In such proceedings the Director may refuse to register the opposed mark, may cancel the registration, in whole or in part, may modify the application or registration by limiting the goods or services specified therein, may otherwise restrict or rectify with respect to the register the registration of a registered mark, may refuse to register any or all of several interfering marks, or may register the mark or marks for the person or persons entitled thereto, as the rights of the parties under this chapter may be established in the proceedings. The authority of the Director under this section includes the authority to reconsider, and modify or set aside, a decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board: Provided, That in the case of the registration of any mark based on concurrent use, the Director shall determine and fix the conditions and limitations provided for in subsection (d) of section 1052 of this title. However, no final judgment shall be entered in favor of an applicant under section 1051(b) of this title before the mark is registered, if such applicant cannot prevail without establishing constructive use pursuant to section 1057(c) of this title.
Notes of Decisions
Piano Factory Grp., Inc. v. Schiedmayer Celesta Gmbh, 11 F.4th 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
· cites it 2× “See 15 U.S.C. §§ 1068 , 1070, 1092. In view of the Supreme Court’s analysis in Arthrex, the cur- rent trademark statutes plainly render the ATJs “inferior officers,” making their appointments by the head of a de- partment, i.”
In Re: Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
“See 15 U.S.C. § 1068 (stating that, in such proceedings, the Patent and Trademark Office may "modify the application or registration by limiting the goods or services specified therein").”
Tonka Corp. v. Rose Art Indus., Inc., 836 F. Supp. 200 (D.N.J. 1993).
“See 15 U.S.C. § 1068 (listing remedies available; including only registration, cancellation or restriction of *214 marks “with respect to the register”); 15 U.”
Selfway, Inc. v. Travelers Petroleum, Inc., 579 F.2d 75 (C.C.P.A. 1978).
· cites it 2× “…to misrepresent the source of the goods or services in connection with which the mark is used * * *. . Section 18 ( 15 U.S.C. § 1068 ) reads: In such proceedings [interference § 16, opposition § 13, concurrent use application § 2(d), and cancellation § 14; see § 17 for direct…”
Application of Beatrice Foods Co. Application of Fairway Foods, Inc, 429 F.2d 466 (C.C.P.A. 1970).
“It is stated in the legislative history of the act that the purpose behind the Lnnham Act, as with any trademark act, is a double one: first, to protect the public by enabling the consumer to distinguish between competing goods and by preventing the false marking of goods so he…”
Stanspec Co. v. Am. Chain & Cable Co., 531 F.2d 563 (C.C.P.A. 1976).
“The Commissioner has authority to cancel or restrict the registration of a registered mark under section 18 ( 15 U.S.C. § 1068 ) of the Lanham Act. But see Hollowform, Inc.”
Hollowform, Inc. v. Aeh, 515 F.2d 1174 (C.C.P.A. 1975).
“Section 18 of the Act ( 15 U.S.C. § 1068 ) provides: In such proceedings the Commissioner may refuse to register the opposed mark, may cancel or restrict the registration of a registered mark, or may refuse to register any or all of several interfering marks, or may register the…”
Warnervision Ent. Inc. v. Empire of Carolina Inc., 919 F. Supp. 717 (S.D.N.Y. 1996).
“…courts than it does in proceedings before the Board.” Id. at 1845 n. 7 (noting that amendments to §§ 18, 21 and 24, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1068 ,1071, and 1092, require the Board to defer entry of a final judgment in favor of an intent-to-use applicant pending registration, while a…”
CFA Inst. v. Am. Soc'y of Pension Professionals & Actuaries (W.D. Va. 2019).
· cites it 6× “This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff CFA Institute’s Motion to Dismiss Defendant American Society of Pension Professionals & Actuaries’ (“ASPPA”) Counterclaim for Cancellation by Restriction under Section 18 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1068 (‘Section 18”). Dkt. 39.”
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.