Christopher J. Correia (Associate-Los Angeles, CA), Filomena Meyer (Of Counsel-Los Angeles, CA), and Victor M. Campos (Of Counsel-Los Angeles, CA) prevailed on a demurrer filed in the California Superior Court, Los Angeles County, securing dismissal of claims against Wilson Elser’s client, a public transportation entity. The plaintiff, who allegedly fell at the entity’s transportation depot and sustained serious injuries, asserted causes of action for nuisance, loss of consortium, and several government tort liabilities. The plaintiff’s complaint surreptitiously avoided mentioning that he was an employee of the public entity and that the alleged fall occurred at his worksite. Christopher’s investigation uncovered a pending workers’ compensation claim arising from the incident. Because that claim placed the plaintiff’s lawsuit squarely within the workers’ compensation exclusivity doctrine, Wilson Elser filed a demurrer seeking dismissal. Filomena prepared the moving papers, motions, and reply briefs, and the court granted the firm’s request for judicial notice of the workers’ compensation claim. After oral argument, the court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend, dismissing the action.

Jonathan E. Meer (Partner-New York, NY) and Thomas M. Spitaletto (Partner-Dallas, TX) will present the Wilson Elser Forum webinar “Different Policies, Different Views: Dynamics of Negotiating Among Insurance Towers” on October 13, 2026. Various factors can impact an insurer’s position during settlement discussions. Insurer positions and strategies can become more complicated when several insurers and towers of insurers are involved. Primary and excess insurers act independently, and excess insurers are free to make differing assessments of liability and coverage, including assessments that differ from those of other excess insurers. This presentation addresses some of the policy language interpretation that can impact such negotiations, as well as negotiation dynamics and strategies for navigating differing insurer views and bringing insurers together toward an ultimate resolution of the underlying claim.

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.

Super Lawyers® has named Katherine M. Beres (Partner-Detroit, MI) to the 2026 Michigan Rising Stars™ list. Katherine is included in the Civil Litigation: Defense category. Her complex litigation practice includes defending a wide range of matters involving automobile/trucking liability, professional liability, and insurance coverage disputes. 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 or younger or who have practiced law for 10 years or less, are published in Super Lawyers magazines and leading city and regional magazines nationwide. No more than 2.5 percent of the lawyers in the state are named to these lists.

Kadeem Wolliaston (Associate-Albany, NY) 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.

David Glazer (Partner-New York, NY) and Christian Balodis (Associate-New York, NY) coauthored the article “When Is Work ‘Work’? Dibrino, Calix and the Narrowing of Contractual Indemnity,” published as a preview by the New York State Bar Association on October 6, 2026. The article examines how two recent New York decisions ‒ Dibrino v. Rockefeller Center North, Inc. and Calix v. Union Theological Seminary in the City of New York ‒ have narrowed when broadly worded contractual indemnification provisions are triggered. The authors examine how the decisions shift the focus from an injured worker’s general connection to a project, including employment, site presence, or equipment ownership, to whether the specific condition that caused the injury arose from the proposed indemnitor’s actual contractual work. The decisions bring the First Department in line with the stricter approach previously applied in the Second and Third Departments, with significant implications for litigation strategy, discovery, settlement negotiations, and drafting of indemnification provisions. David and Christian explain that these case results are particularly significant for practitioners in the First Department, where courts previously took a broader approach to contractual indemnity. They also discuss how the decisions will change the way indemnity disputes are analyzed going forward, requiring closer attention to the specific condition that caused the injury and which contractor’s work produced it, pointing out that “Indemnity disputes that were once resolved by pointing to the proposed indemnitor’s project involvement will now turn on the granular question of which contractor’s work produced the specific condition that caused the injury.”

