Trade Mark User Requirements Tightened Following US Supreme Court Ruling

In Insights, Uncategorized

3 December, 2009

Following a key US Supreme Court ruling earlier this year we announced that the practice in regard to the fulfilment of the user requirements for trade marks has been tightened in the USA. Consequently, an entire trade mark registration can be cancelled if the owner can only prove use of trade mark for a part of the list of goods. This will now be considered to constitute fraud.

The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), which handles the actual registration, interpreted the ruling very strictly and thus it was considered fraud if the trade mark owner ought to have known that the trade mark had not been put to use for the entire list of goods.

Subsequent to the Supreme Court ruling, however, the US Federal Circuit Court has ruled that the party seeking the cancellation of another party’s trade mark registration, i.e. a third party, has the burden of proof and must prove that the registrant is guilty of fraud. This means that in future it should not be so easy to successfully seek the cancellation of a trade mark registration owned by another party . The ruling ought to result in the USPTO changing its practice on fraud, but we do not know if such a change of practice will take place.

Unfortunately, the ruling of the Federal Circuit Court gives no indication as to how many goods must be deleted from the trade mark registration when fraud has been established. The USPTO has interpreted the practice to mean that the entire class of goods must be deleted if the trade mark is not used at all or is only used for some of the goods for which it was registered, but this does not necessarily mean that the entire registration must be cancelled. Whether this practice will be confirmed in a court of law remains unknown at the present time.

As long as doubts exist about the practice for proof of use of trade marks in the USA, we recommend that trade mark owners make sure that the list of goods accurately reflects the goods for which the trade mark is actually used. This is particularly important where a company’s most important trade marks are concerned.

Anette Rasmussen, Attorney at Law

You may also be interested in:

German decision on UPC expected in early 2020

In an interview with IP industry publication Managing IP, Justice Huber of the German Federal Constitutional Court stated that

Read more...

AMS Neve vs. Heritage Audio: What does the CJEU ruling mean for online infringement cases?

EU-trademark owners receive much needed clarity on jurisdiction in online infringement cases The internet’s boundless nature provides EU-trademark owners

Read more...

The Crispr-Cas9 patent tussle continues: The case of UC Berkeley at the EPO

In Europe, we don’t do things the way the Americans do… Oral proceedings in the opposition against UC Berkeley’s

Read more...

Mobile Sliding Menu