NOTE TO THE FILE
`
`Date: 6/8/2021
`
`By: The Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Trademark Examination Policy
`
`NOTE:
`
`The attached Order to Show Cause (presented without exhibits) was issued on June 8, 2021. A
`complete version of the Order is presently available at
`https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/trademark-updates-and-announcements/orders-issued-
`
`commissioner-trademarks. The Order was placed into this record because the U.S. Trademark
`Serial Number was identified in Exhibit A to the Order.
`
`

`

`
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`Office of the Commissionerfor Trademarks
`
`June 8, 2021
`
`Yusha Zhang
`Shenzhen HuanyeeIntellectual Property Co., Ltd.
`No. 3019 Zhongxin Road
`Rainbow Building, 16" Floor
`NanshanDist., Shenzhen 518000
`China
`
`Via Email:
`yushazhang@yahoo.ca
`1090194565@qq.com
`sztmlaw@hotmail.com
`huanyee@huanyee.com
`paralegal1 @tbchadwick.com
`
`in re Yusha Zhang and Shenzhen Huanyee Intellectual Property Co., Ltd.
`
`ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
`
`Dear Ms. Zhang,
`
`The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO or Office) has reason to believe
`that you, Shenzhen Huanyee Intellectual Property Co., Ltd.
`(“Huanyee’), and the
`employees, agents, affiliates, or officers of Huanyee (“your employees”) are violating the
`USPTO’s rules of practice before the Office in trademark matters. Specifically, you and
`your employeesare believed to be engaging in unauthorized practice before the USPTO
`in trademark matters, providing false information to the USPTO by meansof entering the
`signatures of thousandsof third parties on trademark submissions, and providing false,
`fictitious, or fraudulent information in trademark submissions with the intent to circumvent
`the USPTO Rules.'
`
`Protection of the integrity of the U.S. trademark register is of the upmost concern to the
`USPTO becausetheregisteris a reflection of trademarks actually used in commerce and
`its accuracy serves the critical purpose of avoiding needless costs and burdens to
`applicants, who rely upon its contents when choosing a mark. Providing false information
`
`' A list of U.S. Trademark Serial Numbers believed to include submissions made by you, Huanyee, or
`your employeesis attached to this Order as Exhibit A. The list is not necessarily exhaustive because you
`and your employees continueto file, and your response may implicate additional records.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Order to Show Cause - /n re Yusha Zhang and Shenzhen Huanyee Intellectual Property Co., Ltd.
`
`of any kind in a trademark submission underminesthe integrity of the register, and those
`who providefalse,fictitious, or fraudulent information are subject to sanctions.
`
`This order requires you to show cause as to why the USPTO should not immediately
`sanction you and your employeesby:
`
`(1) Permanently precluding you and your employees from submitting
`trademark-related documents on behalf of yourselves or others;
`(2) Striking or otherwise giving no weight
`to all
`trademark-related
`documents submitted by you or your employees;
`(3) Removing correspondence information associated with you and your
`employees from the USPTO’s database in
`all applications and/or
`registrations;
`(4) Directing the USPTO’s Office of the Chief Information Officer to
`permanently deactivate any USPTO accounts in which contact information
`related to you or your employees appears, and to take all reasonable efforts
`to prevent you or your employees from creating or activating further
`accounts;
`(5) Terminating all ongoing proceedings containing submissionsfiled by you
`or your employees, specifically, abandoning all trademark applicationsfiled
`via MyUSPTO accounts registered to you or your employees, as the
`applications were apparently filed for improper purposes; and
`(6) Continuing to strike documents,
`remove information, deactivate
`accounts, and terminate proceedings containing submissions later found to
`have beenfiled by your or your employees.
`
`Relevant Legal Requirements
`
`All submissions to the USPTOin trademark matters are governed by the Rules of Practice
`in Trademark Cases and the Rules governing Representation of Others Before the
`USPTO(collectively “USPTO Rules”). See, generally, 37 C.F.R. Parts 2, 11. Under these
`rules, only attorneys admitted to practice before the bar of the highest court of a U.S.
`state or jurisdiction may practice before the USPTO in trademark matters on behalf of
`others. 37 C.F.R. §§ 2.1, 2.17(a), 11.1, 11.14(a); see also 5 U.S.C. § 500(b).?
`
`Foreign attorneys and trademark agents who have not been reciprocally recognized by
`the Director of the Office of Enrollment and Discipline, and any other individuals who are
`not U.S. licensed attorneys are not authorized to practice before the Office and may not
`(1) give advice to an applicant or registrant in contemplation of filing a U.S. trademark
`application or application-related document; (2) prepare or prosecute any U.S. trademark
`application, response, or post-registration maintenance document; (3) sign amendments
`to applications, responses to Office actions, petitions to the Director, or request to change
`
`? While there are limited exceptions to this rule, none of the exceptions apply here. See 37 C.F.R.
`§ 11.14.
`
`

