15 U.S.C. § 1054
Collective marks and certification marks registrable
Subject to the provisions relating to the registration of trademarks, so far as they are applicable, collective and certification marks, including indications of regional origin, shall be registrable under this chapter, in the same manner and with the same effect as are trademarks, by persons, and nations, States, municipalities, and the like, exercising legitimate control over the use of the marks sought to be registered, even though not possessing an industrial or commercial establishment, and when registered they shall be entitled to the protection provided in this chapter in the case of trademarks, except in the case of certification marks when used so as to represent falsely that the owner or a user thereof makes or sells the goods or performs the services on or in connection with which such mark is used. 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 39
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1956–2025 · leading case: Park 'N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park & Fly, Inc., 469 U.S. 189 (1985).
Park 'N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park & Fly, Inc., 469 U.S. 189 (1985). “That section also allows cancellation of an incontestable mark at any time if it has been abandoned, if it is being used to misrepresent the source of the goods or services in connection with which it is used, or if it was obtained fraudulently or contrary to the provisions of §…”
Interprofession du Gruyere v. U.S. Dairy Exp. Council, 61 F.4th 407 (4th Cir. 2023). “” 15 U.S.C. § 1054 . Therefore, as is the case with trademark registration, “[a] generic name—the name of a class of products or services—is ineligible” for registration as a certification mark.”
Int'l Info. Sys. Sec. Certification Consortium, Inc. v. Sec. Univ., LLC, 823 F.3d 153 (2d Cir. 2016). “exercising legitimate control over the use of the marks sought to be registered, even though not possessing an industrial or commercial establishment, and when registered they shall be entitled to the protection provided in this chapter in the case of trademarks, except in the…”
Peaches Ent. Corp. v. Ent. Repertoire Assocs., Inc., 62 F.3d 690 (5th Cir. 1995). “§ 1053 , or other collective mark, 15 U.S.C. § 1054 ; see also, 15 U.S.C. § 1127 (defining types of marks), 4 may bring suit in federal court for damages or injunctive relief against users of similar marks whose use is “likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to…”
United States v. 10,510 Packaged Comput. Towers, 152 F. Supp. 2d 1189 (N.D. Cal. 2001). “15 U.S.C. § 1054 . Claimant argues that the words “in this chapter” limit the protections afforded to certification marks to the protections articulated in the Lanham Act itself.”
E. I. DuPont De Nemours & Co. v. Yoshida Int'l, Inc., 393 F. Supp. 502 (E.D.N.Y 1975). “At the outset, it may be noted that certification marks 19 are generally subject to the same provisions as trademarks, 15 U.S.C. § 1054 ; 20 In re Professional Photographers of Ohio, Inc.”
Emmpresa Cubana Del Tabaco v. Culbro Corp., 213 F. Supp. 2d 247 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). “or has been abandoned, or its registration was obtained fraudulently or contrary to the provisions of section 4 [ 15 U.S.C. § 1054 ] or of subsection (a), (b), or (c) or section 2 [ 15 U.”
Sebastian Int'l, Inc. v. Longs Drug Stores Corp., 53 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 1995). “shall be registrable under this chapter, in the same manner and with the same effect as are trademarks .”
Am. Bd. of Psychiatry & Neurology, Inc. v. Johnson-Powell, 129 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1997). “Here, ABPN sought a preliminary injunction to protect its mark in the interim before the district court could finally resolve ABPN’s claims for damages and permanent injunctive relief.”
The Supreme Assembly, Order of Rainbow for Girls, & Stange Co., Inc. v. J. H. Ray Jewelry Co., 676 F.2d 1079 (5th Cir. 1982). “15 U.S.C. § 1054 provides: Subject to the provisions relating to the registration of trademarks, so far as they are applicable, collective and certification marks .”
In Re California Innovations, Inc., 329 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2003). “ccount of its nature unless it— (e) Consists of a mark which (1) when used on or in connection with the goods of the applicant is merely descriptive or deceptively misdescriptive of them, (2) when used on or in connection with the goods of the applicant is primarily…”
Seven-Up Bottling Co. v. Seven-Up Co., 420 F. Supp. 1246 (E.D. Mo. 1976). “Whether those four marks of the 1940's are truly collective within the meaning of the Lanham Act has therefore greatly occupied the energies of the parties in their arguments to the Court.”
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.