LAIPLALAIPLA
LAIPLALAIPLA
  • About
    • About LAIPLA
    • Ambassador Outreach Program
    • Board of Directors
    • Committees
    • Administration
    • Member Firms and Companies
    • Past Presidents
    • Recent Past Presidents
    • Public Service Award
    • Diversity Fellowship
    • Bylaws
  • Events
  • Membership
  • Sponsorship
  • Contact
  • About
    • About LAIPLA
    • Ambassador Outreach Program
    • Board of Directors
    • Committees
    • Administration
    • Member Firms and Companies
    • Past Presidents
    • Recent Past Presidents
    • Public Service Award
    • Diversity Fellowship
    • Bylaws
  • Events
  • Membership
  • Sponsorship
  • Contact

USPTO Proposes to Remove Certain Rules Governing Trademark Interference Proceedings

October 25, 2017December 1, 2017| in The TTABlog| by John L. Welch

The USPTO has issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (here) that would streamline the Trademark Rules of Practice by removing certain regulations concerning trademark interferences. The proposed action is consistent with Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” and Executive Order 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs.”

A trademark interference is a proceeding in which the TTAB “determines which, if any, of the owners of conflicting applications (or of one or more applications and one or more conflicting registrations) is entitled to registration.” 15 U.S.C. 1066. A trademark interference may be declared only upon petition to the Director of the USPTO. The Director will grant such a petition only if the petitioner can show extraordinary circumstances that would result in a party being unduly prejudiced in the absence of an interference. 37 CFR 2.91(a).

“The availability of an opposition or cancellation proceeding to determine rights to registration ordinarily precludes the possibility of such undue prejudice to a party. Thus, a petitioner must show that there is some extraordinary circumstance that would make the remedy of opposition or cancellation inadequate or prejudicial to the party’s rights.”

“[S]ince 1983, the USPTO has received an average of approximately 1 such petition a year, and almost all of them have been denied except for three petitions that were granted in 1985 (32 years ago).”

“Trademark interferences have generally been limited to situations where a party would otherwise be required to engage in successive or a series of opposition or cancellation proceedings involving substantially the same issues.”

The statutory authority for declaring an interference will remain. (Section 16 of the Trademark Act). “In the unlikely event that a need for an interference arose, it would still be possible for a party to seek institution of a trademark interference by petitioning the Director under 37 CFR 2.146(a)(4).”

Written comments must be received on or before November 17, 2017.

IP Blog Categories

  • Announcements
  • Events
  • LAIPLA News
  • The TTABlog
  • Uncategorized
  • Wegner's Top 10
  • Wegner's Writings

Archives

Previous

Virginia Tech’s “HOKIE” Service Mark Application Survives Challenge From U. Va. Grad

Next

TTAB Dismisses 2(d) Opposition, Finding Chevron Marks Dissimilar for Footwear


Since 1934, LAIPLA has been educating and connecting members of the local intellectual property legal community

Pages

About 
Events
Membership
Sponsorship
Contact
Privacy Policy

Search
Contact

LAIPLA
1621 W 25th Street
Box 633
San Pedro, CA 90732
Phone: (323) 285-1654
Fax: ( 310) 878-0517
Email: office@laipla.net

© 2025 Los Angeles Intellectual Property Law Association. All Rights Reserved | Website design by Arclight Digital.