Source: http://legalarium.com/ttabquotes/ModeofUse.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 16:27:48+00:00

Document:
(1) The applicant must specify the goods and the geographic area for which the applicant seeks registration of the mark. 15 U.S.C. §1051(a)(3)(D); 37 C.F.R. §2.42. The applicant must also set forth the mode of use. 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.42.
(2) The applicant must specify, to the extent of its knowledge, the exceptions to its claim of exclusive use, listing any concurrent use by others and the relevant goods, geographic areas, and periods of this use. 15 U.S.C. §1051(a)(3)(D); 37 C.F.R. §2.42.
(3) The applicant must also list the names and addresses of the concurrent users, the registrations issued to or applications filed by them (if any), and the mode of such use. 37 C.F.R. §2.42.
(4) The verification for concurrent use should be modified to indicate an exception, that no one else except as specified in the application has the right to use the mark. 15 U.S.C. §1051(a)(3)(D). See TMEP §804.02.
The applicant does not have to insert the stated exceptions in the verification or declaration; the exceptions may be set forth anywhere in the application.
In addition to the requirements noted above, which apply to all applications for concurrent use registration, concurrent use applications must meet other conditions, depending on whether the application is subject to a concurrent use proceeding before the Board (see TMEP §§1207.04(e) et seq.) or pursuant to the decree of a court (see TMEP §§1207.04(f) et seq.).
A mode of use restriction allows the registrant to use the registered mark only in conjunction with a modifier.
Each of the nine concurrent registrations is nationwide in scope, but is subject to a "mode of use" restriction which allows the registrant to use the registered Bell logo mark only in conjunction with an approved geographic trade modifier, such as, in respondent's case, "Mountain Bell" or "Pacific Northwest Bell." See generally Tamarkin Co. v. Seaway Food Town, 34 USPQ2d 1587 (TTAB 1995); see also Holiday Inn v. Holiday Inns, Inc., 534 F.2d 312, 189 USPQ 630 (CCPA 1976); Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc. v. Dunhill Tailored Clothes, Inc., 293 F.2d 685, 130 USPQ 412 (1961), cert. denied, 369 U.S. 864 (1962).
C.F.R. Sec. 2.42. Concurrent use.

References: §1051
 §2
 §1052
 §2
 §1051
 §2
 §2
 §1051
 §804
 v. 
 v. 
 v.