`

`Order to Show Cause - /n re Yusha Zhang and Shenzhen Huanyee Intellectual Property Co., Ltd.
`
`correspondenceinformation; or (4) authorize any other amendments to an application or
`registration. 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.5(b), 11.14(b).
`
`An application for registration of a trademarkfiled with the USPTO must be made by the
`ownerof the mark or a person who hasa bonafide intention to use the mark in commerce.
`See 15 U.S.C. §1051. The Trademark Act also requires a verified statement supporting
`the application, signed by the owner or a person properly authorized to sign on behalf of
`the owner. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051(a)(3), (b)(3); see also 37 C.F.R. §§ 2.33, 2.193(e).
`
`In addition, all documents submitted to the USPTO in a trademark matter must be
`personaily signed. 37 C.F.R. § 2.193(a). Thatis, the signature must be either handwritten
`in permanent ink by the person namedas the signatory or submitted electronically with
`the named signatory personally entering a combination of letters, numbers, spaces and/or
`punctuation the signatory has adopted as a signature directly on the electronic
`submission form. 37 C.F.R. §§ 2.193(a), (c). A person may not delegate the authority to
`sign trademark-related submissions, and no party may electronically sign the name of
`another. See Bang-er Shia, Proceeding No. D2014-31, at *10-12 (USPTO Apr. 22, 2015),
`available at https://foiadocuments.uspto.gov/oed/0875_dis_2015-04-22. pdf.
`
`Further, under 37 C.F.R. § 11.18(b)(1), any party who presents a trademark submission
`to the USPTOis certifying that all statements made therein of the party’s own knowledge
`are true and all statements madetherein on information and belief are believed to betrue.
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 11.18(b)(2), the party is also certifying that, “[t]o the best of the party’s
`knowledge,
`information and belief,
`formed after an inquiry reasonable under the
`circumstances, .. . the paper is not being presented for any improper purpose” and “[t]he
`allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support.” Thus, knowingly or
`negligently submitting a document
`that
`includes false signatory information,
`false
`applicant information, claims of use in commerce for more goods and services than the
`applicant
`is actually offering, or specimens that do not demonstrate actual use in
`commerce violates at least 37 C.F.R. § 11.18(b)(1), and doing so without evidentiary
`support or with intent to circumvent the USPTOQ’s rules of practice in trademark matters
`violates at least 37 C.F.R. § 11.18(b)(2).
`
`The USPTO Rules also require that any foreign-domiciled applicant, registrant, or party
`to a proceeding be represented by a qualified attorney, licensed to practice law in the
`United States (“U.S. Counsel Rule”). 37 C.F.R. § 2.11(a). The primary purpose of the U.S.
`Counsel Rule is to ensure that foreign-domiciled applicants are aware of and will comply
`with all relevant U.S. legal requirements for trademark registration, including the USPTO
`Rules and requirements concerning actual use in commerce. Providing false,fictitious, or
`fraudulent information in a submission to the Office to circumvent the representation
`requirement for a foreign-damiciled individual or entity is, per se, a document submitted
`for an improper purpose under 37 C.F.R. § 11.18(b). See 37 C.F.R. § 2.11(e).
`
`In addition, a party who uses the MyUSPTO system and the Trademark Electronic
`Application System (“TEAS”) to file a documentis bound by the Terms of Use for USPTO
`websites. See https:/Awww.uspto.gov/terms-use-uspto-websites. An individual
`is
`
`3
`
`