Pernell Choren (Of Counsel-Washington, DC) and Matthew Lee (Partner-McLean, VA) secured dismissal of all claims asserted against Wilson Elser’s client, a title and settlement services company, in D.C. Superior Court. The case arose from the sale of a five-unit apartment building in the District. The purchaser of the property filed a third-party complaint against the client, alleging that the title company had facilitated the sale without sufficiently handling the applicable TOPA issues. The third-party complaint asserted seven claims, including breach of contract, fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, waste, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and recoupment. The third-party plaintiff sought both compensatory and punitive damages against the firm’s client. Perry and Matt moved to dismiss the third-party complaint in its entirety under Civil Rules 8(a), 9(b), 12(b)(6), and 14. Specifically, they argued that the third-party complaint was procedurally improper under Rule 14, as the third-party claims were not derivative of the causes of action asserted in the underlying complaint. They also argued that each count independently failed to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Finally, they argued that the third-party plaintiff’s request for punitive damages should be dismissed because it failed to sufficiently plead that the firm’s client acted with actual malice or an evil motive. In a detailed 13-page order, the court agreed with each of Wilson Elser’s 12(b)(6) arguments, granted the motion, and dismissed the third-party complaint against the client in its entirety.

Richard W. Boone, Jr. (Partner-New York, NY) and Michael J. O’Malley (Partner-Chicago, IL) will present the Wilson Elser Forum webinar “Drafting Sound Coverage Position Letters to Avoid Waiver and Estoppel” on October 15, 2026. The presentation provides practical guidance for drafting clear, effective insurance coverage letters. It addresses how to identify and analyze relevant policy provisions, communicate coverage positions clearly, and draft reservation-of-rights and denial letters that preserve the insurer’s defenses while providing the insured with a meaningful explanation of the coverage determination. The webinar also highlights common drafting pitfalls, strategic considerations, and best practices for creating coverage correspondence that is both legally sound and useful to claims professionals, insureds, and counsel.

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.

Kirsten L. Curtis (Partner-Portland, OR) and Jane E. Young (Partner-Denver, CO) will present the Wilson Elser Forum webinar “Handling UM/UIM Claims with Confidence: Coverage, Investigation, and Resolution Best Practices” on October 20, 2026. This session provides a comprehensive overview of best practices for adjusting uninsured and underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) claims. Topics include confirming coverage applicability, verifying the insured's status as a covered person, establishing the liability of the uninsured or underinsured tortfeasor, and evaluating damages. The session also covers stacking and offset issues, as well as how UM/UIM obligations interact with policy limits, exhaustion requirements, and inter-company arbitration. Also addressed are common coverage triggers, consent-to-settle provisions, subrogation rights, and jurisdiction-specific variations that adjusters should be aware of when handling these claims. Whether you are new to UM/UIM or looking to sharpen your approach, this session will equip you with practical strategies for handling claims efficiently, accurately, and in compliance with applicable regulations and fair claims practices standards.

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.

Jonathan E. Meer (Partner-New York, NY) and Thomas M. Spitaletto (Partner-Dallas, TX) will present the Wilson Elser Forum webinar “Different Policies, Different Views: Dynamics of Negotiating Among Insurance Towers” on October 13, 2026. Various factors can impact an insurer’s position during settlement discussions. Insurer positions and strategies can become more complicated when several insurers and towers of insurers are involved. Primary and excess insurers act independently, and excess insurers are free to make differing assessments of liability and coverage, including assessments that differ from those of other excess insurers. This presentation addresses some of the policy language interpretation that can impact such negotiations, as well as negotiation dynamics and strategies for navigating differing insurer views and bringing insurers together toward an ultimate resolution of the underlying claim.

Christopher J. Correia (Associate-Los Angeles, CA), Filomena Meyer (Of Counsel-Los Angeles, CA), and Victor M. Campos (Of Counsel-Los Angeles, CA) prevailed on a demurrer filed in the California Superior Court, Los Angeles County, securing dismissal of claims against Wilson Elser’s client, a public transportation entity. The plaintiff, who allegedly fell at the entity’s transportation depot and sustained serious injuries, asserted causes of action for nuisance, loss of consortium, and several government tort liabilities. The plaintiff’s complaint surreptitiously avoided mentioning that he was an employee of the public entity and that the alleged fall occurred at his worksite. Christopher’s investigation uncovered a pending workers’ compensation claim arising from the incident. Because that claim placed the plaintiff’s lawsuit squarely within the workers’ compensation exclusivity doctrine, Wilson Elser filed a demurrer seeking dismissal. Filomena prepared the moving papers, motions, and reply briefs, and the court granted the firm’s request for judicial notice of the workers’ compensation claim. After oral argument, the court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend, dismissing the action.

