 11.14 of this chapter; applicant or registrant is unable to meet Concourse Level, 600 Dulany Street, (iv) The fee for a petition filed on the requirements under paragraphs (a) Alexandria, Virginia 22314. paper under § 2.6(a)(15)(i); and or (b) of this section for filing the (b) Electronic trademark documents. (v) Any other required fee(s) under petition, the applicant or registrant may Trademark documents filed § 2.6 for the paper submission. submit a petition to the Director under electronically must be submitted (b) Certain paper submissions timely § 2.146(a)(5) to request a waiver of through TEAS. Documents that relate to filed before the date of a filing deadline. § 2.21(a) or § 2.23(a). proceedings before the Trademark Trial (1) An applicant, registrant, or petitioner (d) This section does not apply to and Appeal Board must be filed for cancellation may file a petition to requirements for paper submissions to electronically with the Board through the Director under this section, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ESTTA. requesting acceptance of any of the except as specified in paragraph (b)(vi). (c) Trademark assignment documents. following submissions that was timely ■ 16. Revise § 2.148 to read as follows: Requests to record documents in the submitted on paper and otherwise met Assignment Recordation Branch may be § 2.148 Director may suspend certain filed electronically through ETAS. Paper the minimum filing requirements, but rules. not processed or examined by the Office documents and cover sheets to be because it was not submitted In an extraordinary situation, when recorded in the Assignment Recordation electronically pursuant to § 2.21(a), justice requires and no other party is Branch should be addressed as § 2.23(a), or § 2.111(c)(1), and the injured thereby, any requirement of the designated in § 3.27 of this chapter. applicant, registrant, or petitioner for rules in parts 2, 3, 6, and 7 of this (d) Requests for certified copies of cancellation is unable to timely chapter that is not a requirement of the trademark documents. Paper requests resubmit the document electronically by Act may be suspended or waived by the for certified copies of trademark the deadline: Director. documents must be addressed to: Mail (i) An application seeking a priority ■ 17. Revise § 2.151 to read as follows: Stop Document Services, Director of the United States Patent and Trademark filing date with a deadline under section § 2.151 Certificate. 44(d)(1) of the Act; Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, When the Office determines that a (ii) A statement of use filed within the Virginia 22313–1450. mark is registrable, the Office will issue last six months of the period specified (e) Certain documents relating to to the owner a certificate of registration in section 1(d)(2) of the Act; international applications and on the Principal Register or the (iii) An affidavit or declaration of registrations. International applications Supplemental Register. The certificate under § 7.11, subsequent designations continued use or excusable nonuse with will state the application filing date, the a deadline under section 8(a)(3) or under § 7.21, responses to notices of act under which the mark is registered, irregularity under § 7.14, requests to section 71(a)(3) of the Act; the date of issue, and the number of the (iv) A request for renewal of a record changes in the International registration and will include a Register under § 7.23 and § 7.24, registration with a deadline under reproduction of the mark and pertinent section 9(a) of the Act; requests to note replacements under data from the application. A notice of § 7.28, requests for transformation under (v) An application for transformation the requirements of sections 8 and 71 of of an extension of protection into a § 7.31 of this chapter, and petitions to the Act will issue with the certificate. the Director to review an action of the United States application with a ■ deadline under section 70(c) of the Act; 18. Revise § 2.162 to read as follows: Office’s Madrid Processing Unit must be addressed to: Madrid Processing Unit, or § 2.162 Notice to registrant. (vi) A petition to cancel a registration 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA When a certificate of registration is 22314–5796. under section 14 of the Act on the fifth originally issued, the Office issues with ■ 20. Revise § 2.191 to read as follows: year anniversary of the date of the the certificate a notice of the registration of the mark. requirement for filing the affidavit or § 2.191 Action of the Office based on the (2) The petition must be filed by not declaration of use or excusable nonuse written record. later than two months after the issue under section 8 or section 71 of the Act. All business with the Office must be date of the notice denying acceptance of However, the affidavit or declaration transacted in writing. The action of the the paper filing and must include: must be filed within the time period Office will be based exclusively on the (i) A statement of the facts relevant to required by section 8 or section 71 of written record. No consideration will be the petition, supported by a declaration the Act even if this notice is not given to any alleged oral promise, under § 2.20 or 28 U.S.C. 1746 that is received. stipulation, or understanding when signed by the petitioner, someone with ■ 19. Revise § 2.190 to read as follows: there is disagreement or doubt. legal authority to bind the petitioner ■ 21. Amend § 2.193 by: (e.g., a corporate