U.S. Code » Title 15 » Chapter CHAPTER 22— TRADEMARKS › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER I— THE PRINCIPAL REGISTER

15 U.S.C. § 1053

Service marks registrable

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 15 CasesGoogle Scholar

Subject to the provisions relating to the registration of trademarks, so far as they are applicable, service marks shall be registrable, in the same manner and with the same effect as are trademarks, and when registered they shall be entitled to the protection provided in this chapter in the case of trademarks. Applications and procedure under this section shall conform as nearly as practicable to those prescribed for the registration of trademarks.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 74 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1951–2024 · leading case: Park 'N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park & Fly, Inc., 469 U.S. 189 (1985).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Park 'N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park & Fly, Inc., 469 U.S. 189 (1985). · cites it 2× “See § 3, 15 U. S. C. § 1053 . The Lanham Act defines a trademark to include "any word, name, symbol, or device or any combination thereof adopted and used by a manufacturer or merchant to identify his goods and distinguish them from those manufactured or sold by others.”
Aycock Eng'g, Inc. v. Airflite, Inc., 560 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2009). · cites it 2× “2008) [hereinafter McCarthy]; see 15 U.S.C. § 1053 (2006). One such statutory criterion that applies to both trademarks and service marks is the "use in commerce" requirement.”
In Re Dr Pepper Co., 836 F.2d 508 (Fed. Cir. 1987). · cites it 3× “Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, 1 USPQ2d 1421 (TTAB 1986), affirming the examining attorney’s refusal to register the mark PEPPER MAN as a service mark on the ground that applicant’s asserted service of sponsoring and operating a particular contest to promote its soft…”
Lane Capital Mgmt., Inc., Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee v. Lane Capital Mgmt., Inc., Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellant, 192 F.3d 337 (2d Cir. 1999). “1977); see 15 U.S.C. § 1053 . Except where otherwise noted, we make no distinction between the law governing these different marks.”
Yah Kai World Wide Enter., Inc. v. Napper, 195 F. Supp. 3d 287 (D.D.C. 2016). · cites it 2× “In addition to trademarks, which apply to goods, the Lanham Act provides for the registration of service marks, see § 3, 15 U.S.C. § 1053 , which it defines as "any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof" that a person uses or intends to use.”
Country Floors, Inc. v. A P'ship Composed of Charley Gepner & Gary Ford, D/B/A Country Tiles, 930 F.2d 1056 (3rd Cir. 1991). “See § 3, 15 U.S.C. § 1053 . The Lanham Act defines a trademark to include "any word, name, symbol, or device or any combination thereof adopted and used by a manufacturer or merchant to identify his goods and distinguish them from those manufactured or sold by others.”
Patsy's Italian Restaurant, Inc. v. Banas, 658 F.3d 254 (2d Cir. 2011). “Because trademarks and service marks are generally protected by the same standards, see 15 U.S.C. § 1053 ; Lane Capital Mgmt., Inc.”
Midwestern Pet Foods, Inc. v. Societe Des Produits Nestle S.A., 685 F.3d 1046 (Fed. Cir. 2012). · cites it 2× “Contrary to Midwestern’s contention, evidence of post-application fame, although not relevant to the issue of dilution of the opposer’s mark, see 15 U.S.C. §§ 1053 , 1125(c), is relevant to the issue of likelihood of confusion.”
Peaches Ent. Corp. v. Ent. Repertoire Assocs., Inc., 62 F.3d 690 (5th Cir. 1995). “§ 1052 , service mark 15 U.S.C. § 1053 , or other collective mark, 15 U.”
Am. Int'l Grp., Inc. v. Am. Int'l Bank, 926 F.2d 829 (9th Cir. 1991). “15 U.S.C. § 1053 . . Appellee suggests that the Group had notice of the Bank’s putative infringement as early as 1980 while the Group was heavily embroiled in litigation against another alleged infringing company.”
Lloyd B. Lyon, Quality Courts United, Inc. v. Quality Courts United, Inc., 249 F.2d 790 (6th Cir. 1957). · cites it 2× “The plaintiff’s service marks for “providing lodging in tourist courts” were registered as collective marks in 1955 under the provisions of the Lanham Trade-Mark Act, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1053 , 1054. 5 The marks were almost textbook.”
Larry Harmon Pictures Corp. v. The Williams Restaurant Corp., 929 F.2d 662 (Fed. Cir. 1991). · cites it 2× “On the sole issue raised by Harmon’s opposition, the board held that Williams “satisfied the use in commerce requirement of Section 3” *663 of the Lanham Trademark Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C. § 1053 (1988). We affirm. I The board found the following facts to be undisputed.”
Show all 74 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.