(a) In an application under section 1(a) of the Act, the drawing of the mark must be a substantially exact representation of the mark as used on or in connection with the goods and/or services.
(b) In an application under section 1(b) of the Act, the drawing of the mark must be a substantially exact representation of the mark as intended to be used on or in connection with the goods and/or services specified in the application, and once an amendment to allege use under § 2.76 or a statement of use under § 2.88 has been filed, the drawing of the mark must be a substantially exact representation of the mark as used on or in connection with the goods and/or services.
(c) In an application under section 44 of the Act, the drawing of the mark must be a substantially exact representation of the mark as it appears in the drawing in the registration certificate of a mark duly registered in the applicant's country of origin.
(d) In an application under section 66(a) of the Act, the drawing of the mark must be a substantially exact representation of the mark as it appears in the international registration.
[68 FR 55763, Sept. 26, 2003]
Notes of Decisions
In Re Int'l Flavors & Fragrances Inc., 183 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
· cites it 2× “” IFF offered to replace the “XXXX” designation with broken lines, the PTO’s preferred method for indicating a missing element in a trademark registration under 37 C.F.R. § 2.51 (d) (1998). The examining attorney issued a final rejection denying the registration and IFF appealed…”
TBL Licensing, LLC v. Katherine Vidal, 98 F.4th 500 (4th Cir. 2024).
· cites it 2× “§ 1051(a)(2); see also 37 C.F.R. § 2.51 . Per USPTO regulations, an application to register a product 2 That is not to say that intellectual property rights never inhere in functional designs.”
Tom Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp. (Now Known as Belair Golf), 222 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
“21 (a)(3) (1995) (requiring a drawing in order to obtain a filing date) 2 ; 37 C.F.R. § 2.51 (e) (1995) (allowing a typed drawing for marks consisting of words that are not depicted in special form); see also TMEP, § 807.”
In Re Eccs, Inc., 94 F.3d 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
· cites it 2× “37 C.F.R. Section 2.51. [Emphasis ours.] 23 No citation to any particular part of Rule 2.”
Rolls-Royce Motors Ltd. v. a & a FIBERGLASS, INC., 428 F. Supp. 689 (N.D. Ga. 1977).
“§ 1115 (b)(1), which is distinct from mere failure to comply with the rules of the Patent Office, 37 C.F.R. §§ 2.51 , 2.52. This latter contention, therefore, need not be considered.”
In Re Chem. Dynamics, Inc., 839 F.2d 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
“37 C.F.R. § 2.51 (a) (1987). The Board noted that one may register a composite mark in connection with goods and/or services and, provided each of the elements performs a trademark function in and of itself, each may be registered for the goods or services on which it is used.”
In Re Hacot-Colombier, 105 F.3d 616 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
“In the case of a United States application seeking the benefit of a foreign priority date, 37 C.F.R. § 2.51 (a)(3) (1996) states: In an application under section 44 of the Act, the drawing of the trademark shall be a substantially exact representation of the mark as it appears…”
Sloan v. Auditron Elec. Corp., 68 F. App'x 386 (4th Cir. 2003).
“An applicant for trademark registration is required to submit a drawing of the mark, see 37 C.F.R. § 2.51 , and must choose one of two types of drawings: (1) a “typed drawing,” which is “not limited to the mark depicted in any special form or lettering,” 37 C.”
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.