An Overview Of USPTO Trademark Cancellation Services

Cancellation of Federal Trademark Registrations

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) and Federal Courts play pivotal roles in the cancellation of federal trademark registrations granted by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). These institutions ensure the integrity and proper function of the US trademark system, checking that all trademarks remain valid, do not infringe upon others, and are sufficiently distinctive to warrant protection.

The TTAB is an administrative entity within the USPTO, mainly tasked with resolving disputes over trademark registrations. This includes handling cancellations of existing trademarks based on criteria outlined in the Lanham Act. A trademark might be canceled if deemed abandoned, misleading, or generic, or if it fails to meet other qualifications for trademark protection.

Federal Courts have similar authority in matters of trademark cancellation. They deal with broader trademark rights disputes and can order the cancellation of a trademark registration as part of a resolution in trademark infringement cases. Federal Courts can also tackle these issues through declaratory judgment actions, which question the validity of a trademark directly.

To initiate a cancellation, the challenger must meet two crucial legal requirements: the burden to plead and the burden to prove. Initially, the challenger must cite a legitimate reason for cancellation, detailing why the trademark should not be protected. Possible reasons include the trademark being generic, lacking distinctiveness, misleading consumers, or infringing on a pre-existing mark.

Following the assertion of a valid cancellation reason, the challenger must substantiate their claim with evidence and cogent arguments during the proceedings. This may involve demonstrating prior usage of a similar mark, establishing consumer confusion, or proving that the trademark has been abandoned.

Success in these proceedings hinges on presenting a solid legal foundation and robust evidence. Both the TTAB and Federal Courts critically assess the facts and applicable laws before deciding on trademark cancellations, ensuring that such actions are grounded in the principles of trademark law and justice.

Filing a Petition for Cancellation of a Trademark Registration

A petition for the cancellation of a trademark registration can be initiated under various scenarios through the TTAB. This legal recourse is available to any party that perceives potential damage from a registered trademark, such as a business owner who contends that the registered trademark infringes upon their own rights.

Typically, a cancellation petition can be filed within a five-year period following the registration of the trademark by the USPTO. This period allows parties to challenge the registration on multiple grounds.

However, it is important to note that some grounds for cancellation are not restricted by this five-year timeframe and can be invoked at any time. These include situations where the trademark has become generic, was registered based on fraudulent information, or has been abandoned. A trademark is usually considered abandoned if not used continuously for three years, making it susceptible to cancellation claims.

Cancellation can also be sought in concurrent use proceedings. If a trademark application is made for concurrent use and it mentions an existing trademark as an exception, the owner of this excepted trademark has the right to challenge the new application by claiming priority based on earlier use.

Moreover, even if a trademark passes the opposition phase post-publication without challenge, cancellation can still be pursued after the trademark is officially registered.

In cases of alleged trademark infringement, if a trademark owner sues for infringement, the defendant may respond not only in court but can also file a petition with the TTAB to cancel the trademark. This counteraction is a strategic defense, asserting that the plaintiff’s trademark should not have been registered in the first place.

Understanding these pathways and legal mechanisms is crucial for entities engaged in trademark disputes or those seeking to protect their brand identity effectively.

Are Trademarks Registered On the Supplemental Register Subject to Cancellations?

A trademark that is seeking registration on the Supplemental Register, as opposed to the Principal Register, is not subject to trademark opposition proceedings, but it may still be subject to cancellation. This reflects the unique purpose and function of the Supplemental Register within the United States trademark law system.

The Supplemental Register was created to accommodate trademarks that are not currently eligible for registration on the Principal Register, often because they are merely descriptive or have not yet acquired the secondary meaning necessary for such registration. As a way to encourage the use and recognition of these trademarks, the law allows them to be registered on the Supplemental Register, granting certain benefits, like the use of the registered trademark symbol (®), and providing a path to potentially achieving Principal Register status in the future.

Because these trademarks have not yet demonstrated distinctiveness, they are not considered fully-fledged trademarks in the eyes of the law, and as such, they do not have to undergo the opposition process typically associated with the Principal Register. This opposition process is meant to allow parties who might be damaged by the registration of a trademark on the Principal Register to challenge its registration, based on factors such as the potential for confusion with an existing mark.

However, the protection afforded to trademarks on the Supplemental Register is not absolute. Even though these trademarks are not subject to opposition proceedings, they can still be cancelled after registration. This could occur if a party believes that the trademark infringes on their existing rights, or if it’s determined that the trademark has become generic or deceptive. This cancellation provision acts as a safeguard, ensuring that the Supplemental Register does not become a shield for trademarks that should not be granted any form of protection.

