Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2003/03/28/03-7392/rules-of-practice-for-trademark-related-filings-under-the-madrid-protocol-implementation-act
Timestamp: 2017-08-21 05:30:29
Document Index: 287372783

Matched Legal Cases: ['§\u20097', '§\u20097', 'ART 7', '§\u20097', '§\u20097', '§\u20097', '§\u20097', '§\u20097', '§\u20097', '§\u20097', '§\u20097', '§\u20097', '§\u20097', '§\u20097', '§\u20092', '§\u20097', '§\u20097', '§\u20097', '§\u20097', '§\u20097', '§\u20097', '§\u20097', '§\u20097', '§\u20097', '§\u20097', '§\u20097', '§\u20097', '§\u20097', '§\u20097', '§\u20097', '§\u20097', '§\u20097', '§\u20097', '§\u20097', '§\u20097', 'art 3', '§\u20097', '§\u20097', '§\u20097', '§\u20097', '§\u20097', '§\u20097', 'art 2', '§\u20092', 'art 2', '§\u20097', '§\u20097', '§\u20097', '§\u20097', '§\u20097', '§\u20097', '§\u20097', '§\u20097', '§\u20097', '§\u20097', 'art 2', '§\u20097', '§\u20097', '§\u20097', '§\u20097', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u200910', 'arts 2', '§\u20092', '§\u200910', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u200910', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20097', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20091003', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20097', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u2009807', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20091403', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u200910', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u200910', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§2', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u200910', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u200910', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u200910', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20091705', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u200910', '§\u20092', '§\u200910', '§\u200910', '§\u20092', '§\u200910', '§\u200910', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20097', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u200910', '§\u200910', '§\u20091', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u200910', '§\u200910', '§\u20091', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u200910', '§\u200910', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u200910', '§\u200910', '§\u20091', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u200910', '§\u200910', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', 'art 7', '§\u20097', '§\u20097', '§\u20091', '§\u20091', '§\u20097', '§\u20097', '§\u20091', '§\u20091', '§\u20092', '§\u20097', '§\u20097', '§\u20097', '§\u20092', '§\u20097', '§\u20097', '§\u20097', '§\u20097', '§\u20097', '§\u20097', '§\u20097', 'art 3', '§\u20097', '§\u20097', 'art 2', '§\u20092', 'art 2', 'art 2', '§\u20097', '§\u20097', '§\u20092', '§\u20097', '§\u20097', '§\u20092', '§\u20097', '§\u200910', '§\u20097', '§\u20097', '§\u20097', '§\u20097', '§\u20092', '§\u20097']

Federal Register :: Rules of Practice for Trademark-Related Filings Under the Madrid Protocol Implementation Act
A Proposed Rule by the Patent and Trademark Office on 03/28/2003
Comments must be received by May 27, 2003 to ensure consideration. A public hearing will be held at 10 a.m., Friday, May 30, 2003, in the Patent Theater, 2121 Crystal Drive, Room 200, Arlington, Virginia. Submit requests to present oral testimony on or before May 20, 2003.
15119-15138 (20 pages)
Correcting Irregularities in International Application—Proposed § 7.14
Subsequent Designations—Proposed § 7.21
PART 7—RULES OF PRACTICE IN FILINGS PURSUANT TO THE MADRID PROTOCOL
https://www.federalregister.gov/d/03-7392 https://www.federalregister.gov/d/03-7392
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office) proposes to amend existing regulations and add new regulations to the rules of practice to implement the Madrid Protocol Implementation Act of 2002 (MPIA). The MPIA provides that: the owner of a U.S. application or registration may seek protection of its mark in any of the 57 countries party to the Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks (Madrid Protocol) by submitting a single international application through the Office to the International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organization (IB); and the owner of an application or registration in a country party to the Madrid Protocol may obtain an international registration from the IB and request an extension of protection of its mark to the United States.
Submit comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to: madridrules.comments@uspto.gov. Written comments may also be Start Printed Page 15120submitted by mail or hand delivery to: Commissioner for Trademarks, 2900 Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202, attention Cheryl L. Black. Copies of all comments will be available for public inspection in Suite 10B10, South Tower Building, 10th floor, 2900 Crystal Drive, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3513, from 8:30 a.m. until 5 p.m., Monday through Friday.
Cheryl L. Black, Office of the Commissioner for Trademarks, by telephone at (703) 308-8910, extension 153, by e-mail to cheryl.black@uspto.gov, or by facsimile at (703) 872-9292.
The Madrid Protocol Implementation Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107-273, 116 Stat. 1758, 1913-1921 (MPIA) amends the Trademark Act of 1946 to implement the provisions of the Madrid Protocol in the United States. The Madrid Protocol provides a process of filing an international application with requests for extensions of protection to any of the 57 member countries of the Protocol. The MPIA was enacted on November 2, 2002, and becomes effective on November 2, 2003.
The Madrid Protocol and the Common Regulations Under the Madrid Agreement and the Protocol (Common Regulations) are available online at http://www.wipo.int/​madrid/​en/​.
References below to “the Act,” “the Trademark Act,” or “the statute” refer to the Trademark Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq., as amended by the MPIA.
The IB reviews the international application to determine whether the Madrid Protocol filing requirements have been met and the required fees have been paid. If an international application is unacceptable, the IB will notify both the applicant and the office of origin of the “irregularity.” If the Madrid Protocol requirements have been met and the fees have been paid, the IB will immediately register the mark, publish the international registration in the WIPO Gazette of International Marks, send a certificate to the holder, and notify the offices of the designated Contracting Parties in which an extension of protection of the international registration is sought.
Proposed § 7.1 defines certain terms used in this part. Terms defined in the MPIA are not included in the list of definitions in § 7.1.
Proposed § 7.3 requires that correspondence relating to international applications and registrations be in English.
Proposed § 7.4 states that correspondence submitted electronically will be accorded the date and time the complete transmission is received in the Office based on Eastern Time.
The Office proposes to require fees for processing filings under the Madrid Protocol. Proposed § 7.6 sets forth the fees payable to the Office for processing correspondence relating to international applications and registrations. These fees must be paid in U.S. dollars at the time of submission.
The Office proposes to charge a fee: (1) For reviewing and certifying an international application; (2) for transmitting a subsequent designation; (3) for transmitting a request to record an assignment or restriction of a holder's right of disposal of an international registration; (4) for requesting a notice of replacement; and (5) for filing an affidavit of use in commerce or excusable nonuse for a mark in a registered extension of protection to the United States.
In addition to the fees required by the Office, there are international fees for processing international applications and registrations. Proposed § 7.7 sets forth the international fees payable to the IB in connection with international applications and registrations, and the requirements and procedures for submitting these fees through the Office. A schedule of the international fees is posted at http://www.wipo.int/​madrid/​en/​. The international applicant or holder may pay the fees directly to the IB, or to the IB through the Office. Fees paid directly to the IB must be paid in Swiss francs, and fees paid through the Office must be paid in U.S. dollars. The fees that may be paid through the Office are listed in proposed § 7.7(b).
Under proposed § 7.7(c), international fees paid through the Office must be paid in U.S. dollars at the time of submission. To pay fees directly to the IB, the international applicant or holder must either: (1) Establish an account with the IB for debiting fees, and set forth the number of that account as proof of payment in its submission to the Office; or (2) pay the fees to the IB using any other method of payment, and include the IB receipt number for payment of the fees as proof of payment in its submission to the Office. Start Printed Page 15121
The requirements for granting a date of receipt to an international application submitted through the Office are set forth in proposed § 7.11(a). The Office proposes to require the submission of an international application through the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS). An international application must identify at least one basic application or registration. The international application may be based on more than one basic U.S. application and/or registration, provided that the owner and the mark are the same for each basic U.S. application or registration.
Under section 61 of the Act, and proposed § 7.11(a)(10), the international applicant must specify that applicant is a national of, is domiciled in, or has a real and effective industrial or commercial establishment in the United States.
Proposed § 7.11(a)(3) requires a reproduction of the mark in the international application that is identical to the mark in the basic application or registration and that meets the drawing requirements of § 2.52. If the mark in the basic application or registration is depicted in black and white, the reproduction of the mark in the international application must be black and white. If the mark in the basic application or registration is in color, the mark in the international application must be in color. If a mark for which there is a claim of color is depicted in black and white in the basic application or registration, the international application must include both a black and white reproduction of the mark and a color reproduction of the mark.
