Under US law, to obtain a trademark registration, an Applicant must demonstrate a bona fide use of the mark in the ordinary course of trade. In recent years, there has been a dramatic increase in trademark applications that falsely claim a bona fide use in trade. As a result, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) has been issuing and maintaining registrations for trademarks that should never have issued. When such fraudulent registrations remain on the Trademark Register, they block the legitimate efforts of businesses to launch new trademarks into the marketplace.
In recent years, this problem has only worsened by the flood of fraudulent trademark applications originating from China. Legislative history of the Trademark Modernization Act of 2020 (“TMA”) (enacted on December 20, 2020), demonstrates that as of September 2018, applications in the USPTO originating from China increased by more than 1100% over the prior 6-year period. Investigations reveal that a significant number of these applications have fraudulent claims of use and/or fake specimens including doctored photographs supporting the registration.
The TMA provides new tools to clear from the Trademark Register such fraudulent registrations. Three of these new tools are highlighted below.
Letter of Protest
The USPTO currently permits parties to submit a Letter of Protest against an application any time before publication. Under a Letter of Protest, a party can submit evidence that supports any ground of potential refusal of an application. Presently, there is no formal process in place for submitting a Letter of Protest.
To improve this process, the TMA requires the USPTO Director to establish a formal procedure for parties to submit evidence supporting a registration refusal against an application to register. Once a party submits evidence supporting registration refusal, the Director will have two months to decide whether to include the evidence in the record of the application. If the Director decides that the evidence should be made part of the application record, then the Trademark Examining Attorney likely will be required to review that evidence during examination.
Ex-Parte Reexamination
Under the TMA, a party can file a petition for reexamination of a registration on the basis that the mark was not used in US commerce in connection with some or all of the goods or services recited in the challenged registration as of a “relevant date.” For use-based applications, the “relevant date” is the date of filing of the application. For intent-to-use applications the “relevant date” is the date on which a Statement of Use was filed. A reexamination petition must be filed within 5 years of the registration’s issuance.
Ex-Parte Expungement
Ex-parte expungement enables a petitioner to seek to expunge (or remove) goods and services from a trademark registration on the basis that the mark has never been used in commerce in connection with those goods and services. Expungement can only be sought between the third and tenth years after registration. Also, as part of the petition, a “reasonable investigation” into the non-use must be conducted and facts and supporting evidence must be submitted to the USPTO. If the Director of the USPTO determines that the petitioner has presented sufficient evidence of non-use, then the registration will be examined to determine whether to cancel the registration with respect to the relevant goods or services.
The specific rules for the TMA will be finalized by no later than December 2021 and the TMA’s expungement and reexamination procedures must be implemented by the USPTO by no later than December 27, 2021.
Subscribe
Recent Posts
- Artificial Ingenuity: Is Generative AI the New 'Person of Ordinary Skill' in Patent Law?
- The Expiration of the After Final Consideration Pilot Program 2.0 (AFCP 2.0)
- Patently Unclear: Why Result-Oriented Claims Don’t Make the Cut Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
- Make Your Invention The Priority, What Track-1 Can Do For You!
- Navigating Final Rejections in Patent Prosecution: AFCP 2.0 vs. 37 CFR § 1.116
- A Clear POV on Patent Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. 101: Contour’s Claims Zoom Back Into Focus in Contour v. GoPro
- Understanding the Recent Federal Circuit Decision in Broadband iTV, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. on Patent Ineligibility
- Federal Circuit Clarifies Obviousness-Type Double Patenting in Allergan v. MSN Laboratories: The Impact of Patent Term Adjustments on First-Filed Patents
- The Risks and Rewards of Using Open Source Software
- Don't Let Your Trade Secrets Walk Out the Door With Your Employees: Patent Them!
Archives
- November 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- October 2022
- August 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- June 2019
- April 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- October 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017