Carrie B. Davis

Carolyn Husmann (Of Counsel-St. Louis, MO) has been appointed Vice Chair of DRI's Asbestos Litigation Committee, effective at the conclusion of DRI's Annual Meeting in October 2026. In this role, Carolyn will support the committee’s work connecting defense attorneys nationwide to address emerging issues affecting asbestos litigation. Carolyn has been an active and engaged member of DRI for many years and currently holds leadership roles within DRI’s Asbestos Litigation Committee, Women in the Law Committee, and the DRI Foundation. Her involvement with DRI spans nearly a decade and includes several leadership roles with the Women in the Law Committee since 2016. She also served as a Member at Large of the DRI Cares Committee from 2018 to 2023, has served as a Member at Large of the DRI Foundation since 2024, and currently serves as the DRI Cares Liaison for the Asbestos Litigation Committee. In addition, Carolyn contributed to the organization’s annual meeting as a member of the Annual Meeting Steering Committee in both 2021 and 2022, and served as an At-Large Member of DRI’s Nominating Committee during the 2025 Annual Meeting. Her appointment as Vice Chair of the Asbestos Litigation Committee further reflects her continued leadership, service, and commitment to DRI and its members.

James K. Thurston (Partner-Chicago, IL) and Siobhán A. Mueller (Of Counsel-New York, NY) will present the Wilson Elser Forum webinar “Indemnification of D&Os and Impact on Side A or Side B Coverage” on October 6, 2026. This presentation examines how corporate indemnification obligations owed to directors and officers interact with the coverage structure of D&O insurance policies, focusing on Side A (non-indemnified loss) and Side B (corporate reimbursement) coverage. The presenters address the layered architecture of D&O programs, including policy limits, retentions, and the interplay among primary and excess carriers, as well as circumstances in which corporate indemnification may be unavailable, including derivative suit judgments, securities law violations, failure to meet statutory standards of conduct, financial inability, and wrongful refusal to indemnify. Other topics include the scope and limits of mandatory and permissive indemnification, an insurer's obligation to advance defense costs, and how the availability or unavailability of corporate indemnification determines whether a claim triggers Side A or Side B coverage. The presentation also explores presumptive indemnification provisions and order-of-payments clauses, as well as the strategic benefits of standalone Side A policies, including protection against limit-of-liability dilution, broader coverage terms, bankruptcy-related asset protections, and difference-in-conditions (DIC) drop-down features. These policies can serve as the ultimate safety net for directors and officers when corporate indemnification and traditional ABC policy coverage fall short.

Kadeem Wolliaston (Associate-Albany) is quoted extensively in the article “Next Gen: Millennial Attorneys on What They’ve Learned and Where They’re Headed,” appearing in the Upstate New York edition of Super Lawyers® magazine on September 28, 2026. The 20th Anniversary edition features Kadeem and three other attorneys ‒ all Super Lawyers Rising Star listees ‒ on its cover and interviews them about their roots, what drew them to the practice of law, early obstacles, and their thoughts about the road ahead. Kadeem, a first-generation American from a Jamaican family, explains, “I was drawn to the law because it is one of those professions where your mind is constantly being challenged. What appealed to me … was that the law is not static: You’re constantly solving problems, advocating, analyzing risks, communicating with different audiences, and wearing different hats.” When questioned about what he might change about his chosen profession, Kadeem expresses that “litigation is naturally adversarial, and that’s part of the job, but there is a difference between advocacy and making the process harder than it should be. At times, the practice can be delayed with posturing instead of focusing on the actual dispute and a path towards resolution.” Kadeem has earned the respect of clients and colleagues alike, with a practice focus that includes civil litigation, insurance coverage disputes, health care matters, and appellate work. Read the Article