Under proposed §§ 7.11(a)(4) and 7.12, if color is claimed as a feature of the mark, the same color claim must be made in the international application. If color is not claimed as a feature of the mark in the basic application or registration, the international application may not include a claim of color.
Under proposed § 7.11(a)(6), if the mark in the basic application or registration is a three-dimensional mark, sound mark, collective mark or certification mark, the international application must indicate the type of mark.
Proposed § 7.11(a)(7) requires a list of goods and/or services in the international application that is identical to or narrower than the list of goods and/or services in the basic application or registration, and is classified according to the Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks. The applicant may omit goods and/or services from the international application as long as the omission does not broaden the scope of the goods or services identified in the basic application or registration.
Under proposed § 7.11(a)(8), an international applicant must designate at least one Contracting Party in which it seeks an extension of protection.
Under proposed § 7.11(a)(9), the international applicant must pay the U.S. certification fee and the fees required by the IB for all classes and all designated Contracting Parties at the time of submission.
Proposed § 7.13 sets forth the requirements for certifying and forwarding an international application to the IB. Under proposed § 7.13(a), if an international application meets the requirements of proposed § 7.11(a), the Office will grant a date of receipt and certify that the information contained in the international application corresponds to the basic application or registration. The Office will forward the international application electronically to the IB.
Proposed § 7.13(b), states that if the Office cannot certify that the information contained in the international application corresponds with the information in the basic application or registration, the Office will notify the applicant that the international application cannot be certified. Any IB fees submitted through the Office will be refunded; however, the Office will not refund the certification fee.
The IB will notify both the international applicant and the Office of any irregularities in the international application. The international applicant is responsible for correcting the irregularities before the end of the response period set forth in the IB's notice to avoid abandonment of the international application. Under rule 11 of the Common Regulations, there are some irregularities that must be corrected through the Office and some that must be corrected directly with the IB. Proposed § 7.14 sets forth the types of irregularities that must be corrected through the Office and the procedures for responding to these irregularities through the Office.
Under proposed § 7.14(d), the Office would require that applicants use TEAS to correct irregularities through the Office. To assist the Office in its efforts to timely transmit the response or fee to the IB, applicants should submit their responses or fee as early as possible, at least one month prior to the end of the IB's response period.
Rules 12 and 13 of the Common Regulations provide that the IB will not consider a response to irregularities in classification and identification of goods and/or services that is not submitted through the office of origin. Proposed § 7.14(b) provides that an international applicant must respond to irregularities in classification and identification of goods and/or services through the Office. The Office will forward an applicant's response to the IB; however, the Office will not review the response or respond to an irregularity on behalf of an applicant.
The IB may require an international applicant to pay additional fees as a result of irregularities in the classification of goods or services, or because the international fees submitted with the application were insufficient. Under proposed § 7.14(c), the applicant may pay the additional fees directly to the IB or through the Office. The international applicant must correct the fee irregularities before the end of the response period set forth in the IB's notice, or the international application will abandon at the IB. Under proposed § 7.14(d), if the international applicant is paying the additional fees through the Office, the fees must be paid through TEAS and should be submitted at least one month before the end of the IB's response period.
Under proposed § 7.14(e), all other irregularities in the international application must be corrected directly at the IB. Failure to correct certain irregularities by the end of the IB's response period will result in the abandonment of the international application.
Section 64 of the Act and proposed § 7.21 permit the holder of an international registration to submit a subsequent designation through the Office, if the holder is a national of, is domiciled in, or has a real and effective industrial or commercial establishment in the United States. The holder also has Start Printed Page 15122the option of filing the subsequent designation directly with the IB.
Under proposed § 7.21, if the subsequent designation is submitted through the Office, it must be submitted through TEAS and include the international registration number, the name and address of the holder of the international registration, one or more Contracting Parties in which an extension of protection is sought, and a list of goods and/or services that is identical to or narrower than the goods and/or services listed in the international registration. The holder can omit goods and/or services listed in the international registration as long as the omission does not broaden the scope of the goods or services identified in the international registration. The holder must include the transmittal fee and all subsequent designation fees required by the IB at the time of submission. The Office is not required to certify the subsequent designation.
Most changes to international registrations can be recorded directly with the IB. Proposed § 7.22(a) requires that all requests to record changes to an international registration be filed at the IB, except in the limited circumstances in which they must be submitted through the Office, as set forth in proposed §§ 7.23 and 7.24.
Proposed § 7.22(b) provides that assignments or restrictions of a holder's rights of disposal of an international registration must be recorded by the IB, and that section 10 of the Act and part 3 of this chapter are not applicable to such assignments or restrictions.
Proposed § 7.22(c) provides that when the Office is notified by the IB of an assignment or restriction of a holder's right to dispose of an international registration with an extension of protection to the United States, the Office will take note of the assignment or restriction in its records. The Assignment Services Division of the Office will record only assignments and restrictions of extensions of protection to the United States that have been recorded at the IB.
Proposed § 7.23 sets forth the limited circumstances in which a request to record an assignment of an international registration may be submitted through the Office, and the requirements for submitting these requests. Under proposed § 7.23, the Office will forward a request to record an assignment of an international registration to the IB only if: (1) The request is submitted by an assignee who is a national of, is domiciled in or has a real and effective commercial or industrial establishment in the U.S.; and (2) the assignee cannot obtain the assignor's signature for the request to record the assignment.
Proposed § 7.24 sets forth the limited circumstances in which a request to record a restriction of a holder's right to dispose of an international registration may be submitted through the Office, and the requirements for submitting these requests. Under proposed § 7.24, the Office will forward a request to record a restriction of a holder's right of disposal of an international registration (usually a security interest) only if: (1) The restriction is the result of an agreement between the holder of the international registration and the party restricting the holder's right of disposal; (2) the party holding the restriction is a national of, is domiciled in or has a real and effective commercial or industrial establishment in the U.S.; and (3) the signature of the holder of the international registration cannot be obtained for the request to record the restriction. The Office proposes to charge a fee for transmitting a request to record an assignment or restriction to the IB.
Proposed § 7.25 provides that for purposes of examination and opposition, a request for an extension of protection to the United States will be treated as an application for registration based on an extension of protection of an international registration under section 66(a) of the Act; and that references to “applications” and “registrations” in part 2 of this chapter include extensions of protection to the United States. With the exception of §§ 2.130-2.131, 2.160-2.166, 2.168 and 2.181-2.186, all the sections in part 2 apply to a request for extension of protection to the United States.
Under proposed § 7.26, the filing date of a request for extension of protection to the United States for purposes of examination in the Office is: (1) The international registration date, if the request for extension of protection to the United States was made in the international application, or (2) the date the IB recorded the subsequent designation, if the request for extension of protection to the United States was made in a subsequent designation. Under section 66(b) of the Act, the filing date of the extension of protection will be considered the date of constructive notice pursuant to section 7(c) of the Act.
Under section 67 of the Act and proposed § 7.27, the holder of an international registration may claim priority under Article 4 of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property if: (1) the request for an extension of protection contains a claim of priority; and (2) the international registration date or the date of recordal of the subsequent designation requesting an extension of protection to the United States is no later than 6 months after the filing date of the application that formed the basis of the claim of priority.
Under section 74 of the Act and proposed § 7.28(a), a registered extension of protection to the United States has the same rights as a previously issued U.S. registration if: (1) both registrations are owned by the same person and identify the same mark; and (2) the goods/services in the previously issued U.S. registration are covered by the registered extension of protection. Under proposed § 7.28(b), the holder of a pending or registered Start Printed Page 15123extension of protection may request that the Office note in its records replacement of the earlier U.S. registration by the extension of protection. The Office proposes to require a fee to note replacement.
Under proposed § 7.29, the replaced U.S. registration will remain in force, unless cancelled, expired or surrendered, as long as the owner files affidavits or declarations of use or excusable nonuse under section 8 of the Act and renews the registration under section 9 of the Act.
Under section 70 of the Act and proposed § 7.30, the Office will cancel a pending or registered extension of protection to the United States if the IB notifies the Office of the cancellation or expiration of the corresponding international registration, in whole or in part.
