Source: http://legalarium.com/ttabquotes/ConcurrentRegistration.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 15:47:55+00:00

Document:
Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §1052(d), contains a proviso under which an eligible applicant may request issuance of a registration concurrent with the registration of a conflicting mark.
In a concurrent use application, the applicant normally requests a geographically restricted registration. The applicant seeks registration for a specified geographical area of the United States and lists one or more parties who concededly have rights in the mark in other geographical areas of the United States. These other parties may own applications or registrations, or they may have common law rights in a mark, but no application or registration. "Incontestable" registrations (i.e., where the registrant's right to use the mark has become incontestable pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1065) are subject to concurrent use registration proceedings. See Holiday Inn v. Holiday Inns, Inc., 534 F.2d 312, 189 USPQ 630 (C.C.P.A. 1976); Thriftimart, Inc. v. Scot Lad Foods, Inc., 207 USPQ 330 (TTAB 1980).
Registrations and applications to register on the Supplemental Register and registrations under the Act of 1920 (see TMEP §1601.05) are not subject to concurrent use registration proceedings. 37 C.F.R. §2.99(g).
Concurrent use registration is requested by the applicant; it should not be suggested or initiated by the examining attorney.
Statutory basis for concurrent registration.
CDS, Incorporated v. I.C.E.D. Management, Inc., Concurrent Use No. 94001250, (TTAB 2006).
Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act (15 U.S.C. § 1052(d)) provides: "That if the Director determines that confusion, mistake, or deception is not likely to result from the continued use by more than one person of the same or similar marks under conditions and limitations as to the mode or place of use of the marks or the goods on or in connection with which such marks are used, concurrent registrations may be issued to such persons when they have become entitled to use such marks as a result of their concurrent lawful use in commerce prior to (1) the earliest of the filing dates of the applications pending or of any registration issued under this Act…"
Determination of when concurrent registrations are permitted.
We earlier pointed out the two requirements which the proviso sets out as conditions precedent to the issuance of concurrent registrations. The first, that the parties be presently entitled to concurrently use the mark in commerce, we view as being primarily jurisdictional in nature. As with a single applicant, we consider the extent of such actual use to be irrelevant so long as it amounts to more than a mere token attempt to conform with the requirement of the statute. Cf. Fort Howard Paper Co. v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 55 CCPA 947, 390 F.2d 1015, 157 USPQ 55 (1968). The touchstone, however, is the requirement that there be no likelihood of confusion, mistake or deception in the market place as to the source of the goods resulting from the continued concurrent use of the trademark. Only in satisfying this standard, can the Patent Office be sure that both the rights of the individual parties and those of the public are being protected. Once there has been a determination that both parties are entitled to a federal registration, the extent to which those registrations are to be restricted territorially must also be governed by the statutory standard of likelihood of confusion. In re Beatrice Foods Co., 429 F.2d 466, 166 USPQ 431, 436 (CCPA 1970).
Bruden of Proof: An applicant for a concurrent use registration has the burden of proof for allowing registration.
Under 37 CFR § 2.99(e), an "applicant for a concurrent use registration has the burden of proving entitlement thereto." The board has held that "[a]s a general rule, a prior user of a mark is entitled to a registration covering the entire United States limited only to the extent that the subsequent user can establish that no likelihood of confusion exists and that it has concurrent rights in its actual area of use, plus its area of natural expansion." Pinocchio's Pizza v. Sandra Inc., 11 USPQ2d 1227, 1228 (TTAB 1989).
Explanation of geographic area of use for the prior and junior user of a registered marks.
ICED as the registrant and prior user "is entitled to a registration covering the entire United States, including areas of its use and nonuse, subject only to the exception of geographic areas where the junior user can prove prior use. The junior user is, in effect, frozen in its area of prior use." Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co. v. Advantage Rent-A-Car Inc., 330 F.3d 1333, 66 USPQ2d 1811, 1818 (Fed. Cir. 2003). However, the area of "prior use" includes more than areas of actual use. The CCPA has held that: actual use in a territory was not necessary to establish rights in that territory, and that the inquiry should focus on the party's (1) previous business activity; (2) previous expansion or lack thereof; (3) dominance of contiguous areas; (4) presently-planned expansion; and, where applicable (5) possible market penetration by means of products brought in from other areas. Weiner King, Inc. v. The Weiner King Corp., 615 F.2d 512, 204 USPQ 820, 830 (CCPA 1980). Furthermore, use in a territory must be more "than a token attempt to conform with the requirement of the statute." Beatrice Foods, 166 USPQ at 436.
Advertising on the Internet does not automatically preclude concurrent use registration (and the presence of a disclaimer is helpful in avoiding confusion).
Also, in Allard Enterprises Inc. v. Advanced Programming Resources, 249 F.3d 564, 58 USPQ2d 1710, 1717 (6th Cir. 2001), the Court stated the following: "We also vacate the district court's injunction against Allard's use of the APR mark on the internet. Although we have held that APR has superior rights to use the mark, at a minimum, in central Ohio we decline to affirm the district court's conclusion that an injunction prohibiting Allard's use of the mark in a specific geographic area necessarily precludes any use of the mark by Allard on the internet… We suggest that, due to the paucity of case law addressing concurrent trademark rights and internet use, the district court may want to consider cases addressing the role of national advertising by parties with concurrent trademark rights. Courts have held in some cases that, despite a concurrent user with a territory of exclusive use, an almost-national user should be permitted some form of national advertising."
The Sixth Circuit has "found the existence of a disclaimer very informative, and [it] held that there was no likelihood of confusion, partly on that basis." Taubman Co. v. Webfeats, 319 F.3d 770, 65 USPQ2d 1834, 1839 (6th Cir. 2003), citing, In Holiday Inns, Inc. v. 800 Reservation, Inc., 86 F.3d 619, 39 USPQ2d 1181 (6th Cir. 1996).
Here, too, in the context of a concurrent use proceeding, and because of our view that advertising on the Internet does not automatically preclude concurrent use registration, we find that the presence of a disclaimer on CDS's website is likewise helpful in avoiding confusion in this case. Therefore, we conclude that the specific evidence of the parties' simultaneous use on the Internet in this case does not require us to find that there is a likelihood of confusion.
The Director shall notify any registrant who files the above- prescribed affidavit of the filing thereof.
C.F.R. Sec. 2.99. Application to register as concurrent user.
(a) An application for registration as a lawful concurrent user will be examined in the same manner as other applications for registration.
(b) If it appears that the applicant is entitled to have the mark registered, subject to a concurrent use proceeding, the mark will be published in the Official Gazette as provided by §2.80.
(c) If no opposition is filed, or if all oppositions that are filed are dismissed or withdrawn, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board will send a notification to the applicant for concurrent use registration (plaintiff) and to each applicant, registrant or user specified as a concurrent user in the application (defendants). The notification for each defendant shall state the name and address of the plaintiff and of the plaintiff's attorney or other authorized representative, if any, together with the serial number and filing date of the application. If a party has provided the Office with an e-mail address, the notification may be transmitted via e-mail.
(1) Within ten days from the date of the Board's notification, the applicant for concurrent use registration must serve copies of its application, specimens and drawing on each applicant, registrant or user specified as a concurrent user in the application for registration, as directed by the Board. If any service copy is returned to the concurrent use applicant as undeliverable, the concurrent use applicant must notify the Board within ten days of receipt of the returned copy.
(2) An answer to the notice is not required in the case of an applicant or registrant whose application or registration is specified as a concurrent user in the application, but a statement, if desired, may be filed within forty days after the issuance of the notice; in the case of any other party specified as a concurrent user in the application, an answer must be filed within forty days after the issuance of the notice.
(3) If an answer, when required, is not filed, judgment will be entered precluding the specified user from claiming any right more extensive than that acknowledged in the application(s) for concurrent use registration, but the applicant(s) will remain with the burden of proving entitlement to registration(s).
(e) The applicant for a concurrent use registration has the burden of proving entitlement thereto. If there are two or more applications for concurrent use registration involved in a proceeding, the party whose application has the latest filing date is the junior party. A party whose application has a filing date between the filing dates of the earliest involved application and the latest involved application is a junior party to every party whose involved application has an earlier filing date. If any applications have the same filing date, the application with the latest date of execution will be deemed to have the latest filing date and that applicant will be the junior party. A person specified as an excepted user in a concurrent use application but who has not filed an application shall be considered a party senior to every party that has an application involved in the proceeding.
(5) The excepted use specified in the concurrent use application does not involve a registration, or any involved registration has been restricted by the Director in accordance with the court decree.
If any of the conditions specified in this paragraph is not satisfied, a concurrent use registration proceeding shall be prepared and instituted as provided in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this section.
(g) Registrations and applications to register on the Supplemental Register and registrations under the Act of 1920 are not subject to concurrent use registration proceedings. Applications under section 1(b) of the Act of 1946 are subject to concurrent use registration proceedings only after the applicant files an acceptable allegation of use under §2.76 or §2.88. Applications based solely on section 44 or section 66(a) of the Act are not subject to concurrent use registration proceedings.
(h) The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board will consider and determine concurrent use rights only in the context of a concurrent use registration proceeding.

References: §1052
 §1065
 v. 
 v. 
 §1601
 §2
 v. 
 § 1052
 v. 
 § 2
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §2
 §2
 §2