37 C.F.R. § 2.27

Pending trademark application index; access to applications

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

(a) An index of pending applications including the name and address of the applicant, a reproduction or description of the mark, the goods or services with which the mark is used, the class number, the dates of use, and the serial number and filing date of the application will be available for public inspection as soon as practicable after filing.

(b) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, access to the file of a particular pending application will be permitted prior to publication under § 2.80 upon written request.

(c) Decisions of the Director and the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in applications and proceedings relating thereto are published or available for inspection or publication.

(d) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, the official records of applications and all proceedings relating thereto are available for public inspection and copies of the documents may be furnished upon payment of the fee required by § 2.6.

(e) Anything ordered to be filed under seal pursuant to a protective order issued or made by any court or by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in any proceeding involving an application or a registration shall be kept confidential and shall not be made available for public inspection or copying unless otherwise ordered by the court or the Board, or unless the party protected by the order voluntarily discloses the matter subject thereto. When possible, only confidential portions of filings with the Board shall be filed under seal.

[36 FR 25406, Dec. 31, 1971, as amended at 48 FR 23134, May 23, 1983; 48 FR 27225, June 14, 1983; 73 FR 67768, Nov. 17, 2008]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2009–2023 · leading case: McKinnon v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc., 2009 ME 69 (Me. 2009).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

McKinnon v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc., 2009 ME 69 (Me. 2009). · cites it 2× “We are also not convinced, contrary to McKinnon's contention, that the doctrine of a "self-concealing fraud," even if it were adopted in Maine, is adequately established in the record.”

Marco Destin, Inc. v. Levy (S.D.N.Y. 2023). “cc/K775-XV3M]; see also 37 C.F.R. §2.27 . cause consumers confusion as to the origin or sponsorship of its goods.”

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.