`

`Order to Show Cause - /n re Yusha Zhang and Shenzhen Huanyee Intellectual Property Co., Ltd.
`
`responsible forall activities that occur under his/her registered MyUSPTO account, with
`such account being limited to use by the individual to whom the account is registered.
`Use of a MyUSPTO account to submit, access, or alter information in excess of one’s
`authority not only breaches the Terms of Use, but also 37 C.F.R. §§ 2.193 and
`11.18(b)(1).
`
`Discussion of Activity by Yusha Zhang and Shenzhen Huanyee Intellectual
`Property Co., Ltd.
`
`The name “Yusha Zhang” and email addresses associated with you appeared in the
`correspondencefields of dozens of trademark applications allegedly filed by different pro
`se (unrepresented) applicants between 2016 and 2019. The submissions identified the
`mailing address for Huanyee including an email address within the domain huanyee.com.
`You are identified on www.huanyee.com (the “Huanyee website”) by name as the
`company’s “Executive Director,” with the explanatory text
`“@3@ANReMem”
`(meaning “person in charge of foreign affairs for Huanyee”). See Exhibit B for a true and
`correct copy of the website available at huanyee.com.
`
`1. Yusha Zhang and Huanyee are Engaging in Widespread Unauthorized
`Practice of Law Before the USPTO.
`
`Huanyee is a China-based organization that describes itself as specializing in registering
`trademarks in China. However, the company also boasts on the Huanyee website thatit
`hasfiled more than 30,000 foreign trademark applications, including in the United States.
`While the Huanyee website also includes photographs of people identified as “Nyxia” and
`“Gaulle,” identifying them as “U.S. attorneys,” the USPTO is unaware of any U.S.
`trademark application or registration listing an email address associated with Huanyee
`that includes attorney information for any such persons. Indeed, the USPTO could not
`locate any information to suggest that you or any of your employees are attorneys
`qualified to practice before the USPTOin trademark matters.
`
`Between 2016 and 2019, you and your employees were routinely practicing before the
`USPTOin trademark matters, despite the fact that at all relevant times the USPTO Rules
`provided that only attorneys licensed in the United States are authorized to represent
`others. Available information indicates that you counseled and gave advice to clients in
`contemplation offiling a trademark application and other documents before the USPTO,
`prepared and prosecuted applications for trademark registration, prepared and submitted
`arguments and amendmentsin trademark matters, and communicated with the Office on
`behalf of clients. When completed by a non-attorney on behalf of a third party, each of
`these actions constitutes the unauthorized practice of law in violation of USPTO Rules.
`After the USPTO implemented the U.S. Counsel Rule on August 3, 2019,
`to require
`foreign-domiciled applicants in trademark matters before the USPTO to be represented
`by attorneys licensed to practice law in the United States, you and your employees
`violated this rule and continued to violate other USPTO Rules, including by concealing
`your involvement in the prosecution process.
`
`

