41114 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 131 / Monday, July 11, 2022 / Notices 

ADDRESSES: This meeting will be held 

online. Specific meeting information, 

including directions on how to join the 

meeting and system requirements will 

be provided in the meeting 

announcement on the Pacific Council’s 

website (see www.pcouncil.org). You 

may send an email to Mr. Kris 

Kleinschmidt 

(kris.kleinschmidt@noaa.gov) or contact 

him at (503) 820–2412 for technical 

assistance. 

Council address: Pacific Fishery 

Management Council, 7700 NE 

Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, 

OR 97220–1384. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kerry Griffin, Staff Officer, Pacific 

Council; telephone: (503) 820–2409. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

primary purpose of this online meeting 

is for the MPC to discuss issues related 

to offshore wind energy development 

and NOAA Aquaculture Opportunity 

Areas. The MPC may discuss the Bureau 

of Ocean Energy Management’s request 

for comment on its Draft Fisheries 

Mitigation Strategy and may develop a 

report to the Pacific Council for 

consideration at its September meeting. 

Other marine planning topics or 

emerging issues may be discussed as 

necessary. The meeting agenda will be 

available on the Pacific Council’s 

website in advance of the meeting, and 

the meeting will be recorded for the 

benefit of interested parties who aren’t 

able to attend the meeting at its 

scheduled time and date. 

Although non-emergency issues not 

contained in the meeting agenda may be 

discussed, those issues may not be the 

subject of formal action during this 

meeting. Action will be restricted to 

those issues specifically listed in this 

document and any issues arising after 

publication of this document that 

require emergency action under section 

305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act, 

provided the public has been notified of 

the intent to take final action to address 

the emergency. 

Special Accommodations 

Requests for sign language 

interpretation or other auxiliary aids 

should be directed to Mr. Kris 

Kleinschmidt (kris.kleinschmidt@

noaa.gov; (503) 820–2412) at least 10 

days prior to the meeting date. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 

Dated: July 6, 2022. 

Tracey L. Thompson, 

Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2022–14684 Filed 7–8–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Patent and Trademark Office 

[Docket No. PTO–T–2022–0005] 

Trademarks USPTO.gov Account ID 

Verification Program 

AGENCY: United States Patent and 

Trademark Office, Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: In late 2019, as part of the 

United States Patent and Trademark 

Office’s (USPTO or Office) continuing 

efforts to protect the integrity of the U.S. 

trademark register, and to better protect 

its customers from scams and fraudulent 

activities related to the trademark 

register, the USPTO began requiring 

customers to create a USPTO.gov 

account to file electronic trademark 

forms. This enabled the Agency to 

monitor trademark filing behavior and 

aided in enforcing the existing USPTO 

Rules of Practice regarding submissions 

in trademark matters. On January 8, 

2022, in anticipation of moving toward 

a mandatory identity (ID) verification 

process to further thwart fraud, the 

USPTO made ID verification available to 

USPTO.gov account holders on a 

voluntary basis. This allowed account 

holders to verify their identity in either 

paper or electronic form before ID 

verification became mandatory. On 

August 6, 2022, the USPTO will make 

it mandatory for existing and new 

account holders who occupy an 

appropriate user role to verify their 

identity as a condition for filing 

electronic trademark forms. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert Lavache, Office of the Deputy 

Commissioner for Trademark 

Examination Policy, at 571–272–5881. 

You can also send inquiries to 

TMFRNotices@uspto.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Historically, trademark customers of the 

USPTO have only had to attest to the 

information in their applications and 

other submissions if the USPTO 

questioned the information. Thus, for 

example, if a third party had evidence 

that the identity of an applicant or 

registrant was false, that party would 

have to oppose the application or 

petition to cancel the registration before 

the USPTO’s Trademark Trial and 

Appeal Board, a costly and timeconsuming process. 

