USPTO’s Signature Rules Require Named Signatories to “Personally Apply” Their Own Signatures

by Christina Frangiosa

This article is Part 2 in a series, discussing the USPTO Office of Enrollment and Discipline’s (OED’s) disciplinary opinions impacting trademark attorneys.  For other posts in the series, review the Ethics category in this blog.

As promised in the prior post, this article addresses violations of the USPTO’s Signature Rules which have been discussed in myriad OED disciplinary decisions relating to trademark practitioners.  For a full collection of all of OED’s decisions dating back to 1996, see https://foiadocuments.uspto.gov/oed/.  For a more truncated list that the USPTO recently recommended that trademark attorneys read carefully, see In re Nardone, Proceeding No. D2025-32 at 12-13 (USPTO, May 20, 2026) (also reprinted with active hyperlinks at the end of the prior post).

USPTO Rules Require Personal Signature by Named Signatory

The USPTO’s Signature Rules have been operative for more than 20 years.  See In re Stelcore Management Services, LLC et al., Final Order for Sanctions, 2025 WL 1733552 at 3 (USPTO, June 13, 2025) (precedential) (citing Reorganization of Correspondence and Other General Provisions, 68 Fed. Reg. 48289, 48290 (USPTO Final Rule, Aug. 13, 2003) (discussing separation of trademark rules from patent rules, moving the trademark signature requirements from § 1.4 to § 2.193) (PDF copy here)).  As of 2003, the Signature Rule required:

(c)(1) Each piece of correspondence that requires a person’s signature, must:

(i) Be an original, that is, have an original signature personally signed in permanent ink by that person; or

(ii) Be a copy, such as a photocopy or facsimile transmission (§ 2.195(c)), of an original. In the event that a copy of the original is filed, the original should be retained as evidence of authenticity. If a question of authenticity arises, the Office may require submission of the original; or

(iii) Where an electronically transmitted trademark filing is permitted or required, the person who signs the filing must either:

(A) Place a symbol comprised of numbers and/or letters between two forward slash marks in the signature block on the electronic submission; or

(B) Sign the verified statement using some other form of electronic signature specified by the Director.

37 C.F.R. § 2.193(c)(1) (Aug. 13, 2003) (emphasis added).

In addition, the Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (“TMEP”) has long included examples of conduct that would violate these rules.  In re Stelcore, Final Order for Sanctions, at 3; see also TMEP § 611.01(b) (Oct. 2012 ed.) (“All documents must be personally signed. … Another person (e.g., paralegal, legal assistant, secretary) may not sign the name of an attorney or other authorized signatory.”) (quoting In re Dermahose Inc., Ser. No. 76585901, 82 USPQ2d 1793, 2007 TTAB LEXIS 25, slip op. (TTAB Feb. 13, 2007); In re Cowan, Reg. No. 1225389, 18 USPQ2d 1407, 1990 Commr. Pat. LEXIS 24 (Comm’r Pats. 1990)).

This “personally signed” requirement applies regardless of whether the signature at issue is handwritten or typed. 37 CFR §§ 2.193 (a) & (c); TMEP § 611.01(c) (“… Just as signing the name of another person on paper does not serve as the signature of the person whose name is written, typing the electronic signature of another person is not a valid signature by that person.”).  Instead, only the person whose name is identified in the signature block may enter their own signature – in any form.  Id.

This signatory authority cannot be delegated to anyone else.  In re Stelcore, Final Order for Sanctions, at 3 (“A person may not delegate the authority to sign trademark-related submissions, and no party may sign the name of another.”); see also TMEP § 611.01(b).  In other words, you cannot authorize anyone else to sign your name for you.  Neither may an attorney nor their staff – or any other third-party – sign a client’s name in the client’s signature block – even if that client provided you with express written authorization to do so.  Instead, the named signatory on any filing must personally apply their own signature – in whatever form such signature would be captured.  37 C.F.R. §2.193(a)(1), (c)(1).

