37 C.F.R. § 2.52

Types of drawings and format for drawings

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

A drawing depicts the mark sought to be registered. The drawing must show only one mark. The applicant must include a clear drawing of the mark when the application is filed. There are two types of drawings:

(a) Standard character (typed) drawing. Applicants who seek to register words, letters, numbers, or any combination thereof without claim to any particular font style, size, or color must submit a standard character drawing that shows the mark in black on a white background. An applicant may submit a standard character drawing if:

(1) The application includes a statement that the mark is in standard characters and no claim is made to any particular font style, size, or color;

(2) The mark does not include a design element;

(3) All letters and words in the mark are depicted in Latin characters;

(4) All numerals in the mark are depicted in Roman or Arabic numerals; and

(5) The mark includes only common punctuation or diacritical marks.

(b) Special form drawing. Applicants who seek to register a mark that includes a two or three-dimensional design; color; and/or words, letters, or numbers or the combination thereof in a particular font style or size must submit a special form drawing. The drawing should show the mark in black on a white background, unless the mark includes color.

(1) Marks that include color. If the mark includes color, the drawing must show the mark in color, and the applicant must name the color(s), describe where the color(s) appear on the mark, and submit a claim that the color(s) is a feature of the mark.

(2) Three dimensional marks. If the mark has three-dimensional features, the drawing must depict a single rendition of the mark, and the applicant must indicate that the mark is three-dimensional.

(3) Motion marks. If the mark has motion, the drawing may depict a single point in the movement, or the drawing may depict up to five freeze frames showing various points in the movement, whichever best depicts the commercial impression of the mark. The applicant must also describe the mark.

(4) Broken lines to show placement. If necessary to adequately depict the commercial impression of the mark, the applicant may be required to submit a drawing that shows the placement of the mark by surrounding the mark with a proportionately accurate broken-line representation of the particular goods, packaging, or advertising on which the mark appears. The applicant must also use broken lines to show any other matter not claimed as part of the mark. For any drawing using broken lines to indicate placement of the mark, or matter not claimed as part of the mark, the applicant must describe the mark and explain the purpose of the broken lines.

(5) Description of mark. A description of the mark must be included.

(d) Paper drawings. A paper drawing must meet the requirements of § 2.54.

(e) Sound, scent, and non-visual marks. An applicant is not required to submit a drawing if the mark consists only of a sound, a scent, or other completely non-visual matter. For these types of marks, the applicant must submit a detailed description of the mark.

[68 FR 55763, Sept. 26, 2003, as amended at 73 FR 13784, Mar. 14, 2008; 73 FR 67769, Nov. 17, 2008]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 24 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1976–2026 · leading case: In Re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

In Re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2012). · cites it 4× “See also 37 C.F.R. § 2.52 (a). The trademark examining attorney refused registration under Section 2(d) of the Lanham Act, finding that it was likely to cause confusion with the previously-registered X-Seed Mark, shown above, for “agricultural seeds,” which is owned by X-Seed,…”

Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp., Inc., 637 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2011). · cites it 2× “, 37 C.F.R. § 2.52 ; Phillips Petroleum, Co.”

In Re Mighty Leaf Tea, 601 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2010). · cites it 2× “” 37 C.F.R. § 2.52 (a). These marks were formerly known as “typed” marks, see Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure § 807.”

Oriental Fin. Grp., Inc. v. Cooperativa De Ahorro Y Crédito Oriental, 832 F.3d 15 (1st Cir. 2016). “2011) (quoting 37 C.F.R. § 2.52 (a)), or other design elements, see Igloo Prods.”

Humanoids Grp. v. James E. Rogan, Dir. of the United States Pat. & Trademark Off., 375 F.3d 301 (4th Cir. 2004). “” The application stated that “[a] drawing-page displaying the mark in conformance with 37 C.F.R. 2.52 is submitted with this application,” and, on the attached drawing page, identified “Graphic Stories” as the mark it sought to obtain.”

Hornady Mfg. Co. v. Doubletap, Inc., 746 F.3d 995 (10th Cir. 2014). “l (quoting 37 C.F.R. § 2.52 (a)); id. at 37-43 . In Water Pik, however, we considered the infringement of the "nonstylized word mark SINUCLEANSE” among others.”

In Re Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 774 F.2d 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1985). “Considering that registrations are printed only in black and white, 37 C.F.R. § 2.52 (e), and have only code linings for color (pink and red being the same), registration will add only greater imprecision.”

M.Z. Berger & Co., Inc. v. Swatch Ag, 787 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “37 C.F.R. § 2.52 (a). We nonetheless refer to the mark in its mixed-case form (iWatch) for ease of reference and because that is how Berger presented the mark in its application.”

In Re Thrifty, Inc., 274 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2001). “” 37 C.F.R. § 2.52 (a) (2001). The TTAB found no inconsistency in Thrifty’s application that would suggest application of In re ECCS, Inc.”

TBL Licensing, LLC v. Katherine Vidal, 98 F.4th 500 (4th Cir. 2024). “” 37 C.F.R. § 2.52 . But, instead of using that drawing, the survey used grayscale 17 USCA4 Appeal: 23-1150 Doc: 60 Filed: 04/15/2024 Pg: 18 of 33 photographs of the boots.”

In re Honeywell, Inc., 532 F.2d 180 (C.C.P.A. 1976). “…in Trademark Cases, but the markings for color are practically identical in the trademark and patent rules. See 37 CFR 2.52.”

Diageo North Am., Inc. v. Mexcor, Inc., 661 F. App'x 806 (5th Cir. 2016). “See 37 C.F.R. § 2.52 (a). A standard character mark refers to nothing more than the name of a product—the word mark—and not a logo or product packaging.”

Show all 24 citing cases →

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.