Under section 70(c) of the Act and proposed § 7.31(a), if an international registration is cancelled by the IB at the request of the office of origin under Article 6(4) of the Madrid Protocol (due to the cancellation or expiration of the basic application or registration), the holder of the international registration may file a request to transform the corresponding extension of protection to the United States into an application under section 1 or 44 of the Act. The requirements for transformation are set forth in proposed § 7.31(b).
Under proposed § 7.31(c), if a request for transformation contains all the elements in § 7.31(b), the cancelled extension of protection to the United States will be transformed into an application under section 1 or 44 of the Act. The application will be accorded the same filing date and same priority (if any) as the cancelled extension of protection to the United States. The application resulting from the transformation will be examined as a new application under part 2 and, if approved for publication, published for opposition. The application must meet all the requirements of the Act and rules for an application under section 1 or section 44 of the Act.
Under proposed § 7.31(e), if the holder does not meet the requirements of § 7.31(b), the Office will not process the request for transformation.
Section 71 of the Act and proposed § 7.36 require a holder of an international registration with a registered extension of protection to the United States to file an affidavit or declaration of use in commerce or excusable nonuse during the following time periods: (1) between the fifth and sixth year after registration; and (2) within the six-month period before the end of every ten-year period after the date of registration, or upon payment of a grace period surcharge, within the three-month grace period immediately following.
Under proposed § 7.41, renewal of an international registration must be made directly with the IB. A request for renewal of an international registration cannot be submitted through the Office. Renewal of international registrations is governed by Article 7 of the Madrid Protocol and Rules 29-31 of the Common Regulations. The term of an international registration is ten years, and it may be renewed for ten years upon payment of the renewal fee.
The Office proposes to amend § 2.2 to add definitions of “ESTTA” (Electronic System for Trademark Trials and Appeals), “international application,” and “Office.”
The Office proposes to revise § 2.11 and its heading to indicate that representation before the Office is governed by § 10.14 of this chapter. It is redundant to have provisions governing representation before the Office in both parts 2 and 10.
The Office proposes to reword § 2.17(b) and to add a reference to § 10.14(b).
The Office proposes to amend § 2.18 to clarify procedures for establishing a correspondence address in trademark cases. The proposed amendment does not change current practice.
The Office proposes to amend § 2.19(a) to clarify procedures for sending correspondence after a power of attorney is revoked, and to amend § 2.19(b) to indicate that the procedures for permissive withdrawal of an attorney are governed by § 10.40.
The Office proposes to amend § 2.21(a) to indicate that § 2.21 sets forth the minimum filing requirements only for applications under sections 1 and 44 of the Act. The filing date of an application under section 66(a) of the Act is governed by section 66(b) of the Act and proposed § 7.26.
The Office proposes to amend § 2.33 by adding a new paragraph (e), stating that in an application under section 66(a) of the Act, the verified statement is part of the international registration on file at the IB.
The Office proposes to remove §§ 2.34(a)(1)(v), 2.34(a)(2)(ii), 2.34(a)(3)(iv) and 2.34(a)(4)(iv), which state that an application may list more than one item of goods or more than one service, provided that the applicant has used or has a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce on or in connection with all the specified goods or services. This is stated in §§ 2.32(a)(6), 2.33(b)(1) and 2.33(b)(2), and it is unnecessary to repeat it in § 2.34.
The Office proposes to amend § 2.34(a)(4)(i)(A) to require that an application based on section 44(d) of the Act specify the serial number of the foreign application. This incorporates a requirement of Article 4(D)(5) of the Paris Convention, and codifies current practice, as stated in Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP) § 1003.
The Office proposes to add a new § 2.34(a)(5), setting forth a request for extension of protection of an international registration under section 66(a) of the Act as a fifth basis for filing a trademark application.
The Office proposes to revise § 2.34(b) to provide that more than one basis can be claimed only in an application under Start Printed Page 15124section 1 or 44 of the Act, and that a basis under section 66(a) of the Act cannot be combined with any other basis.
The Office proposes to revise § 2.35(a) to state that in an application under section 66(a) of the Act, the applicant may not add, substitute or delete a basis, unless the applicant meets the requirements for transformation under section 70(c) of the Act and proposed § 7.31.
The Office proposes to revise § 2.35(b) to set forth the requirements for adding, substituting or deleting a basis in an application under section 1 or section 44 of the Act. This is consistent with current §§ 2.35(a) and 2.35(b).
The Office proposes to redesignate §§ 2.35(c) through 2.35(h) as §§ 2.35(b)(3) through 2.35(b)(8).
The Office proposes to add a new § 2.37(b), requiring that if a mark has color, the applicant must identify the color(s) and describe where they appear on the mark. This is consistent with the requirements for international applications under the Madrid Protocol.
The Office proposes to amend § 2.47 to indicate that an application under section 66(a) of the Act is not eligible for registration on the Supplemental Register. Section 68(a)(4) of the Act provides that registration of an extension of protection of an international registration shall be refused to any mark not eligible for registration on the Principal Register.
The Office proposes to reword § 2.51(d) to simplify the rule and to add a provision that, in an application under section 66(a) of the Act, the drawing of the mark must be a substantially exact representation of the mark that appears in the international registration.
The Office proposes to revise § 2.52 to clarify the types of drawings and format for drawings. There are two types of drawings: (1) Standard character (typed) drawings; and (2) special form drawings. Currently the rules refer to a standard character drawing as a “typed drawing.” The Office proposes to use the term “standard character” because this is the term used for international applications under the Madrid Protocol. Proposed § 2.52(a) sets forth the requirements for a standard character drawing, and proposed § 2.52(b) sets forth the requirements for a special form drawing. Additional requirements for drawings filed through TEAS are set forth in proposed § 2.53, and additional requirements for paper drawings are set forth in proposed § 2.54.
Proposed § 2.52(b)(1) requires that if color is claimed as a feature of the mark or if the mark consists only of color, the drawing must show the mark in color. Currently, the Office does not accept color drawings. Under current rules, to show color in a mark, an applicant must submit a black and white drawing, with a statement identifying the color(s) and describing where they appear in the mark. Alternatively, an applicant may show color by using the lining chart set forth in TMEP § 807.09(b).
Proposed § 2.52(b)(1) requires that an applicant submit a black and white drawing if color is not claimed as a feature of the mark. This is consistent with the requirements for international applications under the Madrid Protocol.
Proposed § 2.52(b)(1) further requires that applicant name the color(s) and describe where they appear on the mark.
The Office proposes to add § 2.53, setting forth the requirements for a drawing filed through TEAS. Proposed § 2.53(b) requires that applicant attach a digitized image of the mark to the electronic submission. The image must be no larger than 3.15 inches (8 cm) high by 3.15 inches (8 cm) wide; must be in .jpg format; and must be scanned at no less than 250 and no more than 350 dots per inch. The image that is scanned must be made with a pen or by a process that will provide high definition when copied. These requirements are necessary to ensure that the Office database contains a clear and accurate reproduction of the mark. The 8 cm by 8 cm size requirement is consistent with the size requirement for an international application.
The Office proposes to add § 2.54, setting forth the requirements for a paper drawing. These requirements are necessary to ensure that the Office receives an image that can be scanned into its database without losing clarity.
The Office proposes to amend § 2.65 to add a new paragraph (d), stating that, if a refusal or requirement is expressly limited to only certain goods/services and the applicant fails to file a complete response to the refusal or requirement, the application shall be abandoned only as to those particular goods/services. This is a change in practice. Currently, failure to respond to a refusal that pertains to fewer than all the goods and services, or fewer than all the classes, in an application will result in abandonment of the entire application. See TMEP § 1403.05. This change will result in fewer abandonments and comports with sections 68(c) and 69(a) of the Act, which provide that an application under section 66(a) of the Act is automatically protected with respect to any goods or services for which the Office has not timely notified the IB of a refusal.
The Office proposes to amend § 2.66(a) to require that a petition to revive an abandoned application based on unintentional delay be filed within two months of the mailing date of the notice of abandonment. The Office proposes to remove § 2.66(a)(2), which provides that such a petition may be filed within two months of actual knowledge of the abandonment if the applicant did not receive the notice of abandonment and the applicant was diligent in checking the status of the application.
