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.