The USPTO recently confirmed in a precedential opinion that this requirement is substantive, not merely technical.  In re Stelcore, Final Order for Sanctions, at 3.  As a result, failure to comply with the requirement for all signatures to be “personally signed” or “personally entered” can invalidate a trademark filing and “may jeopardize the validity of an application or registration.”  37 C.F.R. § 2.193(f).  Applications improperly signed have been deemed void ab initio, and such signature violations cannot be corrected. In re Stelcore, Final Order for Sanctions, at 10 (“Although Respondents request to correct the signatures, correction is not available.  The defects in these signatures are more than mere technical errors and cannot be corrected or perfected under 35 U.S.C. § 26.”); id. at 12 (“Respondents’ conduct [of forging signatures] has infected these trademark matters, resulting in false submissions being made to the USPTO that in most if not all cases would render the applications void ab initio.”).

Common Fact Patterns

Many of the OED opinions addressing signature violations reveal the following fact patterns:

  • An attorney signed a client’s name on a declaration before filing;
  • An attorney allowed (or instructed) a paralegal or other support staff in their practice to sign the attorney’s (or client’s) name on documents to be filed with the USPTO;
  • A paralegal or other support staff signed the attorney’s name (or the client’s name) on documents to be filed with the USPTO, without the attorney’s (or client’s) knowledge or consent; or
  • A foreign filing firm acting as an intermediary between the attorney and the individual clients applied the attorney’s signature (or the individual client’s signature) on their behalf (with or without their knowledge) to documents for filing with the USPTO.

In more recent OED decisions, the USPTO listed disciplinary opinions that it recommended trademark attorneys read and become familiar with.  The most recent list appeared at the end of the OED’s decision in In re Nardone, Proceeding No. D2025-32, Final Order (USPTO, May 20, 2026) – and was reprinted with active links at the end of the prior post in this series.

Some of these disciplinary opinions describe fact patterns covering years of improper filings and showcase a clear intent by a foreign actor to take advantage of a practitioner for whom trademark law was not their core practice area.  In one particularly notable example, a relatively new attorney who opened her own firm as a solo practitioner a few months after being admitted to the bar was caught up in a scheme that ultimately resulted in her resignation from practice before the USPTO in trademark matters.  In re Ufomadu, Proceeding No. D2025-20, Final Order (USPTO June 25, 2025).

According to the OED’s Final Order, in August 2019, six years after starting her own firm, Ms. Ufomadu responded to an online ad seeking a part-time attorney to file trademark applications in the U.S. on behalf of the foreign-domiciled clients of a foreign entity [Brealant, based in Hong Kong] – and was hired for the position.  (For context, the USPTO’s US Counsel Rule – requiring that all foreign applicants must have U.S. counsel representing them before the USPTO in connection with trademark matters – went into effect on August 3, 2019.)  Because she did not have any experience in trademark law, she asked for training in this field from Brealant as her new employer, but it was not provided and she apparently did not follow up on the request.

Under the terms of her engagement letter, Brealant would make all decisions about which applications to file, and she would be paid $10 for each filing on which Brealant added her signature as attorney of record.  According to OED, “she had no role in the preparation, signing or filing of trademark documents, leaving such tasks to staff at Brealant.”  Final Order at 9.  She also allowed Brealant to draft and submit such Office Action Responses under her name, only the initial five exemplars of which she reviewed.  She never reviewed later responses, nor did she submit any of these filings herself.  She also agreed that all contact information for any trademark filings would lead back to Brealant, that Brealant would be solely responsible for the quality of the work they performed for these trademark clients, and that Brealant would maintain the sole line of communication with all trademark clients.  She specifically agreed not to contact these clients for any reason.

By late 2019, her fee was changed from a “signature use fee” to a “general retainer fee.”  In February 2021, she agreed to a modified engagement agreement that reduced her compensation to $5 per filing, and added a non-compete clause.