Introduction For many businesses, a mailing address is an operational detail. For small businesses that are primarily internet-based and operate remotely or without a brick-and-mortar location, a business address is often created at a co-working space or a mail drop.  In trademark filings, however, the wrong address can delay examination, trigger an Office Action, increase costs, and put registration at risk. Recent enforcement of the USPTO’s domicile address requirement has made this a front-line filing issue for brand owners and their counsel. Etsy, TikTok and other platform-based businesses without a physical facility must take notice that simple mail drops and co-working spaces are insufficient to support a trademark application.  This article explains the domicile address requirement, identifies the address types most likely to draw scrutiny, and explains ways to preserve privacy when the owner’s true domicile is a home address. The Domicile Address Requirement Since August 2019, the USPTO has required every trademark applicant and registrant, whether U.S. or foreign-domiciled, to provide and maintain a current domicile address on the application record. Over the past several months, we have seen examiners become more stringent with this requirement, and they are performing their own investigations into the address submitted.  They are also challenging trademark filers who use shared workspaces as their address. The requirement serves two purposes: (1) confirming the owner’s identity and geographic location, and (2) determining whether the applicant must be represented by an attorney licensed to practice in the United States.  The domicile address requirement can create avoidable problems when a business lists a P.O. Box, virtual office, shared workspace, registered agent address, commercial mail receiving agency, private mailbox, or similar address as its domicile. These addresses may be legitimate and useful for mail handling, privacy, state filings, insurance documents, marketing materials, or customer-facing operations. But for USPTO trademark purposes, the key question is whether the address identifies where an individual applicant actually lives, or where a company’s senior executives or officers direct and control the business.  This issue is particularly relevant for small businesses, brand managers, founders, and legal teams because many modern companies do not operate from a traditional headquarters. Remote-first businesses, online retailers, professional services firms, and home-based companies often rely on co-working spaces, virtual offices, registered agents, or mail service providers. Those arrangements may make sound business sense, but they should be reviewed before they are used in a trademark application. A filing-stage address decision can affect timing, privacy, and the risk of receiving an avoidable Office Action. Defining “Domicile” Under the Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP): Individual applicant: The place where the person resides and intends to be the person’s principal home. Juristic entity (corporation, LLC, partnership, etc.): The principal place of business, where senior executives or officers direct, control, and coordinate the entity’s activities. Domicile is not the same as a mailing address. A mailing address is where correspondence is received or where the business presents itself publicly. The domicile is where the owner is actually based, not merely where mail is received. This distinction matters because many businesses have multiple addresses: a registered agent address, mailbox, coworking suite, home office, or leadership location. For trademark filing purposes, those addresses are not automatically interchangeable. The address that works for one business function may not satisfy the USPTO’s domicile requirement.  Address Types that Invite Scrutiny USPTO Examination Guide 3-23 (the Domicile Address Requirement for Trademark Applicants and Registrants (July 2023), instructs examining attorneys to review, and presumptively refuse, domicile addresses that do not identify an actual physical location where the applicant resides or conducts business. The following address types are particularly at risk: P.O. Boxes Virtual offices or executive-suite addresses Commercial mail receiving agencies (CMRAs) and private mailboxes (PMBs) Registered-agent or “care of” addresses Co-working or shared-workspace addresses used solely for mail These addresses may be perfectly appropriate for mail handling, state filings, or customer-facing operations. But the USPTO’s question is narrow: does the address identify where the owner actually lives (for an individual) or where senior executives direct and control the business (for an entity)? If it does not, the examining attorney will likely refuse it, even if the same address was previously accepted on another record. See In re Chestek PLLC, 92 F.4th 1105 (Fed. Cir. 2024). TMEP § 601.01(c)(i) specifically states that the USPTO does not accept virtual offices as domicile addresses. The fact that an address was previously accepted on another application is not dispositive; examining attorneys evaluate each filing independently. | Federal Circuit Authority: In re Chestek PLLC In In re Chestek PLLC, 92 F.4th 1105 (Fed. Cir. 2024), the Federal Circuit affirmed the refusal of a trademark application where the applicant provided only a P.O. Box and failed to supply an acceptable domicile address. The court’s holding underscores that the domicile requirement is substantive, not merely procedural, and that noncompliance is a valid basis for refusal. Applicants should, therefore, treat domicile as a filing requirement of equal importance to the identification of goods and services, not as a clerical detail to revisit later. Protecting Privacy When the Domicile Is a Home Address Many individual owners and small-business founders will find that their true domicile is a personal home address. Most business owners and executives do not want to publicly reveal their home addresses and take steps to protect their privacy. Given heightened awareness of personal security, the desire to keep one’s home address private is understandable. The USPTO’s electronic filing system provides a mechanism to keep that address private but only if the form is used correctly. Dedicated domicile field: The domicile address entered in the USPTO’s dedicated domicile field is generally not publicly viewable on the Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) system. Mailing address: The mailing address is publicly viewable. This can be a business address, P.O. Box, or even counsel’s address. Critical trap: If the same address is entered as both the mailing address and the domicile address, the address becomes publicly viewable. Similarly, if a private domicile address appears elsewhere in the filing, such as in an attachment, cover letter, or response narrative, it may become part of the public record. The practical takeaway: decide before filing which address will be public-facing and which will appear only in the dedicated domicile field. Do not duplicate the private address anywhere else in the submission. If the USPTO Questions the Address Even with careful planning, the examining attorney may issue a domicile-related Office Action. Examiners are more frequently performing their own investigations of addresses, and if they learn that the address is for a mail drop or a shared workspace, a rejection is likely to follow.  If an Office Action is issued, note: A Change of Address form alone will not resolve the issue if the address on file remains unacceptable. The response must address the domicile requirement directly, either by providing an acceptable address or by explaining, with supporting documentation, why the address already on record qualifies.  Even if a co-working space is used, one may need to provide evidence that it is actually the location where business is typically conducted and directed. An informal request for an Examiner’s Amendment will not suffice; the USPTO has stated that domicile issues require a formal response. In extraordinary circumstances, an applicant may petition the Director to waive the requirement under 37 C.F.R. § 2.146, but such a petition does not extend or replace the deadline for a timely Office Action response.  So, while one waits for the Director to respond, the trademark applicant must still address an open Office Action. Speed matters. A domicile Office Action can delay examination and if it is not addressed within the response period, it can result in abandonment. Pre-Filing Checklist The domicile address requirement is not new, but it has become more important in practice as more businesses operate remotely and rely on virtual offices, shared workspaces, registered agents, or mail service addresses. The USPTO has issued guidance explaining how examiners evaluate domicile addresses. The practical message for businesses is simple: address strategy should be part of trademark filing strategy from the beginning. Before filing or renewing a trademark application, confirm the following: 1. Identify the true domicile. For an individual, this is the principal home. For an entity, it is the principal place of business where senior executives or officers direct and control the business: not the registered-agent address, not a virtual office, not a coworking suite used only for mail. 2. Distinguish domicile from mailing address. Determine which address will serve as the public-facing mailing address and which will go only in the dedicated domicile field. 3. Do not duplicate. Enter the private domicile address only in the domicile field. Do not repeat it as the mailing address, and do not include it in attachments, or in any free-text narrative. 4. Review existing registrations. Audit the domicile address on current registrations and pending applications. A domicile address that was accepted in the past may be questioned at renewal or on a new filing. 5. Coordinate across stakeholders. Brand managers, marketing teams, in-house counsel, and outside trademark counsel should agree on the address strategy before filing, especially when an entity operates remotely or uses non-traditional addresses. 6. Document the domicile basis. Maintain records (e.g., lease, utility bills, workspace usage calendars and meetings, officer attestation, corporate resolution) that can support the domicile address if challenged. 7. Consult counsel early. If there is any doubt about whether an address qualifies, resolve it before filing, not after an Office Action issues. Conclusion The domicile address requirement is not new, but its enforcement has sharpened as more businesses operate remotely and rely on virtual offices, shared workspaces, and mail-forwarding services. The rule is manageable when addressed proactively: identify the true domicile, separate it from the mailing address, protect privacy by using the correct fields, and prepare supporting documentation in advance. A few filing-stage decisions can prevent delays, protect sensitive personal information, and keep trademark applications on track. This issue concerns individuals who care about the intersection of trademark prosecution and personal privacy and physical protection. Wilson Elser has robust trademark and privacy prosecution practices.  For questions about domicile address compliance, filing strategy, privacy-protective submissions, or responding to domicile-related Office Actions, please contact the authors or your Wilson Elser relationship attorney.

