T.M.E.P. § 703
Office Does Not Issue Duplicate Registrations
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 (§702.03) | Next Section (§704)
703 Office Does Not Issue Duplicate Registrations
The USPTO will not issue two or more identical registrations. Applications filed under §1 of the Trademark Act are considered identical if the only difference between them is that one is based on use in commerce under §1(a) and the other is based on intent-to-use under §1(b). However, an application filed under §1 and an application filed under §44 that are otherwise identical are not regarded as duplicate registrations, nor is an application under §66(a) of the Trademark Act regarded as a duplicate of an application filed under §1 or §44.
If two applications would result in registrations that are exact duplicates, the USPTO will permit only one application to mature into registration, and will refuse registration in the other application. If practicable, the USPTO will permit the applicant to choose which application should mature into registration.
When an application is a duplicate of a registration owned by the applicant, and USPTO records show that the registration is still active, the examining attorney must refuse registration. If the registration is subject to cancellation for failure to file an affidavit of continued use or excusable nonuse under 15 U.S.C. 1058, or due to expire for failure to file a renewal application under 15 U.S.C. 1059, the examining attorney should suspend the application until the TRAM system is updated to show that the registration is cancelled or expired. See TMEP §1611 for information about how a registrant who has not timely filed a §8 affidavit or §9 renewal application may expedite the cancellation or expiration of its own registration.
A standard character drawing and a special form drawing of the same mark are not considered identical. Also, identifications that include some of the same goods or services but also different goods or services are not identical.
A mark in which the drawing is lined for color is considered a duplicate of a color drawing of the mark, if the colors are identical. If the applicant claims different shades of a color, the marks are not duplicates. See TMEP §§807.07 et seq. regarding color drawings.
If eligible, marks registered under the Acts of 1881, 1905 and 1920 may also be registered under the Act of 1946 (see §46(b) of the Trademark Act of 1946). If the mark and the goods or services in a registration issued under the 1946 Act are identical to the mark and goods or services in a registration issued under a prior Act, the registrations are not considered duplicates. See TMEP §§1601.04 , 1601.05 , 1602.02 and 1602.03 regarding registrations issued under prior Acts.