The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit confirmed the US Patent & Trademark Office’s (PTO) refusal to register a trademark based on the applicant’s failure to comply with the domicile address requirement of 37 C.F.R. §§ 2.32(a)(2) and 2.189. In re Chestek PLLC, Case No. 22-1843 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 13. 2024) (Lourie, Chen, Stoll, JJ.)

Chestek included only a PO box for its domicile address in its trademark application. The PTO found this information noncompliant with the domicile address rule, which requires trademark applicants to either have a domicile within the United States or be represented by US counsel. The PTO implemented the requirement in 2019 following a notice-and-comment period. Chestek appealed the PTO’s refusal to register based on the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and challenged the processes surrounding implementation of the domicile address requirement.

Chestek first argued that the requirement was improperly instituted because the PTO failed to comply with the notice-and-comment rulemaking requirement under 5 U.S.C. § 533 by failing to provide notice of the domicile address requirement adopted in the final rule. However, the Federal Circuit held that the formalities of the notice-and-comment were not required under § 533(b)(A) because the rule was procedural, not substantive (i.e., effecting a change in existing law or policy that affects individual rights and obligations). As the Court explained, the rule did not affect the substantive trademark standards used during examination to evaluate applications but was simply an applicant information requirement.

Chestek next argued that the domicile address requirement was arbitrary and capricious because in implementing the final rule, the PTO “offered an insufficient justification for the domicile address requirement” and failed to consider important repercussions of the requirement, such as its effects on privacy. The Federal Circuit rebuffed that argument, explaining that the domicile requirement and the explanations given for it (determining whether the US attorney requirement applied) were “at least reasonably discernable.” The Court stated that as long as an agency does not give “almost no reason at all” for a new policy, the change is sufficiently justified and not arbitrary or capricious. The Court also noted that the APA does not require an agency to consider and respond to every impact of a proposed policy change.