37 C.F.R. § 2.21

Requirements for receiving a filing date

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) The Office will grant a filing date to an application under section 1 or section 44 of the Act that is filed through TEAS, is written in the English language, and contains all of the following:

(1) The name, address, and email address of each applicant;

(2) If the applicant is represented by a practitioner qualified under § 11.14 of this chapter, the practitioner's name, postal address, and email address;

(3) A clear drawing of the mark;

(4) A listing of the goods or services; and

(5) The filing fee required under § 2.6 for at least one class of goods or services.

(b) If the applicant does not satisfy all the elements required in paragraph (a) of this section, the Office will deny a filing date to the application unless the applicant meets the requirements of paragraph (c) of this section.

(c) If the applicant is a national of a country that has acceded to the Trademark Law Treaty, but not to the Singapore Treaty on the Law of Trademarks, the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section to file through TEAS and provide an email address do not apply.

[84 FR 37093, July 31, 2019, as amended at 84 FR 68046, Dec. 13, 2019]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases, 1988–2004 · leading case: Humanoids Grp. v. James E. Rogan, Dir. of the United States Pat. & Trademark Off., 375 F.3d 301 (4th Cir. 2004).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Humanoids Grp. v. James E. Rogan, Dir. of the United States Pat. & Trademark Off., 375 F.3d 301 (4th Cir. 2004). · cites it 4× “37 C.F.R. § 2.21 (2003). When the PTO receives an application, it labels the application with a receipt date and then reviews the application for compliance with these “minimum requirements for receipt of a filing date.”

Humetrix, Inc. v. Gemplus S.C.A., 268 F.3d 910 (9th Cir. 2001). · cites it 3× “See 37 C.F.R. §§ 2.21 & 2.33(b) (1989). In 1996, however, the PTO suspended proceedings regarding Humetrix’s application after Humetrix filed suit in federal court requesting, among other things, declaratory relief that it was entitled to use the Vaccicard mark in commerce.”

Tom Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp. (Now Known as Belair Golf), 222 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “” See 37 C.F.R. § 2.21 (a)(3) (1995) (requiring a drawing in order to obtain a filing date) 2 ; 37 C.”

In Re Eccs, Inc., 94 F.3d 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1996). “§ 1051 ; 37 C.F.R. §§ 2.21 , 2.33 (hereinafter, 37 C.”

In Re Hacot-Colombier, 105 F.3d 616 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “See 37 C.F.R. § 2.21 (a)(3) (1996) (materials receive no filing date until submission of a drawing).”

Chien Ming Huang v. Tzu Wei Chen Food Co. Ltd., Tzu Wei Chen Food Co. Ltd. v. Chien Ming Huang, 849 F.2d 1458 (Fed. Cir. 1988). “(a) By filing in the Patent and Trademark Office— (1) a written application____ Relying on the statute, and the provision in 37 C.F.R. § 2.21 that the filing date is the date of receipt in the PTO, the Board held that the application was void ab initio because the applicant…”

Humanoids Grp. v. Rogan (4th Cir. 2004). · cites it 5× “37 C.F.R. § 2.21 (2003). When the PTO receives an application, it labels the application with a receipt date and then reviews the applica- tion for compliance with these "minimum requirements for receipt of a filing date.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.