Effective October 30, 1999, the standard for reviving abandoned applications was changed from “unavoidable delay” to “unintentional delay.” See notices at 64 FR 48900 (Sept. 8, 1999) and 1226 TMOG 103 (Sept. 28, 1999). Since that time, there has been a substantial increase in the number of petitions to revive filed in the Office. Third parties may be harmed by the revival of a pending application many months after its abandonment and removal from the Office database. For example, a third party may have searched the Office database and commenced using a mark because the search showed no earlier-filed conflicting marks. Or an examining attorney may have searched the Office database and approved a later-filed application for a conflicting mark because the database indicated that the earlier-filed application was abandoned. To minimize this problem, the Office proposes to adopt a stricter time limit for filing petitions to revive under § 2.66. Moreover, the strict time limits for issuing refusals to requests for extension of protection under section 66(a) of the Act requires greater accuracy of the Office database.
The Office proposes to add a new § 2.72(d), stating that in an application under section 66(a) of the Act, the applicant may amend the description or drawing of the mark only if the proposed amendment does not materially alter the mark, and that the Office will determine whether a proposed amendment materially alters a Start Printed Page 15125mark by comparing the proposed amendment with the description or drawing of the mark in the international application on file at the IB.
The Office proposes to amend § 2.73(a) to add references to applications under sections 44 and 66(a) of the Act. Section 2.73 sets forth the requirements for amendment of an application to recite concurrent use under section 2(d) of the Act.
The Office proposes to add a new § 2.75(c), stating that in an application under section 66(a) of the Act, the applicant may not amend the application to the Supplemental Register. As noted above, section 68(a)(4) of the Act provides that registration of an extension of protection of an international registration shall be refused to any mark not eligible for registration on the Principal Register.
The Office proposes to revise §§ 2.84(a) and (b) to add references to the new filing basis under section 66(a) of the Act. The provisions with respect to jurisdiction over published section 66(a) applications are the same as those in applications under sections 1(a) and 44 of the Act.
The Office proposes to amend §§ 2.101(a), 2.111(a), 2.118 and 2.145(c)(4) to refer to the United States Patent and Trademark Office as Office.
The Office proposes to amend § 2.101(b) to substitute “person” for “entity” to track the statutory language; to make the rule gender neutral; to clarify the definitions of “attorney” and “other authorized representative” by reference to §§ 10.1(c) and 10.14(b), respectively; to clarify that an opposition must be signed; and to indicate that electronic signatures are required for electronically filed oppositions.
The Office proposes to add a new § 2.101(b)(1) and a new § 2.101(b)(2) stating that an opposition to an application based on section 1 or 44 of the Act may be filed either on paper or electronically through ESTTA, but that an opposition to an application based on section 66(a) of the Act may be filed only through ESTTA.
The Office proposes to revise § 2.101(d)(1) through § 2.101(d)(3) and to add new § 2.101(d)(3)(i) through § 2.101(d)(3)(iii) to indicate that the Office will not accept an opposition submitted through ESTTA that does not include fees to cover all named party opposers and all classes opposed; that the Office will not institute an opposition proceeding if an opposition submitted on paper does not include a fee sufficient to pay for one person to oppose the registration of a mark in at least one class; and that the Office will no longer correspond with an opposer in an opposition submitted on paper to permit submission of additional fees or designation of party opposers and/or classes where an opposition is submitted with insufficient fees to pay for opposition by all party opposers and/or in all classes. The revision explains how the Office will apply a fee accompanying a paper submission that is insufficient to cover all classes and/or to cover all party opposers.
The Office proposes to amend § 2.102(a) to make the rule gender neutral; to clarify the definitions of “attorney” and “authorized representative” by reference to §§ 10.1(c) and 10.14(b), respectively; to clarify that a request to extend the time for filing an opposition must be signed; and to indicate that electronic signatures are required for electronically filed requests to extend the time for filing oppositions.
The Office proposes to add a new § 2.102(a)(1) and a new § 2.102(a)(2) stating that a written request to extend the time for filing an opposition to an application based on section 1 or 44 of the Act may be filed either on paper or electronically through ESTTA, but stating that a request to extend the time for filing an opposition to an application based on section 66(a) of the Act may be filed only through ESTTA.
The Office proposes to revise § 2.102(c) to set out the time frames for extensions of time to oppose and to indicate that the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board will no longer extend a potential opposer's time to file an opposition beyond 120 days from the date the mark is published for opposition. The Office proposes to add §§ 2.102(c)(1) and (2) to state the requirements concerning the filing of permitted requests to extend the time for filing an opposition.
The Office proposes to remove §2.102(d), which requires submission of extension requests in triplicate.
The Office proposes to revise § 2.104(a) to remove the requirement that a duplicate copy of the opposition, including exhibits, be filed with an opposition.
The Office proposes to reword the heading for § 2.105 to specify that notification of opposition proceedings is to the parties.
The Office proposes to revise § 2.105 to clarify the definitions of “attorney” and “authorized representative” by reference to §§ 10.1(c) and 10.14(b), respectively; and to indicate that, if no attorney or other authorized representative is appointed, notification will be sent to a party's domestic representative, or, if there is no domestic representative, notification will be sent to the party.
The Office proposes to redesignate § 2.107 as § 2.107(a); to limit this paragraph to oppositions against an application filed under section 1 or 44 of the Act; and to state in the rule the Board practice which prohibits an opposer in a proceeding against an application filed under section 1 or 44 of the Act from adding to the goods or services in an opposition after the period for filing the opposition has closed.
The Office proposes to add a new § 2.107(b) to state that pleadings in an opposition proceeding against an application filed under section 66(a) of the Act may be amended in the same manner and to the same extent as in a civil action in a United States district court; except that, once filed, such opposition may not be amended to change or add to the grounds for opposition or to add to the goods or services opposed.
The Office proposes to revise § 2.111(b) to substitute “person” for “entity” to track the statutory language; to make the rule gender neutral; to clarify the definitions of “attorney” and “authorized representative” by reference to §§ 10.1(c) and 10.14(b), respectively; to clarify that an opposition must be signed; and to indicate that electronic signatures are required for electronically filed oppositions.
The Office proposes to revise § 2.111(c) to divide it into four paragraphs; to state that the Office will not accept a petition submitted through ESTTA that does not include fees to cover all named party petitioners and all classes; that the Office will not institute a cancellation proceeding if a petition submitted on paper does not include a fee sufficient to pay for one person for a cancellation in at least one class; and that the Office will no longer correspond with a petitioner in a cancellation submitted on paper to permit submission of additional fees or designation of party petitioners and/or classes where a cancellation is submitted with insufficient fees to pay for cancellation by all party petitioners and/or in all classes. The revision explains how the Office will apply a fee accompanying a paper submission that is insufficient to cover all classes and/or to cover all party petitioners.
The Office proposes to amend § 2.112(a) to substitute “person” for “entity” to track the statutory language; to make the rule gender neutral; and to remove the requirement that a duplicate copy of the petition, including exhibits, be filed with the petition. Start Printed Page 15126
The Office proposes to reword the heading for § 2.113 to specify that notification of cancellation proceedings is to the parties.
The Office proposes to revise § 2.113 to divide it into paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) for clarity; to clarify the definitions of “attorney” and “authorized representative” by reference to §§ 10.1(c) and 10.14(b), respectively; and to indicate that, if no attorney or other authorized representative is appointed by a party, notification will be sent to that party's domestic representative, or, if there is no domestic representative for that party, notification will be sent to the party.
The Office proposes to amend § 2.118 to delete reference to a party residing abroad and his representative in the United States in order to clarify that when any notice sent by the Office to a registrant is returned to the Office, notice may be given by publication in the Official Gazette, regardless of whether that registrant resides in the United States or elsewhere.
The Office proposes to amend § 2.123(g)(1) to require that depositions be in written form, but to delete reference to specific requirements that may vary depending upon the media used for submission. Requirements for submissions are specified in proposed § 2.126.
The Office proposes to add new § 2.126, entitled “Form of submissions to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board,” which includes paragraphs (a) through (d). Paragraphs (a) through (c) provide that submissions may be made to the Board on paper, CD-ROM, or electronically, as permitted by the rules contained in this part or Board practice; and specify the requirements for each type of submission. Paragraph (d) specifies the requirements for making a submission to the Board that is confidential in whole or in part.
The Office proposes to amend § 2.127(a) to delete the specifications for filing on paper a brief in support of, or response to, a motion, referring, instead to § 2.126.
