Foreign individuals and companies can absolutely register trademarks in the United States — but since 2019, the process carries a structural requirement that catches many first-time foreign applicants by surprise.
The U.S. Counsel Requirement
Since August 2019, the USPTO has required that any trademark applicant, registrant, or party to a proceeding whose domicile is outside the United States be represented by an attorney licensed to practice law in a U.S. state. Domicile here means the applicant's actual permanent residence, or — for a company — the location where its senior leadership actually directs the business, not just a registered address. The rule was introduced after the USPTO identified a rise in inaccurate and, in some cases, fraudulent filings, often submitted with the help of foreign individuals not authorized to represent applicants before the agency. The requirement covers essentially every meaningful interaction with the USPTO: the initial application, all Office Action responses, post-registration maintenance filings, and any proceeding before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.
The Madrid Protocol Exception — and Its Limit
There's one narrow carve-out. An initial Section 66(a) application — filed through the Madrid Protocol via your home country's trademark office and transmitted to the USPTO by the World Intellectual Property Organization — can enter the U.S. system without a U.S. attorney already appointed. But that exception only covers the initial filing. The moment the USPTO issues any correspondence on that application, including a provisional refusal, U.S. counsel must be appointed to respond. In practice, this means Madrid filers often engage U.S. counsel proactively rather than waiting to see whether an office action arrives.
Filing Basis Options for Foreign Applicants
International applicants can use the same use-based and intent-to-use bases available domestically, plus two additional routes available specifically because of international treaty agreements: Section 44, based on an existing application or registration in the applicant's home country, and Section 66(a), the Madrid Protocol extension route. One practical constraint worth knowing: when relying on Section 44(e) or 66(a), the scope of goods and services claimed in the U.S. application generally cannot exceed what's covered in the underlying foreign registration or international registration.
Direct Filing vs. Madrid
Filing directly with the USPTO through U.S. counsel offers more control over the application from day one — the description of goods, the filing basis, and the response strategy are all built around U.S. practice specifically. Filing through Madrid is often more convenient upfront, since one international application, in one language, with one set of fees, can extend into more than 120 member jurisdictions at once. The trade-off is that the USPTO still examines the U.S. designation exactly as it would examine a direct application, and any issues that surface still require the same U.S. counsel involvement to resolve.
How International IP Firms Typically Structure This
Most international IP firms don't try to work around the U.S. counsel requirement — they build around it. A common structure has the foreign firm retain the direct client relationship, strategic advice, and portfolio oversight, while a U.S.-licensed correspondent firm handles the actual filing, prosecution, and any USPTO or TTAB proceedings. Done well, the client never notices a seam between the two firms — they simply get U.S. filings that comply with the domicile rule without losing their original point of contact.
