15 U.S.C. § 1056

Disclaimer of unregistrable matter

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

(a) Compulsory and voluntary disclaimers

The Director may require the applicant to disclaim an unregistrable component of a mark otherwise registrable. An applicant may voluntarily disclaim a component of a mark sought to be registered.

(b) Prejudice of rights

No disclaimer, including those made under subsection (e) of section 1057 of this title, shall prejudice or affect the applicant’s or registrant’s rights then existing or thereafter arising in the disclaimed matter, or his right of registration on another application if the disclaimed matter be or shall have become distinctive of his goods or services.

(July 5, 1946, ch. 540, title I, § 6, 60 Stat. 429; Pub. L. 87–772, § 3, Oct. 9, 1962, 76 Stat. 769; Pub. L. 100–667, title I, § 108, Nov. 16, 1988, 102 Stat. 3938; Pub. L. 106–113, div. B, § 1000(a)(9) [title IV, § 4732(b)(1)(B)], Nov. 29, 1999, 113 Stat. 1536, 1501A–583.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1999—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 106–113 substituted “Director” for “Commissioner”.

1988—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 100–667 substituted “subsection (e)” for “paragraph (d)”.

1962—Pub. L. 87–772, among other changes, provided that an applicant may voluntarily disclaim a component of a mark sought to be registered.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1999 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 106–113 effective 4 months after Nov. 29, 1999, see section 1000(a)(9) [title IV, § 4731] of Pub. L. 106–113, set out as a note under section 1 of Title 35, Patents.

Effective Date of 1988 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 100–667 effective one year after Nov. 16, 1988, see section 136 of Pub. L. 100–667, set out as a note under section 1051 of this title.

Repeal and Effect on Existing Rights

Repeal of inconsistent provisions, effect of this chapter on pending proceedings and existing registrations and rights under prior acts, see notes set out under section 1051 of this title.

Executive DocumentsTransfer of Functions

For transfer of functions of other officers, employees, and agencies of Department of Commerce, with certain exceptions, to Secretary of Commerce, with power to delegate, see Reorg. Plan No. 5 of 1950, §§ 1, 2, eff. May 24, 1950, 15 F.R. 3174, 64 Stat. 1263, set out in the Appendix to Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 59 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1952–2024 · leading case: In Re Louisiana Fish Fry Prods., Ltd., 797 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2015).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

In Re Louisiana Fish Fry Prods., Ltd., 797 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2015). · cites it 6× “” 15 U.S.C. § 1056 (a); In re Stereotaxis, Inc.”

Boston Duck Tours, LP v. Super Duck Tours, LLC, 531 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2008). · cites it 2× “See 15 U.S.C. § 1056 (a) ("The Director [of the PTO] may require the applicant to disclaim an unregistrable component of a mark otherwise registrable.”

CJ Prods. LLC v. Snuggly Plushez LLC, 809 F. Supp. 2d 127 (E.D.N.Y 2011). · cites it 2× “” See 15 U.S.C. § 1056 (b) (“No disclaimer ... shall prejudice or affect the applicant’s or registrant’s rights then existing or thereafter arising in the disclaimed matter, or his *163 right of registration on another application if the disclaimed matter be or shall have become…”

Dena Corp. v. Belvedere Int'l, Inc., 950 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1991). · cites it 6× “Because the Board’s decision contains insufficient indication that it correctly considered the propriety of disclaimer under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1056 and 1057 (1988), this court vacates and remands.”

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). “The Corporation contends that the dominant portion of its mark is “Country,” and supports this by pointing out that when it applied to register the marks “Country Floors” and “Country Tiles,” it was required to disclaim the descriptive words “floors” and “tile,” pursuant to 15…”

Genesee Brewing Co., Inc., D/B/A Highfalls Brewing Co. v. Stroh Brewing Co., D/B/A N. Plains Brewing Co., 124 F.3d 137 (2d Cir. 1997). “705 (1920), and was expressly authorized in [§ 6 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1056 ]. Pizzeria Uno Corp. v.”

Royal Crown Co., Inc. v. the Coca-Cola Co., 892 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2018). “The only relief Royal Crown seeks in its oppositions to TCCC's applications is that TCCC be required to disclaim the term ZERO. Royal Crown does not argue that, if TCCC disclaims ZERO, the marks should not be allowed.”

G. Heileman Brewing Co. v. Anheuser-Busch Inc., 676 F. Supp. 1436 (E.D. Wis. 1987). · cites it 2× “§ 1114 (1); and for an order that Anheuser-Busch disclaim LA as a trademark pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 1056 and 1119. An opponent of a trademark does not have standing to seek such relief in a district court unless the mark at issue has been registered by the United States Patent…”

In Re Nett Designs, Inc., 236 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2001). “” 15 U.S.C. § 1056 (a) (1994). Thus, the examiner’s disclaimer requirement is proper if the phrase THE ULTIMATE BIKE RACK is merely descriptive and thus not registerable.”

Roederer v. J. Garcia Carrión, S.A., 732 F. Supp. 2d 836 (D. Minnesota 2010). · cites it 2× “15 U.S.C. § 1056 (b) (limiting effect of disclaimers to mark for which registration was sought).”

Facebook, Inc. v. Teachbook. Com LLC, 819 F. Supp. 2d 764 (N.D. Ill. 2011). “The court based this conclusion in part on the fact that the registration of the “Le Book” mark included a disclaimer, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1056 (a), specifically excluding the word “book” from trademark protection.”

In Re Nat'l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1985). “(b) No disclaimer, including those made under paragraph (d) of section 7 of this Act, shall prejudice or affect the applicant's or registrant's rights then existing or thereafter arising in the disclaimed matter, or his right of registration on another application if the…”

Show all 59 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.