Super Lawyers® has named four attorneys from Wilson Elser’s Houston office to the 2026 Texas Super Lawyers® and Rising Stars™ lists: Super Lawyers Kent M. Adams (Senior Counsel) Personal Injury General: Defense Linda P. Wills (Partner) Employment & Labor Rising Stars Lina Al-Salim (Of Counsel) Personal Injury Medical Malpractice: Plaintiff Kelsi Wade Piatkowski (Partner) Personal Injury General: Defense Super Lawyers, a Thomson Reuters business, is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The Rising Stars lists, comprising the best attorneys who are 40 years of age and younger or who have practiced law for 10 years or less, are published nationwide in Super Lawyers magazines and in leading city and regional magazines across the country. No more than 2.5 percent of the lawyers in the state are named to these lists.

Nicholas D. Freeman (Of Counsel-Orlando, FL) and Katherine E. Tammaro (Partner-Madison, NJ) will present the Wilson Elser Forum webinar “Practical Advice for Maintaining an Unimpeachable Claim File – File Management and Documentation” on October 8, 2026. This presentation offers practical guidance on maintaining a claim file that will withstand the rigors of coverage and bad faith litigation. It addresses best practices for documenting a claim file throughout the claims process, including how to clearly and appropriately document coverage-related decisions and communications. The presenters also examine best practices for working with outside coverage counsel, including how to preserve privilege while ensuring the claim file does not contain unnecessary or problematic documentation that could later be used to support a bad faith finding.

Otis Felder (Partner-Los Angeles, CA) will participate in a panel discussion at the Pacific Admiralty Seminar in San Francisco. Otis and his fellow panelists will explore change management strategies for legal organizations adopting AI; lessons from claims handling and maritime litigation that can inform AI adoption; and pedagogical perspectives on AI in legal writing instruction. Having presented on AI and claims handling at the annual CLM convention earlier this year, Otis brings 30 years of litigation experience, deep maritime practice experience, and cutting-edge AI scholarship to the conversation, positioning him as a uniquely qualified voice for attorneys and organizations navigating the legal and organizational challenges presented by artificial intelligence.

Sunny Rehsi (Of Counsel-Detroit, MI) coauthored “Ontario’s 15-Year Ultimate Limitation Period Bars Old Product Liability Lawsuits,” appearing in the September 2026 edition of DRI’s publication For the Defense. The article examines how Ontario’s 15-year ultimate limitation period can bar product liability claims involving older products, even where an injury occurs recently and the plaintiff sues within the ordinary two-year discoverability period. The authors explain that recent Ontario decisions, including Huether v. Sharpe and Hennebury v. Makita Canada Inc., clarify that a plaintiff cannot avoid the limitation period simply by characterizing an alleged failure to warn or other duty as “continuing”; there must be “successive or repeated actionable conduct” by the defendant. Referring to Hennebury, Sunny highlights the ruling’s significance for U.S. manufacturers, distributors, and insurers, noting that “the key limitation question is not simply when the plaintiff was injured or when the claim was discovered,” but when the underlying act or omission occurred. For product defendants, the practical lesson is to investigate the chronology of design, manufacture, distribution, warnings, recalls, and post-sale conduct at the outset of an Ontario claim and assess whether the 15-year ultimate limitation period provides a basis for an early dispositive motion.

Carrie Davis (Of Counsel-Atlanta, GA), Michael Manfredi (Partner-Atlanta, GA), and Chad Capers (Associate-Atlanta, GA) secured summary judgment in the State Court of Fulton County, Georgia, for Wilson Elser’s client, a real estate group primarily dealing in retail and mixed-use properties. The suit arose after an incident at a shopping center in Fulton County during which the plaintiff allegedly sustained serious injuries. The plaintiff alleged that she came to the shopping center to meet a coworker to exchange keys and then shop at a store there. While speaking with her coworker, an unknown assailant entered the plaintiff’s unlocked, running vehicle. As she attempted to stop the assailant, she was dragged through the parking lot, which was owned by a large American general merchandise retailer. Wilson Elser moved for summary judgment on the grounds that our client was neither an owner nor occupier of the premises; the plaintiff was not an invitee; the client did possess superior knowledge of criminal activity on the property; the plaintiff’s theory of proximate causation is conjectural; and the plaintiff’s own conduct was the proximate cause of her injuries ‒ due to a lack of due care and because she engaged in mutual combat. The judge granted the motion, concurring with the Atlanta team’s arguments that the plaintiff failed to prove our client had the requisite knowledge of other criminal activity on the property to make this incident foreseeable, and that the plaintiff failed to prove any additional or different security measures would have prevented it.

Pernell Choren (Of Counsel-Washington, DC) and Catherine Hanrahan (Partner-Washington, DC) obtained summary judgment on behalf of a global logistics and courier company client in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, after more than two years of extensive litigation. The case arose from the alleged loss of a personal package that was shipped internationally from Iran to the District. The plaintiff claimed that the firm’s client failed to properly deliver the package and sued for negligence. After the trial was continued in February 2026, the court expressed willingness to entertain additional motion practice. Perry and Catherine filed a motion for summary judgment, supported by detailed shipping documentation demonstrating the client owed no duty of care to the plaintiff. They further established that the plaintiff failed to identify any expert witnesses or produce evidence of a standard of care the client allegedly violated, a necessary element of the negligence claim. In a thorough eight-page Order, the court agreed with the defense on all points, finding that the undisputed material facts were insufficient to demonstrate that the client owed any duty to the plaintiff and that the elements of his negligence claim could not be met. The court granted the motion, entered judgment in favor of the client, and closed the case.

