Lambert Shortell & Connaughton Blog
The Trademark Modernization Act’s New Cancellation Procedures
If a registered trademark, which is not in use, is or has prevented you from obtaining a registration for your trademark help is finally here. The Trademark Modernization Act’s (“TMA”) is now effective and new procedures for cancelling unused registrations, or registrations with goods and services that were not in use at the time of declaration, are now effective. The Act includes important amendments to the Lanham Act:
1. Establishes two new ex parte proceedings to cancel unused marks.
2. Creates a uniform rule establishing a rebuttable presumption of irreparable harm for trademark infringement.
3. Formalizes the procedure for Letters of Protest.
4. Permits the examiner to set shorter response times for office actions.
This article will focus on point one, ex parte proceedings to cancel unused marks. Under the new TMA, any party, can challenge a registered trademark by filing: i) an expungement proceeding against a mark that is 3 to 10 years old that has never been used in commerce in connection with the registered goods and services; or ii) a reexamination proceeding against a mark less than 5 years old that was not in use for some or all of the goods when the registrant filed its declaration of use.
Those challenges take place before examining attorneys in the Trademark Office. Once a party submits its challenge to the Trademark Office its role in the process is complete. Upon submission and determination that adequate evidence of non-use has been received, the Trademark Office will issue a post-registration Office Action to the registrant. If the registrant does not rebut the case of non-use, all or part of the registration will be cancelled. The outcome can be appealed to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”).
The foregoing cancellation proceedings became effective on December 27, 2021, and apply to “any mark registered before, on, or after that effective date.”
Gary Lambert Speaks About Trademark and Patent Law at the National Hunting Retailer Show in Nashville, Tennessee
Recent Blog Posts:
Continuous Innovation to Extend Patent Coverage
Patents have a term of 20 years from the filing date. After this term, the technology enters the public domain for all to use. This balances incentivizing innovation during the patent term with allowing further innovation and broader access after the term expires. Often, clients ask how they can extend or otherwise expand upon the […]
Design Patents
Determining the Difference Between Ornamentality and Functionality The fundamental difference between design patents and utility patents is that design patents protect how an article looks; whereas, utility patents protect the way an article is used and works. In other words, design patents protect the purely ornamental characteristics of an article. Simple enough, right? Wrong. Sometimes […]
Patent Infringement Venue
Establishing Patent Infringement Venue Today and in the “New Normal” In 2017, The United States Supreme Court decided that a 1957 opinion is still valid and still limits venue choices for patent infringement actions under 28 U.S.C. § 1400. See TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, 581 U.S. ___ (2017) (citing Fourco […]
Patent Process Summary
A Brief Summary of the Patent Process Whenever we meet with a new client who has not gone through the patent process before (and even when they have), we make sure to give them a brief summary of what they can expect. The patenting process involves multiple steps. Depending on the invention, the prior art […]
One Skilled in the Art: POSITA
The Importance of Stepping Into the Shoes of the Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) All too often patent examiners and patent practitioners give lip service to the importance of the “person of ordinary skill in the art” (“POSITA”) when discussing issues such as obviousness rejections, the meaning of claim terms in litigation, […]
Obvious Design Choice: Another Patent Examiner Catch-All
One particularly frustrating rejection that patent applicants can be faced with is a rejection alleging obviousness based on “design choice.” These rejections arise when one or more elements of an invention are not disclosed in the prior art, but the examiner nonetheless alleges that there are only “minor” differences between the claims and the prior […]
