Offshore Filing Services and the US Attorney Rule

Why foreign-domiciled applicants must use a US attorney, and how some services work around it.

Since 2019 the USPTO has required applicants whose domicile is outside the United States to be represented by a US-licensed attorney. The rule exists because a large volume of foreign-origin filings were being submitted with false claims of use and other defects. It also created a market for services that appear to satisfy the requirement without genuinely doing so.

What the rule requires

If you are domiciled outside the United States, an attorney licensed in a US state must represent you before the USPTO. The attorney's name and bar information go on the record. This is not optional and applications that fail it are refused.

How some services work around it

The pattern the USPTO has sanctioned filers over involves an attorney's name and signature appearing on filings that the attorney did not prepare, did not review, and sometimes did not know about. Applicants pay a low-cost overseas service; a US attorney's credentials appear on the paperwork; the attorney has no real involvement. When this is discovered, the applications are typically terminated.

Why the applicant bears the loss

Filings made this way can be struck even years later, and the fees are not returned. The overseas service is usually beyond practical reach. The applicant is left with no registration, no money, and a public record showing a terminated application.

How to check your attorney is real and involved

Any US-licensed attorney in good standing may practise trademark law before the USPTO — unlike patents, there is no separate USPTO registration for trademark attorneys, so "USPTO-registered trademark attorney" is not a meaningful credential. What you can verify is state bar licensure, which every state publishes. Confirm the name on your filing matches the person you actually spoke to.

Quick checks

Official sources

Why we do not name companies

These pages describe patterns, not businesses. Some senders of these solicitations are outright fraudulent; others are technically legal private services whose marketing is merely misleading. Telling them apart requires evidence we do not have, and calling a named company a scam is a statement of fact about an identifiable business.

Recognising the pattern protects you just as well. Where a specific operator matters, the USPTO publishes examples of misleading notices and its own sanction decisions — USPTO: Caution on misleading notices.

More on trademark scams