Kadeem Wolliaston (Associate-Albany) is quoted extensively in the article “Next Gen: Millennial Attorneys on What They’ve Learned and Where They’re Headed,” appearing in the Upstate New York edition of Super Lawyers® magazine on September 28, 2026. The 20th Anniversary edition features Kadeem and three other attorneys ‒ all Super Lawyers Rising Star listees ‒ on its cover and interviews them about their roots, what drew them to the practice of law, early obstacles, and their thoughts about the road ahead. Kadeem, a first-generation American from a Jamaican family, explains, “I was drawn to the law because it is one of those professions where your mind is constantly being challenged. What appealed to me … was that the law is not static: You’re constantly solving problems, advocating, analyzing risks, communicating with different audiences, and wearing different hats.” When questioned about what he might change about his chosen profession, Kadeem expresses that “litigation is naturally adversarial, and that’s part of the job, but there is a difference between advocacy and making the process harder than it should be. At times, the practice can be delayed with posturing instead of focusing on the actual dispute and a path towards resolution.” Kadeem has earned the respect of clients and colleagues alike, with a practice focus that includes civil litigation, insurance coverage disputes, health care matters, and appellate work. Read the Article

James K. Thurston (Partner-Chicago, IL) and Siobhán A. Mueller (Of Counsel-New York, NY) will present the Wilson Elser Forum webinar “Indemnification of D&Os and Impact on Side A or Side B Coverage” on October 6, 2026. This presentation examines how corporate indemnification obligations owed to directors and officers interact with the coverage structure of D&O insurance policies, focusing on Side A (non-indemnified loss) and Side B (corporate reimbursement) coverage. The presenters address the layered architecture of D&O programs, including policy limits, retentions, and the interplay among primary and excess carriers, as well as circumstances in which corporate indemnification may be unavailable, including derivative suit judgments, securities law violations, failure to meet statutory standards of conduct, financial inability, and wrongful refusal to indemnify. Other topics include the scope and limits of mandatory and permissive indemnification, an insurer's obligation to advance defense costs, and how the availability or unavailability of corporate indemnification determines whether a claim triggers Side A or Side B coverage. The presentation also explores presumptive indemnification provisions and order-of-payments clauses, as well as the strategic benefits of standalone Side A policies, including protection against limit-of-liability dilution, broader coverage terms, bankruptcy-related asset protections, and difference-in-conditions (DIC) drop-down features. These policies can serve as the ultimate safety net for directors and officers when corporate indemnification and traditional ABC policy coverage fall short.

Carolyn Husmann (Of Counsel-St. Louis, MO) has been appointed Vice Chair of DRI's Asbestos Litigation Committee, effective at the conclusion of DRI's Annual Meeting in October 2026. In this role, Carolyn will support the committee’s work connecting defense attorneys nationwide to address emerging issues affecting asbestos litigation. Carolyn has been an active and engaged member of DRI for many years and currently holds leadership roles within DRI’s Asbestos Litigation Committee, Women in the Law Committee, and the DRI Foundation. Her involvement with DRI spans nearly a decade and includes several leadership roles with the Women in the Law Committee since 2016. She also served as a Member at Large of the DRI Cares Committee from 2018 to 2023, has served as a Member at Large of the DRI Foundation since 2024, and currently serves as the DRI Cares Liaison for the Asbestos Litigation Committee. In addition, Carolyn contributed to the organization’s annual meeting as a member of the Annual Meeting Steering Committee in both 2021 and 2022, and served as an At-Large Member of DRI’s Nominating Committee during the 2025 Annual Meeting. Her appointment as Vice Chair of the Asbestos Litigation Committee further reflects her continued leadership, service, and commitment to DRI and its members.

