Category Archives: OED Decisions

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. Continue reading …

Trademark Attorney Ethics – A Recap of ABA IPL Spring Panel Discussion with OED Director

by Christina Frangiosa

Several months ago, I moderated a CLE presentation for the ABA IPL Section’s IPL SPRING conference (see p. 7 of conference brochure) in Washington, D.C. on “Ethics at the USPTO“.  The then-current Director of the USPTO’s Office of Enrollment and Discipline, Kimberly C. Kelleher, was our featured speaker, and we spent the entire session exclusively on ethics in the practice of trademark law before the USPTO.

This article begins a series on Ethics for Trademark Attorneys, using recent disciplinary opinions published by OED that impose sanctions on trademark attorneys for various missteps.  These opinions provide strong examples of conduct that trademark attorneys should avoid at all costs.  In some cases, one can very much appreciate how a less-experienced attorney (or someone who does not practice in this area routinely) might fall into some of the traps described in these opinions – but these fact patterns are not unique to newer attorneys or non-specialists, and we can all take away some tips from these decisions.

Governing Rules

As a starting point, note that the USPTO’s Rules of Practice (found in 37 CFR – including Part 2 and Part 11) apply to trademark attorneys – even though we trademark attorneys are not expressly “admitted to practice” before the USPTO in trademark matters and whether or not we are aware they apply.  See, e.g., 37 CFR § 11.5(b). It’s enough that we are admitted to practice in the highest court(s) of our states and that we provide advice to clients in trademark matters.  Id. § 11.5(b)(3) (“Practice before the Office in trademark matters”).  Some trademark attorneys miss this fact, and mistakenly believe that OED’s oversight is limited to patent attorneys (who have taken and passed a specific bar exam, and know that they are bound by the USPTO’s Rules).  Note that if you ever receive a Request for Information from the OED as a trademark practitioner, you are required to cooperate with the Request and can be sanctioned for failure to respond. See 37 C.F.R § 11.801(b).

Moreover every time an attorney submits any “paper” to the USPTO, that attorney is expressly certifying that the factual contentions or denials have evidentiary support, to the best of the attorney’s knowledge, information and belief, “formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,” are supported by legal authority and have not been presented for any improper purpose.  37 C.F.R. § 11.18(b)(2) (emphasis added).

Common Themes

To get ready for this session, I read many of the recent Final Orders appearing on the OED’s FOIA Reading Room (which generally covers both patent and trademark practices), beyond the specific cases that we were planning to discuss during this session.  (The cases we discussed during this session are identified in the slides.)

Universally, these opinions describe in great detail the attorney’s conduct that led to the OED’s sanction decision.  While the Rules authorize a variety of sanctions, ranging from public reprimand, probation, suspension and/or exclusion from practice (see 37 C.F.R. § 11.54(a)(2) (“Initial Decision of Hearing Officer”)), in most of these cases, the sanctioned attorney was either publicly reprimanded or suspended for a specific period of time from representing others before the USPTO in connection with trademark matters , followed by varying probationary periods. The results of these lengthy investigations are reflected in the stipulated statement of facts in these opinions, which outlined the mistakes attorneys admitted they made or, in a few cases where the attorney refused to respond (and thus was subject to default) recounted the evidence that was amassed by OED, which was accepted as if proven.

Common themes running through these opinions include:

  • Signature violations (such as typing in someone else’s electronic signature on their behalf – or allowing/instructing someone else to type your signature for you);
  • Failure to properly supervise non-attorney support staff or sponsoring personnel outside of your supervisory authority;
  • Failure to carefully review draft documents prepared by others before submission to the USPTO;
  • Improperly sharing login credentials for MyUSPTO accounts; and
  • “Renting” your attorney license to foreign actors (a variation of improper sharing of login credentials).

Clear “Red Flags”

During this session, we also discussed some clear “red flags” highlighted in these opinions about which we should all be aware (and should avoid): (1) being asked by a foreign employer/client to take over as attorney of record for a large volume of applications on behalf of a large number of individual applicants/registrants, all at once; (2) being asked to sponsor USPTO.gov filing accounts on behalf of someone outside your firm (perhaps under the guise of providing you with a “convenience” or a “time-saving” promise), especially if these account holders are located overseas; and (3) other cold solicitations offering seemingly “too good to be true” business opportunities and promising that if you “just agree” to their terms of engagement, you’d be immediately in charge of a large book of business under your name, representing a routine source of revenue.

These may seem like appealing offers – and they might seem like legitimate “foreign associate” relationships that you may have heard other trademark attorneys describe. Especially if you are a newer attorney under pressure to develop your own book of business quickly. But more than one enterprising attorney has been duped by these promises, and participating in these schemes can result in a public reprimand, a temporary suspension or exclusion from practice before the USPTO (37 C.F.R § 11.22(h) or § 11.27) – or even the reporting of any resulting disciplinary action to the attorney licensing board of your own state. Id. § 11.59 (“… Unless otherwise ordered by the USPTO Director, the OED Director shall give notice of public discipline and the reasons for the discipline to disciplinary enforcement agencies in the State where the practitioner is admitted to practice, to courts where the practitioner is known to be admitted, and the public. …”) (emphasis added).

Some Specific Recommendations from the Stage

Here are some of the recommendations that were suggested during the panel discussion (see Slide 24):

  • When you undertake the ID.me verification process to confirm your identity – required as an initial step in order to set up a MyUSPTO account – use a personal email address, over which you exercise control regardless of your employment status.  Your MyUSPTO account should be linked to the email address under which you practice trademark law (including an email address controlled by your employer), but your ID.me verified account is personal to you, based on your government-issued ID, and is relied upon by several government agencies (including the IRS, Veterans’ Affairs and the Social Security Administration) to prove that you are who you say you are. (If you verified an ID.me account through an email that is not under your control – including those held by former employers – notify the USPTO and ID.me as soon as possible to correct this.)
  • Do not give your MyUSPTO.gov filing credentials to others.  Any submissions under your MyUSPTO account login will count as your Rule 11 signature and should be secured against unauthorized use by others.
  • Know the rules for sponsoring accounts.  Don’t sponsor accounts for personnel whom you don’t actually supervise.  Remove any sponsorship immediately if any such sponsored employees leave the firm/company – or if you leave that firm where they remain.  While sponsorships are active under your account, you will be responsible for all actions taken by these sponsored personnel.
  • Actively monitor your MyUSPTO account and periodically search the USPTO’s records for all filings under your name so that you can take appropriate action if someone purports to file an unauthorized document on your behalf which you did not actually review and approve before filing.

Other Resources

In many of the attorney disciplinary actions, the OED provided a list of other attorney disciplinary decisions impacting trademark attorneys, including signature violations, failure to supervise, failure to review filings with sufficient attention prior to submission, improper sponsorship of non-attorney support staff, and improperly sharing USPTO.gov credentials.  Below is the long version, excerpted from In re Carlo Nardone, Proceeding No. D2025-32 at 12-13 (May 20, 2026 Final Order):  Continue reading …