In recent years, however, the Office 

has received an increasing number of 

trademark submissions containing false 

information, resulting in some bad 

actors obtaining trademark registrations 

to which they were not entitled. In some 

cases, these actors have filed tens of 

thousands of applications containing 

improper submissions that include false 

signatures, false addresses, false claims 

of use required to obtain and maintain 

a registration, and false or hijacked U.S. 

attorney credentials. They have also 

engaged in unauthorized practice of law 

and unauthorized representation of 

others before the USPTO. In other cases, 

bad actors have used the system to 

improperly file unauthorized 

submissions in a competitor’s 

application and registration records. 

While the levels of misconduct and 

improper submissions are relatively low 

compared to the large annual volume of 

filings in trademark cases, the impact of 

these activities has become 

disproportionately significant, as 

evidenced by the growing number of 

internet-based scams that have been 

sanctioned and that have implicated 

thousands of applications featuring rule 

violations that the USPTO terminated. 

Additionally, these activities violate the 

USPTO rules of practice—including 

rules on signatures, certifications, and 

representation of others before the 

USPTO—and website terms of use, 

potentially calling into question the 

validity of any resulting registration. 

In response, the USPTO has 

implemented measures, including a 

trademark administrative sanctions 

process that investigates suspicious 

applications and imposes sanctions on 

rule violators. See Trademarks 

Administrative Sanctions Process, 87 FR 

431 (Jan. 5, 2022). The USPTO has also 

required those filing documents in 

trademark matters to have a USPTO.gov 

account. Moving forward, in an attempt 

to prevent the filing of applications and 

other submissions that are fraudulent or 

violate the USPTO’s signature and 

representation rules, the USPTO will 

require USPTO.gov account holders to 

verify their identity in order to file 

electronic trademark forms. 

I. USPTO.gov Login System 

In 2019, as part of the USPTO’s 

register protection initiatives, the 

USPTO established a three-phase login 

system intended to increase the 

accountability of those filing 

submissions. Phase 1, implemented in 

2019, requires a user to create a 

USPTO.gov account in order to file 

electronic trademark forms. Once the 

account is created, the holder is subject 

to the terms of use. Account holders 

who violate the terms of use may have 

their accounts blocked to prevent 

continued abuse of the USPTO’s 

electronic trademark systems. On 

January 8, 2022, the USPTO began 

implementing Phase 2 by making ID 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 131 / Monday, July 11, 2022 / Notices 41115 

1A represented owner does not need a verified 

account because the owner’s attorney will have a 

verified account and because the owner can 

electronically sign forms without verifying an 

account. If an owner becomes unrepresented after 

recognition of their attorney ends, by revocation or 

withdrawal, for example, an owner will have to 

establish and verify their own account in order to 

file an electronic form without representation. 

verification available on a voluntary 

basis to existing USPTO.gov account 

holders. On August 6, 2022, the USPTO 

will make it mandatory for existing and 

new account holders who occupy an 

appropriate user role to verify their 

identity as a condition for filing 

electronic trademark forms. At that 

time, existing unverified USPTO.gov 

accounts will remain active, but will not 

be able to be used to access or submit 

trademark forms. Only verified account 

holders will be able to access and 

submit trademark forms. Phase 3 

restricts access to electronic trademark 

records to only those authorized to 

make submissions related to those 

specific records. This will prevent 

unauthorized actors from filing 

submissions in application and 

registration records. 

II. Phase 1 Account Login 

When a user creates a USPTO.gov 

account, the USPTO can monitor filing 

behaviors and link improper 

submissions to a particular account, 

which it can then block. Currently, 

however, there is nothing to prevent a 

blocked account holder from using false 

information to create a new account in 

order to file trademark submissions. The 

USPTO must then investigate and 

pursue sanctions once it discovers that 

the blocked account holder has created 

a new account. There is also nothing to 

prevent someone who is engaging in the 

unauthorized practice of law and 

unauthorized representation of others 

before the USPTO from filing 

submissions that are contrary to the 

USPTO rules of practice, including rules 

on signatures, certifications, and 

representation of others before the 

USPTO. Again, the USPTO can only 

address rule violations after they are 

investigated and undergo an 

administrative sanctions process. These 

are resource-intensive. Lastly, there is 

nothing to prevent account holders from 

sharing accounts, which is a violation of 

the terms of use, unless or until the 

USPTO investigates and imposes 

sanctions. Phase 2 ID verification is 

designed to help address these three 

gaps. 