In September 2019, she allowed Brealant to create a USPTO.gov account under her name, which Brealant used to submit all filings to the USPTO bearing her signature.  She did not access the USPTO.gov account until December 2021, when Brealant informed her that if she wanted to keep working as a contract attorney for them, she would have to complete ID verification for that account.  (On January 8, 2022, the USPTO offered ID verification of USPTO.gov accounts on a voluntary basis in order to provide additional account security and “further thwart fraud”.  See Trademarks USPTO.gov Account ID Verification Program, 87 Fed. Reg. 41114 (July 11, 2022) (and PDF Version )).  On January 29, 2022, Brealant also asked her to sponsor two USPTO.gov accounts owned by employees of Brealant, whom she never met and did not supervise.

She completed the ID verification and sponsored these two Brealant-employee accounts on February 10, 2022.  On August 10, 2022, her USPTO.gov account was used to sponsor two other USPTO.gov accounts – again for employees of Brealant whom she did not know and did not supervise.

Her relationship with Brealant continued from August 2019 through September 2024, over which time, she received $11,050 in fees from Brealant.  In early 2024, she learned that it was possible to search USPTO’s public records to check for applications and registrations submitted under her name – and became aware that more than 3,400 trademark records were filed with her name as attorney of record, many of which contained her purported electronic signature.  While she had previously reviewed 13 trademark applications on which she knew Brealant had applied her signature before filing, she did not review, and Brealant never asked her to review, any other filings for Brealant’s clients.

On June 25, 2025, as part of OED’s investigation into this matter, she signed an Affidavit of Resignation, agreeing to be excluded on consent from practicing before the USPTO in trademark matters.  On April 7, 2026, she was subjected to reciprocal discipline in her home state of Alabama, for which she is currently completing a two-year probationary period.  See https://members.alabar.org/Member_Portal/Member_Portal/Member-Search.aspx (search for “Evelyn Ufomadu” and click on “Disciplinary History”) (Ufomado “was suspended from the practice of law in the State of Alabama for ninety-one (91) days, to be held in abeyance, pending Ufomadu’s successful completion of a two year probationary period with conditions, effective April 7, 2026.”).

Other Disciplinary Opinions on Signature Violation Issues (& Recommended Reading):

Note, most of the disciplinary opinions briefly summarized below covered multiple issues and multiple types of rules violations.  Indeed, OED’s decisions to reprimand, place on probation, suspend and/or exclude a practitioner generally take into account the totality of the circumstances, including the nature of the violations, the practitioner’s knowledge of wrongdoing, the practitioner’s cooperation with the investigation, level of contrition and willingness to take responsibility for his or her actions.  In each case where probation was imposed, the USPTO itemized a long list of additional conditions that each practitioner had to meet, although the details varied across opinions.  Below is a brief summary of the facts relevant to claims that each of the following practitioners violated the Signature Rules – but the opinions as a whole are interesting on a number of grounds, and I recommend reading them:

