15 U.S.C. § 1060

Assignment

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 15 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)(1) A registered mark or a mark for which an application to register has been filed shall be assignable with the good will of the business in which the mark is used, or with that part of the good will of the business connected with the use of and symbolized by the mark. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, no application to register a mark under section 1051(b) of this title shall be assignable prior to the filing of an amendment under section 1051(c) of this title to bring the application into conformity with section 1051(a) of this title or the filing of the verified statement of use under section 1051(d) of this title, except for an assignment to a successor to the business of the applicant, or portion thereof, to which the mark pertains, if that business is ongoing and existing.(2) In any assignment authorized by this section, it shall not be necessary to include the good will of the business connected with the use of and symbolized by any other mark used in the business or by the name or style under which the business is conducted.(3) Assignments shall be by instruments in writing duly executed. Acknowledgment shall be prima facie evidence of the execution of an assignment, and when the prescribed information reporting the assignment is recorded in the United States Patent and Trademark Office, the record shall be prima facie evidence of execution.(4) An assignment shall be void against any subsequent purchaser for valuable consideration without notice, unless the prescribed information reporting the assignment is recorded in the United States Patent and Trademark Office within 3 months after the date of the assignment or prior to the subsequent purchase.(5) The United States Patent and Trademark Office shall maintain a record of information on assignments, in such form as may be prescribed by the Director.(b) An assignee not domiciled in the United States may designate by a document filed in the United States Patent and Trademark Office the name and address of a person resident in the United States on whom may be served notices or process in proceedings affecting the mark. Such notices or process may be served upon the person so designated by leaving with that person or mailing to that person a copy thereof at the address specified in the last designation so filed. If the person so designated cannot be found at the address given in the last designation, or if the assignee does not designate by a document filed in the United States Patent and Trademark Office the name and address of a person resident in the United States on whom may be served notices or process in proceedings affecting the mark, such notices or process may be served upon the Director.(July 5, 1946, ch. 540, title I, § 10, 60 Stat. 431; Pub. L. 87–772, § 6, Oct. 9, 1962, 76 Stat. 770; Pub. L. 93–596, § 1, Jan. 2, 1975, 88 Stat. 1949; Pub. L. 100–667, title I, § 112, Nov. 16, 1988, 102 Stat. 3939; Pub. L. 105–330, title I, § 107, Oct. 30, 1998, 112 Stat. 3068; Pub. L. 106–43, § 6(a), Aug. 5, 1999, 113 Stat. 220; Pub. L. 106–113, div. B, § 1000(a)(9) [title IV, § 4732(b)(1)(B)], Nov. 29, 1999, 113 Stat. 1536, 1501A–583; Pub. L. 107–273, div. C, title III, § 13207(b)(5), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1907.)Editorial NotesPrior Provisions

Act Feb. 20, 1905, ch. 592, § 10, 33 Stat. 727.

Amendments

2002—Subsecs. (a), (b). Pub. L. 107–273 amended subsecs. (a) and (b) generally, in subsec. (a) substituting pars. (1) to (5) for substantially identical undesignated provisions, and in subsec. (b) adding provisions relating to service on Director if assignee does not designate name and address of a person resident in the United States on whom may be served notices or process.

1999—Pub. L. 106–43, § 6(a)(2), (3), which directed the amendment of this section by substituting “mark.” for “mark,” in the first sentence and striking out a second period at the end of the third sentence, could not be executed because “mark,” and the second period did not appear subsequent to amendment by Pub. L. 105–330. See 1998 Amendment note below.

Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 106–113, § 1000(a)(9) [title IV, § 4732(b)(1)(B)], substituted “Director” for “Commissioner” in last sentence.

Pub. L. 106–43, § 6(a)(1), which directed the amendment of the penultimate sentence of this section by substituting “assignment” for “subsequent purchase”, was executed by making the substitution for “subsequent purchase” in two places in the penultimate sentence of subsec. (a), after “date of the” and “prior to the”, to reflect the probable intent of Congress.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 106–113, § 1000(a)(9) [title IV, § 4732(b)(1)(B)], substituted “Director” for “Commissioner” in last sentence.

1998—Pub. L. 105–330 amended section catchline and text generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows:

“A registered mark or a mark for which application to register has been filed shall be assignable with the goodwill of the business in which the mark is used, or with that part of the goodwill of the business connected with the use of and symbolized by the mark,. However, no application to register a mark under section 1051(b) of this title shall be assignable prior to the filing of the verified statement of use under section 1051(d) of this title, except to a successor to the business of the applicant, or portion thereof, to which the mark pertains, if that business is ongoing and existing. In any assignment authorized by this section it shall not be necessary to include the goodwill of the business connected with the use of and symbolized by any other mark used in the business or by the name or style under which the business is conducted. Assignments shall be by instruments in writing duly executed. Acknowledgment shall be prima facie evidence of the execution of an assignment and when recorded in the Patent and Trademark Office the record shall be prima facie evidence of execution. An assignment shall be void as against any subsequent purchaser for a valuable consideration without notice, unless it is recorded in the Patent and Trademark Office within three months after the date thereof or prior to such subsequent purchase. A separate record of assignments submitted for recording hereunder shall be maintained in the Patent and Trademark Office.

