USPTO files proposed rules for new US trademark act
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

USPTO files proposed rules for new US trademark act

trademarkmodernizaitonnewscover.jpg

A newly released document outlines how the Trademark Modernization Act could affect trademark registrants

The USPTO filed its proposed rules for implementing provisions of the Trademark Modernization Act yesterday, May 17.

The document set forth guidelines for how the USPTO would oversee the new ex-parte expungement and ex-parte re-examination proceedings, which are designed to make it easier for third parties to cancel marks that are no longer in use.

The USPTO is seeking public comment on the proposed guidelines before they are put into effect. When they are final, they will give practitioners more information on how to prepare for these proceedings.

The Trademark Modernization Act, which was passed in December 2020 and will go into effect in December 2021, was enacted to help clear the registry of marks not being used in commerce.

The USPTO document explained what petitioners would have to do before requesting ex-parte expungement and ex-parte re-examination proceedings.

It said, for example, that petitioners would have to partake in a reasonable investigation before alleging that a mark was never used in commerce or not used in commerce as of the relevant date.

“What constitutes a reasonable investigation is a case-by-case determination, but any investigation should focus on the mark disclosed in the registration and the identified goods and/or services, keeping in mind their scope and applicable trade channels,” the document said.

The USPTO said that it would generally not consider a single query on an internet search engine to be a reasonable investigation. But the applicant would not have to demonstrate that it searched all potentially available sources of evidence.

Another proposed rule set a fee of $600, per class, for a petition for expungement or re-examination.

And one proposed guideline said that the USPTO director would only consider complete petitions for expungement and re-examination.

The document outlined several factors that applicants would have to include for the petition to be considered complete, including the fee, name, domicile address, and email address of the petitioner, and a concise factual statement of the relevant basis for the petition.

The document also outlined requirements for what trademark registrants would need to do if the new proceedings were instituted against their marks.

One proposed rule said that a registrant could respond to a proceeding by deleting some or all of the goods or services. But if a registrant failed to respond within a timely fashion, the USPTO would cancel the registration – either in part or in whole.

A registrant could request the reinstatement of its registration, however, if it failed to respond because of an extraordinary situation.

According to the document, the USPTO is looking into whether it should consider a trademark owner’s registration for audit when the registrant’s failure to respond leads to some goods or services being cancelled.  

As part of the Trademark Modernization Act, a party can file an ex-parte expungement proceeding within three to 10 years of a mark’s issuance on the basis that it was never used in US commerce.

It can initiate an ex-parte re-examination proceeding within the first five years of the mark’s issuance when the mark was not used in US commerce before its date of registration.

Managing IP will follow up with more analysis of the proposed rules.

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Sources debate the implications of an opinion by Delaware’s chief judge Colm Connolly that lambasted the NPE IP Edge
Five partners reveal how delays in examining trademark applications are affecting their advice to clients and how they pitch new work
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Partners at Quinn Emanuel explain how walkie-talkie and real-estate analogies helped them win over a jury at the Eastern District of Texas
The heads of Malaysian firm HHQ’s new technology practice group say they can be frontline advisers on the intersection between AI, blockchain, and IP
Darren Jiron, Finnegan’s managing partner in London, discusses the firm’s growth plans and misconceptions about US firm culture
The EMEA region research cycle has commenced - do not miss this opportunity to nominate your work from 2023!
A former partner at Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, which voted to dissolve in October, has joined McCarter & English
As ChatGPT celebrates its first birthday, we are still grappling with a multitude of IP concerns
Sources say an official role at an IP industry body is great for generating business leads, but that shouldn’t be the only motivation behind taking on the responsibility