In sum, while trademarks seeking registration on the Supplemental Register bypass the opposition stage, they can still be challenged and potentially cancelled post-registration, reflecting the distinct and limited rights conferred to trademarks on this Register.

Trademark Cancellation Based on Likelihood of Confusion

The cancellation of a trademark registration on the Principal Register due to the likelihood of confusion is primarily guided by Section 2(d) of the Lanham Act. This section is concerned with whether there exists a likelihood of confusion between the registered mark and a previously established mark. The assessment is rooted in a detailed analysis guided by the DuPont factors, which originated from the influential case, In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.

These thirteen DuPont factors serve as a framework to evaluate the potential for confusion between trademarks. Each factor addresses different aspects of the trademarks and the market context, but not every factor is relevant in every case; their importance varies based on the specifics of the situation.

The cornerstone of this analysis is the first DuPont factor: the similarity of the marks in their entirety in terms of appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression. This is crucial as it evaluates whether the overall qualities of the trademarks might lead a typical consumer to confuse one for another.

The second factor examines the similarity of the goods or services linked to the trademarks. It is not imperative for the goods or services to be identical; they must simply be sufficiently related or marketed in such a way that consumers might assume they come from the same source.

Other important considerations include the similarity of the sales channels, the types of customers for the products, the fame of the prior mark, the existence of similar marks used on related goods, and any actual cases of confusion that have occurred.

Additional factors delve into specifics such as whether there has been concurrent use of the trademarks without confusion, each party’s right to exclude others from using similar marks, the potential scope of confusion, and any other relevant facts that could influence the perception of the trademarks.

Collectively, these DuPont factors provide a comprehensive method for assessing the likelihood of confusion and formulating a basis for the possible cancellation of a trademark registration. This analysis is inherently detailed and fact-specific, requiring careful consideration of each factor relative to the particular circumstances of each case.

Trademark Cancellation Due to Non-Use or Abandonment

Cancellation of a trademark due to non-use or abandonment is a common proceeding before the TTAB of the USPTO. The underlying principle is that trademark rights are predicated on the active, continuous use of the mark in commerce. A trademark that remains unused for an extended period, or where there is clear evidence of an intent to abandon the trademark, becomes susceptible to cancellation.

The concept of abandonment in trademark law includes two essential elements: the non-use of the trademark in commerce and the owner’s intent not to resume its use. Under the Lanham Act, a trademark is considered abandoned when it has not been used continuously, and when an intent to discontinue use is apparent. Intent not to resume use can be inferred from various circumstances, such as the owner’s actions and public statements.

A non-use period of three consecutive years is generally regarded as prima facie evidence of abandonment. This presumption places the burden on the trademark owner to provide a valid explanation to rebut the claim. However, a period of non-use shorter than three years may also lead to a finding of abandonment if there is compelling evidence that the owner does not intend to resume use of the trademark.

To successfully argue for cancellation on the grounds of non-use or abandonment, the petitioner must present clear and convincing evidence. This might include documenting the absence of the product or service in the market, the cessation of marketing or promotional efforts, or any other actions that reflect a definitive departure from the trademark’s use.

However, proving abandonment is not always straightforward. The trademark owner can counter by demonstrating legitimate reasons for the hiatus in use, such as temporary business disruptions or extenuating circumstances beyond their control. They may also show plans or efforts underway to resume use, which can effectively challenge the assertion of abandonment.

In sum, to win a cancellation case on the basis of non-use or abandonment, the petitioner must convincingly establish both the discontinuance of use and the trademark owner’s intent not to resume use. Each case hinges on its specific facts, necessitating a thorough evaluation of all evidence related to the trademark’s usage and the owner’s intentions.

Need for Trademark Assistance – Contact Us

In a competitive business landscape, protecting your brand is vital. Our attorneys are adept in all aspects of trademark law, from registration to enforcement. We provide comprehensive legal support, tailored to your business needs.

Our services extend beyond securing trademarks. We offer proactive trademark management, including monitoring services to protect against infringements and keep you updated on market developments. Whether you’re a start-up or an established business, we’re committed to protecting your brand and aiding your growth. Contact us by giving us a call, completing our online contact form, or send us an email regarding your trademark matter.  We will respond to all inquiries within one business day.