  • In re Lou, Proceeding No. D2021-04, Final Order (USPTO May 12, 2021): Lou authorized and instructed non-attorney staff of foreign trademark service agency to insert his name electronically into the signature lines of the applications they filed under his name.  Was suspended for three months, followed by 21 months of probation, if reinstated.
  • In re Chen, Proceeding No. D2024-21, Final Order (USPTO Sept. 11, 2024):  Chen was admitted to practice in NY and NJ, and operated his own firm in Queens County, NY, practicing trademark law before the USPTO starting in 2019, among other areas.  Between 2021 and 2023, he received referrals from a number of entities based in China, whose employees “assisted him in his trademark practice.” Final Order at 3.  Prior to 2021, he typed his own electronic signature into TEAS to execute the required declarations for new applications and responses to Office Actions referred to him by these entities. Beginning in late 2021, he asked these entities for hand-signed declarations from applicant clients to upload to TEAS with the appropriate forms. He received these hand-signed declarations in batch form from the referring entities and did not review them individually to confirm that they each had unique signatures. According to USPTO, “the inauthenticity of purported signatures was clear and obvious.” Id. at 5.  Was suspended from practice before the USPTO for 36-months, followed by a 24-month probation, if reinstated.
  • In re (Angus) Ni, Proceeding No. D2024-20, Final Order (USPTO Dec. 19, 2024): Ni developed a workflow to file trademark applications “at scale” and partnered with Chinese IP service provider (Shenzhen Cadmon Intellectual Property Co. Ltd. – “SCIP”), whose staff he trained in client intake, evidence gathering and document filing.  Initially, he reviewed all filings, but later deferred to SCIP’s staff to handle all drafting and filing, and authorized them to sign his name on filings with the USPTO, including declarations.  Was suspended for five months, followed by 18-month probation, if reinstated.
  • In re Engfield, Proceeding No. D2025-12, Final Order (USPTO Mar. 10, 2025):  Engfield, a California-licensed attorney, entered into an exclusive “Co-Operation Agreement” in March 2019 with World IP Law Ltd. based in Xiamen, China, through which Engfield agreed to be World IP’s exclusive attorney for US filings in exchange for payment on a per-filing basis.  World IP prepared the draft applications and sent them to Engfield in an editable form (*.obj files) with instructions for review.  Engfield reviewed the filings, sometimes made edits, took a screenshot of his signature entered into the editable form as a means of indicating his approval of the filing, and sent the screenshot back to World IP for further handling.  Engfield claims that he believed World IP would then obtain the applicant’s signature on the filing before submission. However, World IP instead entered his electronic signature into the form and filed it with the UPSTO.  Engfield received filing receipts from the USPTO for these filings.  Around November/December of 2020, he realized that World IP had entered his signature in connection with approximately 500 new applications.  Starting in April 2022, he started preparing new applications for World IP “from scratch” and hand-signed them before filing them and paying the fees with a World IP credit card.  By letter dated August 1, 2024, Engfield notified the USPTO that he had become aware of approximately “230 instances in which his s-signature were not ‘personally’ typed-in by him.”  Final Order at 5.  The OED identified several additional instances where Engfield’s signature had been applied using the “direct signature” method, but where the IP address of the signer was based in a location where Engfield was known not to be (i.e., in Hong Kong or China) using World IP’s USPTO.gov account.  Was publicly reprimanded and placed on probation for six months.
  • In re (Hao) Ni, Proceeding No. D2025-14, Final Order (USPTO Mar. 31, 2025) [Law Partner of Timothy Wang in Proceeding No. D2025-21, below]:  Texas attorney admitted in 2004, focusing primarily on IP litigation in federal court.  Supervised three paralegals who helped him in his trademark practice.  In 2019, became affiliated with a trademark company based in Shenzhen, China (Shenzhen YaYi Intellectual Property Agency Co., Ltd. – “YaYi”) who sent him over 4500 new trademark matters since 2019 for foreign-domiciled applicants.  YaYi prepared trademark applications and other trademark documents for Ni’s foreign-domiciled applicants, and sent them to Ni for his review, signature and filing with the USPTO.  In the course of this representation, Ni instructed his paralegals to electronically sign his name on over 4300 trademark documents (including declarations) that were filed with the USPTO.  The OED sent a notice to Ni regarding improper signatures in August 2024, but Ni did not respond for six months. In his March 2025 response, he confirmed that he instructed his paralegals to sign his name for him after he personally reviewed and approved each document. He explained his belief that while this conduct “may not be in literal compliance with the technical personal entry requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 2.193(c),” it was not undertaken with intent to circumvent any USPTO Rules – and thus would not qualify as a misrepresentation to the USPTO or “adversely affect the patent or trademark owner’s intellectual property rights.” Final Order at 5.  As a result of the OED’s investigation, Ni recognized that his understanding of the Rule was incorrect.  He was publicly reprimanded and placed on probation for 20 months.
  • Compare In re Horton, Proceeding No. D2025-15, Final Order (USPTO Mar. 20, 2025) (associate) and In re Rapacke, Proceeding No. D2025-16, Final Order (USPTO Mar. 20, 2025) (managing partner):  In these opinions relating to an associate and a managing partner from the same firm, both attorneys misunderstood the Signature Rules and mistakenly instructed their non-practitioner assistants to insert their electronic signatures into various trademark documents for filing.  In some cases, the associate attorney also entered the managing attorney’s signatures on certain forms, but had received the managing attorney’s express authorization to do so.  Both of them fully cooperated with OED in its investigation and expressed appropriate contrition and new-found understanding of the requirements of the rules.  Both attorneys received public reprimands and were placed on probation for 12 months each.
