1. “Whether the domicile address requirement is invalid because it is not a logical outgrowth of the PTO’s notice of proposed rulemaking, which affirmatively repudiated any impact on U.S. applicants and any new reporting requirements.”
2. “Whether the domicile address requirement is arbitrary and capricious where the PTO failed to provide any explanation for its adoption, failed to consider the requirement’s obvious impacts on applicant privacy, and failed to consider obvious alternatives like exempting applicants represented by U.S. counsel.”
3. “Whether the PTO’s denial of Chestek’s trademark application was arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordance with law.”
1. “The USPTO’s requirement for applicants to provide a domicile address under 37 C.F.R. §§ 2.32(a)(2) and 2.189 is therefore a procedural rule that is excepted from notice-and-comment rulemaking.”
2. “The USPTO’s decision to require the address provided by all applicants to be a domicile address was therefore not arbitrary or capricious for failure to provide a reasoned justification.”
3. “Because we conclude the USPTO properly promulgated the domicile address requirement and Chestek failed to comply with this requirement, we affirm the Board’s refusal to register Chestek’s mark.”
