T.M.E.P. § 807.01
Drawing Must Show Only One Mark
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.
807.01 Drawing Must Show Only One Mark
Under 37 C.F.R. 2.21(a)(3), an applicant must submit "a clear drawing of the mark" to receive a filing date. An application that includes two or more drawings displaying materially different marks does not meet this requirement. Two marks are considered to be materially different if the substitution of one for the other would be a material alteration of the mark, within the meaning of 37 C.F.R. 2.72 (see TMEP §§807.14 et seq.).
Accordingly, if an applicant submits two or more drawing pages, the application is denied a filing date, because the applicant has not met the requirement for a clear drawing of the mark. See TMEP §202.01 for further information. However, if an applicant submits a separate drawing page (or a digitized image of a separate drawing page in a TEAS application) showing a mark, and a different mark appears in the written application, the application will receive a filing date, and the drawing page will control for purposes of determining what the mark is. The USPTO will disregard the mark in the written application. In re L.G. Lavorazioni Grafite S.r.l., 61 USPQ2d 1063 (Dir USPTO 2001). See Humanoids Group v. Rogan, 375 F.3d 301, 71 USPQ2d 1745 (4th Cir. 2004).
The USPTO will not deny a filing date if the drawing shows spatially separate elements. If the applicant submits an application where the "drawing" is composed of multiple elements on a separate page, multiple elements on a single digitized image, or multiple elements in a separate area of the body of the application, the applicant has met the requirement of 37 C.F.R. 2.21(a)(3) for a clear drawing of the mark. The examining attorney must determine whether the matter presented for registration is a single mark projecting a unitary commercial impression. See TMEP §807.12(d) regarding "mutilation" or incomplete representation of the mark.
For example, when the drawing consists of a photocopy of the specimen showing spatially separate elements, the examining attorney must determine whether this constitutes more than one mark.
If the examining attorney determines that spatially separate elements constitute two or more different marks, the examining attorney should refuse registration under §§1 and 45 of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §§1051 and 1127, on the ground that the applicant seeks registration of more than one mark. See In re Hayes, 62 USPQ2d 1443 (TTAB 2002); In re Elvis Presley Enterprises, Inc., 50 USPQ2d 1632 (TTAB 1999); In re Walker-Home Petroleum, Inc., 229 USPQ 773 (TTAB 1985); In re Jordan Industries, Inc., 210 USPQ 158 (TTAB 1980); In re Audi NSU Auto Union AG, 197 USPQ 649 (TTAB 1977); In re Magic Muffler Service, Inc., 184 USPQ 125 (TTAB 1974); In re Robertson Photo-Mechanix, Inc., 163 USPQ 298 (TTAB 1969).
When registration is refused because the matter presented on the drawing does not constitute a single mark, the application filing fee will not be refunded. The applicant may amend the drawing if the amendment does not materially alter the mark, or may submit arguments that the matter on the drawing does in fact constitute a single mark. See TMEP §§807.14 et seq. regarding material alteration, and TMEP §807.14(a) regarding deletion of matter from the drawing.
If the mark is duplicated in some form on the drawing (e.g. a typed word and a stylized display of the same word), this is generally not considered to be two materially different marks, and deletion of one of the marks is permitted.
See TMEP §§1214 et seq. regarding the refusal of registration of a mark with a "phantom" element on the ground that it includes more than one mark in a single application.See also In re Upper Deck Co., 59 USPQ2d 1688 (TTAB 2001) (hologram used on trading cards in varying shapes, sizes, contents and positions constitutes more than one "device" as contemplated by §45 of the Trademark Act).