III. Phase 2 ID Verification and Phase 

3 Role-Based Access Controls 

ID verification ensures that those 

making submissions to the USPTO to 

obtain or maintain a trademark 

registration are who they say they are 

and can be held accountable for 

misconduct, fraud, and/or abuse of the 

USPTO’s systems. This will allow the 

USPTO to take down USPTO.gov 

accounts registered to bad actors and 

prevent them from creating new 

accounts or sharing accounts. Phase 2 of 

the USPTO’s ID verification process also 

requires USPTO.gov account holders to 

identify their user role when verifying 

their identity. These user roles set the 

stage for the future implementation of 

Phase 3’s role-based access controls. 

Phase 3 will enable the USPTO to limit 

submissions on a particular application 

or registration to a specific USPTO.gov 

account holder with the appropriate 

user role. 

There are four authorized user roles: 

(1) trademark owner,1 (2) U.S.-licensed 

attorney, (3) Canadian attorney or agent, 

and (4) sponsored attorney support staff. 

Under role-based access controls, owner 

accounts would have submission rights 

only for their own applications or 

registrations. For that reason, an owner 

account can only be established by the 

owner or by its authorized employees. 

Each employee who is authorized to file 

submissions on behalf of the owner may 

have a separate owner account. 

However, the owner account is limited 

to submissions related to the owner’s 

applications and registrations. Only an 

attorney account or a sponsored staff 

account can be used to file submissions 

in multiple applications and 

registrations. An attorney account 

would have submission rights for only 

those applications or registrations in 

which the attorney is designated as an 

attorney of record. An attorneysponsored support staff account would 

be similarly limited to applications or 

registrations in which a supervising 

attorney who sponsors the support staff 

account has access rights. Support staff 

who work with several attorneys must 

be sponsored by each attorney in order 

to have access rights to each attorney’s 

applications or registrations. A 

reciprocally recognized Canadian 

trademark attorney or agent may 

prepare, sign, and file a new application 

and prepare and sign other applicationand registration-related submissions on 

behalf of clients located in Canada, 

although a qualified U.S. attorney must 

file such submissions. ID verification, 

user roles, and access controls based on 

those user roles will provide more 

security for the trademark registration 

system, help prevent fraud in the 

system, and greatly aid in removing 

improper filings once discovered. 

IV. User Roles Limited to Owners and 

Attorneys 

Section 1 of the Lanham Act provides 

that ‘‘the owner of a trademark used in 

commerce may request registration of its 

trademark.’’ Under USPTO rules, 

owners who are not represented by an 

attorney are authorized to file and make 

submissions regarding their trademarks. 

Also, USPTO rules allow submissions 

from attorneys who are authorized by 

the owner to represent them. Attorneys 

are subject to professional responsibility 

rules, ethical sanctions, potential 

malpractice remedies, and the loss of a 

law license for misrepresentation. These 

penalties are designed to ensure that the 

attorney representing the owner is 

acting on behalf of the owner. 