The Office proposes to amend § 2.128(b) to require that briefs be in written form; and to delete the specifications for filing a brief on paper, referring, instead to § 2.126.
The Office proposes to amend both the heading and the body of § 2.130 to change “Examiner of Trademarks” to “trademark examining attorney.” The Office proposes to revise § 2.130 to provide that, during an inter partes proceeding, only applications under section 1 or section 44 of the Act may be remanded, at the request of the trademark examining attorney, for consideration of facts which appear to render the mark unregistrable.
The Office proposes to amend § 2.131 to change the term “examiner” to “trademark examining attorney”; and to limit the applicability of this section to inter partes proceedings involving applications under sections 1 and 44 of the Act.
The Office proposes to revise § 2.142(a) and (b)(2) to state that notices of appeal and briefs must be filed in written form, as prescribed in § 2.126, and to delete the specifications for filing a brief on paper.
The Office proposes to amend § 2.145(b)(3) to indicate that notices of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, with a duplicate copy addressed to the Board.
The Office proposes to amend § 2.145(c)(3) to indicate that any adverse party to an appeal taken to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit by a defeated party in an inter partes proceeding who files a notice with the Office as provided in section 21(b) of the Act, must address that notice to the Office of the General Counsel.
The Office proposes to amend § 2.145(c)(4) to indicate that, in order to avoid premature termination of a proceeding, a party who commences a civil action, pursuant to section 21(b) of the Act, must file written notice thereof at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.
The Office proposes to amend § 2.146(c) to delete reference to a petition to revive as an example of a situation where an affidavit or declaration is required in support of a petition. This is a technical correction to the rule. Effective October 30, 1999, § 2.66 was amended to delete the requirement for an affidavit or declaration in a petition to revive based on unintentional delay. An unverified statement is sufficient. See notices at 64 FR 48900 (Sept. 8, 1999) and 1226 TMOG 103 (Sept. 28, 1999). However, § 2.146(c) still requires a verified statement in other situations where facts are to be proven on petition. For example, if the petition arises from the loss or misplacement of a document submitted to the Office, it should be accompanied by the affidavit or declaration of the person who mailed the document, attesting to the date of submission and identifying the document filed with the petition as a true copy of the document previously filed. TMEP § 1705.03.
The Office proposes to amend § 2.146(i) to change the standard for a showing of due diligence for petitions in which the petitioner seeks to reactivate an application or registration that was abandoned, cancelled or expired due to the loss or mishandling of papers. Currently, the rule requires that to be considered diligent, petitioners must check the status of pending matters within one year of the last filing or receipt of a notice from the Office for which further action by the Office is expected. The Office proposes to shorten the time period from one year to six months. A showing of due diligence would require that a petitioner check the status of a pending application every six months between the filing date of the application and issuance of a registration; check the status of a registration every six months after filing an affidavit of use or excusable nonuse under section 8 or 71 of the Act or a renewal application under section 9 of the Act until the petitioner receives notice that the affidavit or renewal application has been accepted; and request corrective action where necessary.
The Office proposes to revise § 2.151 to add a reference to section 71 of the Act, which requires periodic affidavits of use or excusable nonuse to maintain a registration based on an extension of protection of an international registration.
The Office proposes to add a new § 2.171(b), stating that when ownership of a registration has changed with respect to some but not all of the goods and/or services, the registrant(s) may file a request that the registration be physically divided into two or more separate registrations, upon payment of the required fee for each new separate registration created by the division.
Regulatory Flexibility Act: The Deputy General Counsel for General Law of the United States Patent and Trademark Office has certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Start Printed Page 15127Administration that the proposed rule changes will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities (Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b)). The main purpose of the proposed rules is to implement legislation that provides an additional means for filing trademark applications. Additionally, the rules provide for some technical and other changes that will simplify the trademark application process. Hence, the rules merely provide all applicants for trademark registration, including small businesses, with additional benefits.
This proposed rule contains collections of information requirements subject to the PRA. This rule adds provisions allowing parties to (1) file applications for international trademark registration with the IB through the Office; (2) file subsequent designations with the IB through the Office; (3) file responses to notices of irregularities in international applications issued by the IB through the Office; (4) request the Office to note in its records that a registered extension of protection of an international registration to the United States replaces a previously issued U.S. registration; (5) file requests to record assignments or restrictions of a holder's right to dispose of an international registration with the IB through the Office; and (6) file a request that the Office transform an extension of protection that was cancelled by the IB into an application for registration in the United States under section 1 or section 44 of the Act. Additionally, the proposed rule sets forth requirements for submitting an affidavit of continued use or excusable nonuse under section 71 of the Act and discusses changes in the information required from the public to file notices of opposition, petitions to cancel, and requests for extensions of time to oppose.
An information collection package supporting the changes to the above information requirements, as set forth in this rule, has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review and approval. Previously, a separate information package was submitted in support of oppositions, requests for extensions of time to file oppositions, and petitions to cancel. The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average as follows: fifteen minutes for international trademark applications; three minutes for subsequent designations; ten minutes to respond to notices of irregularities issued by the IB in connection with international applications; two minutes to request that the Office replace a United States registration with a subsequently registered extension of protection to the United States; five minutes for a request to record an assignment or restriction of a holder's right to dispose of an international registration; five minutes for a request that the Office transform a cancelled extension of protection into an application for registration under section 1 or 44 of the Act; fourteen minutes for an affidavit of continued use or excusable nonuse under section 71 of the Act; ten minutes to forty-five minutes for notices of opposition and petitions to cancel, depending on the particular circumstances; and ten minutes for requests for extensions of time to oppose. These time estimates include the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for proper performance of the functions of the agency; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information to respondents.
Send comments regarding this burden estimate, or any other aspect of this data collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Commissioner for Trademarks, 2900 Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202-3513 (Attn: Ari Leifman), and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (Attn: PTO Desk Officer).
For the reasons given in the preamble and under the authority contained in 35 U.S.C. 2 and 15 U.S.C. 1123, as amended, the Office proposes to amend title 37 as follows:
2. Amend § 2.2 to add new paragraphs (c) through (e), to read as follows:
(c) The acronym ESTTA means the Electronic System for Trademark Trials and Appeals, available at http://www.uspto.gov.
3. Revise § 2.11 and its heading to read as follows:
Representation before the Office.
Representation before the Office is governed by § 10.14 of this chapter. The Office cannot aid in the selection of an attorney.
4. Amend § 2.17 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
(b) Before any authorized representative, as specified in § 10.14(b) of this chapter, will be allowed to take action of any kind with respect to an application, registration or proceeding, a written authorization from the applicant, registrant, party to the proceeding, or other person entitled to prosecute such application or proceeding must be filed.
(a) If documents are transmitted by an attorney, or a written power of attorney is filed, the Office will send correspondence to the attorney transmitting the documents, or to the attorney designated in the power of attorney, provided that the attorney is an attorney as defined in § 10.1(c) of this chapter.
(b) The Office will not undertake double correspondence. If more than one attorney appears or signs a document, the Office's reply will be sent to the address already established in the record until the applicant, registrant or party, or its duly appointed attorney, requests in writing that correspondence be sent to another address. Start Printed Page 15128
6. Revise § 2.19 and its heading to read as follows:
Revocation of power of attorney; withdrawal.
(b) If the requirements of § 10.40 of this chapter are met, an attorney authorized under § 10.14 of this chapter to represent an applicant, registrant or party in a trademark case may withdraw upon application to and approval by the Director.
7. Amend § 2.21 by revising paragraph (a) introductory text to read as follows:
8. Amend § 2.33 by adding a new paragraph (e) to read as follows:
9. Amend § 2.34 by removing paragraphs (a)(1)(v), (a)(3)(iv) and (a)(4)(iv), revising paragraphs (a) introductory text, (a)(2), (a)(4)(i)(A), and (b), and adding a new paragraph (a)(5), to read as follows:
10. Revise § 2.35 to read as follows:
(a) In an application under section 66(a) of the Act, an applicant may not add, substitute or delete a basis, unless the applicant meets the requirements for transformation under section 70(c) of the Act and § 7.31 of this chapter.
(1) Before publication for opposition, an applicant may add or substitute a basis, if the applicant meets all requirements for the new basis, as stated in § 2.34. The applicant may delete a basis at any time.
