37 C.F.R. § 2.72

Amendments to description or drawing of the mark

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

(a) In an application based on use in commerce under section 1(a) of the Act, the applicant may amend the description or drawing of the mark only if:

(1) The specimens originally filed, or substitute specimens filed under § 2.59(a), support the proposed amendment; and

(2) The proposed amendment does not materially alter the mark. The Office will determine whether a proposed amendment materially alters a mark by comparing the proposed amendment with the description or drawing of the mark filed with the original application.

(b) In an application based on a bona fide intention to use a mark in commerce under section 1(b) of the Act, the applicant may amend the description or drawing of the mark only if:

(1) The specimens filed with an amendment to allege use or statement of use, or substitute specimens filed under § 2.59(b), support the proposed amendment; and

(c) In an application based on a claim of priority under section 44(d) of the Act, or on a mark duly registered in the country of origin of the foreign applicant under section 44(e) of the Act, the applicant may amend the description or drawing of the mark only if:

(1) The description or drawing of the mark in the foreign registration certificate supports the amendment; and

[64 FR 48922, Sept. 8, 1999]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1987–2015 · leading case: In Re Eccs, Inc., 94 F.3d 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

In Re Eccs, Inc., 94 F.3d 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1996). · cites it 5× “The Board and the applicant thought that this case is governed by the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 2.72 (a), which states that Amendments may not be made to the description or drawing of the mark if the character of the mark is materially altered.”

Jack Wolfskin Ausrustung Fur Draussen GmbH & Co. KGAA v. New Millennium Sports, S.L.U., 797 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “02(a); see also 37 C.F.R. § 2.72 (a)(2) (amending a mark is permissible if "[t]he proposed amendment does not materially alter the mark.”

In Re Hacot-Colombier, 105 F.3d 616 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “37 C.F.R. § 2.72 (1996) governs amendments to drawings: § 2.”

Ultracashmere House, Ltd. v. Springs Mills, Inc., 828 F.2d 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1987). · cites it 2× “37 C.F.R. § 2.72 . 3 Alternatively, if the injunctive language were simply added in the nature of a “disclaimer,” such amendment would not correct the substantive defect in the application which lies in the mark itself.”

— 37 C.F.R. § 2.72(a) — 1 case

In Re Eccs, Inc., 94 F.3d 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1996). “The Board and the applicant thought that this case is governed by the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 2.72 (a), which states that Amendments may not be made to the description or drawing of the mark if the character of the mark is materially altered.”

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.