Introduction For many businesses, a mailing address is an operational detail. For small businesses that are primarily internet-based and operate remotely or without a brick-and-mortar location, a business address is often created at a co-working space or a mail drop.  In trademark filings, however, the wrong address can delay examination, trigger an Office Action, increase costs, and put registration at risk. Recent enforcement of the USPTO’s domicile address requirement has made this a front-line filing issue for brand owners and their counsel. Etsy, TikTok and other platform-based businesses without a physical facility must take notice that simple mail drops and co-working spaces are insufficient to support a trademark application.  This article explains the domicile address requirement, identifies the address types most likely to draw scrutiny, and explains ways to preserve privacy when the owner’s true domicile is a home address. The Domicile Address Requirement Since August 2019, the USPTO has required every trademark applicant and registrant, whether U.S. or foreign-domiciled, to provide and maintain a current domicile address on the application record. Over the past several months, we have seen examiners become more stringent with this requirement, and they are performing their own investigations into the address submitted.  They are also challenging trademark filers who use shared workspaces as their address. The requirement serves two purposes: (1) confirming the owner’s identity and geographic location, and (2) determining whether the applicant must be represented by an attorney licensed to practice in the United States.  The domicile address requirement can create avoidable problems when a business lists a P.O. Box, virtual office, shared workspace, registered agent address, commercial mail receiving agency, private mailbox, or similar address as its domicile. These addresses may be legitimate and useful for mail handling, privacy, state filings, insurance documents, marketing materials, or customer-facing operations. But for USPTO trademark purposes, the key question is whether the address identifies where an individual applicant actually lives, or where a company’s senior executives or officers direct and control the business.  This issue is particularly relevant for small businesses, brand managers, founders, and legal teams because many modern companies do not operate from a traditional headquarters. Remote-first businesses, online retailers, professional services firms, and home-based companies often rely on co-working spaces, virtual offices, registered agents, or mail service providers. Those arrangements may make sound business sense, but they should be reviewed before they are used in a trademark application. A filing-stage address decision can affect timing, privacy, and the risk of receiving an avoidable Office Action. Defining “Domicile” Under the Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP): Individual applicant: The place where the person resides and intends to be the person’s principal home. Juristic entity (corporation, LLC, partnership, etc.): The principal place of business, where senior executives or officers direct, control, and coordinate the entity’s activities. Domicile is not the same as a mailing address. A mailing address is where correspondence is received or where the business presents itself publicly. The domicile is where the owner is actually based, not merely where mail is received. This distinction matters because many businesses have multiple addresses: a registered agent address, mailbox, coworking suite, home office, or leadership location. For trademark filing purposes, those addresses are not automatically interchangeable. The address that works for one business function may not satisfy the USPTO’s domicile requirement.  Address Types that Invite Scrutiny USPTO Examination Guide 3-23 (the Domicile Address Requirement for Trademark Applicants and Registrants (July 2023), instructs examining attorneys to review, and presumptively refuse, domicile addresses that do not identify an actual physical location where the applicant resides or conducts business. The following address types are particularly at risk: P.O. Boxes Virtual offices or executive-suite addresses Commercial mail receiving agencies (CMRAs) and private mailboxes (PMBs) Registered-agent or “care of” addresses Co-working or shared-workspace addresses used solely for mail These addresses may be perfectly appropriate for mail handling, state filings, or customer-facing operations. But the USPTO’s question is narrow: does the address identify where the owner actually lives (for an individual) or where senior executives direct and control the business (for an entity)? If it does not, the examining attorney will likely refuse it, even if the same address was previously accepted on another record. See In re Chestek PLLC, 92 F.4th 1105 (Fed. Cir. 2024). TMEP § 601.01(c)(i) specifically states that the USPTO does not accept virtual offices as domicile addresses. The fact that an address was previously accepted on another application is not dispositive; examining attorneys evaluate each filing independently. | Federal Circuit Authority: In re Chestek PLLC In In re Chestek PLLC, 92 F.4th 1105 (Fed. Cir. 2024), the Federal Circuit affirmed the refusal of a trademark application where the applicant provided only a P.O. Box and failed to supply an acceptable domicile address. The court’s holding underscores that the domicile requirement is substantive, not merely procedural, and that noncompliance is a valid basis for refusal. Applicants should, therefore, treat domicile as a filing requirement of equal importance to the identification of goods and services, not as a clerical detail to revisit later. Protecting Privacy When the Domicile Is a Home Address Many individual owners and small-business founders will find that their true domicile is a personal home address. Most business owners and executives do not want to publicly reveal their home addresses and take steps to protect their privacy. Given heightened awareness of personal security, the desire to keep one’s home address private is understandable. The USPTO’s electronic filing system provides a mechanism to keep that address private but only if the form is used correctly. Dedicated domicile field: The domicile address entered in the USPTO’s dedicated domicile field is generally not publicly viewable on the Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) system. Mailing address: The mailing address is publicly viewable. This can be a business address, P.O. Box, or even counsel’s address. Critical trap: If the same address is entered as both the mailing address and the domicile address, the address becomes publicly viewable. Similarly, if a private domicile address appears elsewhere in the filing, such as in an attachment, cover letter, or response narrative, it may become part of the public record. The practical takeaway: decide before filing which address will be public-facing and which will appear only in the dedicated domicile field. Do not duplicate the private address anywhere else in the submission. If the USPTO Questions the Address Even with careful planning, the examining attorney may issue a domicile-related Office Action. Examiners are more frequently performing their own investigations of addresses, and if they learn that the address is for a mail drop or a shared workspace, a rejection is likely to follow.  If an Office Action is issued, note: A Change of Address form alone will not resolve the issue if the address on file remains unacceptable. The response must address the domicile requirement directly, either by providing an acceptable address or by explaining, with supporting documentation, why the address already on record qualifies.  Even if a co-working space is used, one may need to provide evidence that it is actually the location where business is typically conducted and directed. An informal request for an Examiner’s Amendment will not suffice; the USPTO has stated that domicile issues require a formal response. In extraordinary circumstances, an applicant may petition the Director to waive the requirement under 37 C.F.R. § 2.146, but such a petition does not extend or replace the deadline for a timely Office Action response.  So, while one waits for the Director to respond, the trademark applicant must still address an open Office Action. Speed matters. A domicile Office Action can delay examination and if it is not addressed within the response period, it can result in abandonment. Pre-Filing Checklist The domicile address requirement is not new, but it has become more important in practice as more businesses operate remotely and rely on virtual offices, shared workspaces, registered agents, or mail service addresses. The USPTO has issued guidance explaining how examiners evaluate domicile addresses. The practical message for businesses is simple: address strategy should be part of trademark filing strategy from the beginning. Before filing or renewing a trademark application, confirm the following: 1. Identify the true domicile. For an individual, this is the principal home. For an entity, it is the principal place of business where senior executives or officers direct and control the business: not the registered-agent address, not a virtual office, not a coworking suite used only for mail. 2. Distinguish domicile from mailing address. Determine which address will serve as the public-facing mailing address and which will go only in the dedicated domicile field. 3. Do not duplicate. Enter the private domicile address only in the domicile field. Do not repeat it as the mailing address, and do not include it in attachments, or in any free-text narrative. 4. Review existing registrations. Audit the domicile address on current registrations and pending applications. A domicile address that was accepted in the past may be questioned at renewal or on a new filing. 5. Coordinate across stakeholders. Brand managers, marketing teams, in-house counsel, and outside trademark counsel should agree on the address strategy before filing, especially when an entity operates remotely or uses non-traditional addresses. 6. Document the domicile basis. Maintain records (e.g., lease, utility bills, workspace usage calendars and meetings, officer attestation, corporate resolution) that can support the domicile address if challenged. 7. Consult counsel early. If there is any doubt about whether an address qualifies, resolve it before filing, not after an Office Action issues. Conclusion The domicile address requirement is not new, but its enforcement has sharpened as more businesses operate remotely and rely on virtual offices, shared workspaces, and mail-forwarding services. The rule is manageable when addressed proactively: identify the true domicile, separate it from the mailing address, protect privacy by using the correct fields, and prepare supporting documentation in advance. A few filing-stage decisions can prevent delays, protect sensitive personal information, and keep trademark applications on track. This issue concerns individuals who care about the intersection of trademark prosecution and personal privacy and physical protection. Wilson Elser has robust trademark and privacy prosecution practices.  For questions about domicile address compliance, filing strategy, privacy-protective submissions, or responding to domicile-related Office Actions, please contact the authors or your Wilson Elser relationship attorney.

Super Lawyers® has named four attorneys from Wilson Elser’s Houston office to the 2026 Texas Super Lawyers® and Rising Stars™ lists: Super Lawyers Kent M. Adams (Senior Counsel) Personal Injury General: Defense Linda P. Wills (Partner) Employment & Labor Rising Stars Lina Al-Salim (Of Counsel) Personal Injury Medical Malpractice: Plaintiff Kelsi Wade Piatkowski (Partner) Personal Injury General: Defense Super Lawyers, a Thomson Reuters business, is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The Rising Stars lists, comprising the best attorneys who are 40 years of age and younger or who have practiced law for 10 years or less, are published nationwide in Super Lawyers magazines and in leading city and regional magazines across the country. No more than 2.5 percent of the lawyers in the state are named to these lists.