(2) After publication, an applicant may add or substitute a basis in an application that is not the subject of an inter partes proceeding before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, but only with the express permission of the Director, after consideration on petition. Republication will be required. The amendment of an application that is the subject of an inter partes proceeding before the Board is governed by § 2.133(a).
11. Revise § 2.37 to read as follows:
12. Amend § 2.47 by redesignating paragraphs (c) and (d) as (d) and (e) and Start Printed Page 15129adding a new paragraph (c) to read as follows:
13. Revise § 2.51 to read as follows:
(b) In an application under section 1(b) of the Act, the drawing of the mark must be a substantially exact representation of the mark as intended to be used on or in connection with the goods and/or services specified in the application, and once an amendment to allege use under § 2.76 or a statement of use under § 2.88 has been filed, the drawing of the mark must be a substantially exact representation of the mark as used on or in connection with the goods and/or services.
14. Revise § 2.52 to read as follows:
(c) A drawing filed through TEAS must meet the requirements of § 2.53.
(d) A paper drawing must meet the requirements of § 2.54.
15. Add § 2.53 to read as follows:
Requirements for drawings filed through the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS).
The drawing must meet the requirements of § 2.52. In addition, in a TEAS application, the drawing must meet the following requirements:
(c) Requirements for digitized images: The image must be no larger than 3.15 inches (8 cm) high by 3.15 inches (8 cm) wide; must be in .jpg format; and must be scanned at no less than 250 and no more than 350 dots per inch. The image that is scanned must be made with a pen or by a process that will provide high definition when copied. A photolithographic, printer's proof copy, or other high quality reproduction of the mark may be used. All lines must be clean, sharp and solid, and must not be fine or crowded.
16. Add § 2.54 to read as follows:
Requirements for drawings submitted on paper.
The drawing must meet the requirements of § 2.52. In addition, in a paper application, the drawing should:
17. Amend § 2.65 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
(a) If an applicant fails to respond, or to respond completely, within six months after the date an action is mailed, the application shall be deemed abandoned unless the refusal or requirement is expressly limited to only certain goods and/or services. If the refusal or requirement is expressly limited to only certain goods and/or services, the application will be abandoned only as to those particular goods/services. A timely petition to the Director pursuant to §§ 2.63(b) and 2.146, if appropriate, is a response that avoids abandonment of an application.
18. Amend § 2.66 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
19. Amend § 2.72 to add a new paragraph (d) to read as follows:
20. Amend § 2.73 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
(a) An application under section 1(a), section 44, or section 66(a) of the Act may be amended to an application for concurrent use registration, provided the application as amended satisfies the requirements of § 2.42. The trademark examining attorney will determine whether the application, as amended, is acceptable.
21. Amend § 2.75 to add a new paragraph (c) to read as follows:
22. Revise § 2.84 to read as follows:
(b) After publication, but before the certificate of registration in an application under section 1(a), 44 or 66(a) of the Act is printed, or before the notice of allowance in an application under section 1(b) of the Act is printed, an application that is not the subject of an inter partes proceeding before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board may be amended if the amendment does not necessitate republication of the mark or issuance of an Office action. Otherwise, an amendment to such an application may be submitted only upon petition to the Director to restore jurisdiction over the application to the trademark examining attorney for consideration of the amendment and further examination. The amendment of an application that is the subject of an inter partes proceeding before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board is governed by § 2.133.
23. Revise § 2.101 to read as follows:
(b) Any person who believes that he, she or it would be damaged by the registration of a mark on the Principal Register may file an opposition addressed to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. The opposition need not be verified, and must be signed by the opposer or the opposer's attorney, as specified in § 10.1(c) of this chapter, or other authorized representative, as specified in § 10.14(b) of this chapter. Electronic signatures pursuant to § 1.4(d)(1)(iii) of this chapter are required for oppositions submitted electronically under paragraphs (b)(1) or (2) of this section.
(c) The opposition must be filed within thirty days after publication (§ 2.80) of the application being opposed or within an extension of time (§ 2.102) for filing an opposition.
(d)(1) The opposition must be accompanied by the required fee for each party joined as opposer for each class in the application for which registration is opposed (see § 2.6).
(iii) If persons are joined as party opposers, each must submit a fee for each class for which opposition is sought. If the fees submitted are sufficient to pay for one person to oppose registration in at least one class, but are insufficient for each named party opposer, the first-named party will be presumed to be the party opposer. Additional parties will be deemed to be party opposers only to the extent that the fees submitted are sufficient to pay the fee due for each party opposer. If persons are joined as party opposers against a multiple class application, the fees submitted are insufficient, and no specification of opposers and classes is Start Printed Page 15131made at the time the party is joined, the fees submitted will be applied first on behalf of the first-named opposer against as many of the classes in the application as the submitted fees are sufficient to pay. Any excess will be applied on behalf of the second-named party to the opposition against the classes in the application in ascending numerical order.
24. Revise § 2.102 to read as follows:
(a) Any person who believes that he, she or it would be damaged by the registration of a mark on the Principal Register may file a written request to extend the time for filing an opposition. The written request must be signed by the potential opposer or by the potential opposer's attorney, as specified in § 10.1(c) of this chapter, or authorized representative, as specified in § 10.14(b) of this chapter. Electronic signatures pursuant to § 1.4(d)(1)(iii) of this chapter are required for electronically filed extension requests.
(2) Alternatively, a potential opposer may file a single request for an extension of time for 90 days for good cause shown. Such a request must be filed before thirty days have expired from the date of publication, and will be granted by the Board only for good cause shown. If a potential opposer does not show good cause, the Board will treat the request as a first request for extension of time for thirty days under § 2.102(c)(1).
25. Revise § 2.104(a) to read as follows:
26. Revise § 2.105 and its heading to read as follows:
When an opposition in proper form has been filed and the correct fee(s) has been submitted, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board shall prepare a notification, which shall identify the title and number of the proceeding and the application involved and shall designate a time, not less than thirty days from the mailing date of the notification, within which an answer must be filed. A copy of the notification shall be forwarded to opposer's attorney, as defined in § 10.1(c) of this chapter, or other authorized representative, as defined in § 10.14(b) of this chapter, if any, or to opposer's domestic representative, if any, or to opposer. The Board shall forward a copy of the opposition and any exhibits with a copy of the notification to applicant's attorney, other authorized representative, or domestic representative, if any, or to the applicant.
27. Revise § 2.107 to read as follows:
28. Revise § 2.111 to read as follows:
(b) Any person who believes that he, she or it is or will be damaged by a registration may file a petition, addressed to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, to cancel the registration in whole or in part. The petition need not be verified, and must be signed by the petitioner or the petitioner's attorney, as specified in § 10.1(c) of this chapter, or other authorized representative, as specified in § 10.14(b) of this chapter. Electronic signatures pursuant to § 1.4(d)(1)(iii) of this chapter are required for petitions submitted electronically. * * *
(c)(1) The petition must be accompanied by the required fee for each party joined as petitioner for each class in the registration for which cancellation is sought (see § 2.6).
(ii) If the petition is accompanied by fees sufficient to pay for one person for a cancellation in at least one class, but fees are insufficient for a cancellation against all the classes in the registration, and the particular class or classes against which the cancellation is filed are not specified, the cancellation will be presumed to be against the class or classes in ascending numerical order, including only the number of classes in Start Printed Page 15132the registration for which sufficient fees have been submitted.
29. Revise § 2.112 to read as follows:
§ 2.112
(a) The petition must set forth a short and plain statement showing why the petitioner believes he, she or it is or will be damaged by the registration, state the grounds for cancellation, and indicate, to the best of petitioner's knowledge, the name and address of the current owner of the registration.
30. Revise § 2.113 and its heading to read as follows:
(a) When a petition for cancellation has been filed in proper form (see §§ 2.111 and 2.112), the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board shall prepare a notification which shall identify the title and number of the proceeding and the registration(s) involved and shall designate a time, not less than thirty days from the mailing date of the notification, within which an answer must be filed. A copy of the notification shall be forwarded to petitioner's attorney, as defined in § 10.1(c) of this chapter, or other authorized representative, as defined in § 10.14(b) of this chapter, if any, or to petitioner's domestic representative, if any, or to the petitioner. The Board shall forward a copy of the petition to cancel and any exhibits with a copy of the notification to the respondent (see § 2.118).