Super Lawyers® has named Katherine M. Beres (Partner-Detroit, MI) to the 2026 Michigan Rising Stars™ list. Katherine is included in the Civil Litigation: Defense category. Her complex litigation practice includes defending a wide range of matters involving automobile/trucking liability, professional liability, and insurance coverage disputes. 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 or younger or who have practiced law for 10 years or less, are published in Super Lawyers magazines and leading city and regional magazines nationwide. No more than 2.5 percent of the lawyers in the state are named to these lists.

Kadeem Wolliaston (Associate-Albany, NY) 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.

David Glazer (Partner-New York, NY) and Christian Balodis (Associate-New York, NY) coauthored the article “When Is Work ‘Work’? Dibrino, Calix and the Narrowing of Contractual Indemnity,” published as a preview by the New York State Bar Association on October 6, 2026. The article examines how two recent New York decisions ‒ Dibrino v. Rockefeller Center North, Inc. and Calix v. Union Theological Seminary in the City of New York ‒ have narrowed when broadly worded contractual indemnification provisions are triggered. The authors examine how the decisions shift the focus from an injured worker’s general connection to a project, including employment, site presence, or equipment ownership, to whether the specific condition that caused the injury arose from the proposed indemnitor’s actual contractual work. The decisions bring the First Department in line with the stricter approach previously applied in the Second and Third Departments, with significant implications for litigation strategy, discovery, settlement negotiations, and drafting of indemnification provisions. David and Christian explain that these case results are particularly significant for practitioners in the First Department, where courts previously took a broader approach to contractual indemnity. They also discuss how the decisions will change the way indemnity disputes are analyzed going forward, requiring closer attention to the specific condition that caused the injury and which contractor’s work produced it, pointing out that “Indemnity disputes that were once resolved by pointing to the proposed indemnitor’s project involvement will now turn on the granular question of which contractor’s work produced the specific condition that caused the injury.”

Pernell Choren (Of Counsel-Washington, DC) and Matthew Lee (Partner-McLean, VA) secured dismissal of all claims asserted against Wilson Elser’s client, a title and settlement services company, in D.C. Superior Court. The case arose from the sale of a five-unit apartment building in the District. The purchaser of the property filed a third-party complaint against the client, alleging that the title company had facilitated the sale without sufficiently handling the applicable TOPA issues. The third-party complaint asserted seven claims, including breach of contract, fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, waste, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and recoupment. The third-party plaintiff sought both compensatory and punitive damages against the firm’s client. Perry and Matt moved to dismiss the third-party complaint in its entirety under Civil Rules 8(a), 9(b), 12(b)(6), and 14. Specifically, they argued that the third-party complaint was procedurally improper under Rule 14, as the third-party claims were not derivative of the causes of action asserted in the underlying complaint. They also argued that each count independently failed to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Finally, they argued that the third-party plaintiff’s request for punitive damages should be dismissed because it failed to sufficiently plead that the firm’s client acted with actual malice or an evil motive. In a detailed 13-page order, the court agreed with each of Wilson Elser’s 12(b)(6) arguments, granted the motion, and dismissed the third-party complaint against the client in its entirety.

Richard W. Boone, Jr. (Partner-New York, NY) and Michael J. O’Malley (Partner-Chicago, IL) will present the Wilson Elser Forum webinar “Drafting Sound Coverage Position Letters to Avoid Waiver and Estoppel” on October 15, 2026. The presentation provides practical guidance for drafting clear, effective insurance coverage letters. It addresses how to identify and analyze relevant policy provisions, communicate coverage positions clearly, and draft reservation-of-rights and denial letters that preserve the insurer’s defenses while providing the insured with a meaningful explanation of the coverage determination. The webinar also highlights common drafting pitfalls, strategic considerations, and best practices for creating coverage correspondence that is both legally sound and useful to claims professionals, insureds, and counsel.

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.