  • In re Zhong, Proceeding No. D2025-18, Final Order (USPTO May 21, 2025): Zhong was a registered patent attorney who also handled trademark matters.  He worked with four referral sources in China in connection with his trademark practice.  During OED’s investigation, Zhong claimed that having a Power of Attorney from a client authorized him to sign his client’s name to trademark filings (and said that the Trademark Assistance Center (TAC) confirmed that he had this authority – but then, when pressed, was unable to substantiate his claim that TAC ever gave him that advice).  He claimed to have only entered their signatures “rarely” – but USPTO records reflected that he entered his client’s signatures on at least 796 filed documents, including statements of use and requests for reconsideration.  Was suspended for 6 months, followed by 12 month probation, if reinstated.
  • In re Wang, Proceeding No. D2025-21, Final Order (USPTO Aug. 22, 2025) [Law Partner of Hao Ni in Proceeding No. D2025-14, above]:  Texas attorney admitted in 2009, focusing mostly on IP litigation although he also served as attorney of record in trademark applications filed with the USPTO at that time.  Received many foreign-domiciled trademark client referrals from at least three referring firms with offices in China.  In 2016, Wang created his USPTO.gov account, which was mandated starting in 2019 for filing in trademark matters with the USPTO.  Wang permitted his paralegal to access and use his USPTO.gov account to file trademark documents on his behalf, and instructed her to sign his name on trademark applications, including on sworn declarations, prior to submitting them to the USPTO.  In certain instances, he instructed his paralegal to enter his client’s signatures on trademark documents, including power of attorney forms (“CAR Forms”) that may only be signed by a trademark owner to appoint new counsel.  Wang did not keep records relating to when he signed his own name and when he instructed his paralegal to sign his – or a client’s – name on such filings.  In March 2025, he wrote to the USPTO to advise that he had permitted his paralegal to sign his name and understood that his paralegal also signed clients’ names to CAR Forms – but did not provide a list of affected filings.  Following the OED’s investigation, he learned that the Signature Rules are considered substantive – and not merely technical – and that OED believed his conduct to be unethical.  Was publicly reprimanded and placed on an 18-month probation.
  • In re Toledano, Proceeding No. D2025-07, Final Order (USPTO Sept. 3, 2025): Toledano opened her own solo practice in July 2022, a little over a year after being admitted to the bar in NY, and started practicing trademark law on behalf of clients six months later.  She started accepting trademark referrals from several foreign-based companies in the following months (including Brand Mark Protect until June 2023), but believed she was working with U.S.-based clients.  She instructed her own non-attorney staff and staff from the foreign referral companies to enter her signature on trademark applications and other documents filed with the USPTO on which she was the named signatory.  In around January 2024, she learned about the Signature Rules’ requirements for “personally signing” each document – and notified the USPTO about her lack of compliance with the Rules on about 401 applications and 9 renewal applications.  She conceded that she believed that as an attorney, she was permitted to authorize another to sign a document on her behalf after she reviewed and approved it, although now realized she was incorrect. She wrote a second notice letter the following month to identify an additional 2,300 trademark documents on which she had not personally entered her own signature.  Was suspended from practice for four months, followed by a 12-month probation period, if reinstated.
  • In re O’Keefe, Proceeding No. D2026-07, Final Order (USPTO Jan. 29, 2026):  NY-admitted attorney, practicing since 1996.  Until 2021, most of his practice related to commercial litigation and IP counseling.  Starting in 2021, he shifted his practice to focus mostly on trademark prosecution and litigation.  He was initially trained by Tony Hom (who was then under investigation by OED for ethics violations – culminating in the Final Order suspending him from practice before the USPTO in trademark matters for two years, followed by a 12-month probation. In re Hom, Proceeding No. D2021-10, Final Order (Dec. 17, 2021)).  Starting in October 2021, Hom and O’Keefe signed a Consulting Agreement, whereby each became “Of Counsel” with the other’s firm.  From October 1, 2021 through August 5, 2025, O’Kfeefe filed over 1,000 trademark documents on behalf of clients who came to him through Hom or the foreign-domiciled agencies (based in China) with whom Hom worked.  Hom helped O’Keefe set up his USPTO.gov account – to which Hom kept a copy of the password.  O’Keefe acknowledged during the investigation that he allowed Hom to use his USPTO.gov account and sign O’Keefe’s name to several trademark filings.  O’Keefe also admitted to filing 26 powers of attorney (“CAR Forms”) to revoke another attorney’s representation of a client – on which either he or someone using his USPTO.gov account improperly entered the client’s electronic signature into the forms.  On December 6, 2024, O’Keefe told the USPTO about these improper signatures.  On October 3, 2025, he received a letter from OED, requiring disclosure to his clients about the signature violations and withdrawal from all pending matters – and O’Keefe represented to OED that he no longer intends to practice before the USPTO on trademark matters.  Was publicly reprimanded and placed on a 12-month suspension.