(c) When the party identified by the petitioner, pursuant to § 2.112(a), as the current owner of the registration(s) is not the record owner, a courtesy copy of the petition for cancellation shall be forwarded with a copy of the notification to the alleged current owner. The alleged current owner may file a motion to be joined or substituted as respondent.
31. Revise § 2.118 to read as follows:
32. Amend § 2.123 by revising paragraph (g)(1) to read as follows:
33. Add new § 2.126 to read as follows:
(5) All pages of a paper submission must be numbered and exhibits shall be identified in the manner prescribed in § 2.123(g)(2);
(b) Submissions may be made to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board on CD-ROM where the rules in this part or Board practice permit. A CD-ROM submission must identify the parties and case number and contain a list that clearly identifies the documents and exhibits contained thereon. This information must appear in the data contained in the CD-ROM itself, on a label affixed to the CD-ROM, and on the packaging for the CD-ROM. Text in a CD-ROM submission must be in at least 11-point type and double-spaced. A brief filed on CD-ROM must be accompanied by a single paper copy of the brief. A CD-ROM submission must be accompanied by a transmittal letter on paper that identifies the parties, the case number and the contents of the CD-ROM.
(c) Submissions may be made to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board electronically via the Internet where the rules in this part or Board practice permit, according to the parameters established by the Board and published at http://www.uspto.gov. Text in an electronic submission must be in at least 11-point type and double-spaced. Exhibits pertaining to an electronic submission must be made electronically as an attachment to the submission.
(d) To be handled as confidential, submissions to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board that are confidential in whole or part pursuant to § 2.125(e), must be submitted under a separate cover. Both the submission and its cover must be marked confidential and identify the case number and the Start Printed Page 15133parties. A copy of the submission with the confidential portions redacted must be submitted.
34. Revise § 2.127(a) to read as follows:
(a) Every motion shall be submitted in written form and must meet the requirements prescribed in § 2.126. It shall contain a full statement of the grounds, and shall embody or be accompanied by a brief. Except as provided in paragraph (e)(1) of this section, a brief in response to a motion shall be filed within fifteen days from the date of service of the motion unless another time is specified by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, or the time is extended by stipulation of the parties approved by the Board, or upon motion granted by the Board, or upon order of the Board. If a motion for an extension is denied, the time for responding to the motion remains as specified under this section, unless otherwise ordered. The Board may, in its discretion, consider a reply brief. Except as provided in paragraph (e)(1) of this section, a reply brief, if filed, shall be filed within fifteen days from the date of service of the brief in response to the motion. The time for filing a reply brief will not be extended. No further papers in support of or in opposition to a motion will be considered by the Board. The brief in support of a motion and the brief in response to the motion shall not exceed twenty-five pages in length, and a reply brief shall not exceed ten pages in length. Exhibits submitted in support of or in opposition to a motion shall not be deemed to be part of the brief for purposes of determining the length of the brief. When a party fails to file a brief in response to a motion, the Board may treat the motion as conceded. An oral hearing will not be held on a motion except on order by the Board.
35. Amend § 2.128 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
§ 2.128
(b) Briefs must be submitted in written form and must meet the requirements prescribed in § 2.126. Each brief shall contain an alphabetical index of cited cases. Without prior leave of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, a main brief on the case shall not exceed fifty-five pages in length in its entirety, including the table of contents, index of cases, description of the record, statement of the issues, recitation of the facts, argument, and summary; and a reply brief shall not exceed twenty-five pages in its entirety.
36. Revise § 2.130 and its heading to read as follows:
37. Revise § 2.131 to read as follows:
If, during an inter partes proceeding involving an application under section 1 or 44 of the Act, facts are disclosed which appear to render the mark unregistrable, but such matter has not been tried under the pleadings as filed by the parties or as they might be deemed to be amended under Rule 15(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to conform to the evidence, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, in lieu of determining the matter in the decision on the proceeding, may remand the application to the trademark examining attorney for reexamination in the event the applicant ultimately prevails in the inter partes proceeding. Upon remand, the trademark examining attorney shall reexamine the application in light of the reference by the Board. If, upon reexamination, the trademark examining attorney finally refuses registration to the applicant, an appeal may be taken as provided by §§ 2.141 and 2.142.
38. Amend § 2.142 by revising paragraphs (a) and (b)(2) to read as follows:
(a) Any appeal filed under the provisions of § 2.141 must be filed within six months from the date of the final refusal or the date of the action from which the appeal is taken. An appeal is taken by filing a notice of appeal in written form, as prescribed in § 2.126, and paying the appeal fee.
(2) Briefs must be submitted in written form and must meet the requirements prescribed in § 2.126. Each brief shall contain an alphabetical index of cited cases. Without prior leave of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, a brief shall not exceed twenty-five pages in length in its entirety, including the table of contents, index of cases, description of the record, statement of the issues, recitation of the facts, argument, and summary.
39. Amend § 2.145 by revising paragraphs (b)(3), (c)(3) and (c)(4) to read as follows:
(3) Any adverse party to an appeal taken to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit by a defeated party in an inter partes proceeding may file a notice with the Office, addressed to the Office of the General Counsel, within twenty days after the filing of the defeated party's notice of appeal to the court (paragraph (b) of this section), electing to have all further proceedings conducted as provided in section 21(b) of the Act. The notice of election must be served as provided in § 2.119.
40. Amend § 2.146 by revising paragraphs (c) and (i) to read as follows:
(c) Every petition to the Director shall include a statement of the facts relevant to the petition, the points to be reviewed, the action or relief that is requested, and the fee required by § 2.6. Any brief in support of the petition shall be embodied in or accompany the petition. When facts are to be proved in ex parte cases, proof in the form of affidavits or declarations in accordance with § 2.20, and any exhibits, shall accompany the petition.
41. Revise § 2.151 to read as follows:
42. Revise § 2.171 to read as follows:
(a) If the ownership of a registered mark changes, the assignee may request that a new certificate of registration be issued in the name of the assignee for the unexpired part of the original period. The assignment must be recorded in the Office, and the request for the new certificate must be signed by the assignee and accompanied by the fee required by § 2.6(a)(8). If available, the original certificate of registration must be submitted.
(b) When ownership of a registration has changed with respect to some, but not all, of the goods and/or services, the registrant(s) may file a request that the registration be physically divided into two or more separate registrations. The fee required by § 2.6(a)(8) must be paid for each new separate registration created by the division, and the change of ownership must be recorded in the Office.
43. Add a new part 7, to read as follows:
(c) The acronym TEAS means the Trademark Electronic Application System available online through the Office's web site at: www.uspto.gov.
(3) For transmitting a request to record an assignment or restriction under § 7.23 or § 7.24+$100.00
(5) For filing an affidavit under section 71 of the Act, per class—$100.00
(6) Surcharge for filing an affidavit under section 71 of the Act during the grace period, per class—$100.00
(b) The fees required in paragraph (a) of this section must be paid in U.S. dollars at the time of filing. See § 1.23 of this chapter for acceptable forms of payment and § 1.24 of this chapter for payments using a deposit account established in the Office.
Payments of fees to International Bureau.
(a) The schedule of fees required by the International Bureau and fee calculator may be viewed online at: http://www.wipo.int/​madrid.
(4) Recording fee for an assignment of or restriction to an international registration under § 7.23 or § 7.24.
(c) The fees required in paragraph (b) of this section may be paid as follows:
(1)(i) Directly to the International Bureau by debit to a current account with the International Bureau. As proof of payment in this case, an applicant or holder's submission to the Office must include the International Bureau account number; or
(ii) Directly to the International Bureau using any other method of payment. As proof of payment in this case, an applicant or holder's submission to the Office must include the International Bureau receipt number for payment of the fees; or
(2) Through the Office. Fees paid through the Office must be paid in U.S. dollars at the time of submission. See § 1.23 of this chapter for acceptable forms of payment and § 1.24 of this chapter for payments using a deposit account established in the Office.
