T.M.E.P. § 1108.05
Petitions From Denial of Request For An Extension of Time to File Statement of Use
Executive summary:
This document contains one section of the Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (the "TMEP"), Fourth Edition (April 2005). This page was last updated in June 2007. You may return to one either the section index, or to the key word index. If you wish to search the TMEP, simply use the search box that appears on the bottom of every page of BitLaw--be sure to restrict your search to the TMEP in the pop-up list.
For more information on trademark law, please see the Trademark Section of BitLaw.
Previous Section (§1108.04) | Next Section (§1109)
1108.05 Petitions From Denial of Request For An Extension of Time to File Statement of Use
If an extension is denied, and there is no time remaining in the statutory filing period, applicant's recourse is as follows:
- Petition to Revive Under 37 C.F.R. 2.66. If the applicant unintentionally failed to comply with the minimum filing requirements (see TMEP §1108.04 for a list of the minimum filing requirements), the applicant may file a petition to revive under 37 C.F.R. 2.66, within two months of the mailing date of the denial of the extension request. See TMEP §§1714 et seq. regarding petitions to revive.
- Request for Reinstatement. If the applicant has proof that shows on its face that the extension request met the minimum requirements when filed, the applicant may request reinstatement within two months of the mailing date of the denial of the extension request. For example, if the extension request is denied due to the omission of a fee, and the applicant has proof that shows on its face that the fee was included, the applicant may request reinstatement. No fee is required. The request should be directed to the ITU Unit. See TMEP §1712.01 regarding the types of evidence that support reinstatement.
- Petition Under 37 C.F.R. 2.146. The applicant may file a petition under 37 C.F.R. 2.146 if the applicant believes that the ITU paralegal's denial of an extension request was improper (e.g., if applicant contends that the extension request actually met the requirements of 15 U.S.C. 1051(d)(2) and 37 C.F.R. 2.89, but was improperly denied). 37 C.F.R. §§2.89(g) and 2.146(a)(2). For example, the applicant might file a petition claiming that the denial was improper if the paralegal denied an extension request because the applicant's showing of good cause was insufficient, but applicant believes that the showing was sufficient. The applicant must file the petition within two months of the mailing date of the denial of the extension request, and must include the fee required by 37 C.F.R. 2.6. See TMEP §Chapter 1700 regarding petitions.
Filing a petition or request for reinstatement does not stay the time for filing a statement of use or further extension request. 37 C.F.R. 2.89(g). However, if the applicant fails to file a statement of use or further request(s) for extension(s) of time to file a statement of use during the pendency of a petition, the applicant will be given an opportunity to perfect the petition by paying the fees for each missed extension request and filing the last extension request, or statement of use, that should have been filed. In re Moisture Jamzz, Inc., 47 USPQ2d 1762 (Comm'r Pats. 1997).
If a petition is granted, the term of the requested six-month extension will run from the date of the expiration of the previously existing six-month period for filing a statement of use. 37 C.F.R. 2.89(g).
No petition or request for reinstatement will be granted if it would extend the deadline for filing a statement of use beyond thirty-six months after the issuance of the notice of allowance. 15 U.S.C. 1051(d)(2).