Bitlaw

T.M.E.P. § 1604.13
Differences in the Mark As Used on the Specimen and the Mark as Registered

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 (§1604.12) | Next Section (§1604.14)

1604.13 Differences in the Mark As Used on the Specimen and the Mark as Registered

The mark to which the §8 affidavit pertains must be essentially the same as the mark that appears in the registration. Where the specimen reflects a change in the mark since the registration issued, acceptance of the affidavit will depend on the degree of change. A material alteration of the mark will result in refusal of the affidavit on the ground that the registered mark is no longer in use. In re International Nickel Co., Inc., 282 F.2d 952, 127 USPQ 331 (C.C.P.A. 1960); In re Continental Distilling Corp., 254 F.2d 139, 117 USPQ 300 (C.C.P.A. 1958); Ex parte Richards, 153 USPQ 853 (Comm'r Pats. 1967). See also Torres v. Cantine Torresella S.r.l., 808 F.2d 46, 1 USPQ2d 1483 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Holland American Wafer Co., 737 F.2d 1015, 222 USPQ 273 (Fed. Cir. 1984).

Mere changes in background or styling, or modernization, are not ordinarily considered to be material changes in the mark. See Ex parte Petersen & Pegau Baking Co., 100 USPQ 20 (Comm'r Pats. 1953) (change in matter determined to be mere background and type face held not a material alteration of "PETER PAN" mark). Whether the change in a mark as used on the specimen is a material change is a question of fact that the Post Registration examiner must determine on a case-by-case basis.

Generally, the standard used to determine whether a change is material under §8 is the same as the standard used to determine whether the mark in a registration may be amended under 15 U.S.C. 1057(e). If the mark could be amended under §7(e) because the character of the mark had not been materially altered, then the specimen filed with the §8 affidavit should be accepted. In determining whether a change constitutes a material alteration, the USPTO will always compare the mark in the specimen to the mark as originally registered. See TMEP §§807.14 et seq. and 1609.02(a) for additional information about material alteration.

However, where the registered mark is currently used as one of several elements in a composite mark, the decision as to whether to accept the specimen requires consideration of whether the registered mark makes an impression apart from the other elements of the composite mark. If the display of the composite is such that the essence of the registered mark makes a separate impression, then the specimen may be sufficient for purposes of the §8 requirement. In many cases, word elements are severable from design elements, because words tend to dominate in forming a commercial impression. In re DeWitt International Corporation, 21 USPQ2d 1620 (Comm'r Pats. 1991). If the mark, as used on the §8 specimen, creates a separate impression apart from any other material on the specimen, then the specimen may be accepted as evidence of current use of the registered mark.

If the examiner determines that the mark on the specimen is a material alteration of the registered mark, a substitute specimen may be filed. If the substitute specimen is filed after expiration of the relevant filing period specified in §8 of the Act, the owner must pay the deficiency surcharge required by §8(c)(2) of the Act and 37 C.F.R. 2.6. See TMEP §1604.12(c) and 37 C.F.R. 2.164 and TMEP §§1604.17 et seq. regarding the procedures for correcting deficiencies in a §8 affidavit.

1604.13(a) Possible Amendment of Mark in Registration

If the USPTO accepts the §8 affidavit, and there is a difference between the mark on the specimen filed with the affidavit and the mark in the registration, the mark as originally registered remains the mark of record. If the owner wants to change the mark in the registration to agree with the mark currently used, the owner must file a separate request for amendment under §7(e) of the Act, and pay the fee required by 37 C.F.R. 2.6. See Ex parte Petersen & Pegau Baking Co., 100 USPQ 20 (Comm'r Pats. 1953). See TMEP §§1609.02 et seq. regarding amendment of a registered mark under §7(e).

Amending the mark in a registration under §7(e) to agree with the mark as shown on a §8 specimen is not mandatory.