officer or general § 2.190 Addresses for trademark ■ a. Revising paragraphs (a)(2), (b), partner of a partnership), or a correspondence with the United States (c)(1), (d), (e) introductory text, (e)(5) practitioner qualified to practice under Patent and Trademark Office. introductory text, and (e)(9); § 11.14 of this chapter; (a) Paper trademark documents. In ■ b. Removing paragraph (e)(10); and (ii) A copy of the relevant paper general, trademark documents to be ■ c. Revising paragraphs (f) and (g). submission and proof that it was timely delivered by the USPS must be The revisions read as follows: filed; addressed to: Commissioner for (iii) Proof that a sufficient fee Trademarks, P.O. Box 1451, Alexandria, § 2.193 Trademark correspondence and accompanied the original paper VA 22313–1451. Trademark-related signature requirements. submission; documents to be delivered by hand, (a) * * *

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:26 Jul 30, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR1.SGM 31JYR1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 37097

(2) An electronic signature that meets (ii) If the applicant or registrant is not (3) Office closed. The Office is not the requirements of paragraph (c) of this represented by a practitioner qualified open to receive paper correspondence section, personally entered by the to practice before the Office under on any day that is a Saturday, Sunday, person named as the signatory. The § 11.14, the individual applicant or or Federal holiday within the District of Office will accept an electronic registrant or someone with legal Columbia. signature that meets the requirements of authority to bind the applicant or (c) Email and facsimile submissions. paragraph (c) of this section on registrant (e.g., a corporate officer or Email and facsimile submissions are not correspondence filed on paper or general partner of a partnership) must permitted and, if submitted, will not be through TEAS or ESTTA. sign. In the case of joint applicants or accorded a date of receipt. (b) Copy of original signature. If a joint registrants, all must sign. (d) Interruptions in USPS. If the copy of an original signature is filed, the (f) Signature as certification. The Director designates a postal service filer should retain the original as presentation to the Office (whether by interruption or emergency within the evidence of authenticity. If a question of signing, filing, submitting, or later meaning of 35 U.S.C. 21(a), any person authenticity arises, the Office may advocating) of any document by any attempting to file correspondence by require submission of the original. person, whether a practitioner or non- Priority Mail Express® Post Office to (c) * * * practitioner, constitutes a certification Addressee service who was unable to (1) Personally enter any combination under § 11.18(b) of this chapter. deposit the correspondence with the of letters, numbers, spaces and/or Violations of § 11.18(b) of this chapter USPS due to the interruption or punctuation marks that the signer has may jeopardize the validity of the emergency may petition the Director to adopted as a signature, placed between application or registration, and may consider such correspondence as filed two forward slash (‘‘/’’) symbols in the result in the imposition of sanctions on a particular date in the Office. The signature block on the electronic under § 11.18(c) of this chapter. Any petition must: submission; or practitioner violating § 11.18(b) of this (1) Be filed promptly after the ending * * * * * chapter may also be subject to of the designated interruption or (d) Signatory must be identified. The disciplinary action. See § 11.18(d) and emergency; first and last name, and the title or § 11.804 of this chapter. (2) Include the original position, of the person who signs a (g) Separate copies for separate files. correspondence or a copy of the original document in connection with a (1) Since each file must be complete in correspondence; and trademark application, registration, or itself, a separate copy of every (3) Include a statement that the proceeding before the Trademark Trial document filed in connection with a correspondence would have been and Appeal Board must be set forth trademark application, registration, or deposited with the USPS on the immediately below or adjacent to the inter partes proceeding must be requested filing date but for the designated interruption or emergency in signature. furnished for each file to which the ® (e) Proper person to sign. Documents document pertains, even though the Priority Mail Express service; and that filed in connection with a trademark documents filed in multiple files may be the correspondence attached to the application or registration must be identical. petition is the original correspondence signed as specified in paragraphs (e)(1) (2) Parties should not file duplicate or a true copy of the correspondence through (9) of this section: originally attempted to be deposited as copies of documents in a single ® * * * * * application, registration, or proceeding Priority Mail Express on the requested (5) Petitions to Director under § 2.146 file, unless the Office requires the filing filing date. or § 2.147. A petition to the Director of duplicate copies. ■ 23. Revise § 2.197 to read as follows: under § 2.146 or § 2.147 must be signed * * * * * § 2.197 Certificate of mailing. by the petitioner, someone with legal ■ 22. Revise § 2.195 to read as follows: (a) The filing date of correspondence authority to bind the petitioner (e.g., a submitted under this section is the date corporate officer or general partner of a § 2.195 Filing date of trademark of deposit with the USPS if the partnership), or a practitioner qualified correspondence. correspondence: to practice under § 11.14 of this chapter, The filing date of trademark (1) Is addressed as set out in § 2.190 in accordance with the following correspondence is determined as and deposited with the USPS with guidelines: follows: sufficient postage as first-class mail; and * * * * * (a) Electronic submissions. The filing (2) Includes a certificate of mailing for (9) Requests to change date of an electronic submission is the each piece of correspondence that: correspondence address in an date the Office receives the submission, (i) Attests to the mailing and the application or registration. A notice of based on Eastern Time, regardless of address used; change of correspondence address in an whether that date is a Saturday, Sunday, (ii) Includes the name of the application or registration must be or Federal holiday within the District of document and the application serial signed by the applicant or registrant, Columbia. number or USPTO reference number, if someone with legal authority to bind the (b) Paper correspondence. The filing assigned, or registration number to applicant or registrant (e.g., a corporate date of a submission submitted on paper which the document pertains; officer or general partner of a is the date the Office receives the (iii) Is signed separately from any partnership), or a practitioner qualified submission, except as follows: signature for the correspondence by a to practice under § 11.14 of this chapter, (1) Priority Mail Express®. The filing person who has a reasonable basis to in accordance with the following date of the submission is the date of expect that the correspondence would guidelines: deposit with the USPS, if filed pursuant be mailed on the date indicated; and (i) If the applicant or registrant is to the requirements of § 2.198. (iv) Sets forth the date of deposit with represented by a practitioner qualified (2) Certificate of mailing. The filing the USPS. to practice before the Office under date of the submission is the date of (b) If correspondence is mailed in § 11.14 of this chapter, the practitioner deposit with the USPS, if filed pursuant accordance with paragraph (a) of this must sign; or to the requirements of § 2.197. section, but not received by the Office,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:26 Jul 30, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR1.SGM 31JYR1 37098 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2019 / Rules and Regulations

the party who mailed such corroborated by evidence from the USPS (b) Applicants and registrants under correspondence may file a petition to or evidence that came into being within this section must provide and maintain the Director under § 2.146(a)(2) to one business day after the date of a valid email address for consider such correspondence filed in deposit; and correspondence with the Office. the Office on the date of deposit with (3) Include a verified statement (c) If an applicant or registrant under the USPS. The petition must: attesting to the facts of the original this section is a national of a country (1) Be filed within two months after mailing. that has acceded to the Trademark Law the date of mailing; (e) If correspondence is properly Treaty, but not to the Singapore Treaty (2) Include a copy of the previously addressed to the Office pursuant to on the Law of Trademarks, the mailed correspondence and certificate; § 2.190 and deposited with sufficient requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of and postage in the Priority Mail Express® this section do not apply. (3) Include a verified statement Post Office to Addressee service of the (d) If TEAS is unavailable, or in an attesting to the facts of the original USPS, but not received by the Office, extraordinary situation, an applicant or mailing. the party who submitted the registrant under this section who is (c) If the certificate of mailing does correspondence may file a petition to required to file a submission through not meet the requirements of paragraph the Director under § 2.146(a)(2) to TEAS may submit a petition to the (a)(2) of this section, the filing date is consider such correspondence filed in Director under § 2.146(a)(5) and (c) of the date the Office receives the the Office on the USPS deposit date. this chapter to accept the submission submission. The petition must: filed on paper. ■ 24. Revise § 2.198 to read as follows: (1) Be filed within two months after ■ 28. Amend § 7.11 by: the date of deposit; ■ a. Revising paragraphs (a) § 2.198 Filing of correspondence by (2) Include a copy of the previously introductory text and (a)(10) and (11); ® Priority Mail Express . mailed correspondence showing the ■ b. Removing paragraph (a)(12); and (a) The filing date of correspondence number of the Priority Mail Express® ■ c. Revising paragraph (b). submitted under this section is the date mailing label thereon; and The revisions read as follows: of deposit with the USPS, as shown by (3) Include a verified statement § 7.11 Requirements for international the ‘‘date accepted’’ on the Priority Mail attesting to the facts of the original ® application originating from the United Express label or other official USPS mailing. States. notation. (a) The Office will grant a date of PART 7—RULES OF PRACTICE IN (b) If the USPS deposit date cannot be receipt to an international