Through investigations of suspicious 

filings, the USPTO has discovered that 

tens of thousands of trademark 

submissions have been made by actors 

who purport to act on behalf of the 

owner but are not adhering to USPTO 

rules that govern signatures, 

certifications, and representation of 

others before the USPTO. These rule 

violations jeopardize the validity of the 

submissions made as well as any 

resulting registration. The USPTO does 

not have assurances that these actors, 

typically non-attorney entities (i.e., 

those engaging in unauthorized practice 

of law or unauthorized representation of 

others before the USPTO), are acting on 

behalf of the owner and with the 

owner’s knowledge of the information 

contained in the submissions. Limiting 

access to electronic trademark forms 

through ID verification and user roles to 

only those whose submissions in 

trademark matters can be deemed an act 

of the owner will provide assurances to 

the USPTO and the public that filings 

are authorized by the owner, are made 

at their request, and are made with 

specific knowledge of the information 

contained in the submission. 

V. No User Roles for Non-Attorney 

Entities 

Under USPTO rules, non-attorney 

entities are not authorized to practice 

law or represent owners before the 

USPTO, and thus, there is no 

corresponding user role. A non-attorney 

entity such as a trademark preparation 

and/or filing company is one that: (1) 

does not have an attorney directly 

supervising the staff’s interactions with 

clients or the USPTO, and (2) provides 

only law-related services to clients (e.g., 

offers trademark information, not 

advice; acts as a mere scrivener when 

assisting in the preparation of trademark 

documents; or conducts trademark 

searches but does not offer opinions on 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
41116 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 131 / Monday, July 11, 2022 / Notices 

the registrability of a mark). When these 

entities provide legal advice, prepare 

trademark applications, or file 

submissions on behalf of others, they 

are likely engaging in unauthorized 

practice of law and unauthorized 

representation of others before the 

USPTO. Practice of law before the Office 

in trademark matters is described in 37 

CFR 11.5(b)(2). 

The USPTO has the authority to 

regulate the conduct of proceedings 

before the Office and the conduct of 

those who appear before the Office in 

proceedings, including practitioners and 

non-practitioners. See 5 U.S.C. 500(d)(2) 

(Federal agencies may sanction those 

‘‘individuals who appear in a 

representative capacity before the 

agency’’); 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2)(A) (the 

USPTO has the authority to establish 

regulations that ‘‘shall govern the 

conduct of proceedings in the Office’’); 

and 35 U.S.C. 3(b)(2)(A) (the 

Commissioner for Trademarks has the 

authority to manage and direct all 

aspects of trademark operations). 

Some customers appear to rely on 

non-attorney entities for legal advice 

without realizing that the non-attorney 

entity cannot represent trademark 

applicants before the USPTO or that the 

entity’s behavior could undermine the 

validity of their application or 

registration. Furthermore, these nonattorney entities are also routinely 

providing signatures on trademark 

submissions that violate the USPTO’s 

rules. Under these rules, submissions 

must be personally signed, and 

therefore, signatures are non-delegable. 

37 CFR 2.193(a), 11.18; Trademark 

Manual of Examining Procedure 

§ 611.01(c). Authorizing someone who 

is not the signatory to sign a trademark 

submission jeopardizes the validity of 

the submission and may affect the 

validity of the entire application or 

registration. 

The USPTO has imposed sanctions 

and terminated pending applications 

that contain violations of USPTO rules, 

without regard to whether the applicant 

was aware of the rule violations 

perpetrated by those making 

submissions on their behalf. These 

trademark applicants have been misled 

and defrauded by actors filing 

submissions at the USPTO, purportedly 

on their behalf but clearly against the 

owner’s interest and, in most cases, 

without the owner’s knowledge. To 

discourage reliance on non-attorney 

entities and to adhere to the Lanham 

Act and the USPTO rules more closely, 

the USPTO is limiting user roles 

through the ID verification process for a 

USPTO.gov account to those authorized 

under USPTO rules to make trademark 

submissions filings for the owner (i.e., 

the owner and the owner’s 

representative authorized to practice 

law before the USPTO in trademark 

matters). 

Katherine K. Vidal, 

Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual 

Property and Director of the United States 

Patent and Trademark Office. 

