USPTO files proposed rules for new US trademark act

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

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

Niall Trainor, managing attorney at Hasbro, says brands could boost their business with careful portfolio culling
A decision by the Paris Central Division will lead to more IP work for outside counsel, say sources
Courts are encouraged to deliver judgments within three months of a trial, but that deadline has been missed in several recent cases
Lawyers at Maiwald and Sterne Kessler analyse how patents with claims directed to medical treatments are handled in the US and in Europe
Michael DeVincenzo explains how he and his team convinced the Federal Circuit to find in favour of his client in a patent case against Salesforce
Funders and a litigator explain how litigation funding disclosure requirements could affect their business
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Discussions about whether to seek director reviews can come up frequently with clients, even though actual grant rates are rare
In the latest episode, we discuss why IP firms might be attractive to PE investors and bring you the latest news on submissions for next year’s IP STARS rankings
Back-to-back PE deals for IP firms in recent years show that IP firms are sitting on goldmines, so traditional partnerships should be open to change
Gift this article