US: Trademark Modernization Act of 2020 strengthens accuracy of the federal trademark register
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

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 ros bottom lb

More from across our site

The firm was among multiple winners at a record-breaking 2024 ceremony held in London on April 11
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
The Americas research cycle has commenced. Do not miss this opportunity to nominate your work!
Increased and new patent fees could affect prosecution strategies for law firms and companies, according to sources
Five former Oblon lawyers felt that joining Merchant & Gould would help them offer the right prices to entice clients
The UK may not be a UPC member but its firms are still acting in proceedings, with Carpmaels among the most prominent
Naomi Pearce of Pearce IP shares how she is helping her firm become a life sciences leader and how generous policies have helped attract top talent
The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal filed by Ocado, in what was a key test for transparency at the new court
Each week Managing IP speaks to a different IP lawyer or professional about their life and career
INTA is calling out ‘immoral’ unregistered attendees at the association’s annual meeting, but the debate is more nuanced
Gift this article