“An assignee not domiciled in the United States shall be subject to and comply with the provisions of section 1051(e) of this title.”

1988—Pub. L. 100–667 substituted “. However, no application to register a mark under section 1051(b) of this title shall be assignable prior to the filing of the verified statement of use under section 1051(d) of this title, except to a successor to the business of the applicant, or portion thereof, to which the mark pertains, if that business is ongoing and existing. In any assignment authorized by this section” for “and in any such assignment” in first par., and “1051(e)” for “1051(d)” in last par.

1975—Pub. L. 93–596 substituted “Patent and Trademark Office” for “Patent Office”.

1962—Pub. L. 87–772 substituted provisions which require a separate record of assignments to be kept in the Patent Office, for provisions which required the Commissioner to keep such record, and eliminated provisions permitting the cancellation of any assigned registration at any time if the registered mark is being used by, or with the permission of, the assignee so as to misrepresent the source of the goods or services in connection with which the mark is used.

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 1998 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 105–330 effective on the date that is 1 year after Oct. 30, 1998, see section 110 of Pub. L. 105–330, set out as a note under section 1051 of this title.

For provisions relating to applicability of amendment by Pub. L. 105–330 to applications for registration of trademarks, see section 109(b) of Pub. L. 105–330, set out as a note under section 1051 of this title.

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.

Effective Date of 1975 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 93–596 effective Jan. 2, 1975, see section 4 of Pub. L. 93–596, set out as a note under section 1111 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 131 cases (28 in the last 5 years), 1948–2026 · leading case: SM Kids, LLC v. Google LLC, 963 F.3d 206 (2d Cir. 2020).
SM Kids, LLC v. Google LLC, 963 F.3d 206 (2d Cir. 2020). · cites it 2× “” 15 U.S.C. § 1060 (a)(1); Cross Commerce Media, Inc.”
K Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281 (1988). · cites it 2× “JUSTICE BRENNAN asserts that legislators in 1922 or 1930 were unlikely to have contemplated that a trademark owner could assign his trademark unless he simultaneously conveyed the goodwill and business associated with the mark. *326 Ante, at 313-314.”
Evercrete Corp. v. H-Cap Ltd., 429 F. Supp. 2d 612 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). · cites it 4× “15 U.S.C. § 1060 . 63 . Berni v. International Gourmet Rest.”
Fed. Treasury Enter. Sojuzplodoimport v. SPI Spirits Ltd., 726 F.3d 62 (2d Cir. 2013). · cites it 2× “At least two requisites are inherent in the concept of assignment under the Act: (1) the need for the relevant assigning document to be effected “by instrument[ ] in writing duly executed,” 15 U.S.C. § 1060 (a)(3); and (2) the need for the assignment to transfer an ownership…”
Yellowbook Inc. v. Steven Brandeberry, 708 F.3d 837 (6th Cir. 2013). · cites it 2× “See 15 U.S.C. § 1060 ; In re Roman Cleanser Co.”
Roman Cleanser Co. v. Nat'l Acceptance Co. of Am. (In Re Roman Cleanser Co.), 43 B.R. 940 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1984). · cites it 7× “Section 10 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1060 , provides that: A registered mark or a mark for which application to register has been filed shall be assignable with the goodwill of the business in which the mark is used, or with that part of the goodwill of the business…”
Tandy Corp. v. Malone & Hyde, Inc., 769 F.2d 362 (6th Cir. 1985). · cites it 2× “Section 10 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1060 (1982), so provides. 3 There was no such transfer here.”
Beanstalk Grp., Inc. v. Am Gen. Corp. & Gen. Motors Corp., 283 F.3d 856 (7th Cir. 2002). “Beanstalk and AM General must have known when they signed the representation agreement that if AM General ever sold its Hummer business, the trademark would go with it, as the purchaser would need it in order to identify the product, while AM General would no longer have any…”
Topps Co., Inc. v. Cadbury Stani SAIC, 526 F.3d 63 (2d Cir. 2008). “1984) (citing Lanham Act § 10, 15 U.S.C. § 1060 )). An assignment “in gross” is a purported transfer of a trademark divorced from its goodwill, and it is generally deemed invalid under U.”
BLT Restaurant Grp. LLC v. Tourondel, 855 F. Supp. 2d 4 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). · cites it 2× “1984) (“Use of the mark by the assignee in connection with a different good will and different product would result in a fraud on the purchasing public .”
Bambu Sales, Inc. v. Sultana Crackers, Inc., 683 F. Supp. 899 (E.D.N.Y 1988). · cites it 2× “, an assignment not accompanied by a transfer of good will), in violation of § 10 of the Lan-ham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1060 . Second, they contend that a 1984 order of the United *903 States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois placing a lien on the trademark…”
Greenlon, Inc. of Cincinnati v. Greenlawn, Inc., 542 F. Supp. 890 (S.D. Ohio 1982). · cites it 4× “15 U.S.C. § 1060 . Plaintiff contends that since McCurdy kept his entire business under the agreement between McCurdy and defendant, as well as the goodwill connected with that business, he assigned nothing to the defendant but the right to use the mark in areas of the country…”
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.