Rebuttable Presumption of Irreparable Harm
The Trademark Modernization Act (TMA) was signed into law December 27, 2020. Importantly, the burden shifting provision for trademark owners in litigation seeking preliminary or permanent injunctive relief was made effective immediately.
Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange, 547 U.S. 388 (2006), there has been a split of authority among federal appellate courts on whether irreparable harm could be presumed. To resolve the split, the TMA specifically provides that a trademark owner: “shall be entitled to a rebuttable presumption of irreparable harm.” And, for the avoidance of doubt, the TMA further states that amendment in the Act “shall not be construed to mean that a plaintiff seeking an injunction was not entitled to a presumption of irreparable harm before the date of the enactment of this Act.”
With the implementation on December 18, 2021, the TMA further amends the Trademark (Lanham) Act of 1946 in several important ways. Other key features of the TMA include new ex parte expungement and reexamination proceedings at theUnited States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), a new ground for cancellation at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB), shorter response period for Office Actions at the USPTO, and codification of the existing letter of protest procedure.
New Procedures: Ex Parte Expungement and Reexamination Proceedings
The new procedures at the USPTO may be used to remove registrations based on inaccurate claims of use in commerce.
An ex parte expungement proceeding may be used to challenge a registration on the ground that the mark has never been used in commerce in connection with some or all of the registered goods and/or services. A petitioner may request, or the Director of the USPTO may institute on its own, expungement proceedings for registrations after three years from the registration date. Beginning December 27, 2023, an expungement proceeding may only be instituted against any registration between three and ten years after the registration date.
An ex parte reexamination proceeding is available to challenge registrations made under Section 1 of the Trademark Act in which the mark was not in use in commerce in connection with some or all of the registered goods and/or services as of the relevant date in the underlying application. For applications based on use in commerce, the “relevant date” is the filing date of the application; for applications based on an intent-to-use, the “relevant date” is the later of the filing date of the amendment to allege use or the expiration of the deadline for filing a statement of use. A petitioner may request, or the Director of the USPTO may institute on its own, a reexamination proceeding during the first five years following the registration date.
A petitioner in either of these proceedings is not required to identify the real party in interest on whose behalf the petition is filed, but the Director may require such information at its discretion. Petitions must include a verified statement of the petitioner’s reasonable investigation regarding whether the trademark had been used in commerce with the challenged goods or services and must include a concise factual statement explaining the basis for the petition. Once an expungement or reexamination proceeding is instituted, registrants will have three months to provide evidence of use to rebut the prima facie case, failing which, the registration will be cancelled in whole or in part.
What does this mean for trademark owners? Trademark owners should carefully review their portfolios for accuracy in the identification of goods and services, and to ensure the record reflects current correspondence information. Registrants should proactively delete any unused goods or services from the registration and maintain evidence of use of the mark in connection with any remaining goods and services.
Changes to Existing Procedures: New Nonuse Ground for Cancellation at the TTAB
In addition to the available grounds for cancellation, a person will now be able to file a petition to cancel a registration any time after the first three years from the registration date on the basis that the mark was never used in commerce.
Although the objective of a petition to cancel is similar to that of a petition to expunge or reexamine a registration, a petition to cancel initiates an adversarial proceeding at the TTAB. This type of proceeding is akin to litigation and requires a petitioner’s continued involvement.
Changes to Existing Procedures: Shortened Response Period for Office Actions
The TMA also allows the USPTO to set the response period from 60 days to six months. Currently, applicants and registrants can respond to Office Actions issued during examination or post-registration for up to six months, with no extensions available. Effective December 1, 2022, applicants or registrants must respond to an Office Action within three months or request a single three-month extension of time to respond, with the payment of a fee, before the expiration of the statutory response period. If no response or extension request is filed, the application will be abandoned or the registration will be cancelled or will expire.
This shortened response period may speed up examinations, but will require applicants and registrants to promptly prepare their submissions to avoid abandonment or cancellation/expiration.
Codification of Letters of Protest Procedure
Letters of protest allows third parties to submit evidence supporting a refusal to register a mark during examination. Letters of protest may be used to challenge applications for confusingly similar marks and/or call the USPTO’s attention to fake specimens or fraudulent information. The TMA clarifies that a determination by the USPTO to include a letter of protest in the record of an application shall not prejudice any party’s right to raise any issue and rely on any evidence in any other proceeding. The Director is now required to make a determination on a letter of protest within two months from the date the letter is filed with the USPTO.
Sources: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/11/17/2021-24926/changes-to-implement-provisions-of-the-trademark-modernization-act-of-2020; https://www.congress.gov/116/cprt/HPRT42770/CPRT-116HPRT42770.pdf#page=2606
- Associate
Jodi-Ann Tillman is an Associate in the Fort Lauderdale office of Shutts & Bowen LLP, where she is a member of the Intellectual Property practice group.