Recommendations

In several of these disciplinary opinions, the USPTO suggested that trademark attorneys routinely undertake the following search of the USPTO’s publicly accessible search system to find all records in which they are listed as attorney of record, so that they can confirm that their signature has been used properly:

  • Visit the USPTO’s online trademark search system (currently located at https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/search/search-information) and enter the following search (note the lack of a space after each colon):
    • AT:firstname AND AT:lastname AND FD:[YYYYMMDD TO YYMMDD]

See, e.g., In re Nardone, Proceeding No. D2025-32, Final Order at 8 (USPTO, May 20, 2026) (mandated routine search as a condition of probation and reinstatement).  In the opinions sanctioning attorneys whose signatures were used without their permission, OED directed these attorneys to conduct this search at least every two weeks and to notify the USPTO Office of Trademark Examination Policy of each trademark document identifying them as attorney of record that was filed without their knowledge or consent.  Id.

This search is a good idea for any attorney to confirm that they are aware of any and all filings made under their names.  (Help with customizing that search can be found at https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/help.)

Finally, given that the USPTO has published several resources in each of these OED decisions recommending how to comply with these rules, trademark attorneys should take the time to familiarize themselves with the current rules and avoid the pitfalls highlighted in these opinions.  In particular, the USPTO expects “… practitioners who represent applicants, registrations or others before the USPTO in trademark matters – including those who serve as U.S. counsel for foreign-domiciled clients . . . to know: (a) the applicable trademark prosecution rules; (b) the provisions of the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct implicated by such representation, and (c) the potential disciplinary consequences when such provisions of the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct are violated.”  In re (Hao) Ni, Proceeding No. D2025-14, Final Order at 12 (USPTO March 31, 2025).

*      *      *

Next time, we’ll discuss OED decisions involving attorneys disciplined for failing to carefully review submissions made under their name, which discipline resulted in a public reprimand, probation, suspension, and/or exclusion from the practice of trademark law before the USPTO.