Priority of use often becomes a fiercely contested matter during proceedings before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB). In some cases, where the goods and services are clearly related and the marks are highly similar, the only dispute revolves around establishing priority. Parties involved in trademark disputes can establish their priority rights based on various grounds, including constructive use priority, common law use, and foreign rights combined with a trademark application in the United States that grants the applicant priority based on the filing date of the foreign application.
Constructive use priority, governed by Section 7(c) of the Trademark Act, applies when a trademark application is filed on the principal register, whether based on actual use or a genuine intent to use. In such cases, the filing date of the application is considered as constructive use of the mark in connection with the goods or services specified in the application. There are only three circumstances that can overcome constructive use in a priority dispute: (1) prior common law use in the United States before the applicant's filing date at the United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO), including use akin to trademark use; (2) an earlier filing date at the USPTO; or (3) a foreign application filed before the U.S. application's filing date and within six months of the foreign filing date, with a subsequent U.S. application filed under Section 44(d) at the USPTO.
One important factor to consider when relying on constructive use priority is that the trademark application must eventually result in registration. If the application does not mature into a registration, constructive use priority will not apply. It's worth noting that there is a significant distinction between TTAB proceedings and federal court proceedings regarding constructive use issues. The TTAB can issue a decision favoring a party based on constructive use priority before the registration is granted, while a federal court in an infringement action lacks jurisdiction to hear a claim based on constructive use unless a registration has been issued or alternative common law rights can be asserted. Additionally, the Second Circuit has determined that it will not issue an injunction against an intent-to-use applicant if the plaintiff commenced use after the intent-to-use applicant's filing date. The intent-to-use applicant will be given an opportunity to perfect their rights and complete the registration process.
An often overlooked form of use, known as use analogous to trademark use, can invalidate a constructive use priority date. The TTAB has held that although use analogous to trademark use may not qualify as a basis for a use-based application, it can prevail in a priority battle. For instance, in the case of Shalom Children's Wear Inc. v. In-Wear A/S, the TTAB determined that the opposer's pre-sales activities under the mark constituted use analogous to trademark use, even though no sales occurred until after the applicant's filing date. Other examples of use analogous to trademark use include use in advertising, trade shows, promotional materials, catalogs, trade publications, direct mail solicitations, or any other form of public use intended to reach relevant consumers.
It is important to note that this type of use cannot serve as the basis for a registration application, but it can establish sufficient priority rights to oppose or cancel another party's registration if the use creates an association in the minds of consumers between the mark and the party's goods and services. Use that is deemed "token use" or titles of single creative works have been held not to qualify as use analogous to trademark use. On the other hand, trade name use (any name used by an individual or entity to identify their business) has been recognized as a form of use analogous to trademark use.
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.
Getting in touch is easy. Use the form below and request a free consultation today.
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)