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

15 U.S.C. § 1066

Interference; declaration by Director

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

Upon petition showing extraordinary circumstances, the Director may declare that an interference exists when application is made for the registration of a mark which so resembles a mark previously registered by another, or for the registration of which another has previously made application, as to be likely when used on or in connection with the goods or services of the applicant to cause confusion or mistake or to deceive. No interference shall be declared between an application and the registration of a mark the right to the use of which has become incontestable.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases, 1958–2007 · leading case: San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. United States Olympic Comm., 483 U.S. 522 (1987).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. United States Olympic Comm., 483 U.S. 522 (1987). · cites it 6× “" See 15 U. S. C. § 1066 . Confusion occurs when consumers make an incorrect mental association between the involved commercial products or their producers.”
Rosenruist-Gestao E Servicos LDA v. Virgin Enter. Ltd., 511 F.3d 437 (4th Cir. 2007). · cites it 2× “2007); an interference proceeding, see 15 U.S.C.A. § 1066 (West Supp.2007); or a concurrent use proceeding, see 37 C.”
Lipton Indus., Inc. v. Ralston Purina Co., 670 F.2d 1024 (C.C.P.A. 1982). “15 U.S.C. § 1066 may in itself give standing in view of the virtual elimination of interferences by the PTO.”
Money Store v. Harriscorp Fin., Inc., 689 F.2d 666 (7th Cir. 1982). “Further, the Trademark Examiner who investigated other uses of “THE MONEY STORE” pursuant to Modern Acceptance’s application was aware of the Kaufman application and found no interference, see 15 U.S.C. § 1066 (1976). Peoples’ use of the identical mark was registered only in…”
Omega Importing Corp. v. Petri-Kine Camera Co., Inc., 451 F.2d 1190 (2d Cir. 1971). “In 1961 the West German enterprise applied to the Patent Office to register Ihagee as a trade-mark for cameras; nothing occurred.”
Selfway, Inc. v. Travelers Petroleum, Inc., 579 F.2d 75 (C.C.P.A. 1978). “Having set out to construe all relevant sections of the statute together, a word should be said about § 16 ( 15 U.S.C. § 1066 ) dealing with interferences.”
Perfectform Corp. v. Perfect Brassiere Co., Inc., 256 F.2d 736 (3d Cir. 1958). “§ 1094 , plaintiff’s Supplemental Register certificate is not governed by 15 U.S.C.A. § 1066 , which provides for an interference in the U.”
Alfred Elec. v. Alford Mfg. Co., 333 F.2d 912 (C.C.P.A. 1964). “No interference shall be declared between an application and the registration of a mark the right to the use of which has become incontestable” ( 15 U.S.C. § 1066 , as amended by Public Law 87-772, 76 Stat.”
Dynamet Tech., Inc. v. Dynamet Inc., 593 F.2d 1007 (C.C.P.A. 1979). “Section 16 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1066 , provides: § 1066. Interference; declaration by Commissioner Whenever application is made for the registration of a mark which so resembles a mark previously registered by another, or for the registration of which another has…”
Erlen Prods. Co. v. The Toni Co. (The Gillette Co., Assignee, Substituted), 251 F.2d 625 (C.C.P.A. 1958). “He refused to include that registration in the interference on the ground that it had become incontestable and that Section 16 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1066 , provides that no interference shall be declared between an application and an incontestable registration.”
Koeppel Metal Furniture Corp., Assignee of Koeppel Steel Prods., Inc. v. The Dunleavy Co., 328 F.2d 939 (C.C.P.A. 1964). “Thus, appellant argues, the mark could not properly be put into interference in view of the express provision of section 16 of the Act ( 15 U.S.C. § 1066 ) that “No interference shall be *941 declared between an application and the registration of a mark the right to the use of…”
Robert Hall Clothes, Inc. v. Comm'r of Patents, 240 F. Supp. 376 (D.D.C. 1965). “Section 16 of the Trademark Act ( 15 U.S.C. § 1066 ), which deals with interferences, provides that “No interference shall be declared between an application and the registration of a mark the right to the use of which has become incontestable”.”
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.