`

`Order to Show Cause - /n re Yusha Zhang and Shenzhen Huanyee Intellectual Property Co., Ltd.
`
`2. Yusha Zhang and Huanyee are Responsible for Improperly Entering the
`Signatures of Others and Providing False, Fictitious, and/or Fraudulent
`Information in Trademark Submissions to the USPTO.
`
`The implementation of the U.S. Counsel Rule barred the practice of foreign filing firms
`acting as correspondenceintermediaries, necessitating foreign filing firms to refer clients
`seeking U.S. trademark registration to be represented by attorneys licensed to practice
`in the United States for all submissions to the USPTO. However,
`the USPTO has
`evidence to suggest that you and your employees continued to practice before the Office
`and conspired with others to circumvent the USPTO Rules by improperly entering the
`signatures of others and providing false,
`fictitious, and/or fraudulent
`information in
`trademark applications.
`
`Since last year, users must register for and use a MyUSPTO account to access electronic
`forms and submit trademark documents through the Trademark Electronic Application
`System (“TEAS”). Your name appears in registrations for three different MyUSPTO
`accounts,
`registered
`to
`the
`email
`addresses
`1090194565@qq.com,
`sztmlaw@hotmail.com, and paralegal’ @tbchadwick.com. Office recordsreflect that your
`accounts are responsible forfiling over 8,000 pending trademark applications, and that
`users of your accounts havefiled amendments and responsive documents in many more
`trademark application and registration records, despite the fact that you are not an
`attorney and not otherwise authorized to make submissions on behalf of others in
`trademark matters.
`
`Information about the submissions made from your MyUSPTOaccounts indicate that the
`same person or entity is using these accounts to enter signatures of others. While the
`documentsroutinely appear to have been electronically signed by applicants or attorneys
`directly on the electronic form, the fact that the submissions are often filed in rapid
`succession and are signed by different individuals with mailing addresses in diverse
`geographic regionsis strong evidence that you or your employees must be entering the
`electronic signatures of others on the TEASforms.?
`
`For example, during a one-hour time period between 2:29 a.m. (Eastern) and 3:29 a.m.
`on May 14, 2021, one of your MyUSPTO accounts was responsible for submitting four
`new TEASPlus applications and five responses to Office actions, each with a declaration
`attached and identifying a total of seven different alleged signatories who, according to
`the TEAS forms, personally entered their electronic signatures:
`
`Date/Time
`May 14, 2021 02:29 AM ET
`May 14, 2021 02:37 AM ET
`
`Submission Type
`TEAS Plus Application
`TEAS Plus Application
`
`Serial No.
`90710689
`90710694
`
`Signatory Name
`Cao Jiang
`—xinliu
`
`> The public may view and print images of the contents of trademark application and registration records
`through the Trademark Status and DocumentRetrieval (TSDR) database on the USPTO website at
`http:/Asdr.uspto.gow.
`
`

