C.F.R. » Title 37 » CHAPTER I—UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE › SUBCHAPTER A—GENERAL › PART 2—RULES OF PRACTICE IN TRADEMARK CASES

37 C.F.R. § 2.68

Express abandonment (withdrawal) of application

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

(a) Written document required. An applicant may expressly abandon an application by filing a written request for abandonment or withdrawal of the application, signed by the applicant, someone with legal authority to bind the applicant (e.g., a corporate officer or general partner of a partnership), or a practitioner qualified to practice under § 11.14 of this chapter, in accordance with the requirements of § 2.193(e)(2). A request for abandonment or withdrawal may not subsequently be withdrawn.

(b) Rights in the mark not affected. Except as provided in § 2.135, the fact that an application has been expressly abandoned shall not affect any rights that the applicant may have in the mark set forth in the abandoned application in any proceeding before the Office.

[80 FR 2311, Jan. 16, 2015]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1987–2020 · leading case: Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Kenneth G. Wheeler, 814 F.2d 812 (1st Cir. 1987).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Kenneth G. Wheeler, 814 F.2d 812 (1st Cir. 1987). · cites it 2× “See 37 C.F.R. § 2.68 (“An application may be expressly abandoned---The fact that an application has been ex *817 pressly abandoned shall not, in any proceeding in the Patent and Trademark Office, affect any rights that the applicant may have in the mark which is the subject of…”
Australian Therapeutic v. Naked Tm, LLC, 965 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2020). “See 37 C.F.R. § 2.68 (b) (“[T]he fact that an application has been expressly abandoned shall not affect any rights that the applicant may have in the mark set forth in the abandoned applica- tion in any proceeding before the Office.”
LFP IP, LLC v. Hustler Cincinnati, Inc., 810 F.3d 424 (6th Cir. 2016). “1987); see also 37 C.F.R. § 2.68 (b). The district court thus did not err in concluding that Larry and his corporations had trademark rights in the LARRY FLYNT mark for use in adult-themed retail stores.”
C & N Corp. v. Kane, 953 F. Supp. 2d 903 (E.D. Wis. 2013). · cites it 2× “” 37 C.F.R. § 2.68 ; accord. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v.”
Clayton v. Howard Johnson Franchise Sys., Inc., 730 F. Supp. 1553 (M.D. Fla. 1988). “See 37 CFR § 2.68 (1987). Furthermore, the “HJ” mark has been regularly used by HJCI and its predecessors-in-interest since 1973.”
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.