The USPTO requires each trademark applicant to reveal its own email address when filing a US trademark application. The USPTO promises that if the applicant is represented by an attorney, then only the attorney’s email address will be revealed to the public, and:
Tthe email address listed in the owner field for trademark applicants who are represented by a qualified U.S. attorney will not be publicly viewable.
(TMEP § 803.05(b)). But, rather predictably, the USPTO has broken this promise. It turns out that the USPTO reveals the applicant email address to the public.
I am indebted to an alert member of the e-Trademarks listserv (who will remain unnamed to protect confidentiality) who shared this disappointing news with me earlier today.
Anybody who wants to learn the private email address of a US trademark applicant (which I emphasize is an email address that the USPTO promised it would not make publicly viewable) can gain access to it at any hour of the day or night with just a few mouse clicks.
-
- Go to the TEASi page at https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/apply/trademark-electronic-application-system-teasi-online.
- Click on “Application for International Registration”.
- Scroll way down past the fold and click “Continue >”.
- In the “PRE-POPULATED FORM” text box, enter any US trademark application number.
- Scroll way down past the fold and click “Continue >”.
- In Section 4 (country selection), tick at least one “country” box.
- Scroll way down past the fold and click “Continue >”.
- Click “Continue >” again.
- View the supposedly not-publicly-viewable email address of the applicant.
This is a betrayal by the USPTO of its promise to US trademark applicants.
How will this piece of information figure into the suit against the PTO (technically an appeal of PTO decision) in this matter now pending at the Federal Circuit? Is it too late to introduce this into evidence? Can it be introduced during cross-examination of PTO witnesses? Or is the whole thing being done on the written record already developed?
I can’t believe that evidence lying by an agency can’t be introduced during an appeal of a decision by that agency on the very point in question.
Lying with intent, or just incompetence (of programming) or willful ignorance (of the difficulty of securing a database)?
Sigh.
The USPTO is acting in bad faith at this point. No excuses. Multiple months of bad decisions and actions that directly affect the people USPTO is “there to serve”. What gives, and what should people do about this? It’s getting asinine.
Seems that contact with members of the appropriate congressional committee (Commerce?) might be in order. Congressional Hearings anyone?
These are such good soap operas! Does much even, ever, actually come from them?
Amazing find by the listserv member.
For what it’s worth, it appears that a private address does not become exposed through this method. I just checked an application in which I designated a public PO Box as well as a private home address. The IR form populates only the public PO Box, not the private address.
In order to click into the “Application for International Registration” form, one must be logged into MyUSPTO. The Office might argue that, by requiring login, it is not “publicly available,” but rather, only available to registered users and us users probably agreed in some clickwrap form that we wouldn’t do bad stuff. I’m just playing devil’s advocate, I share your concerns about privacy and agency over-reach.
The USPTO has become an outlaw agency over the past 3 years. We need a litigant to hold their feet to the fire, and take a test case up to the US SUP CT. As it is now, the USPTO gets rubber-stamped by the HUD judges and local court. Therefore, a much-needed review by a truly independent AND THOUGHTFUL higher court is in order.