`

`Order to Show Cause - /n re Yusha Zhang and Shenzhen Huanyee Intellectual Property Co., Ltd.
`
`ZHANGHUA
`90233817)
`Responseto Office Action
`May 14, 2021 02:49 AM ET
`Xie Wenyi
`90233785
`Responseto Office Action
`May 14, 2021 02:54 AM ET
`ZHANGHUA
`90233819
`Responseto Office Action
`May 14, 2021 03:02 AM ET
`Gao Shaogiu
`90710722
`TEAS Plus Application
`May 14, 2021 03:09 AM ET
`90710727 Wang Xiaoyu
`TEAS Plus Application
`May 14, 2021 03:15 AM ET
`90311957)
`ZHANGHUA
`Responseto Office Action
`May 14, 2021 03:24 AM ET
`
`
`May 14, 2021 03:29 AM ET 90233760—Li ChunyanResponseto Office Action
`
`The applicants in these examples have domicile addresses in geographically diverse
`parts of China, as well as in New York.It is implausible that each signatory, allegedly
`located thousands of miles from each other, was present to personally enter their
`electronic signatures on these TEAS forms during the same single hour.
`
`Your MyUSPTOaccounts are also responsibleforfiling TEAS submissionsat a frequency
`that would makeit improbable andlikely impossible for a single personto fill out the forms,
`let alone coordinate the personal entry of electronic signatures on TEAS forms by
`seemingly unrelated parties. On March 16, 2021, alone, your accounts were responsible
`for filing 201 different TEAS forms, most within minutes of each other, with several
`submitted mere seconds apart. See, e.g., Serial Nos. 90581043 (a new application
`allegedly electronically signed by Guo Shizai at 2:45 a.m.) and 90253201 (a Change of
`Address or Representation form allegedly electronically signed by Kong Xiangyong, also
`at 2:45 a.m.). Based on the volume and speed of submissions originating from your
`accounts, we presume that you are sharing access to your MyUSPTO accounts with
`othersin violation of the Terms of Use for USPTO Websites.
`
`In addition to declaration signatures of multiple applicants appearing on submissions
`originating from your MyUSPTO accounts, you and your employees appearto be entering
`the name of at least two different U.S.-licensed attorneys on at least several hundred
`submissions. In the cases reviewed, the attorneys’ signatures often appear alongside the
`applicants’ declaration signatures and were allegedly personally entered on the TEAS
`submission by the attorney. For example,
`in Serial No. 90199060 the Office received
`responses on April 15, 2021 and May 6, 2021, each originating from one of your
`MyUSPTO accounts, each allegedly directly signed by applicant “Bai, Bin” and attorney
`“Shan Zhu,” despite the fact that the applicant allegedly lives in a county in China that is
`located approximately 12,700 miles away from Shan Zhu’s offices in Flushing, New York.
`Similarly,
`in Serial No. 90255740, the Office received responses on March 5, 2021 and
`March 17, 2021, each allegedly directly signed by “Wang Xin’ and attorney “Yi Wan,”
`when the applicant's domicile is allegedly located in China and the attorneyis allegedly
`located in Manhattan, New York.
`
`Further, you and your employees are also responsible for submitting several hundred
`applications identifying the owners as juristic entities formed in the United States, but
`containing false domicile information. The USPTOreceived hundreds of new applications
`filed in the name of companies such as “Alpharerry Inc,” “Bluedeep Trade Inc,” “Chengde
`International Trading LLC,” “Diub!l LLC,” “OTBBA LLC,” “Jincheng Inc,” “Kingheng Inc,”
`“Vanjo LLC,” “Fiberhome Technology Co., Ltd.,” “Qianxing Fenghui LLC,” “Ryhom LLC,”
`
`6
`
`

`

`Order to Show Cause - /n re Yusha Zhang and Shenzhen Huanyee Intellectual Property Co., Ltd.
`
`“Flycamp Trading LLC,” “Suntravel Trading LLC,” “Zhishan Industrial Inc,” “Virfine Trade
`Inc,” “Xinxiu Family Inc,” “HCLife LLC,” “Woxeon TechnologyInc,” “Wector Home America
`LLC,” “Fengshun LLC,” “Yifan LLC,” “Promotion Inc,” “Perfso Trade Inc,” and “PTTAGING
`LLC,”initially claiming to be California entities with a domicile address of “18351 Colima
`Road, Rowland Heights, CA.”4 When challenged by examining attorneys, responses
`originating from your accounts often change the state of formation/incorporation to
`Colorado, and list a new domicile address of “6547 North Academy Blvd, Colorado
`Springs, CO.”
`
`Both the Rowland Heights and Colorado Springs addresses aré merely commercial mail
`receiving agencies, capable of forwarding or scanning mail for people or entities located
`elsewhere in the world. These addresses are not valid domicile addresses for these
`applicants. Only when challenged further have you or your employees designated
`attorneys Shan Zhu or Yi Wan and provided domicile information that suggests the
`applicants are actually located outside the United States. See, e.g., Serial Nos.
`88951432,
`90045852,
`90108206,
`90164526,
`90190451,
`90196155,
`90202914,
`90209321, 90210524, 90262410, and 90265123. Based upon the multiple attempts to
`provide false domicile information for entities located outside the United States, and the
`reluctance to list an attorney of record until challenged, the USPTO can only conclude
`that you and your employees have been providing false, fictitious, and/or fraudulent
`information to the USPTO in an effort to obfuscate the applicants’ foreign domicile
`addresses with the intent
`to circumvent
`the requirement for U.S. counsel. Each
`submission listing a false domicile address for a foreign domiciled applicant is a paper
`submitted for an improper purpose under 37 C.F.R. § 11.18(b)\(2). See 37 C.F.R.
`§ 2.11(e).
`
`Based on the foregoing, the USPTO has reason to believe that all applications and
`trademark documentsfiled via your MyUSPTO accounts werefiled in violation of the
`USPTO Rules andare invalid. The applications and documents were not properly signed,
`appear to have been submitted without the owner or any identifiable authorized person
`making reasonable inquiry into the factual contentions contained therein, and likely
`contain false, fictitious, and/or fraudulent information. Available information also indicates
`that such submissions were filed with an intention to circumvent the USPTO Rules
`including, but not limited to, 37 C.F.R. §§ 2.11(a), 2.193, 11.14, and 11.18(b). In addition,
`USPTOrecordsindicate that these submissions were made using the MyUSPTO system
`and TEASin contravention of the Terms of Use for USPTO Websites.
`
`Show Cause Requirement
`
`Subject to the direction of the Director of the USPTO, the Commissionerfor Trademarks
`possessesthe authority to manage and direct all aspects of the activities of the USPTO
`that affect the administration of trademark operations. See 35 U.S.C. §§ 2, 3; TMEP
`§ 1709. This includes the authority to impose sanctions on parties who submit a paperin
`
`* This list is non-exhaustive. The use of similar false domicile and entity information is pervasive across
`many applications filed by you or your employees.
`
`