application FILINGS PURSUANT TO THE determined, the filing date is the date that is filed through TEAS in PROTOCOL RELATING TO THE the Office receives the submission. accordance with § 7.4(a), or typed on the MADRID AGREEMENT CONCERNING (c) If there is a discrepancy between official paper form issued by the the filing date accorded by the Office to THE INTERNATIONAL REGISTRATION International Bureau, if permitted under the correspondence and the ‘‘date OF MARKS § 7.4(c) or accepted on petition pursuant accepted,’’ the party who submitted the ■ 25. The authority citation for part 7 to § 7.4(d). The international application correspondence may file a petition to must include all of the following: the Director under § 2.146(a)(2) to continues to read as follows: accord the correspondence a filing date * * * * * Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1123, 35 U.S.C. 2, (10) If the application is filed through as of the ‘‘date accepted.’’ The petition unless otherwise noted. TEAS, the international application fees must: ■ 26. Amend § 7.1 by revising for all classes, and the fees for all (1) Be filed within two months after paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as follows: designated Contracting Parties the date of deposit; identified in the international (2) Include a true copy of the Priority § 7.1 Definitions of terms as used in this ® part. application (see § 7.7); and Mail Express mailing label showing (11) A statement that the applicant is the ‘‘date accepted,’’ and any other * * * * * entitled to file an international official notation by the USPS relied (c) The acronym TEAS means the application in the Office, specifying that upon to show the date of deposit; and Trademark Electronic Application applicant: Is a national of the United (3) Include a verified statement System, and, as used in this part, States; has a domicile in the United attesting to the facts of the original includes all related electronic systems States; or has a real and effective mailing. required to complete an electronic industrial or commercial establishment (d) If the party who submitted the submission through TEAS. in the United States. Where an correspondence can show that the ‘‘date (d) The term Office or the applicant’s address is not in the United accepted’’ was incorrectly entered or abbreviation USPTO means the United States, the applicant must provide the omitted by the USPS, the party may file States Patent and Trademark Office. address of its U.S. domicile or a petition to the Director under * * * * * establishment. § 2.146(a)(2) to accord the ■ 27. Revise § 7.4 to read as follows: (b) For requirements for certification, correspondence a filing date as of the see § 7.13. date the correspondence is shown to § 7.4 International applications and ■ 29. Amend § 7.21 by: have been deposited with the USPS. registrations originating from the USPTO— ■ a. Revising paragraphs (b) The petition must: Requirements to electronically file and communicate with the Office. introductory text and (b)(7) and (8); (1) Be filed within two months after ■ b. Removing paragraph (b)(9); and the date of deposit; (a) Unless stated otherwise in this ■ c. Revising paragraph (c). (2) Include proof that the chapter, all correspondence filed with The revisions read as follows: correspondence was deposited in the the USPTO relating to international Priority Mail Express® Post Office to applications and registrations § 7.21 Subsequent designation. Addressee service prior to the last originating from the USPTO must be * * * * * scheduled pickup on the requested submitted through TEAS and include a (b) The Office will grant a date of filing date. Such proof must be valid email address for correspondence. receipt to a subsequent designation that

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:26 Jul 30, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR1.SGM 31JYR1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 37099

is filed through TEAS in accordance Pollution Control Bureau by a letter science upon which the standards are with § 7.4(a), or typed on the official dated September 12, 2018. The revision based, and the standards themselves. paper form issued by the International updates the National Ambient Air EPA’s regulatory provisions that govern Bureau, if permitted under § 7.4(c) or Quality Standards (NAAQS) in the the NAAQS are found at 40 CFR 50, accepted on petition pursuant to Chattanooga portion of the Tennessee National Primary and Secondary § 7.4(d). The subsequent designation SIP. The amendments in the Tennessee Ambient Air Quality Standards. must contain all of the following: SIP reflect recent revisions made to the EPA is taking final action to approve * * * * * federal NAAQS. EPA is approving the changes to the Chattanooga portion of (7) The U.S. transmittal fee required changes because they are consistent the Tennessee SIP that were provided to by § 7.6; and with the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). EPA through a letter dated September (8) If the subsequent designation is DATES: This rule will be effective August 12, 2018.1 EPA is finalizing approval of filed through TEAS, the subsequent 30, 2019. the portions of this SIP revision that designation fees (see § 7.7). ADDRESSES: EPA has established a make changes to air quality rules in Part 2 (c) If the subsequent designation is docket for this action under Docket ID II, Chapter 4, Article II, Section 4–41. accorded a date of receipt, the Office No. EPA–R04–OAR–2019–0004. All The September 12, 2018, SIP revision will then forward the subsequent documents in the docket are listed on makes changes to the SIP that deletes designation to the International Bureau. the www.regulations.gov website. the current version and substitutes a revised version of Part II, Chapter 4, * * * * * Although listed in the index, some Article II, Section 4–41, Rule 21 of the ■ information is not publicly available, 30. Amend § 7.25 by revising Chattanooga City Code ‘‘Ambient Air paragraph (a) to read as follows: i.e., Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure is Quality Standards.’’ Hamilton County § 7.25 Sections of part 2 applicable to restricted by statute. Certain other revised its rule to be consistent with extension of protection. material, such as copyrighted material, changes to the federal NAAQS. (a) Except for §§ 2.21, 2.22, 2.76, 2.88, is not placed on the internet and will be In a notice of proposed rulemaking 2.89, 2.130, 2.131, 2.160 through 2.166, publicly available only in hard copy (NPRM) published on March 29, 2019 2.168, 2.173, 2.175, and 2.181 through form. Publicly available docket (84 FR 11917), EPA proposed to approve the aforementioned changes to Part II, 2.186, all sections in parts 2 and 11 of materials are available either Chapter 4, Article II, Section 4–41 in the this chapter shall apply to an extension electronically through Chattanooga portion of the Tennessee of protection of an international www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at SIP, which address the NAAQS. The registration to the United States, the Air Regulatory Management Section, NPRM provides additional details including sections related to Air Planning and Implementation regarding EPA’s action. Comments on proceedings before the Trademark Trial Branch, Air and Radiation Division the NPRM were due on or before April and Appeal Board, unless otherwise (formerly the Air, Pesticides and Toxics 29, 2019. stated. Management Division), U.S. * * * * * Environmental Protection Agency, II. Response to Comments Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, EPA received one potentially adverse Dated: July 25, 2019. Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA Andrei Iancu, comment on its March 29, 2019, NPRM. requests that if at all possible, you This comment is provided in the docket Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual contact the person listed in the FOR Property and Director of the United States for today’s final action. EPA has FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to summarized and responded to the Patent and Trademark Office. schedule your inspection. The Regional [FR Doc. 2019–16259 Filed 7–30–19; 8:45 am] comment below. Office’s official hours of business are Comment: The Commenter notes that BILLING CODE 3510–16–P Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. to ‘‘high levels of ground level ozone, 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. airborne particles and other matter’’ FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: pose a threat to human health, ‘‘making ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Evan Adams of the Air Regulatory this proposal a public concern.’’ The AGENCY Management Section, Air Planning and Commenter also states that any changes Implementation Branch, Air and to the SIP ‘‘must consider any changes 40 CFR Part 52 Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental in location of monitoring sites, protocol [EPA–R04–OAR–2019–0004; FRL–9997–38- Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth of air quality monitoring and quality Region 4] Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. standards sample so that there is no The telephone number is (404) 562– heteroskedasticity which could lead to Air Plan Approval; TN; Updates to the 9009. Mr. Adams can also be reached corruption of time measure data.’’ National Ambient Air Quality via electronic mail at adams.evan@ According to the Commenter, if any of Standards for Chattanooga epa.gov. these changes have been made, ‘‘further AGENCY: Environmental Protection SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: scrutiny should be made concerning the Agency (EPA). motive or whether data has been skewed I. Background ACTION: Final rule. in favor of noncompliance.’’ The Sections 108 and 109 of the CAA Commenter further states that it is SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection govern the establishment, review, and ‘‘important that careful consideration Agency (EPA or Agency) is taking final revision, as appropriate, of the NAAQS and verification be given to this action to approve a revision to the to protect public health and welfare for proposed revision.’’ Chattanooga portion of the Tennessee six criteria pollutants: ozone, particulate State Implementation Plan (SIP), matter (PM) (including fine particulate 1 EPA notes that the Agency received the SIP revision on September 18, 2018. provided by the State of Tennessee, matter, or PM2.5), carbon monoxide, 2 As discussed in the NPRM, EPA does not through the Tennessee Department of lead, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen recognize gaseous fluorides as criteria pollutants Environment and Conservation from dioxide. The CAA requires periodic and EPA is not acting to approve the standard Chattanooga/Hamilton County Air review of the air quality criteria, the related to gaseous fluorides. See 84 FR 11917, n.4.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:26 Jul 30, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR1.SGM 31JYR1