Kirsten L. Curtis (Partner-Portland, OR) and Jane E. Young (Partner-Denver, CO) will present the Wilson Elser Forum webinar “Handling UM/UIM Claims with Confidence: Coverage, Investigation, and Resolution Best Practices” on October 20, 2026. This session provides a comprehensive overview of best practices for adjusting uninsured and underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) claims. Topics include confirming coverage applicability, verifying the insured's status as a covered person, establishing the liability of the uninsured or underinsured tortfeasor, and evaluating damages. The session also covers stacking and offset issues, as well as how UM/UIM obligations interact with policy limits, exhaustion requirements, and inter-company arbitration. Also addressed are common coverage triggers, consent-to-settle provisions, subrogation rights, and jurisdiction-specific variations that adjusters should be aware of when handling these claims. Whether you are new to UM/UIM or looking to sharpen your approach, this session will equip you with practical strategies for handling claims efficiently, accurately, and in compliance with applicable regulations and fair claims practices standards.

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.

Jonathan E. Meer (Partner-New York, NY) and Thomas M. Spitaletto (Partner-Dallas, TX) will present the Wilson Elser Forum webinar “Different Policies, Different Views: Dynamics of Negotiating Among Insurance Towers” on October 13, 2026. Various factors can impact an insurer’s position during settlement discussions. Insurer positions and strategies can become more complicated when several insurers and towers of insurers are involved. Primary and excess insurers act independently, and excess insurers are free to make differing assessments of liability and coverage, including assessments that differ from those of other excess insurers. This presentation addresses some of the policy language interpretation that can impact such negotiations, as well as negotiation dynamics and strategies for navigating differing insurer views and bringing insurers together toward an ultimate resolution of the underlying claim.

Christopher J. Correia (Associate-Los Angeles, CA), Filomena Meyer (Of Counsel-Los Angeles, CA), and Victor M. Campos (Of Counsel-Los Angeles, CA) prevailed on a demurrer filed in the California Superior Court, Los Angeles County, securing dismissal of claims against Wilson Elser’s client, a public transportation entity. The plaintiff, who allegedly fell at the entity’s transportation depot and sustained serious injuries, asserted causes of action for nuisance, loss of consortium, and several government tort liabilities. The plaintiff’s complaint surreptitiously avoided mentioning that he was an employee of the public entity and that the alleged fall occurred at his worksite. Christopher’s investigation uncovered a pending workers’ compensation claim arising from the incident. Because that claim placed the plaintiff’s lawsuit squarely within the workers’ compensation exclusivity doctrine, Wilson Elser filed a demurrer seeking dismissal. Filomena prepared the moving papers, motions, and reply briefs, and the court granted the firm’s request for judicial notice of the workers’ compensation claim. After oral argument, the court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend, dismissing the action.

Super Lawyers® has named Katherine M. Beres (Partner-Detroit, MI) to the 2026 Michigan Rising Stars™ list. Katherine is included in the Civil Litigation: Defense category. Her complex litigation practice includes defending a wide range of matters involving automobile/trucking liability, professional liability, and insurance coverage disputes. 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 or younger or who have practiced law for 10 years or less, are published in Super Lawyers magazines and leading city and regional magazines nationwide. No more than 2.5 percent of the lawyers in the state are named to these lists.

Kadeem Wolliaston (Associate-Albany, NY) 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.

David Glazer (Partner-New York, NY) and Christian Balodis (Associate-New York, NY) coauthored the article “When Is Work ‘Work’? Dibrino, Calix and the Narrowing of Contractual Indemnity,” published as a preview by the New York State Bar Association on October 6, 2026. The article examines how two recent New York decisions ‒ Dibrino v. Rockefeller Center North, Inc. and Calix v. Union Theological Seminary in the City of New York ‒ have narrowed when broadly worded contractual indemnification provisions are triggered. The authors examine how the decisions shift the focus from an injured worker’s general connection to a project, including employment, site presence, or equipment ownership, to whether the specific condition that caused the injury arose from the proposed indemnitor’s actual contractual work. The decisions bring the First Department in line with the stricter approach previously applied in the Second and Third Departments, with significant implications for litigation strategy, discovery, settlement negotiations, and drafting of indemnification provisions. David and Christian explain that these case results are particularly significant for practitioners in the First Department, where courts previously took a broader approach to contractual indemnity. They also discuss how the decisions will change the way indemnity disputes are analyzed going forward, requiring closer attention to the specific condition that caused the injury and which contractor’s work produced it, pointing out that “Indemnity disputes that were once resolved by pointing to the proposed indemnitor’s project involvement will now turn on the granular question of which contractor’s work produced the specific condition that caused the injury.”