`

`Order to Show Cause - /n re Yusha Zhang and Shenzhen Huanyee Intellectual Property Co., Ltd.
`
`a trademark matter for an improper purpose. See 35 U.S.C. § 3(b)(2)(A); 37 C.F.R.
`§§ 2.11(a),
`(e), 11.18(b)(2),
`(c). The authority to issue orders to show cause why
`sanctions should not be imposed has been further delegated to the Deputy Commissioner
`for Trademark Examination Policy.
`
`Becausethe information discussed above supports a finding that your actions
`violate the USPTO Rules, you are hereby ordered to show cause why the USPTO
`should not:
`
`(1) Permanently preclude you and your employees from submitting
`trademark-related documents on behalf of yourselves or others;
`(2) Strike or otherwise give no weight
`to all
`trademark-related
`documents submitted by you or your employees;
`(3) Remove correspondenceinformation associated with you and your
`employees from the USPTO’s database in all applications and/or
`registrations;
`(4) Direct the USPTO’s Office of the Chief Information Officer to
`permanently deactivate any USPTO accounts in which contact
`information related to you or your employees appears,and to takeall
`reasonable efforts to prevent you or your employees from creating or
`activating further accounts; and
`(5) Terminate all ongoing proceedings containing submissions filed
`by you or your employees; and
`(6) Continue to strike documents, remove information, deactivate
`accounts, and terminate proceedings containing submissions later
`found to have been filed by your or your employees.
`
`The USPTOwill consider your response in determining the appropriate sanctions. Your
`response must establish that you are authorized to take action on behalf of others under
`the USPTO Rules, and mustinclude evidence corroborating any factual claims you make.
`
`A response to this order, via e-mail to TMPolicy@uspto.gov, must be received by
`5:00pm (Eastern Time) on June 22, 2021. Failure to timely respond will result in a
`presumption that you cannot show that your actions described above did not violate
`USPTO Rules andin the USPTO implementing some orall of the sanctions noted above.
`This order is issued without prejudice to the USPTO taking all appropriate actions to
`protect its systems and users from your continued improper activity,
`including issuing
`additional orders relating to other applications, or referring your conduct to relevant state
`and federal law enforcement agencies.
`
`So ordered,
`
`Ain.P Cotton
`
`Amy P. Cotton
`Deputy Commissioner for Trademark Examination Policy
`
`