The Lanham Act establishes two trademark registers at the United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO): The Principle Register, and the Supplemental Register.
The need for the Supplemental Register arises when an Examining Attorney rejects an application on the grounds that the mark is merely descriptive of the applicant's goods or services. It is highly recommended that the applicant, in this situation, request registration on the Supplemental Register as an alternative to the Principal Register. To preserve the option of amending the application to the Supplemental Register, it is crucial for the applicant to request this amendment before an ex parte appeal is decided.
If available, the applicant can argue that the applied-for mark has acquired secondary meaning and should thus be registered on the Principal Register under Section 2(f) of the Trademark Act. Alternatively, as a backup, if it is determined that the proposed trademark has not acquired distinctiveness but can distinguish the identified goods or services, the applicant should argue for registration on the Supplemental Register. If the applicant fails to request this amendment in a timely manner, they will be prohibited from doing so on or after an appeal. This strategy allows the trademark applicant to pursue registration on the Principal Register during the appeal process while having a fallback position if the appeal is denied.
Another important issue that may affect an applicant's filing date arises when seeking registration on the Supplemental Register with an intent-to-use application under Lanham Act §1(b). In such cases, the applicant can only seek to amend the application to the Supplemental Register after submitting an acceptable Allegation of Use or Statement of Use. It's worth noting that once the amendment to the Supplemental Register is made, the effective filing date of the trademark application becomes the date of filing the acceptable Allegation of Use or Statement of Use (rather than the original application filing date). This can significantly impact the applicant's first use date or constructive use date if those dates are of concern.
By agreeing to registration on the Supplemental Register, an applicant implicitly acknowledges that, at the time of registration, the mark is merely descriptive of their goods or services. This presumption of mere descriptiveness can be challenged in the future. However, if an owner of a Supplemental Registration wants to assert a likelihood of confusion claim in an opposition or cancellation proceeding, they cannot rely solely on their registration as owners of a mark on the Principal Register would. Instead, they must prove that the mark has acquired secondary meaning before the adverse party's priority date. Interestingly, an Examining Attorney, on the other hand, will refuse a mark seeking registration on the Principal Register if it determines a likelihood of confusion with a mark on the Supplemental Register, even if the mark on the Supplemental Register cannot prove secondary meaning. Although this rule may seem contradictory, decisions by the Federal Circuit have supported it. The rationale behind allowing an Examiner to use a Supplemental Registration as a basis for refusal on grounds of likelihood of confusion (without a showing of secondary meaning) is simply one of the benefits of owning a trademark registration on the Supplemental Register.
Getting in touch is easy. Use the form below and request a free consultation today.
Lastly, it's important to note that a trademark application seeking registration on the Supplemental Register is not published for opposition. However, once it registers, a petition for cancellation can be filed against it. A petitioner for cancellation may raise the same grounds that would apply if the mark were registered on the Principal Register, except the "merely descriptive" ground of Section 2(e)(1) does not provide a basis for cancellation.
If you need legal advice regarding your trademark rights, assistance with trademark prosecution, or representation in a domain name dispute, contact Wilson Whitaker Rynell. Our team of trademark lawyers has extensive experience in all aspects of trademark and copyright law, including the filing of trademark applications and representing clients in defense or prosecution before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.
Recognized in the legal industry as dedicated board-certified lawyers and Rising Stars.
Your project will be handled by legal experts every time. You will have the most experienced attorneys working for you.
Let's talk about your legal issue
Wilson Legal Group P.C.
d/b/a Wilson Whitaker Rynell
(972) 248-8080 (Dallas) MAIN OFFICE
(713) 830-2207 (Houston) Appointment Only
(512) 691-4100 (Austin) Appointment Only
For more information on how we can assist in your intellectual property, commercial litigation, divorce, or other personal needs, let us know how we can help you:
WILSON WHITAKER RYNELL
Thank You for Contacting Us!
Your information has been sent, and we will contact you shorlty...issues.
WILSON WHITAKER RYNELL
Oops, there was an error sending your message.
Please try again later.
Disclaimer:
This form does not establish an attorney-client relationship, and should only be used to contact the firm about scheduling a call or meeting. No confidential or sensitive information should be sent using this form.
We represent clients nationwide, including Dallas, Austin, Houston, and other Texas areas such as Fort Worth, Arlington, Carrollton, Plano, Allen, Lewisville, Flower Mound, Irving, Denton, McKinney, North Richland Hills, and all cities within Dallas County, Tarrant County, Collin County, and Denton County.
Wilson Whitaker Rynell
16610 Dallas Parkway, Suite 1000
Dallas, Texas 75248
972-248-8080 (MAIN)
972-248-8088 (FAX)
info@wrrlegal.com (E-MAIL)