Nicholas D. Freeman (Of Counsel-Orlando, FL) and Katherine E. Tammaro (Partner-Madison, NJ) will present the Wilson Elser Forum webinar “Practical Advice for Maintaining an Unimpeachable Claim File – File Management and Documentation” on October 8, 2026. This presentation offers practical guidance on maintaining a claim file that will withstand the rigors of coverage and bad faith litigation. It addresses best practices for documenting a claim file throughout the claims process, including how to clearly and appropriately document coverage-related decisions and communications. The presenters also examine best practices for working with outside coverage counsel, including how to preserve privilege while ensuring the claim file does not contain unnecessary or problematic documentation that could later be used to support a bad faith finding.

Otis Felder (Partner-Los Angeles, CA) will participate in a panel discussion at the Pacific Admiralty Seminar in San Francisco. Otis and his fellow panelists will explore change management strategies for legal organizations adopting AI; lessons from claims handling and maritime litigation that can inform AI adoption; and pedagogical perspectives on AI in legal writing instruction. Having presented on AI and claims handling at the annual CLM convention earlier this year, Otis brings 30 years of litigation experience, deep maritime practice experience, and cutting-edge AI scholarship to the conversation, positioning him as a uniquely qualified voice for attorneys and organizations navigating the legal and organizational challenges presented by artificial intelligence.

Sunny Rehsi (Of Counsel-Detroit, MI) coauthored “Ontario’s 15-Year Ultimate Limitation Period Bars Old Product Liability Lawsuits,” appearing in the September 2026 edition of DRI’s publication For the Defense. The article examines how Ontario’s 15-year ultimate limitation period can bar product liability claims involving older products, even where an injury occurs recently and the plaintiff sues within the ordinary two-year discoverability period. The authors explain that recent Ontario decisions, including Huether v. Sharpe and Hennebury v. Makita Canada Inc., clarify that a plaintiff cannot avoid the limitation period simply by characterizing an alleged failure to warn or other duty as “continuing”; there must be “successive or repeated actionable conduct” by the defendant. Referring to Hennebury, Sunny highlights the ruling’s significance for U.S. manufacturers, distributors, and insurers, noting that “the key limitation question is not simply when the plaintiff was injured or when the claim was discovered,” but when the underlying act or omission occurred. For product defendants, the practical lesson is to investigate the chronology of design, manufacture, distribution, warnings, recalls, and post-sale conduct at the outset of an Ontario claim and assess whether the 15-year ultimate limitation period provides a basis for an early dispositive motion.

Carrie Davis (Of Counsel-Atlanta, GA), Michael Manfredi (Partner-Atlanta, GA), and Chad Capers (Associate-Atlanta, GA) secured summary judgment in the State Court of Fulton County, Georgia, for Wilson Elser’s client, a real estate group primarily dealing in retail and mixed-use properties. The suit arose after an incident at a shopping center in Fulton County during which the plaintiff allegedly sustained serious injuries. The plaintiff alleged that she came to the shopping center to meet a coworker to exchange keys and then shop at a store there. While speaking with her coworker, an unknown assailant entered the plaintiff’s unlocked, running vehicle. As she attempted to stop the assailant, she was dragged through the parking lot, which was owned by a large American general merchandise retailer. Wilson Elser moved for summary judgment on the grounds that our client was neither an owner nor occupier of the premises; the plaintiff was not an invitee; the client did possess superior knowledge of criminal activity on the property; the plaintiff’s theory of proximate causation is conjectural; and the plaintiff’s own conduct was the proximate cause of her injuries ‒ due to a lack of due care and because she engaged in mutual combat. The judge granted the motion, concurring with the Atlanta team’s arguments that the plaintiff failed to prove our client had the requisite knowledge of other criminal activity on the property to make this incident foreseeable, and that the plaintiff failed to prove any additional or different security measures would have prevented it.

Pernell Choren (Of Counsel-Washington, DC) and Catherine Hanrahan (Partner-Washington, DC) obtained summary judgment on behalf of a global logistics and courier company client in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, after more than two years of extensive litigation. The case arose from the alleged loss of a personal package that was shipped internationally from Iran to the District. The plaintiff claimed that the firm’s client failed to properly deliver the package and sued for negligence. After the trial was continued in February 2026, the court expressed willingness to entertain additional motion practice. Perry and Catherine filed a motion for summary judgment, supported by detailed shipping documentation demonstrating the client owed no duty of care to the plaintiff. They further established that the plaintiff failed to identify any expert witnesses or produce evidence of a standard of care the client allegedly violated, a necessary element of the negligence claim. In a thorough eight-page Order, the court agreed with the defense on all points, finding that the undisputed material facts were insufficient to demonstrate that the client owed any duty to the plaintiff and that the elements of his negligence claim could not be met. The court granted the motion, entered judgment in favor of the client, and closed the case.

Kadeem Wolliaston (Associate-Albany) is quoted extensively in the article “Next Gen: Millennial Attorneys on What They’ve Learned and Where They’re Headed,” appearing in the Upstate New York edition of Super Lawyers® magazine on September 28, 2026. The 20th Anniversary edition features Kadeem and three other attorneys ‒ all Super Lawyers Rising Star listees ‒ on its cover and interviews them about their roots, what drew them to the practice of law, early obstacles, and their thoughts about the road ahead. Kadeem, a first-generation American from a Jamaican family, explains, “I was drawn to the law because it is one of those professions where your mind is constantly being challenged. What appealed to me … was that the law is not static: You’re constantly solving problems, advocating, analyzing risks, communicating with different audiences, and wearing different hats.” When questioned about what he might change about his chosen profession, Kadeem expresses that “litigation is naturally adversarial, and that’s part of the job, but there is a difference between advocacy and making the process harder than it should be. At times, the practice can be delayed with posturing instead of focusing on the actual dispute and a path towards resolution.” Kadeem has earned the respect of clients and colleagues alike, with a practice focus that includes civil litigation, insurance coverage disputes, health care matters, and appellate work. Read the Article