[FR Doc. 2022–14435 Filed 7–8–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–16–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

Intent To Prepare an Environmental 

Impact Statement for O’Brien Road 

Access Modernization (ORAM), Within 

the Fort Meade Complex, Maryland 

AGENCY: National Security Agency, 

Department of Defense (DoD). 

ACTION: Notice of intent; notice of public 

scoping; request for comments. 

SUMMARY: The DoD announces its intent 

to prepare an Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) to assess the potential 

effects associated with proposed access 

and infrastructure upgrades at the 

National Security Agency’s (NSA) 

campus on Fort George G. Meade, 

Maryland (hereafter referred to as Fort 

Meade). The purpose of the proposed 

project is to increase efficiencies and 

capacity for required security processing 

of deliveries and traffic entering the 

NSA campus. Additionally, major 

construction projects have generated 

changes in Fort Meade traffic 

distribution, resulting in extensive 

delays for inspection and access. 

Publication of this notice begins a 

scoping process that identifies and 

determines the scope of environmental 

issues to be addressed in the EIS. This 

notice requests public participation in 

the scoping process and provides 

information on how to participate. 

DATES: The public is invited to provide 

comments on the scope of the EIS 

during a 45-day public scoping period. 

Comments will be accepted until 

August 25, 2022. 

In light of changing public health 

requirements, a narrated presentation 

will be made available in lieu of an inperson meeting. Information will be 

made available on the project website at 

https://www.nab.usace.army.mil/oram. 

For further information, see ‘‘Scoping 

Process’’ in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section below). 

ADDRESSES: Written comments 

regarding the scope of the EIS and 

comments on the scoping process may 

be submitted by any of the following 

methods: 

Mail: ORAM EIS, c/o: HDR 2650, Park 

Tower Drive, Suite 400, Vienna, VA 

22180; 

Email: ORAM@hdrinc.com. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Jeffrey Williams, Sr. Environmental 

Engineer, jdwill2@nsa.gov 301–688– 

2970. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background: NSA is a tenant DoD 

agency on Fort Meade, occupying 

approximately 840 acres of the 5,107.7 

acres of base property. Renovation and 

upgrade of inspection and access 

facilities for NSA is required to meet 

increased mission and security capacity. 

The existing Vehicle Control Inspection 

Facility (VCIF) and Vehicle Control 

Point 5 (VCP5) represent two significant 

entry points for access to the NSA 

campus. Both facilities require 

replacement due to process 

inefficiencies and insufficient capacity 

to meet current and future demand. 

Original sizing of the VCIF was to 

provide inspection facilities only for 

NSA deliveries and traffic. Post 9/11, a 

decision was made that NSA would 

inspect both Fort Meade and NSA 

deliveries. Additionally, major 

construction activities on Fort Meade 

have generated increases in traffic 

access and inspection throughout the 

installation. These conditions have 

resulted in extensive delays at the VCIF 

and traffic back-ups onto Maryland 

State Route 32. The design of VCP5 on 

O’Brien Road is also outdated and 

provides insufficient access capacity 

between the NSA campus and Fort 

Meade. Relocation of the Fort Meade 

Access Control Facility (ACF) on Mapes 

Road was included to facilitate the 

design and construction of the roadway 

system, as well as minimize 

environmental impacts. 

Proposed Action and Alternatives: 

The proposed action would consist of: 

construction of a new VCIF with 

adjacent visitor control center; 

construction of a new Mail Screening 

Facility (MSF) adjacent to the VCIF; 

construction of a new VCP5; 

reconfiguration of the Mapes Road ACF; 

roadway improvements to provide 

enhanced routing and separation of 

traffic between NSA and Fort Meade; 

and associated infrastructure including 

sidewalks, inspection canopies, dog 

kennels, surface parking areas, 

stormwater management facilities, 

utilities, and related infrastructure. 

It is anticipated that two build 

alternatives will be analyzed in detail 

through the EIS process that will 

involve distinct configurations of 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES