Source: http://www.trademarkpractice.org/tmep/1000.htm
Timestamp: 2014-07-24 12:19:13
Document Index: 379210804

Matched Legal Cases: ['§44', '§44', '§44', '§44', '§44', '§44', '§44', '§44', '§1002', '§1126', '§44', '§44', '§1003', '§44', '§1004', '§44', '§1003', '§44', '§44', '§1', '§1', '§2', '§806', '§44', '§1009', '§44', '§1002', '§44', '§44', '§44', '§1126', '§1126', '§1002', '§1002', '§44', '§1', '§1', '§806', '§44', '§1002', '§1004', '§44', '§44', '§44', '§1126', '§1003', '§44', '§806', '§44', '§44', '§1002', '§44', '§44', '§44', '§2', '§1003', '§44', '§1002', '§1', '§1', '§44', '§1002', '§1003', '§44', '§44', '§44', '§44', '§44', '§1002', '§44', '§44', '§44', '§44', '§44', '§44', '§44', '§44', '§44', '§44', '§44', '§1002', '§44', '§1002', '§44', '§44', '§1002', '§44', '§1002', '§44', '§44', '§44', '§44', '§44', '§44', '§1002', '§44', '§44', '§44', '§44', '§44', '§1002', '§44', '§1002', '§44', '§1003', '§1', '§1', '§44', '§1002', '§44', '§1002', '§44', '§1126', '§1002', '§44', '§1002', '§44', '§44', '§1126', '§2', '§1003', '§1126', '§2', '§1126', '§2', '§1126', '§1002', '§44', '§2', '§1402', '§2', '§1051', '§610', '§1057', '§201', '§44', '§44', '§44', '§44', '§1003', '§44', '§806', '§1126', '§2', '§44', '§44', '§1126', '§2', '§21', '§2', '§1', '§1', '§44', '§2', '§1', '§1051', '§1051', '§806', '§1', '§44', '§44', '§44', '§1002', '§44', '§44', '§1004', '§44', '§44', '§66', '§2', '§44', '§704', '§716', '§44', '§1', '§44', '§2', '§44', '§44', '§44', '§44', '§44', '§44', '§44', '§716', '§1126', '§2', '§2', '§44', '§44', '§44', '§2', '§1208', '§44', '§44', '§44', '§44', '§44', '§1504', '§44', '§44', '§44', '§44', '§44', '§44', '§44', '§806', '§44', '§44', '§806', '§44', '§2', '§2', '§806', '§44', '§1002', '§44', '§44', '§1126', '§1126', '§1002', '§1126', '§2', '§1004', '§1126', '§2', '§44', '§2', '§1402', '§1051', '§610', '§44', '§44', '§44', '§1003', '§1126', '§2', '§1004', '§2', '§44', '§1004', '§2', '§44', '§806', '§2', '§44', '§806', '§44', '§44', '§44', '§44', '§44', '§1', '§1', '§806', '§44', '§1002', '§1', '§1', '§44', '§44', '§806', '§2', '§806', '§44', '§44', '§44', '§1006', '§44', '§44', '§44', '§44', '§44', '§44', '§1002', '§44', '§1002', '§44', '§44', '§1004', '§44', '§44', '§1003', '§44', '§44', '§1', '§1', '§44', '§44', '§806', '§44', '§44', '§1002', '§44', '§1', '§1', '§44', '§1005', '§44', '§1060', '§3', '§610', '§44', '§1', '§44', '§1306', '§44', '§44', '§44', '§1101', '§2', '§44', '§44', '§44', '§44', '§1', '§1', '§44', '§44', '§2', '§814', '§44', '§44', '§1052', '§1212', '§44', '§44', '§2', '§807', '§2', '§807', '§1', '§44', '§44', '§807', '§2', '§807', '§44', '§807', '§807', '§2', '§807', '§44', '§2', '§44', '§2', '§807', '§2', '§807', '§2', '§2', '§807', '§2', '§807', '§807', '§2', '§44', '§44', '§44', '§2', '§1402', '§44', '§1051', '§2', '§610', '§44', '§44', '§44', '§1008', '§44', '§44', '§1057', '§1126', '§44', '§44', '§1126', '§2', '§1002', '§44', '§66', '§44', '§2', '§1012', '§44', '§1126', '§2', '§1003', '§44', '§1901']

US TMEP 2009 Chapter 1000
Chapter 1000 Applications Under Section 44
Section 44 Applications - General
Eligible Applicants Under §44
Applicants Under §44(e)
Applicants Under §44(d)
Entitlement Under a Treaty
States Applicants
Section 44(d) - Priority Filing Date Based
on a Foreign Application
�First-Filed� Requirement
Claim Must Be Filed Within Six Months of Foreign Filing
for Registration Required
Awaiting a Foreign Registration
1003.04(a)
Based Solely on Section 44
1003.04(b)
Multiple-Basis
1003.04(c)
Inquiries Issued as to Status of Foreign Application
44(d) and Priority for Publication
May File Under Both §§44(d) and 44(e)
May be Based on More Than One Foreign Application
of the Foreign Application
Applications Based on Foreign Registrations
under §44(e)
of Foreign Registration Required
1004.01(a)
of the Foreign Registration
1004.01(b)
May be Based on More Than One Foreign Registration
Ownership of the Foreign Application or
Assignment of §44 Applications
Standards for Registration Under Section 44
Bona Fide Intention to Use the Mark in
Allegation of Use and Specimen of Use Not
Proof of Acquired Distinctiveness in §44
Exact Representation of Mark in Foreign Registration
Mark Per Application
and Descriptions of Three-Dimensional and Non-Visual Marks
Designation of Domestic Representative by
Applicants Not Domiciled in the United States
Section 44 Applications for the Supplemental
Section 44 Registration Independent of
Underlying Foreign Registration
International Registration As Basis for §44
The United States has assumed certain obligations from agreements
adopted at the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property of
1883 and subsequent revisions to these agreements. The United States is also a
member of the Inter-American Convention for Trademarks and Commercial
Protection (also known as the �Pan-American Convention�), the Buenos Aires
Convention for the Protection of Trade Marks and Commercial Names, the World
Trade Organization, and certain other treaties and agreements. See
TMEP §1002.03 and Appendix
B of this Manual for additional information about treaties and international agreements.
Section 44 of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §1126, implements
these agreements. Section 44 applications fall into two basic categories: (1)
United States applications relying on foreign applications to secure a priority
filing date in the United States under §44(d); and (2) United States
applications relying on ownership of foreign registrations as a basis for
registration in the United States under §44(e). See TMEP §§1003 et seq. regarding §44(d), and
TMEP §§1004 et seq. regarding §44(e). Section 44(d) of the Act provides only a basis for receipt of a
priority filing date, not a basis for publication or registration. See
TMEP §1003.03.
An applicant may file an application based solely on §44, or may
claim §44 in addition to §1(a) or §1(b) as a filing basis. An applicant who
claims more than one basis must comply with all application requirements for
each basis asserted. 37 C.F.R. §2.34. See TMEP §§806.02 et seq.
regarding multiple-basis applications. In an application based solely on §44, the applicant must submit
a verified statement that the applicant has a bona fide intention to use the
mark in commerce, but use in commerce is not required prior to registration.
TMEP §1009. In limited circumstances, applicants domiciled in the United
States may be entitled to file under §44, if they meet the requirements of the
TMEP §1002.05.
TMEP Chapter 1900
regarding international registration
1002 Eligible Applicants Under §44 1002.01 Eligible Applicants Under §44(e) To be eligible for registration under §44(e), an applicant must
applicant�s country of origin must be a party to a treaty or agreement with the
United States that provides for registration based on ownership of a foreign
registration, or must extend reciprocal registration rights to nationals of the
United States (15 U.S.C. §1126(b)); and
applicant must be the owner of a valid registration in the applicant�s
country of origin (15 U.S.C. §1126(c) and (e)). See
TMEP §1002.04 regarding the applicant�s country of
TMEP §1002.03 and Appendix B
information about how to determine whether a particular country is a party to a
treaty or agreement, or provides reciprocal registration rights to United
States nationals. If an applicant does not meet the requirements listed above, the
examining attorney must refuse registration under §44(e). The applicant may
amend the application to claim §1(a) or §1(b) as a basis. See TMEP §§806.03 et seq. regarding amendment of the basis. An applicant domiciled in the United States cannot obtain
registration under §44(e) unless the applicant is the owner of a registration
from an eligible country other than the United States and the applicant
can establish that the foreign country is the applicant�s country of origin. See
TMEP §1002.05. See
TMEP §§1004 et seq. for additional information
about the requirements for registration under §44(e). 1002.02 Eligible Applicants Under §44(d) To be eligible for a priority filing date under §44(d), an
applicant�s country of origin must be a party to an international treaty or
agreement with the United States that provides a right of priority, or must
extend reciprocal rights to priority to United States nationals; and
foreign application that is the basis for the priority claim must be filed in a
country that either is a party to a treaty or agreement with the United States
that provides a right of priority, or extends reciprocal rights to priority to
15 U.S.C. §§1126(b) and (d). See
information about how to determine whether a particular country is a party to
an international treaty or agreement that provides a right of priority to
United States nationals. If an applicant does not meet the requirements listed above, the
examining attorney must advise the applicant that it is not entitled to
priority. If the applicant has not claimed another filing basis, the examining
attorney must require the applicant to claim and perfect an acceptable basis
before the application can be approved for publication or registration on the
Supplemental Register. See TMEP §1003.03 regarding registration basis
for §44 applications and
TMEP §§806.03 et seq. regarding amendment of
the basis. The examining attorney must ensure that the priority claim is
deleted from the TRAM database, and conduct a new search of the records of the
United States Patent and Trademark Office (�USPTO�)
for conflicting marks. To obtain a priority filing date under §44(d), the foreign
application does not have to be filed in the applicant�s country of
origin. However, to obtain registration under §44(e) based on the foreign
registration that will issue from the application on which the applicant relies
for priority, the applicant must establish that the country in which the
application was filed is its country of origin.
TMEP §1002.01. Therefore, if
the applicant files a §44(d) priority claim based on an application from a
treaty country other than the country in which the applicant is domiciled, the
examining attorney must advise the applicant that in order to rely on the
registration issuing from the identified foreign application as its basis for
registration, the applicant will be required to establish that the country
where the foreign application was filed is its country of origin. It is important to keep in mind that while §44(d) provides a
basis for filing and a priority filing date, it does not provide a basis for
publication or registration. A party who files under §44(d) must establish a
basis for registration. 37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(4)(iii);
TMEP §1003.03. For
example, a French corporation may rely on a first-filed application in Canada
for its priority claim under §44(d), regardless of whether Canada is the
applicant�s country of origin. However, before the mark can be published for
opposition in the United States, the French corporation must do one of the
following: (1) establish Canada as its country of origin and rely on the
prospective Canadian registration as its basis for registration in the United
States (see TMEP §§1002.01 and
1002.04); (2) assert use in commerce
under §1(a) and/or a bona fide intention to use in commerce under §1(b) as its
basis for publication in the United States; or (3) rely on a registration from
France as its basis for registration in the United States. An applicant domiciled or organized in the United States may
claim priority under §44(d) based on ownership of an application in a treaty
country other than the United States. See TMEP §1002.05. See
TMEP §§1003 et seq. for additional information
about the requirements for obtaining a priority filing date under §44.
1002.03 Establishing Entitlement Under a Treaty In a §44 application, the examining attorney must confirm that:
(1) both the applicant�s country of origin and the country where the applicant
has filed the application or obtained registration are parties to a treaty or
agreement with the United States (or that they extend reciprocal rights to
United States nationals by law); and (2) the specific benefit that the
applicant is claiming under §44 (i.e., the right to a priority filing
date under §44(d) and/or the right to registration under §44(e)) is provided
for under the treaty or agreement. See
TMEP §§1002.01 and
1002.02.
To determine whether a particular country has a treaty with the
United States that provides for the benefit that the applicant is claiming
under §44, examining attorneys should consult
lists the members of the Paris Convention, Inter-American
Convention, Buenos Aires Convention, World Trade Organization, European Union
(�EU�), and certain countries entitled to reciprocal treatment under other
international agreements, as well as websites where examining attorneys can
obtain updated information about these treaties or agreements. In a §44 application or an amendment adding or substituting §44
as a basis, an eligible applicant may rely on an application filed in or
registration issued by certain common offices of several states. A �common
office of several states� refers to an entity serving as the issuing office for
trademark registrations for an established group of countries. Examples
include the Benelux Trademark Office, servicing Belgium, The Netherlands, and Luxemburg; and the African Intellectual Property Organization (�OAPI�), which
issues registrations covering all member states (i.e., Benin,
Burkina-Faso, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Equatorial
Guinea, Gabon, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Ivory Coast, Mali, Mauritania, Niger,
Senegal, and Togo).
An applicant may also claim the benefits of §44 based on an
application for or registration of a Community Trade Mark, if the applicant has
a bona fide and effective industrial or commercial establishment in a country
or state that is a member of the EU, formerly known as the European Community
(EC) or European Economic Community (EEC). See
If an eligible applicant filed an application or obtained a
registration in a country that is a member of the Paris Convention,
Inter-American Convention, World Trade Organization, or European Union, the
applicant can claim the benefits of either §44(d) or §44(e), if the
applicant meets the requirements of those sections. An eligible applicant may
also file under either §44(e) or §44(d) based on an application filed or
registration obtained in Taiwan. On the other hand, if the applicant filed an
application or obtained a registration in a country that is a member of the
Buenos Aires Convention, the applicant may seek registration under §44(e), but
may not obtain a priority filing date under §44(d). See
additional information. In the case of agreements not covered in
Appendix B, an
applicant can establish its eligibility for the benefits of §44 by providing
evidence of statutes or agreements establishing reciprocity between the United
States and the relevant country. Examining attorneys may also consult sources
such as Trademarks Throughout the World (Anne-Laure Covin, 5th
ed. 2008) and World Trademark Law and Practice (Ethan Horwitz, 2nd
ed. 2008), available to USPTO employees in the Trademark Law Library, for
information about the trademark laws of foreign countries. Additional
resources are listed in
TMEP §1002.01 for information about how the examining
attorney should handle an application in which the applicant is not entitled to
registration under §44(e), and
TMEP §1002.02 for information about how the
examining attorney should handle an application in which the applicant is not
entitled to priority under §44(d).
1002.04 Establishing Country of Origin To obtain registration under §44(e), the applicant must be the
owner of a valid registration from the applicant�s country of origin.
TMEP §1002.01. To obtain a priority filing date under §44(d), the applicant�s
country of origin must be a treaty country, but the foreign application that is
the basis for the priority claim does not have to be filed in the applicant�s
TMEP §1002.02. An applicant domiciled or organized in the
United States may be entitled to registration under §44(e) if the applicant can
also claim a country of origin other than the United States. See
Section §44(c) of the Trademark Act defines the applicant�s
country of origin as �the country in which he has a bona fide and effective
industrial or commercial establishment, or if he has not such an establishment,
the country in which he is domiciled, or if he has not a domicile in any of the
countries described in paragraph (b) of this section, the country of which he
is a national.� Under this definition, an applicant can have more than one
country of origin. If a §44 applicant is domiciled or incorporated in the relevant
country, the examining attorney should presume that the country is the
applicant�s country of origin, and should not issue any inquiry about the
applicant�s country of origin. If a §44(e) applicant is not domiciled or incorporated in the
country that issued the foreign registration (or if a §44(d) applicant is not
domiciled or incorporated in a treaty country), the examining attorney should
require the applicant to establish that the country is its country of origin.
Normally, a statement by the applicant or the applicant�s attorney that the
applicant has a bona fide and effective industrial or commercial establishment
in the relevant country will be sufficient to establish that the country is the
applicant�s country of origin. This statement does not have to be verified.
However, if any evidence in the record contradicts the applicant�s assertion
that it has a bona fide and effective industrial or commercial establishment in
the relevant country, the examining attorney should require the applicant to
set forth the specific circumstances which establish that the applicant
maintains a bona fide and effective industrial or commercial establishment in
the country. Relevant factors include the presence of production facilities,
business offices, and personnel. The presence of an applicant�s wholly owned subsidiary in a
country does not, by itself, establish country of origin. In re Aktiebolaget
Electrolux, 182 USPQ 255 (TTAB 1974). The fact that the applicant is
wholly owned by a foreign company does not establish country of origin. Karsten
Mfg. Corp. v. Editoy, 79 USPQ2d 1783 (TTAB 2006).
The sale of goods or services outside the United States through
related companies or licensees does not create a bona fide commercial
establishment and thus does not establish country of origin. Karsten, supra.
See also Ex parte Blum, 138 USPQ 316 (Comm�r Pats. 1963) (country of
origin cannot be established by relying on contractual relationships with a
licensee in another country). The United States, by definition, is not a country that has a
treaty with the United States. Therefore, the term �country of origin� in
§§44(b) and (c) means some country other than the United States. In re
Fisons Ltd., 197 USPQ 888 (TTAB 1978). See TMEP §1002.05. See
1002.05 United States Applicants Section 44(b) of the Trademark Act provides that, �Any person
whose country of origin is a party to any convention or treaty relating to
trademarks, trade or commercial names, or the repression of unfair competition,
to which the United States is also a party, or extends reciprocal rights to
nationals of the United States by law, shall be entitled to the benefits of
this section....� Section 44(i) of the Act provides that �[c]itizens or residents
of the United States shall have the same benefits as are granted by this
section to persons granted by this section to persons described in subsection
[44](b)....� However, §44(i) does not provide an independent basis for a
United States applicant to register a mark under §44(e). In re Pony Int�l
Inc., 1 USPQ2d 1076 (Comm�r Pats. 1986). The United States, by definition, is not a country that has a
§44(b) means some country other than the United States, and the term �person�
in §44(b) means a person who can claim a country of origin other than the
United States. In re Fisons Ltd., 197 USPQ 888 (TTAB 1978). An applicant domiciled in the United States may claim priority
under §44(d) based on ownership of an application in a treaty country other
than the United States, even if the other country is not the applicant�s
country of origin. See In re ETA Systems Inc., 2 USPQ2d 1367 (TTAB
1987), dec. withdrawn on other grounds (TTAB, November 28, 1988); In
re International Barrier Corp., 231 USPQ 310 (TTAB 1986). See
TMEP §1002.02. However, an applicant domiciled in the United States may not
obtain registration under §44(e) unless the applicant is the owner of a
registration from an eligible country other than the United States and
the applicant can establish that the foreign country is the applicant�s country
of origin. See Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Editoy, 79 USPQ2d 1783 (TTAB
2006); In re International Barrier Corp., supra; In re Fisons,
supra. See
TMEP §1002.01. For example, a Texas corporation may assert a priority claim
under §44(d) based on ownership of an application in Mexico, regardless of
whether Mexico is its country of origin. However, this applicant must also
assert a valid basis for registration (see
TMEP §1003.03). The
applicant may do so by asserting use in commerce under §1(a) and/or a bona fide
intention to use in commerce under §1(b) as its basis for publication. The
applicant cannot obtain registration in the United States under §44(e) unless
the applicant establishes that Mexico is one of its countries of origin. See
an international treaty or agreement that provides for priority and/or
registration based on ownership of a foreign registration. See also TMEP §1002.01 for information about how
the examining attorney should handle an application in which the applicant is
not entitled to registration under §44(e), and
TMEP §1002.02 for information
about how the examining attorney should handle an application in which the
applicant is not entitled to priority under §44(d).
1003 Section 44(d) - Priority Filing Date Based on a Foreign Application Section 44(d) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §1126(d), provides
for a priority filing date to eligible applicants (see
TMEP §1002.02)
who have filed an application in a treaty country as defined by §44(b) (see
TMEP §1002.03). If an eligible applicant files the United States application
claiming §44(d) priority within six months of filing the first application to
register the mark in a treaty country, the filing date of the first-filed
foreign application is the effective filing date of the United States
application. The requirements for receipt of a priority filing date under
§44(d) are:
(1) The eligible applicant must file a claim of priority
within six months of the filing date of the first-filed foreign application.
15 U.S.C. §1126(d)(1); 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(4)(i) and 2.35(b)(5);
TMEP §§1003.01
and 1003.02.
(2) The applicant must: (a) specify the filing date and country of the first regularly filed foreign application; or (b) state that the
application is based upon a subsequent regularly filed application in the same
foreign country, and that any prior-filed application has been withdrawn,
abandoned, or otherwise disposed of, without having been laid open to public
inspection and without having any rights outstanding, and has not served as a
basis for claiming a right of priority. 15 U.S.C. §1126(d); 37 C.F.R.
§§2.34(a)(4)(i)(A) and (B). (3) The applicant must verify that the applicant has a bona
fide intention to use the mark in commerce on or in connection with the goods
or services listed in the application. 15 U.S.C. §1126(d)(2). If the verified
statement is not filed with the initial application, the verified statement
must also allege that the applicant has had a bona fide intention to use the
mark in commerce since the filing date of the application. 37 C.F.R.
§2.34(a)(4)(ii). (4) Both the non-United States applicant�s country of origin
and the country where the foreign application is filed must be a party to an
international treaty or agreement with the United States that provides a right
of priority, or must extend reciprocal rights to priority to United States
nationals. 15 U.S.C. §1126(b) and (d);
TMEP §§1002.02,
1002.04.
(5) The scope of the goods covered by the §44 basis cannot
exceed the scope of the goods or services in the foreign application. 37
C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6);
TMEP §1402.01(b). (6) The applicant must specify the serial number of the
foreign application. 37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(4)(i)(A);
Paris Convention Article 4(D)(5).
If the applicant is not domiciled in the United States, the applicant may designate a domestic representative, i.e., a person residing in the
United States on whom may be served notices or process in proceedings
affecting the mark. 15 U.S.C. §1051(e);
TMEP §610. This can be done through
the Trademark Electronic Application System (�TEAS�), at
http://www.uspto.gov/teas/index.html.
The priority filing date also constitutes a constructive date of
first use in the United States under 15 U.S.C. §1057(c) (see
TMEP §201.02),
if the application matures into a registration. See SCM Corp. v.
Langis Foods Ltd., 539 F.2d 196, 190 USPQ 288 (D.C. Cir. 1976). Section 44(d) of the Act provides only a basis for receipt of a
In a §44(d) application, both the actual date the application was
received in the USPTO and the priority date will appear in the TRAM database.
1003.01 The �First-Filed� Requirement The application relied upon under §44(d) must be the applicant�s
first application in a treaty country for the same mark and for the same goods
or services. If the foreign country denominates an application in the foreign
country as �An Application to Extend the Wares� or in some similar fashion, but
the application is, in substance, the equivalent of a new application in the
United States, the foreign application will be considered the first-filed for
the purpose of meeting the requirements of §44(d) in the United States. However,
the goods or services must be different from those covered by any previous
application for the mark in a treaty country. The §44(d) priority claim may be based upon a subsequently filed
application in the same foreign country or common office of several states, if
the first-filed application was withdrawn, abandoned, or otherwise disposed of
without having any rights outstanding, and did not serve as a basis for
claiming a right of priority. The USPTO will presume that the application identified as the
basis for the priority claim was the first filed, unless there is contradictory
evidence in the record. If the examining attorney determines that the application relied
on was not the first filed, the examining attorney must advise the applicant
that it is not entitled to priority. If the applicant has not claimed another
filing basis, the examining attorney must require the applicant to claim and perfect a basis before the application can be approved for publication or for
registration on the Supplemental Register. See TMEP §1003.03 regarding
registration basis for §44 applications and
TMEP §§806.03 et seq.
regarding amendment of the basis. The examining attorney should ensure that
the priority claim is deleted from the TRAM database, and should conduct a new
search of USPTO records for conflicting marks. 1003.02 Priority Claim Must Be Filed Within Six Months of Foreign Filing An applicant must file a claim of priority within six months after
the filing date of the foreign application. 15 U.S.C. §1126(d)(1); 37 C.F.R.
§§2.34(a)(4)(i) and 2.35(b)(5); Paris Convention Article 4(C)(3). The
applicant can submit the priority claim after the filing date of the United
States application, as long as it is within six months of the foreign filing. Example: If an eligible applicant files in France on
December 6, 2009, and in the United States on January 12, 2010, the applicant
can add a priority claim to the United States application on or before June 6,
2010, if the applicant meets the requirements of §44(d). The applicant cannot
add a priority claim to the United States application after June 6, 2010.
If an applicant claims priority under §44(d), but does not
specify the filing date of the foreign application, the examining attorney must
require that the applicant specify the date of the foreign filing. If the applicant submits a claim of priority more than six months
after the date of the foreign filing, the examining attorney must advise the
applicant that it is not entitled to priority. 15 U.S.C. §1126(d); 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(4)(i)
and 2.35(b)(5). If the applicant has not claimed another filing basis, the
examining attorney must require the applicant to claim and perfect an
acceptable basis before the application can be approved for publication or for
search of USPTO records for conflicting marks. If the priority period ends on a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal
holiday within the District of Columbia, the priority claim may be filed no
later than the following day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or a Federal
holiday within the District of Columbia. Paris Convention Article 4(C)(3); 35
U.S.C. §21(b); 37 C.F.R. §2.196. 1003.03 Basis for Registration Required
Section 44(d) of the Act provides a basis for receipt of a
priority filing date, but not a basis for publication or registration. Before
the application can be approved for publication, or for registration on the
Supplemental Register, the applicant must establish a basis under §1(a), §1(b),
or §44(e) of the Act. 37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(4)(iii). If the applicant claims a
§1(b) basis, the applicant must file an allegation of use
(i.e., either an amendment to allege use
under 15 U.S.C. §1051(c) or a statement of use under 15 U.S.C. §1051(d)) before
the mark can be registered. See TMEP §806.01(b) regarding the
requirements for a §1(b) basis.
The USPTO will generally presume that the applicant is asserting
§44(e) as a basis for registration (based on the foreign registration that will
issue from the application relied on for priority) in an application that
includes a proper claim of priority under §44(d). Unless the applicant
specifically indicates that it is claiming more than one basis, the USPTO will
presume that §44(e) is the only basis being asserted. See
TMEP §1002.02
regarding applications that are entitled to a priority filing date under
§44(d), but are not entitled to registration under §44(e), because the foreign
application was filed in a treaty country that is not the applicant�s country
of origin. See
TMEP §§1004 et seq. regarding the requirements
for registration under §44(e). A §44(d) applicant may not assert a basis under §66(a) of the
Trademark Act, based on an extension of protection of an international
registration to the United States. 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(b)(3) and 2.35(a). 1003.04 Suspension Awaiting a Foreign Registration 1003.04(a) Applications Based Solely on Section 44 In a §44(d) application, if a copy of the foreign registration
has not been submitted at the time of filing in the United States, the
examining attorney will require submission of a copy of the foreign
registration before approving the United States application for publication or
for registration on the Supplemental Register. If, on initial examination of the application, there are no
refusals, requirements, or prior pending applications, the examining attorney
will suspend action on the application pending receipt of a copy of the foreign
registration. The suspension notice must include a search clause (see
TMEP §704.02).
If the examining attorney must issue any refusals or
requirements, the initial Office action must include a requirement that the
applicant submit the foreign registration when it becomes available. Depending
upon the applicant�s response, the examining attorney will take appropriate
action to place the application in condition for either approval or final
action on all other issues, and will then suspend further action pending
receipt of a copy of the foreign registration. In the notice of suspension,
the examining attorney must reference any continued refusals or requirements. See
TMEP §716.01. 1003.04(b) Multiple-Basis Applications
If an applicant properly claims §44(d) priority in addition to a
§1 basis, the applicant may elect not to perfect the §44 basis, and still
retain the priority filing date. 37 C.F.R. §§2.35(b)(3) and (4). In this
situation, before suspending the application pending receipt of a copy of the
foreign registration, the examining attorney must inquire whether the applicant
wishes to perfect §44 as a second basis for registration. If, on initial examination, there are no refusals or requirements
that would otherwise necessitate issuance of an Office action, the examining
attorney may attempt to call or e-mail the applicant (if the applicant has
authorized e-mail communications). If the applicant states that it wishes to
perfect the §44 basis, the examining attorney must make a note in the
�Notes-to-the-File� section of the record and suspend the application pending
receipt of the foreign registration. If the applicant states that it does not
wish to perfect the §44 basis, the examining attorney must issue an examiner�s
amendment to this effect. If the examining attorney is unable to reach the
applicant by telephone or e-mail, the examining attorney must make a note to
the file indicating the unsuccessful attempt to contact the applicant and suspend action on the application pending receipt of the foreign registration.
If it is necessary to issue an Office action regarding any
refusals or requirements, the examining attorney must inquire as to whether the
applicant wishes to perfect §44 as a second basis for registration. If a
response is filed and the application is otherwise in condition for publication
or final action, but the response does not indicate whether the applicant
intends to perfect the §44 basis, the examining attorney must suspend action on
the application pending receipt of the foreign registration. If, on initial examination, the only issue is a prior-pending
application, the examining attorney must issue a suspension letter as to the
prior-pending application only, without inquiring about the §44 basis. When
the application is removed from suspension, either for issuance of a nonfinal
action or approval for publication, the examining attorney must inquire at that
time as to whether the applicant wishes to perfect the §44 basis. 1003.04(c) Periodic Inquiries Issued as to Status of Foreign Application
Examining attorneys must issue inquiries as to the status of the
foreign application in applications that have been suspended for more than six
months. See
TMEP §716.05. If the applicant does not respond to this
inquiry within six months of the issuance date, the application will be
abandoned for failure to respond to an Office action. If the applicant is unable to furnish a copy of the foreign
registration before the expiration of time to respond to the inquiry, the
applicant should advise the examining attorney of this fact. This may be done
by telephone or e-mail. If the applicant states that the foreign registration
has not yet issued, the examining attorney will issue a new notice of
suspension. If the applicant states that the foreign registration has issued,
but fails to send a copy, the examining attorney must issue an Office action
requiring a copy. 15 U.S.C. §1126(e); 37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(3)(ii). To expedite processing, the USPTO recommends that the applicant�s
response to a suspension inquiry be filed through TEAS, at
http://www.uspto.gov/teas/index.html,
using the Response to Suspension Inquiry or Letter of Suspension form.
1003.05 Section 44(d) and Priority for Publication
To determine priority for publication under 37 C.F.R. §2.83, an
application filed in the United States under §44(d) will be treated as if it
were filed in the United States on the same date as the filing in the foreign
country. The §44(d) application will receive priority over any application
filed after the §44(d) applicant�s priority filing date that might otherwise be
a possible bar to registration under §2(d) of the Trademark Act due to a
likelihood of confusion. See
TMEP §§1208 et seq. regarding
conflicting marks in pending applications.
In some cases, another United States application filed after the
§44(d) applicant�s priority date may proceed to publication or registration
because the §44(d) applicant had not yet filed in the United States when the
examining attorney searched USPTO records for conflicting marks. If the USPTO
learns that a §44(d) application is entitled to priority over another pending
application before the other mark registers, the USPTO will take appropriate
action to give the §44(d) application the priority to which it is entitled. If an examining attorney discovers a conflicting application
entitled to priority under §44(d) after taking action in a case, the examining
attorney should issue a supplemental action correcting the situation. If the
mark has been published, the examining attorney must request jurisdiction
before issuing the action, unless a notice of allowance has issued. See
TMEP §§1504.01 and
1504.04(a)
regarding the examining attorney�s jurisdiction.
However, if the conflicting mark has already registered, the
USPTO does not have the authority to cancel the registration sua sponte.
The §44(d) applicant must take action to enforce its priority rights, e.g., by
filing a petition to cancel the registration with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. 1003.06 Applicants May File Under Both §§44(d) and 44(e) In some cases, a §44 applicant may have already received, before
filing in the USPTO, a foreign registration as a result of the same foreign
application upon which the applicant relies for priority under §44(d). This may
occur in countries that do not examine applications prior to registration. In
this situation, the applicant may file under both §§44(d) and 44(e).
An applicant may also claim priority under §44(d) based upon a
foreign application, and proceed to registration under §44(e) based upon a
different foreign registration. Both foreign countries must be parties to a
treaty or agreement with the United States and the foreign registration must be
from a country of origin of the applicant. If the applicant amends an
application to rely on a different foreign registration, this is considered a
change in basis. See
TMEP §§806.03 et seq. regarding amendments
to add or substitute a basis. 1003.07 Application May be Based on More Than One Foreign Application An applicant may file an application in the United States based
on more than one foreign application for different goods or services, or for
different classes, if the applicant meets the requirements of §44(d) with
respect to each foreign application on which the United States application is
based. The applicant must specify which goods or services, or which classes,
are covered by which foreign application. The mark in each foreign application
must be the same mark for which registration is sought in the United States
1003.08 Abandonment of the Foreign Application
If the foreign application relied on under §44(d) is abandoned
during the prosecution of the United States application, the applicant may
amend the application to rely on another basis. See
TMEP §§806.03 et seq. If the applicant met the requirements of §44(d) on the filing date of
the United States application, the applicant will retain the priority filing
date even if the foreign application is abandoned. 37 C.F.R. §2.35(b)(4). In this situation, the USPTO will presume that the applicant had
a continuing valid basis, because the applicant had at least a bona fide
intention to use the mark in commerce as of the application filing date, unless
there is contradictory evidence in the record. See 37 C.F.R.
§2.35(b)(3) and
TMEP §806.03(h). 1004 Applications Based on Foreign Registrations under §44(e)
If an eligible applicant (see
TMEP §1002.01) owns a valid
registration from the applicant�s country of origin, the applicant may base its
United States application on that foreign registration under §44(e).
A §44(e) application must meet the following requirements:
(1) The applicant must be the owner of a valid registration
in the applicant�s country of origin. 15 U.S.C. §§1126(c) and (e). See
regarding country of origin.
(2) The applicant�s country of origin must be a party to a
treaty or agreement with the United States that provides for registration based
on ownership of a foreign registration, or must extend reciprocal registration
rights to nationals of the United States. 15 U.S.C. §1126(b). See
TMEP §§1002.03,
1002.05.
(3) The applicant must submit a true copy, a photocopy, a
certification, or a certified copy of the registration in the applicant�s
country of origin. 15 U.S.C. §1126(e); 37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(3)(ii);
TMEP §1004.01. (4) The applicant must verify that the applicant has a bona
or services listed in the application. 15 U.S.C. §1126(e). If the verified
mark in commerce since the application filing date. 37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(3)(i).
(5) The scope of the goods covered by the §44(e) basis
cannot exceed the scope of the goods or services in the foreign registration.
37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6);
TMEP §1402.01(b). If the applicant is not domiciled in the United States, the applicant is encouraged to designate a domestic representative, i.e., a person
residing in the United States on whom may be served notices or process in
proceedings affecting the mark. 15 U.S.C. §1051(e);
TMEP §610. This can be
done through TEAS, at http://www.uspto.gov/teas/index.html.
An applicant may not file an application under §44(e), or amend
an application to add or substitute a §44(e) basis, before the registration in
the applicant�s country of origin has issued. An applicant can file under §44(d)
within six months after the filing date of an application in the applicant�s
country of origin (see
TMEP §§1003 et seq.). However, once this
six-month priority period has passed, an applicant cannot file an application
in the United States based on a pending foreign application. 1004.01 Copy of Foreign Registration Required Section 44(e) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §1126(e), requires
�a true copy, a photocopy, a certification, or a certified copy of the
registration in the country of origin of the applicant.� If a copy of the
foreign registration is not included with the application as filed, the
examining attorney must require submission of a copy of the foreign
registration in the first Office action. The copy must show the name of the
owner, the mark, and the goods or services for which the mark is registered.
If the applicant submits a copy of the foreign registration, it
must be a copy of a document that has been issued to the applicant by or
certified by the intellectual property office in the applicant�s country of
origin. A photocopy of the intellectual property office�s publications or a
printout from the intellectual property office�s website is not sufficient to
establish that the mark has been registered in that country and that the
registration is in full force and effect, unless accompanied by a certification
from the issuing office.
An English translation of a registration from the country of
origin by itself is not an acceptable �copy� of the foreign registration. A
certification or copy of the registration as issued by the intellectual
property office of the country of origin is required, along with an English
translation. 37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(3)(ii). See
TMEP §1004.01(b) regarding
translation of foreign registrations. If an applicant files more than one application in the United
States based on the same foreign registration, the applicant must file a copy
of the foreign registration (and its English translation, if applicable), in
each of the United States applications. 37 C.F.R. §2.193(a). In a §44(e) application, the examining attorney will not suspend
the application pending submission of a copy of the foreign registration,
unless the applicant establishes that it cannot obtain a copy of the foreign
registration due to extraordinary circumstances (e.g., war or natural
disaster). However, the examining attorney may suspend the application pending
receipt of proof of renewal of the foreign registration (see
TMEP §1004.01(a)).
1004.01(a) Status of the Foreign Registration The foreign registration must be in force at the time the United
States issues the registration based on that foreign registration. In re
Societe D�Exploitation de la Marque Le Fouquet�s, 67 USPQ2d 1784 (TTAB
2003); Marie Claire Album S.A. v. Kruger GmbH & Co. KG, 29 USPQ2d
1792 (TTAB 1993); Fioravanti v. Fioravanti Corrado S.R.L., 230 USPQ 36
(TTAB 1986), recon denied 1 USPQ2d 1304 (TTAB 1986).
manual lists the terms of registration in various foreign countries. If the record indicates that the foreign registration will expire
before the United States registration will issue, the examining attorney must
require that an applicant submit a certificate of renewal or other
certification from the intellectual property office of the foreign country, or
a copy of the foreign registration that shows that the foreign registration has
been renewed and will be in force at the time the registration issues in the
United States. 37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(3)(iii). Generally, the examining attorney
should require proof of renewal if it appears that the foreign registration
will expire within six months after the date of approval for publication.
If the applicant states that renewal is pending in the foreign
country, the examining attorney should suspend the application pending receipt
of proof of renewal. A photocopy of the intellectual property office�s
publications or a printout from the intellectual property office�s website is
not sufficient to establish that the registration has been renewed in that
country and is in full force and effect, unless accompanied by a certification
If an applicant submits a certified copy or certification of the
foreign registration that is certified by the foreign government agency who
issued the foreign registration, the examining attorney should inquire
concerning renewal only if the certified copy of the foreign registration
indicates that the registration will expire after the date on which the
foreign government agency issued the certified copy or certification of the
foreign registration. For example, if a certified copy of a foreign
registration was issued by the trademark agency in the foreign country on
January 5, 2009, and the certified copy indicates that the registration expired
on June 1, 2008, no inquiry is necessary. The USPTO presumes that the foreign
country would not have issued a certified copy of the registration unless the
registration had been renewed. This applies only to a certified copy or
certification issued by the foreign trademark agency. If the copy of
the registration is not certified by the foreign trademark agency, and the
record indicates that the foreign registration will expire before the United
States registration will issue, the examining attorney must require that the
applicant submit a copy of the foreign registration showing that that the
registration has been renewed. If the examining attorney determines that the foreign
registration is not in force, the examining attorney will refuse registration
under §44(e). The applicant may amend the application to claim another basis.
See TMEP §§806.03 et seq. regarding amendments to the basis. For information about recent changes in the term of registration
in a foreign country, examining attorneys may consult resources such as Trademarks
Throughout the World (Anne-Laure Covin, 5th ed. 2008) and World
Trademark Law and Practice (Ethan Horwitz, 2nd ed. 2008),
available to USPTO employees in the Trademark Law Library. Additional
1004.01(b) Translation of the Foreign Registration
If the foreign registration is not in English, the applicant must
provide a translation. 37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(3)(ii). The translator should sign
the translation, but does not have to swear to the translation. 1004.02 Application May be Based on More Than One Foreign Registration
A United States application may be based on more than one foreign
registration. The applicant must meet all requirements of the Trademark Act
and rules for each foreign registration upon which the United States
application is based, and must specify which goods/services are covered by
which foreign registration. If a §44 applicant amends an application to rely on a different
foreign registration, this is considered a change in basis. See
TMEP §§806.03 et seq. regarding amendments to add or substitute a basis.
1005 Ownership of the Foreign Application or Registration Section 44 Claimed in Original Application
If an applicant claims §44 as the filing basis in the original
United States application, or if the applicant omits the basis from the original
United States application and subsequently claims §44 as the basis, the
applicant must be the owner of the foreign application or registration on the
filing date of the United States application. See In re De Luxe, N.V.,
990 F.2d 607, 26 USPQ2d 1475 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Tong Yang Cement Corp.,
19 USPQ2d 1689 (TTAB 1991). If the foreign application or registration
identifies a party other than the §44 applicant as the owner, the examining
attorney must require the applicant to establish that the applicant was the
owner of the foreign application or registration on the date of filing in the
United States. Proof of ownership may consist of a copy of an assignment
document recorded in the foreign country, or a statement from the agency
administering the trademark register in the foreign country establishing that
the applicant was the owner of the foreign application or registration as of
the United States application filing date. Other forms of proof may also be
acceptable. If the transfer of ownership took place before the United States
application filing date, the §44 basis will be considered valid, even if the
change in ownership was not yet recorded in the foreign country on the United
States application filing date. If the applicant was not the owner of the foreign application or
registration on the United States application filing date, the examining
attorney must refuse registration under §44. The applicant may amend the
application to claim §1(a) or §1(b) as a basis. See TMEP §§806.03 et seq. regarding amendment of the basis. If a §44(d) applicant was not the owner of the foreign
application on the United States application filing date, the examining
attorney should advise the applicant that it is not entitled to priority,
ensure that the priority claim is deleted from the TRAM database, and conduct a
new search of USPTO records for conflicting marks.
TMEP §1002.02. Section 44 Added to or Substituted for Valid Section 1
If an application is properly filed based on §1(a) or §1(b), and the applicant later amends the application to add or substitute §44 as a basis,
the applicant must be the owner of the foreign application or registration as
of the filing date of the amendment adding or substituting §44 as a basis for
registration. See TMEP §§806.03 et seq. regarding amendments to
change the basis. If the applicant owned the foreign application or registration on
the filing date of the amendment, but did not own the foreign application or
registration on the filing date of the United States application, the applicant
will retain the original filing date in the United States, as long as there was
a continuing valid basis since the application filing date. 37 C.F.R. §2.35(b)(3);
TMEP §806.03(h). If the foreign application or registration identifies a party
other than the §44 applicant as the owner, the examining attorney will require
the applicant to establish that the applicant was the owner of the foreign
application or registration on the filing date of the amendment adding or substituting
§44 as a basis. If the applicant was not the owner of the foreign application
or registration on the filing date of the amendment, the examining attorney
must refuse registration under §44. See
TMEP §1006 regarding assignment of §44 applications. 1006 Assignment of §44 Applications A §44 applicant may assign the foreign application or
registration and/or the United States application from the original applicant
to another party. Assignee Must Be Eligible for the Benefits of §44
In order to continue to claim the benefits of §44 after such an
assignment, the assignee of the United States application must be eligible for
the benefits of §44. Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Editoy, 79 USPQ2d 1783 (TTAB
2006); Nestle Co., Inc. v. Grenadier Chocolate Co., Ltd., 212 USPQ 214
(TTAB 1981); In re Fisons Ltd., 197 USPQ 888 (TTAB 1978). See
TMEP §1002.01 regarding applicants eligible for registration under §44(e), and
TMEP §1002.02 regarding applicants eligible for a priority filing date under
§44(d). To be eligible for registration under §44(e), the assignee must
establish that the country that issued the relevant registration is the
assignee�s country of origin.
TMEP §1004 regarding the requirements for registration under §44(e).
To be eligible for a priority filing date under §44(d), any
non-United States assignee must establish that the assignee�s country of origin
is a party to an international treaty or agreement with the United States that
provides a right of priority, or extends reciprocal rights of priority to
United States nationals. See
TMEP §1003.
In an application based solely on §44, if the assignee is not
entitled to registration under §44(e), the examining attorney must refuse
registration under that basis. The applicant may amend the application to
claim §1(a) or §1(b) as a basis. In Karsten, supra, the Board held that
the assignment of a properly filed §44 application to a party who is not
eligible to claim the benefits of §44 does not render the application void, as
long as there is a continuing valid basis for registration. See TMEP §§806.03 et seq. regarding amendment of the basis. In a §44(d) application, if the assignee is not eligible for a
priority filing date (i.e., a non-United States applicant whose country of
origin is not a party to any convention or treaty as outlined in §44(b)), the
examining attorney must advise the assignee that it is not entitled to
priority, ensure that the priority claim is deleted from the TRAM database, and conduct a new search of USPTO records for conflicting marks.
TMEP §1002.02. Assignee Does Not Have To Be the Owner of the Underlying
Foreign Application or Registration The Trademark Act requires that an applicant own the underlying
application or registration at the time of filing in the United States (or as
of the filing date of the amendment adding or substituting §44 as a basis, for
an application originally based on §1(a) or §1(b), and later amended to add or
substitute §44 as a basis).
TMEP §1005. However, if the applicant was the
owner of the foreign application or registration on the filing date of the
United States application (or amendment adding or substituting §44 as a basis),
the applicant may assign the United States application to another party without
assigning the underlying foreign application or registration to that party. In
re De Luxe N.V., 990 F.2d 607, 26 USPQ2d 1475 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore,
examining attorneys should not require proof of assignment of the underlying
foreign application or registration when an applicant assigns the United States
If the United States application is assigned to a party who is
not domiciled in the United States, the assignee may file an appointment of a
domestic representative with the assignment of the United States application.
15 U.S.C. §1060(b); 37 C.F.R. §3.61. See TMEP §610. The USPTO
encourages parties who do not reside in the United States to designate domestic
representatives. This can be done through TEAS, at
1007 Standards for Registration Under Section 44 Although §44 exempts eligible applicants from the use
requirements of §1 of the Trademark Act, §44 applicants must meet all other
requirements for registration set forth in the Trademark Act and relevant
rules. Registration in a foreign country does not automatically ensure
eligibility for registration in the United States. In re Rath, 402 F.3d
1207, 1214, 74 USPQ2d 1174, 1179 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("[I]t is impossible to
read section 44(e) to require the registration of foreign marks that fail to
meet United States requirements for eligibility. Section 44 applications are
subject to the section 2 bars to registration..."); In re Mastic Inc.,
829 F.2d 1114, 4 USPQ2d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 1987); In re Etablissements Darty et
Fils, 759 F.2d 15, 225 USPQ 652 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Order Sons of Italy in
America v. Marofa S.A., 38 USPQ2d 1602 (TTAB 1996). The foreign registration that is the basis for the United States
application may include disclaimers or may be on a secondary register,
equivalent to the Supplemental Register. The United States application will be
reviewed according to the standards for registrability in the United States,
and the examining attorney will not require a disclaimer, amendment to the
Supplemental Register, or any other amendment unless it is required under
United States law and USPTO policy.
See TMEP §1306.08 regarding the registration of
certification marks under §44. 1008 Bona Fide Intention to Use the Mark in Commerce
Any application filed under §44(d) or §44(e) on either the
Principal or the Supplemental Register must include a verified statement that
the applicant has a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce. See
TMEP §1101 for additional information about this requirement. If the verified
mark in commerce since the application filing date. 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(3)(i)
and 2.34(a)(4)(ii).
The allegation of the applicant�s bona fide intention to use the
mark in commerce is required even if use in commerce is asserted in the
application. In re Paul Wurth, S.A., 21 USPQ2d 1631 (Comm�r Pats.
1991). See also In re Unisearch Ltd., 21 USPQ2d 1559 (Comm�r Pats.
1991) (requirement for verified statement of bona fide intent to use the mark
in commerce held not contrary to Paris Convention). 1009 Allegation of Use and Specimen of Use Not Required Prior to Registration
Although §44 applicants must assert a bona fide intention to use
the mark in commerce, §44 applicants do not have to allege use or provide
specimens or dates of use prior to registration on either the Principal or
Supplemental Register in an application based solely on §44. Crocker
National Bank v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 223 USPQ 909 (TTAB 1984).
However, if a §44 applicant wishes to assert use in commerce under §1(a) or a
bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce under §1(b) as an additional
basis, then the applicant must comply with all applicable requirements
related to the second basis asserted.
If the applicant provides specimens gratuitously in a §44
application, the examining attorney may refer to the specimens to determine
issues unrelated to use, such as whether the mark is merely descriptive.
When the §44 application, as submitted, raises questions
concerning the registrability of the mark, the examining attorney may request
an explanation, information, literature, or other materials to assist in
consideration of the application. 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b);
TMEP §814.
1010 Proof of Acquired Distinctiveness in §44 Applications A §44 applicant may assert that a mark has acquired
distinctiveness under 15 U.S.C. §1052(f) if the applicant establishes that the
mark has become distinctive of its goods or services in commerce in the
same manner that any other applicant must. For these purposes, the applicant
may not rely on use other than use in commerce that may be regulated by the
United States Congress, that is, the applicant may not rely on use solely in a
foreign country or between two foreign countries. See
TMEP §1212.08 and cases cited therein for further information about claims of acquired
distinctiveness in §44 applications. 1011 Drawings Applicants filing under §44 must comply with the drawing
requirements of 37 C.F.R. §§2.51 through 2.54. See
TMEP §§807 et seq. regarding drawings.
1011.01 Substantially Exact Representation of Mark in Foreign Registration The drawing of the mark must be �a substantially exact
representation of the mark as it appears in the drawing in the registration
certificate of a mark duly registered in the country of origin of the
applicant.� 37 C.F.R. §2.51(c);
TMEP §807.12(b). The �substantially exact representation� standard is construed
narrowly. Only slight, inconsequential variations between the mark in the
United States application and the mark shown in the foreign registration are
permitted. In re Hacot-Colombier, 105 F.3d 616, 618, 41 USPQ2d 1523,
1525 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Larios S.A., 35 USPQ2d 1214, 1216 (TTAB
1995); United Rum Merchants Ltd. v. Distillers Corp. (S.A.) Ltd., 9 USPQ2d 1481, 1484 (TTAB 1988). For example, non-material informational
matter such as net weight or contents may be deleted. Beyond such limited
exceptions, however, any difference between the mark on the drawing and the
mark in the foreign registration requires the examining attorney to refuse
registration. In re Hacot-Colombier, 105 F.3d at 619, 41 USPQ2d at
1525. The standard for determining whether the mark in the drawing
agrees with the mark in the foreign registration is stricter than the standard
used to determine whether specimens support use of a mark in an application
under §1 of the Trademark Act. In United Rum Merchants, the Trademark
Trial and Appeal Board reasoned that a stricter standard is appropriate in §44
cases because §44 applications represent an exception to the use requirements
of the Act, and that this exception should be construed narrowly to ensure that
a foreign applicant cannot obtain a registration in the United States of matter
that could not have been registered in the foreign country. 9 USPQ2d at
1483-84. If the mark in the foreign registration is in standard
characters, the mark in the United States application must also be in standard
characters. If the foreign registration certificate does not indicate that the
mark is in standard characters (or the legal equivalent), the examining
attorney must inquire whether the foreign registration includes a claim that
the mark is in standard characters. The applicant must either submit an
affirmative statement that the foreign registration includes a claim that the
mark is in standard characters (or the legal equivalent), or delete the
standard character claim in the United States application. See TMEP §807.03(f)
, which lists countries that register marks in standard characters or
Likewise, if the mark in the foreign registration is in special
form, the drawing of the mark in the United States application must appear in
the same special form. If the mark in the foreign registration shows color,
the applicant must submit a color photocopy of the foreign registration. All
claims of color made in the foreign registration must also be made in the
United States application. The applicant must also comply with all
requirements for a color drawing of the mark. See 37 C.F.R. §2.52(b)(1)
TMEP §§807.07 et seq. regarding the requirements for claiming color.
If the foreign registration is not issued in color, the examining
attorney may require evidence to establish that a colored mark in a United
States application is a substantially exact representation of the mark in the
If a §44 application is based on a foreign registration that
depicts the mark in color, but no claim of color is made in the registration
document, the examining attorney must inquire whether the foreign registration
includes a claim of color(s) as a feature of the mark. The applicant must
either: (1) submit an affirmative statement that color is claimed as a feature
of the mark in the foreign registration; or (2) submit a statement that
although the mark is registered in its country of origin featuring a color
depiction of the mark, no claim of color is made in that registration. If the
examining attorney determines that the color is a non-material element of the
drawing, the applicant may be given the option of submitting a black-and-white
drawing. See
TMEP §807.07(b). The mark on the drawing in the United States application may not
be a translation or transliteration of the mark in the foreign registration. If the United States application is based on both a foreign
registration and use in commerce, the mark on the drawing in the United States
application must not only be a substantially exact representation of the mark
in the foreign registration, but also may not differ in a material way from the
mark shown on the specimen(s) of record. See TMEP §§807.12(b) and
1011.02 One Mark Per Application
If the foreign application or registration covers a series of
distinct marks, the applicant must file separate applications in the United
States to register each of the marks the applicant wishes to register in the
United States. For example, some countries permit registration of several
versions of a mark in a single application. In the United States, separate
applications are required. The drawing in the United States application must
show only one mark. 37 C.F.R. §2.52;
TMEP §807.01.
1011.03 Amendment of Drawing
Section 44 applicants often try to amend the mark in the United
States application to overcome an objection that the mark in the drawing does
not agree with the mark in the foreign registration. Amendments to drawings in
§44 applications are governed by 37 C.F.R. §2.72(c). An applicant cannot amend
the drawing in the United States application to conform to the mark in the
foreign registration if the amendment would result in a material alteration of
the mark on the drawing submitted with the original application in the United
States. In re Hacot-Colombier, 105 F.3d 616, 41 USPQ2d 1523 (Fed. Cir.
1997); In re Wine Society of America Inc., 12 USPQ2d 1139 (TTAB 1989).