James K. Thurston (Partner-Chicago, IL) and Siobhán A. Mueller (Of Counsel-New York, NY) will present the Wilson Elser Forum webinar “Indemnification of D&Os and Impact on Side A or Side B Coverage” on October 6, 2026. This presentation examines how corporate indemnification obligations owed to directors and officers interact with the coverage structure of D&O insurance policies, focusing on Side A (non-indemnified loss) and Side B (corporate reimbursement) coverage. The presenters address the layered architecture of D&O programs, including policy limits, retentions, and the interplay among primary and excess carriers, as well as circumstances in which corporate indemnification may be unavailable, including derivative suit judgments, securities law violations, failure to meet statutory standards of conduct, financial inability, and wrongful refusal to indemnify. Other topics include the scope and limits of mandatory and permissive indemnification, an insurer's obligation to advance defense costs, and how the availability or unavailability of corporate indemnification determines whether a claim triggers Side A or Side B coverage. The presentation also explores presumptive indemnification provisions and order-of-payments clauses, as well as the strategic benefits of standalone Side A policies, including protection against limit-of-liability dilution, broader coverage terms, bankruptcy-related asset protections, and difference-in-conditions (DIC) drop-down features. These policies can serve as the ultimate safety net for directors and officers when corporate indemnification and traditional ABC policy coverage fall short.

Carolyn Husmann (Of Counsel-St. Louis, MO) has been appointed Vice Chair of DRI's Asbestos Litigation Committee, effective at the conclusion of DRI's Annual Meeting in October 2026. In this role, Carolyn will support the committee’s work connecting defense attorneys nationwide to address emerging issues affecting asbestos litigation. Carolyn has been an active and engaged member of DRI for many years and currently holds leadership roles within DRI’s Asbestos Litigation Committee, Women in the Law Committee, and the DRI Foundation. Her involvement with DRI spans nearly a decade and includes several leadership roles with the Women in the Law Committee since 2016. She also served as a Member at Large of the DRI Cares Committee from 2018 to 2023, has served as a Member at Large of the DRI Foundation since 2024, and currently serves as the DRI Cares Liaison for the Asbestos Litigation Committee. In addition, Carolyn contributed to the organization’s annual meeting as a member of the Annual Meeting Steering Committee in both 2021 and 2022, and served as an At-Large Member of DRI’s Nominating Committee during the 2025 Annual Meeting. Her appointment as Vice Chair of the Asbestos Litigation Committee further reflects her continued leadership, service, and commitment to DRI and its members.