Jodi concentrates her practice in the areas of copyright and trademark ...
Search Blog
Follow Us
Recent Posts
- What You Need to Know About the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Build America TIFIA Loan
- Breaking News: Federal Judge Blocks Nationwide Implementation of the FTC’s New Rule Banning Noncompete Agreements
- September 4th is Almost Here: How Employers Can Prepare for the Upcoming Effective Date of the FTC’s Non-Compete Rule
- Florida’s New Statutory Home Warranty: What Home Builders Need to Know
- Orange County Proposes Temporary Suspension Ordinance on New Development Applications
- Raising the Roof: The U.S. Department of Labor Announces Rule Raising Salary Thresholds for Overtime Exemptions
- New Guidelines Anticipated Following HHS’s Health Cybersecurity Concept Paper
- SECURE 2.0 and Protecting Your Designated Beneficiaries
- Florida Appellate Court Provides Further Guidance Regarding New Summary Judgment Rule
- Pith? Perfect for Lienors, Not So Much for Landlords: Protecting Rights When Improvements Are Made to Commercial Tenancies
Popular Categories
- Employment and Labor
- Construction
- Business of Real Estate
- Litigation (Labor & Employment)
- Construction Litigation
- Competition
- Landlord-Tenant
- Real Estate Law
- Public Private Partnership
- Cybersecurity
- Intellectual Property
- Construction
- Appeals
- Litigation
- Development/Land Use
- Contracts
- Public Finance
- Trusts and Estates
- Data Security
- Business
- Supreme Court
- Privacy
- Technology
- Litigation (Appellate)
- IP Litigation
- Patents
- Business
- Regulatory Compliance
- Florida Government Contracts
- Health Care
- Foreclosures
- Trademark
- Contracting
- Financial Institutions
- Compliance
- Estate planning
- International Dispute Resolution
- Property Tax
- Conveyances
- Florida Public Contracts
- Government Contracting
- Government Contracts
- Government
- Lease
- Appellate Blog
- Patent Office
- Insurance
- Wealth planning
- Federal Government Contracting
- Cyber fraud
- Florida Bid Protests
- Public Contracts
- Infringement
- Proposal Writing
- Public Bidding
- GAO
- International Arbitration and Litigation
- Arbitration
- Bid Protest
- International
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Restrictive Covenants
- Grant Writing
- Copyright
- Title
- Promissory Notes
- Small Business
- Florida Procurement
- Public procurement
- Consumer Privacy
- PTAB
- General Liability
- Technology
- International Arbitration
- Liens
- Liens and encumbrances
- Creditor's Rights
- Bidding
- Attorneys' Fees
- Inter Partes Review
- Power Generation
- Consumer Protection
- Regulation
- Contracting
- Government Vendor
- State Government Contracts
- Venue
- Ad Valorem Assessments
- Florida Administrative Law
- Attorneys' Fees
- Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure
- Bankruptcy
- Florida Public Procurement
- Russia-Related Arbitration
- Mortgages
- Eviction
- FINRA
- Record on Appeal
- Rehearing
- Loan guaranties
- Patents - Assignor Estoppel
- Dispute Resolution
- Statute of limitations
- Statute of repose
- Maritime
- Liens
- Damages
- Briefing
- Patents - Obviousness
- Request for Proposal
- Department of Labor
- Trade Secrets
- Commercial Brokerage
- Bid Writing
- Florida Bidding Strategies
- Renewal
- Attorneys' Fees
- Florida County Lands
- Florida Economic Incentive Packages
- Jury Instructions
- Stay
- Design Professionals
- Certiorari
- email hacking
- Forum Selection
- Offers of Judgment
- Prevailing Party
- Settlements
- Assignment of Contract
- Assignment of Proceeds
- Lis Pendens
- Banking
- Designer Liability
- Finality
- Fintech
- Appellate Jurisdiction - Deadlines
- Evidence
- Evidence
- Expert
- Expert Science
- Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure
- Federal Supply Schedule
- Florida Public Records Law
- Marketing/Advertising
- Mootness
- Preservation
- Socio-Economic Programs
- Sunshine Law
- Unlicensed Contracting
- Veteran Owned Business
- Partnerships and LLCs
- Homestead
- Standing
Editors
- Of Counsel
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Associate
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Senior Associate
- Partner
- Associate
- Partner
- Senior Associate
- Partner
- Associate
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Of Counsel
- Senior Associate
- Partner
- Associate
- Partner
- Partner
- Associate
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
Archives
- September 2024
- August 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- February 2024
- November 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- October 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016