T.M.E.P. § 1501.06
Amendment After Decision on Appeal
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 (§1501.05) | Next Section (§1501.07)
1501.06 Amendment After Decision on Appeal
An examining attorney may not take action in an application after the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has rendered a decision on appeal, because the examining attorney does not have jurisdiction of the application. See In re U.S. Catheter & Instrument Corp., 158 USPQ 54 (TTAB 1968). After a decision on appeal, the applicant may petition the Director under 37 C.F.R. 2.142(g) to reopen prosecution of the application. If the petition is granted, jurisdiction is restored to the examining attorney to take the specified action.
A petition to reopen prosecution of the application could be granted if the appeal involved the applicant's compliance with a requirement rather than a refusal based on the nature of the mark. For example, the Director may reopen prosecution to permit the applicant to comply with a requirement for a new drawing, if this would place the application in condition for publication of the mark without further examination. See In re Hickory Mfg. Co., 183 USPQ 789 (Comm'r Pats. 1974). However, the Director will deny a petition to reopen prosecution if granting the petition would require further examination (e.g., to consider a claim of acquired distinctiveness under 15 U.S.C. 1052(f) or an amendment to the Supplemental Register). See In re Petite Suites, Inc., 21 USPQ2d 1708 (Comm'r Pats. 1991); In re Vycom Electronics Ltd., 21 USPQ2d 1799 (Comm'r Pats. 1986); In re Mack Trucks, Inc., 189 USPQ 642 (Comm'r Pats. 1976).