US: Trademark Modernization Act of 2020 strengthens accuracy of the federal trademark register

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

US: Trademark Modernization Act of 2020 strengthens accuracy of the federal trademark register

Sponsored by

katten.png
magnifip.png

Karen Artz Ash and Alexandra Caleca of Katten Muchin Rosenman explain the provisions of the Act which seeks to support trademark owners in combatting fraud

Individuals and businesses all over the world rely on the accuracy and integrity of the US Patent and Trademark Office’s (PTO) federal trademark register to inform them on key decisions regarding branding and marketing. The Trademark Modernization Act of 2020 (TMA), part of the COVID-19 relief legislative package signed into law on December 27 2020, acknowledges this by, among other things, establishing new procedures and creating powerful tools to fortify the reliability of the register, while addressing the long-standing issues caused by trademark filings based on false assertions of use in the US.

Challenging unused trademarks

The TMA, which will go into effect on December 27 2021, provides two new mechanisms to challenge existing trademark registrations on the ground of non-use and are intended to reduce the effort required for interested parties to remove abandoned marks from the register.

First, a third party can file an ex parte petition for an expungement of a registration within three to 10 years of its issuance on the ground that the trademark was never used in US commerce. Second, a third party can file an ex parte petition for reexamination of a registration within the first five years of its issuance on the ground that the trademark was not used in US commerce prior to its registration date.

In a petition for either expungement or reexamination, the challenger must assert that a reasonable investigation was undertaken and that the evidence submitted shows that the mark had not been used in connection with the covered goods or services as is required under US law. These proceedings do not require a showing of standing and may also be initiated by the PTO directly if the director of the PTO (director) discovers information that supports a prima facie case that a mark has never been used in US commerce or has not been used in US commerce as of a particular relevant date with certain goods or services covered by a registration.

Letter of protest

In addition to adding new options for post-registration challenges, the TMA provides statutory authority to codify the process for third parties to submit a letter of protest against registration of a mark while the application is still in its PTO examination phase. Parties can submit evidence that supports any ground of potential refusal of an application, including, for example, a claim that the protested application is: likely to be confused with a trademark in a US registration or prior pending application, merely descriptive of or generic for the identified goods or services, or suggests a false connection with the protestor. The director will then have two months from the filing of the evidence to decide whether to include the evidence in the examination record of the application.

Any determination by the director whether or not to include such evidence in the record of an application will be final and non-reviewable, but will not prejudice any party’s right to raise any issue and rely on any evidence again in any subsequent opposition or cancellation proceeding.

Improving flexibility

Furthermore, the TMA provides the opportunity to quicken the typical prosecution timeline by offering PTO examining attorneys flexibility in setting response deadlines to rejections of pending applications. Under the TMA, PTO examining attorneys can, for the first time, shorten the previously rigid six-month office action response window to as few as two months. Applicants, however, will have the ability to request extensions up to six months in total.

Finally, the TMA resolves a split among the judicial circuits to clarify that irreparable harm can, in fact, be presumed in requests for injunctive relief upon a finding of trademark infringement or a showing of likelihood of success on the merits for preliminary injunctions. By clarifying a trademark owner’s burden in litigation and creating this uniform rule, the TMA will assist trademark owners seeking to enforce their rights against infringers in Federal Court.

 

Karen Artz Ash

Partner, Katten Muchin Rosenman

E: karen.ash@katten.com

 

Alexandra Caleca

Associate, Katten Muchin Rosenman

E: alexandra.caleca@katten.com

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Partners Alex Wilson and Andreas Kramer say bigger law firm rivals don’t necessarily gain by having a wider jurisdictional reach
VO, which has offices in the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany, is the second European IP firm to secure external backing this week
The Bardehle Pagenberg attorneys-at-law discuss the firm’s Managing IP EMEA Awards 2026 success, Unified Patent Court litigation strategy, and evolving European patent trends
A patent battle between two legal tech companies and a loss for Elon Musk’s xAI against OpenAI were also among the top talking points
With drug prices a hot topic in the US, courts are seemingly more reluctant to prevent the entry of generics to the market
Academic Eden Sarid joins us during Pride Month to discuss queer expression and IP law, Patagonia v Pattie Gonia, and how queer and AI-generated creations both pose novelty concerns
Patent attorney Michael Henson joins the firm to lead its freshly launched blockchain and digital assets practice
A dispute over mammogram technology, and a development in the case between GSK and Moderna were also among the top talking points in recent weeks
With rankings for Western Europe set to be published on June 25, we sat down with our research lead to find out what practitioners and law firms can expect
Peter O’Sullivan, a professional services executive, says he is looking forward to helping Pearce IP become the leading life sciences firm in Australia and New Zealand
Gift this article