(1) The filing date and serial number of the basic application and/or the Start Printed Page 15135registration date and registration number of the basic registration;
(3) A reproduction of the mark that is identical to the mark in the basic application and/or registration and meets the requirements of § 2.52 of this chapter. If the mark in the basic application and/or registration is depicted in black and white, the mark in the international application must be black and white. If the mark in the basic application and/or registration is depicted in color, the mark in the international application must be in color;
(4) A color claim as set out in § 7.12, if appropriate;
(9) The certification fee required by § 7.6, and the international application fees for all classes and designated Contracting Parties identified in the international application (see § 7.7);
(10) A statement that the applicant is entitled to file an international application in the Office, specifying that applicant: is a national of the United States; has a domicile in the United States; or has a real and effective industrial or commercial establishment in the United States. Where an applicant's address is not in the United States, the applicant must provide the address of its U.S. domicile or establishment; and
(a) If color is claimed as a feature of the mark in the basic application and/or registration, the international applicant must include a statement that color is claimed as a feature of the mark and set forth the same name(s) of the color(s) claimed in the basic application and/or registration. If the basic application and/or registration claim color as a feature of the mark, but the mark is depicted in black and white, the international application must include both a black and white reproduction of the mark and a color reproduction of the mark that meet the requirements of § 2.52 of this chapter.
(a) Where an international application contains all the elements set forth in § 7.11(a), the Office will certify to the International Bureau that the information contained in the international application corresponds to the information contained in the basic application(s) and/or basic registration(s) at the time of certification, and will forward the international application to the International Bureau.
(b) Where an international application does not meet the requirements of § 7.11(a), the Office will not certify or forward the international application. If the international applicant paid the international application fees required by § 7.7 through the Office, the Office will refund the international fees. The Office will not refund the certification fee.
Correcting irregularities in international application.
(d) An international applicant submitting a response or paying additional fees to the International Bureau through the Office must use TEAS. The International Bureau must receive the response or fees before the end of the response period set forth in the International Bureau notice, even if the response or payment of fees is sent through the Office. To assist the Office in its efforts to timely transmit the response or fees to the International Bureau, the response or fees should be submitted as soon as possible, at least one month before the end of the response period in the International Bureau's notice.
(e) Other Irregularities. Except for irregularities mentioned in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, responses to irregularities must be filed directly at the International Bureau.
(3) A statement that the holder is entitled to file a subsequent designation in the Office, specifying that holder: is a national of the United States; has a domicile in the United States; or has a real and effective industrial or commercial establishment in the United States. Where a holder's address is not in the United States, the holder must provide the address of its U.S. domicile or establishment;
(4) A list of goods and/or services that is identical to or narrower than the list Start Printed Page 15136of goods and/or services in the international registration;
(6) The U.S. transmittal fee required by § 7.6 and the subsequent designation fees required by the International Bureau (§ 7.7); and
(a) All requests to record changes to an international registration must be filed directly with the International Bureau, except for requests to record changes to an international registration under §§ 7.23 and 7.24. If a request to record an assignment or restriction of a holder's right of disposal of an international registration meets the requirements of § 7.23 or 7.24, the Office will forward the request to the International Bureau.
(b) Assignments or restrictions of a holder's rights of disposal of an international registration must be recorded by the International Bureau. Section 10 of the Act and part 3 of this chapter are not applicable to such assignments or restrictions.
(c) When the Office is notified by the International Bureau of an assignment or restriction of a holder's right of disposal of an international registration with an extension of protection to the United States, the Office will take note of the assignment or restriction in its records.
Request to record assignment submitted through the Office.
(1) The assignee cannot obtain the assignor's signature on the request to record an assignment; and
(b) The assignee must submit a request to record an assignment under paragraph (a) of this section through the Office that includes all of the following:
(8) The U.S. transmittal fee required by § 7.6 and the fees required by the International Bureau to record the assignment (See § 7.7).
(c) If a request to record an assignment contains all the elements set forth in paragraph (b) of this section, the Office will forward the request to the International Bureau. Forwarding the request to the International Bureau is not a determination by the Office of the validity of the assignment or the effect that the assignment has on the title of the international registration.
(d) If the request fails to contain all of the elements set forth in paragraph (b) of this section, the Office will not forward the request. The Office will notify the assignee(s) of the refusal and the reason(s) for the refusal.
(e) Except for those assignments meeting the conditions set forth in paragraph (a) of this section, requests to record assignments may not be submitted through the Office.
Request to record security interest or other restriction of holder's rights of disposal submitted through the Office.
(a) In limited circumstances, a request to record a security interest or other restriction of a holder's right to dispose of an international registration may be submitted through the Office for forwarding to the International Bureau. The following conditions must apply:
(1) The restriction is the result of an agreement between the holder of the international registration and the party restricting the holder's right of disposal and is not the result of a court order; and
(b) The party who obtained a restriction of the holder's right of disposal must submit a request to record the restriction under paragraph (a) of this section through the Office that includes all the following:
(c) If a request to record a restriction contains all of the elements set forth in paragraph (b) of this section, the Office will forward the request to the International Bureau. Forwarding the request to the International Bureau is not a determination by the Office of the validity of the restriction or the effect that the restriction has on the holder's right to dispose of the international registration.
(d) If the request fails to contain all the elements set forth in paragraph (b) of this section, the Office will not forward the request. The Office will notify the party who submitted the request of the refusal and the reason(s) for the refusal.
(e) Except for restrictions meeting the conditions set forth in paragraph (a) of this section, restrictions on a holder's right to dispose of an international Start Printed Page 15137registration may not be submitted through the Office.
Applicability of part 2 to extension of protection.
(a) Except for §§ 2.130, 2.131, 2.160 through 2.166, 2.168, and 2.181 through 2.186, all sections in part 2 of this chapter apply to a request for extension of protection of an international registration to the United States, including sections related to proceedings before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, unless stated otherwise.
(b) For purposes of examination, a request for an extension of protection to the United States is referred to as an application under section 66(a) of the Act, and references to applications and registrations in part 2 of this chapter include extensions of protection to the United States.
Priority claim of extension of protection for purposes of examination in the Office.
(3) The fee required by § 7.6.
Effect of replacement on U.S. registration.
A U.S. registration that has been replaced by a registered extension of protection under section 74 of the Act and § 7.28 will remain in force, unless cancelled, expired or surrendered, as long as:
Effect of cancellation or expiration of international registration.
(3) The application filing fee for at least one class of goods or services required by § 2.6 of this chapter; and
(c) If the request for transformation contains all of the elements set forth in paragraph (b) of this section, the extension of protection shall be transformed into an application under section 1 or 44 of the Act and accorded the same filing date and the same priority that was accorded to the extension of protection.
(e) A request for transformation that fails to contain all of the elements set forth in paragraph (b) of this section will not be processed.
(b) During the following time periods, the holder of an international registration must file an affidavit or declaration of use or excusable nonuse, Start Printed Page 15138or the registered extension of protection will be cancelled:
(2) Within the six-month period preceding the end of each ten-year period after the date of registration, or the three-month grace period immediately following, with payment of the grace period surcharge required by section 71(a)(2)(B) of the Act and § 7.6.
(a) Be filed by the holder of the international registration within the period set forth in § 7.36(a);
(b) Include a statement that is signed and verified (sworn to) or supported by a declaration under § 2.20 of this chapter by a person properly authorized to sign on behalf of the holder, attesting to the use in commerce or excusable nonuse of the mark within the period set forth in section 71 of the Act. The verified statement must be executed on or after the beginning of the filing period specified in § 7.36(a). A person who is properly authorized to sign on behalf of the holder is:
(3) An attorney as defined in § 10.1(c) of this chapter who has an actual written or verbal power of attorney or an implied power of attorney from the holder.
(d)(1) Include the fee required by § 7.6 for each class of goods or services that the affidavit or declaration covers;
(2) If the affidavit or declaration is filed during the grace period under section 71(a)(2)(B) of the Act, include the grace period surcharge per class required by § 7.6;
(e)(1) Specify the goods or services for which the mark is in use in commerce, and/or the goods or services for which excusable nonuse is claimed under § 7.37(f)(2);
(g) Include a specimen showing current use of the mark for each class of goods or services, unless excusable nonuse is claimed under § 7.37(f)(2). The specimen must meet the requirements of § 2.56 of this chapter.
Notice to holder of extension of protection.
Acknowledgment of receipt of affidavit or declaration of use in commerce or excusable nonuse.
(a) A response to the examiner's initial refusal to accept an affidavit or declaration is required before filing a petition to the Director, unless the examiner directs otherwise. See § 7.39(b) for the deadline for responding to an examiner's Office action.
Renewal of international registration and extension of protection.
[FR Doc. 03-7392 Filed 3-27-03; 8:45 am]