37 C.F.R. § 2.71

Amendments to correct informalities

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

The applicant may amend the application during the course of examination, when required by the Office or for other reasons.

(a) The applicant may amend the application to clarify or limit, but not to broaden, the identification of goods and/or services or the description of the nature of the collective membership organization.

(b)(1) If the verified statement in an application under § 2.33 is unsigned or signed by the wrong party, the applicant may submit a substitute verification.

(2) If the verified statement in a statement of use under § 2.88, or a request for extension of time to file a statement of use under § 2.89, is unsigned or signed by the wrong party, the applicant must submit a substitute verification before the expiration of the statutory deadline for filing the statement of use.

(c) The applicant may amend the dates of use, provided that the amendment is verified, except that the following amendments are not permitted:

(1) In an application under section 1(a) of the Act, the applicant may not amend the application to specify a date of use that is subsequent to the filing date of the application;

(2) In an application under section 1(b) of the Act, after filing a statement of use under § 2.88, the applicant may not amend the statement of use to specify a date of use that is subsequent to the expiration of the deadline for filing the statement of use.

(d) The applicant may amend the application to correct the name of the applicant, if there is a mistake in the manner in which the name of the applicant is set out in the application. The amendment must be verified. However, the application cannot be amended to set forth a different entity as the applicant. An application filed in the name of an entity that did not own the mark as of the filing date of the application is void.

(e) An amendment that would materially alter the certification statement specified in § 2.45(a)(4)(i)(A) or (a)(4)(ii)(A) will not be permitted.

[64 FR 48922, Sept. 8, 1999, as amended at 80 FR 33184, June 11, 2015]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1984–2025 · leading case: De Beers LV Trademark Ltd. v. DeBeers Diamond Syndicate Inc., 440 F. Supp. 2d 249 (S.D.N.Y. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

De Beers LV Trademark Ltd. v. DeBeers Diamond Syndicate Inc., 440 F. Supp. 2d 249 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). “See 37 C.F.R. § 2.71 (a) ("The applicant may amend the application to clarify or limit, but not to broaden, the identification of goods and/or services.”

Levi Strauss & Co., Applicant/appellant v. Genesco, Inc., Opposer/appellee, 742 F.2d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 1984). “Forced to a fruitless foray into the record, this court finds that the five year license was not renewed, a section 8 affidavit was not filed, and the registration was for the word "LEVI'S”, not for "the TAB device” which is nowhere shown or mentioned in the registration.”

La Canada Ventures, Inc. v. MDalgorithms, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2024). · cites it 2× “02(c) and 37 C.F.R. § 2.71 (d), warranting cancellation of the registrations associated 27 with these marks under 15 U.”

In Re Duraisamy (Fed. Cir. 2025). · cites it 2× “at *5 (quoting 37 C.F.R. § 2.71 (a)). The Board determined each of Mr.”

Australian Therapeutic Supplies Pty. Ltd. v. Naked TM LLC (S.D. Fla. 2023). “33(b)(2) (Count IV), void ab initio under 37 C.F.R. §§ 2.71 (d) and 2.74(b) (Count V), void ab initio under 15 U.”

Norris v. Goldner (S.D.N.Y. 2023). “2017); see also 37 C.F.R. § 2.71 (a) (“The applicant may amend the application to clarify or limit .”

George Sink PA Injury Lawyers v. George Sink II Law Firm LLC (D.S.C. 2019). “See 37 C.F.R. § 2.71 (d) (“The applicant may amend the application to correct the name of the applicant, if there is a mistake in the manner in which the name of the applicant is set out in the application.”

— 37 C.F.R. § 2.71(d) — 1 case

La Canada Ventures, Inc. v. MDalgorithms, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2024). “02(c) and 37 C.F.R. § 2.71 (d), warranting cancellation of the registrations associated 27 with these marks under 15 U.”

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.