Thus, when a §44 applicant proposes to amend its drawing, the examining
attorney must consider: (1) whether the proposed amendment of the drawing
would result in a material alteration of the mark on the original drawing; and
(2) whether the proposed amendment would result in a mark that is a
substantially exact representation of the mark in the foreign registration. In
In re Larios S.A., 35 USPQ2d 1214, 1216 (TTAB 1995), the
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board held that the mark �GRAN VINO MALAGA LARIOS�
and design on the drawing originally filed with the United States application
was not a substantially exact representation of the mark �VINO DE MALAGA
LARIOS� with a similar design in the foreign registration; however, the Board
found that amendment of the drawing to conform to the foreign registration was not
a material alteration within the meaning of 37 C.F.R. §2.72. The Board
noted that �[t]he material alteration test ... is not quite as rigorous as the
substantially exact representation standard and thus allows for a bit more
leeway or flexibility with respect to ... amendment of the drawing....� 35
USPQ2d at 1217. See TMEP §§807.14 et seq. regarding material
alteration. 1011.04 Drawings and Descriptions of Three-Dimensional and Non-Visual Marks
If the foreign application or registration depicts several views
of a three-dimensional mark, the examining attorney must require the applicant
to comply with 37 C.F.R. §2.52(b)(2), and submit an acceptable drawing that
depicts a single rendition of the mark. See generally
TMEP §§807 et seq. regarding drawings. In the alternative, the applicant may petition
the Director, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §2.146(a)(5), to waive the requirement and accept a drawing featuring multiple views of the mark. See
TMEP Chapter 1700
regarding petitions to the Director.
In all such cases, the applicant must indicate that the mark is
three-dimensional. 37 C.F.R. §2.52(b)(2);
TMEP §807.10. If necessary to
adequately depict the commercial impression of the mark, the applicant may be
required to submit a drawing that shows the placement of the mark by
surrounding the mark with a proportionately accurate broken-line representation
of the particular goods, packaging, or advertising on which the mark appears.
The applicant must also use broken lines to show matter not claimed as part of
the mark. For any drawing using broken lines to indicate placement of the
mark, or matter not claimed as part of the mark, the applicant must include a
written description of the mark and explain the purpose of the broken lines,
e.g., by indicating that the matter shown by the broken lines is not a
part of the mark and that it serves only to show the position of the mark. 37
C.F.R. §2.52(b)(4);
TMEP §807.08.
With respect to sound, scent, and other non-visual marks, an
applicant is not required to submit a drawing, but must submit a detailed
TMEP §807.09. If the foreign registration includes a
drawing, such as a musical staff depicting the notes of which a sound mark is
comprised, the United States application need not include such a drawing. As
the drawing of the mark must be a substantially exact representation of the
mark in the foreign registration, and the description of the mark defines the
mark sought to be registered in a non-visual mark, the description of the mark
in the United States application must be substantially comparable to any
description of the mark in the foreign application or registration. 37 C.F.R.
§§2.51(c) and 2.52(e).
1012 Identification of Goods and Services
The identification of goods and services in a §44 application
must comply with the same standards that govern other applications. If the United States application is based on §44, the
identification of goods and services covered by the §44 basis may not exceed
the scope of the goods and services identified in the foreign registration. 37
C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6). See Marmark Ltd. v. Nutrexpa S.A., 12 USPQ2d 1843
(TTAB 1989); In re L�wenbr�u M�nchen, 175 USPQ 178 (TTAB 1972). See
TMEP §1402.01(b) for more information about the
identification of goods or services in a §44 application. 1013 Designation of Domestic Representative by Applicants Not Domiciled in the United States An applicant not domiciled in the United States may file a
document designating the name and address of a person residing in the United
States upon whom notices or process in proceedings affecting the mark may be
served. 15 U.S.C. §1051(e); 37 C.F.R. §2.24;
TMEP §610. The USPTO encourages
parties who do not reside in the United States to designate domestic
1014 Section 44 Applications for the Supplemental Register
A §44 applicant may apply to register a mark on the Supplemental
Register, and a §44 applicant may amend an application from the Principal
Register to the Supplemental Register without filing any allegation of use. It
is not necessary to change the application filing date after an amendment to
the Supplemental Register in a §44 application. See
TMEP §1008
regarding the requirement for an allegation of the applicant�s bona fide
intention to use the mark in commerce in a §44 application.
1015 Section 44 Registration Independent of Underlying Foreign Registration
Once issued, the United States registration issuing from a §44
application exists independent of the underlying foreign registration and is
subject to all provisions of the Trademark Act that apply to all other
registrations, such as affidavits of use, renewals, amendments under 15 U.S.C.
§1057(e), assignments, and similar matters. 15 U.S.C. §1126(f). See
Imperial Tobacco Ltd. v. Philip Morris, Inc., 899 F.2d 1575, 14 USPQ2d 1390
(Fed. Cir. 1990); Exxon Corp. v. Oxon Italia S.p.A., 219 USPQ 907 (TTAB
1982); Reynolds Televator Corp. v. Pfeffer, 173 USPQ 437 (TTAB 1972);
Sinclair v. Deb Chemical Proprietaries Ltd., 137 USPQ 161 (TTAB 1963). 1016 International Registration As Basis for §44 Application
An international registration issued by the International Bureau
of the World Intellectual Property Organization (�IB�) can be the basis for a §44(e)
application only if the international registration shows that there is an
extension of protection of the international registration to applicant�s
country of origin. See TMEP Chapter 1900
registration. A request for an extension of protection of the
international registration to applicant�s country of origin is not sufficient.
An applicant should submit a copy of the registration (or
certificate of extension of protection) issued by the national trademark office
in the applicant�s country of origin. 15 U.S.C. §1126(e); 37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(3)(ii).
If the applicant�s country of origin does not issue registrations or
certificates of extension of protection, the applicant may submit a copy of the
international registration, showing that protection of the international
registration has been extended to applicant�s country of origin. A copy of a
request for an extension of protection of the international registration to
applicant�s country of origin is not sufficient. If the applicant is not domiciled or incorporated in the relevant
country, examining attorney must require the applicant to establish that the
country is its country of origin. See
TMEP §1002.04. The applicant must meet all the requirements of the Trademark Act
and the Trademark Rules of Practice for §44(e) applications. The requirements
for §66(a) applications are not applicable. The identification of goods/services covered by the §44(e) basis
may not exceed the scope of the goods/services identified in the registered
extension of protection in the applicant�s country of origin. 37 C.F.R.
§2.32(a)(6);
TMEP §1012. An extension of protection of an international registration
cannot be the basis for a §44(d) application, because neither the international
application nor the request for extension of protection is the first
application filed in a treaty country for the same mark for the same goods or
services. 15 U.S.C. §1126(d); 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(4)(i)(A) and (B);
TMEP §1003.01.
The basic application or basic registration upon which the international
registration is based was the first-filed application. If an applicant wants to base a §44(e) application on the basic
registration that was the basis for the international registration, the applicant
must submit a copy of the basic registration issued by the Office of Origin,
i.e., the country or intergovernmental organization who issued the registration
which provided the basis for the international registration (see
TMEP §1901
regarding the Office of Origin). The applicant cannot submit the international
registration, because an international registration does not provide protection
in the territory of the Contracting Party whose office is the Office of
Origin. Madrid Protocol Article 3bis. KEY: =online business system =fees =forms=help =laws/regulations =definition (glossary)
Call the Trademark Assistance Center at 800.786.9199 for help on trademark matters. Send questions about USPTO programs and services to the USPTO Contact Center (UCC). You can suggest USPTO webpages or material you would like featured on this section by E-mail to the webmaster@uspto.gov. While we cannot promise to accommodate all requests, your suggestions will be considered and may lead to other improvements on the website. |.HOME | SITE INDEX| SEARCH | eBUSINESS | HELP | PRIVACY POLICY javascript displays date of file obtained from webserver