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 2023

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

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

Sponsored by


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



Alexandra Caleca

Associate, Katten Muchin Rosenman


more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Johnson & Johnson won’t enforce patents for bedaquiline after months of public scrutiny and new licences for generics
We have published this year’s Corporate IP Stars list, an annual rankings publication which recognises senior in-house practitioners
The 2023 edition of Managing IP’s Rising Stars publication is now available online
Allison M Hester, attorney at Moye White, outlines Mattel's litigation history and explains what trademark lessons brands can learn from the toy company
The former BoA president won a high-profile race to succeed Christian Archambeau as executive director in July
Each week Managing IP speaks to a different IP professional about their life and career
Van Anh Le, assistant professor in IP law at Durham University, assesses the US-Vietnam partnership and the potential implications for Vietnam's IP landscape
Civil society and industry representatives met in Geneva on Thursday, September 28 to discuss a potential expansion of the TRIPS waiver
Sources say the beta version of the USPTO’s new trademark search tool is a big improvement over the current system but that it isn’t perfect
Canadian counsel weigh in on the IP office’s decision to raise trademark filing fees in 2024 and how they’re preparing clients