Introduction For many businesses, a mailing address is an operational detail. For small businesses that are primarily internet-based and operate remotely or without a brick-and-mortar location, a business address is often created at a co-working space or a mail drop.  In trademark filings, however, the wrong address can delay examination, trigger an Office Action, increase costs, and put registration at risk. Recent enforcement of the USPTO’s domicile address requirement has made this a front-line filing issue for brand owners and their counsel. Etsy, TikTok and other platform-based businesses without a physical facility must take notice that simple mail drops and co-working spaces are insufficient to support a trademark application.  This article explains the domicile address requirement, identifies the address types most likely to draw scrutiny, and explains ways to preserve privacy when the owner’s true domicile is a home address. The Domicile Address Requirement Since August 2019, the USPTO has required every trademark applicant and registrant, whether U.S. or foreign-domiciled, to provide and maintain a current domicile address on the application record. Over the past several months, we have seen examiners become more stringent with this requirement, and they are performing their own investigations into the address submitted.  They are also challenging trademark filers who use shared workspaces as their address. The requirement serves two purposes: (1) confirming the owner’s identity and geographic location, and (2) determining whether the applicant must be represented by an attorney licensed to practice in the United States.  The domicile address requirement can create avoidable problems when a business lists a P.O. Box, virtual office, shared workspace, registered agent address, commercial mail receiving agency, private mailbox, or similar address as its domicile. These addresses may be legitimate and useful for mail handling, privacy, state filings, insurance documents, marketing materials, or customer-facing operations. But for USPTO trademark purposes, the key question is whether the address identifies where an individual applicant actually lives, or where a company’s senior executives or officers direct and control the business.  This issue is particularly relevant for small businesses, brand managers, founders, and legal teams because many modern companies do not operate from a traditional headquarters. Remote-first businesses, online retailers, professional services firms, and home-based companies often rely on co-working spaces, virtual offices, registered agents, or mail service providers. Those arrangements may make sound business sense, but they should be reviewed before they are used in a trademark application. A filing-stage address decision can affect timing, privacy, and the risk of receiving an avoidable Office Action. Defining “Domicile” Under the Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP): Individual applicant: The place where the person resides and intends to be the person’s principal home. Juristic entity (corporation, LLC, partnership, etc.): The principal place of business, where senior executives or officers direct, control, and coordinate the entity’s activities. Domicile is not the same as a mailing address. A mailing address is where correspondence is received or where the business presents itself publicly. The domicile is where the owner is actually based, not merely where mail is received. This distinction matters because many businesses have multiple addresses: a registered agent address, mailbox, coworking suite, home office, or leadership location. For trademark filing purposes, those addresses are not automatically interchangeable. The address that works for one business function may not satisfy the USPTO’s domicile requirement.  Address Types that Invite Scrutiny USPTO Examination Guide 3-23 (the Domicile Address Requirement for Trademark Applicants and Registrants (July 2023), instructs examining attorneys to review, and presumptively refuse, domicile addresses that do not identify an actual physical location where the applicant resides or conducts business. The following address types are particularly at risk: P.O. Boxes Virtual offices or executive-suite addresses Commercial mail receiving agencies (CMRAs) and private mailboxes (PMBs) Registered-agent or “care of” addresses Co-working or shared-workspace addresses used solely for mail These addresses may be perfectly appropriate for mail handling, state filings, or customer-facing operations. But the USPTO’s question is narrow: does the address identify where the owner actually lives (for an individual) or where senior executives direct and control the business (for an entity)? If it does not, the examining attorney will likely refuse it, even if the same address was previously accepted on another record. See In re Chestek PLLC, 92 F.4th 1105 (Fed. Cir. 2024). TMEP § 601.01(c)(i) specifically states that the USPTO does not accept virtual offices as domicile addresses. The fact that an address was previously accepted on another application is not dispositive; examining attorneys evaluate each filing independently. | Federal Circuit Authority: In re Chestek PLLC In In re Chestek PLLC, 92 F.4th 1105 (Fed. Cir. 2024), the Federal Circuit affirmed the refusal of a trademark application where the applicant provided only a P.O. Box and failed to supply an acceptable domicile address. The court’s holding underscores that the domicile requirement is substantive, not merely procedural, and that noncompliance is a valid basis for refusal. Applicants should, therefore, treat domicile as a filing requirement of equal importance to the identification of goods and services, not as a clerical detail to revisit later. Protecting Privacy When the Domicile Is a Home Address Many individual owners and small-business founders will find that their true domicile is a personal home address. Most business owners and executives do not want to publicly reveal their home addresses and take steps to protect their privacy. Given heightened awareness of personal security, the desire to keep one’s home address private is understandable. The USPTO’s electronic filing system provides a mechanism to keep that address private but only if the form is used correctly. Dedicated domicile field: The domicile address entered in the USPTO’s dedicated domicile field is generally not publicly viewable on the Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) system. Mailing address: The mailing address is publicly viewable. This can be a business address, P.O. Box, or even counsel’s address. Critical trap: If the same address is entered as both the mailing address and the domicile address, the address becomes publicly viewable. Similarly, if a private domicile address appears elsewhere in the filing, such as in an attachment, cover letter, or response narrative, it may become part of the public record. The practical takeaway: decide before filing which address will be public-facing and which will appear only in the dedicated domicile field. Do not duplicate the private address anywhere else in the submission. If the USPTO Questions the Address Even with careful planning, the examining attorney may issue a domicile-related Office Action. Examiners are more frequently performing their own investigations of addresses, and if they learn that the address is for a mail drop or a shared workspace, a rejection is likely to follow.  If an Office Action is issued, note: A Change of Address form alone will not resolve the issue if the address on file remains unacceptable. The response must address the domicile requirement directly, either by providing an acceptable address or by explaining, with supporting documentation, why the address already on record qualifies.  Even if a co-working space is used, one may need to provide evidence that it is actually the location where business is typically conducted and directed. An informal request for an Examiner’s Amendment will not suffice; the USPTO has stated that domicile issues require a formal response. In extraordinary circumstances, an applicant may petition the Director to waive the requirement under 37 C.F.R. § 2.146, but such a petition does not extend or replace the deadline for a timely Office Action response.  So, while one waits for the Director to respond, the trademark applicant must still address an open Office Action. Speed matters. A domicile Office Action can delay examination and if it is not addressed within the response period, it can result in abandonment. Pre-Filing Checklist The domicile address requirement is not new, but it has become more important in practice as more businesses operate remotely and rely on virtual offices, shared workspaces, registered agents, or mail service addresses. The USPTO has issued guidance explaining how examiners evaluate domicile addresses. The practical message for businesses is simple: address strategy should be part of trademark filing strategy from the beginning. Before filing or renewing a trademark application, confirm the following: 1. Identify the true domicile. For an individual, this is the principal home. For an entity, it is the principal place of business where senior executives or officers direct and control the business: not the registered-agent address, not a virtual office, not a coworking suite used only for mail. 2. Distinguish domicile from mailing address. Determine which address will serve as the public-facing mailing address and which will go only in the dedicated domicile field. 3. Do not duplicate. Enter the private domicile address only in the domicile field. Do not repeat it as the mailing address, and do not include it in attachments, or in any free-text narrative. 4. Review existing registrations. Audit the domicile address on current registrations and pending applications. A domicile address that was accepted in the past may be questioned at renewal or on a new filing. 5. Coordinate across stakeholders. Brand managers, marketing teams, in-house counsel, and outside trademark counsel should agree on the address strategy before filing, especially when an entity operates remotely or uses non-traditional addresses. 6. Document the domicile basis. Maintain records (e.g., lease, utility bills, workspace usage calendars and meetings, officer attestation, corporate resolution) that can support the domicile address if challenged. 7. Consult counsel early. If there is any doubt about whether an address qualifies, resolve it before filing, not after an Office Action issues. Conclusion The domicile address requirement is not new, but its enforcement has sharpened as more businesses operate remotely and rely on virtual offices, shared workspaces, and mail-forwarding services. The rule is manageable when addressed proactively: identify the true domicile, separate it from the mailing address, protect privacy by using the correct fields, and prepare supporting documentation in advance. A few filing-stage decisions can prevent delays, protect sensitive personal information, and keep trademark applications on track. This issue concerns individuals who care about the intersection of trademark prosecution and personal privacy and physical protection. Wilson Elser has robust trademark and privacy prosecution practices.  For questions about domicile address compliance, filing strategy, privacy-protective submissions, or responding to domicile-related Office Actions, please contact the authors or your Wilson Elser relationship attorney.

Super Lawyers® has named four attorneys from Wilson Elser’s Houston office to the 2026 Texas Super Lawyers® and Rising Stars™ lists: Super Lawyers Kent M. Adams (Senior Counsel) Personal Injury General: Defense Linda P. Wills (Partner) Employment & Labor Rising Stars Lina Al-Salim (Of Counsel) Personal Injury Medical Malpractice: Plaintiff Kelsi Wade Piatkowski (Partner) Personal Injury General: Defense Super Lawyers, a Thomson Reuters business, is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The Rising Stars lists, comprising the best attorneys who are 40 years of age and younger or who have practiced law for 10 years or less, are published nationwide in Super Lawyers magazines and in leading city and regional magazines across the country. No more than 2.5 percent of the lawyers in the state are named to these lists.

Nicholas D. Freeman (Of Counsel-Orlando, FL) and Katherine E. Tammaro (Partner-Madison, NJ) will present the Wilson Elser Forum webinar “Practical Advice for Maintaining an Unimpeachable Claim File – File Management and Documentation” on October 8, 2026. This presentation offers practical guidance on maintaining a claim file that will withstand the rigors of coverage and bad faith litigation. It addresses best practices for documenting a claim file throughout the claims process, including how to clearly and appropriately document coverage-related decisions and communications. The presenters also examine best practices for working with outside coverage counsel, including how to preserve privilege while ensuring the claim file does not contain unnecessary or problematic documentation that could later be used to support a bad faith finding.