15 U.S.C. § 1070
Appeals to Trademark Trial and Appeal Board from decisions of examiners
An appeal may be taken to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board from any final decision of the examiner in charge of the registration of marks or a final decision by an examiner in an ex parte expungement proceeding or ex parte reexamination proceeding upon the payment of the prescribed fee. The Director may reconsider, and modify or set aside, a decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board under this section.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1951–2025 · leading case: Rosenruist-Gestao E Servicos LDA v. Virgin Enter. Ltd., 511 F.3d 437 (4th Cir. 2007).
Rosenruist-Gestao E Servicos LDA v. Virgin Enter. Ltd., 511 F.3d 437 (4th Cir. 2007). “2007); 15 U.S.C.A. § 1070 (West 1997); Person's Co.”
Milo Shammas v. Margaret Focarino, 784 F.3d 219 (4th Cir. 2015). “See 15 U.S.C. § 1070 . Thereafter, a dissatisfied applicant is given two choices for proceeding further.”
Piano Factory Grp., Inc. v. Schiedmayer Celesta Gmbh, 11 F.4th 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2021). “§ 1068 ); see also 15 U.S.C. § 1070 (“The Director may reconsider, and modify or set aside, a decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board under this section.”
Merrick v. Sharp & Dohme, Inc., 185 F.2d 713 (7th Cir. 1951). “On October 13, 1949, the plaintiffs, under the provisions of the Trade-Mark Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1070 , appealed from the decision of the Examiner of Interferences to the Commissioner of Patents.”
Application of Marriott-Hot Shoppes, Inc. (Now by Change of Name, Marriott Corp.), 411 F.2d 1025 (C.C.P.A. 1969). “Referring to section 20 of the Trademark Act ( 15 U.S.C. § 1070 ) and Trademark Rule 2.141, and contrasting section 17 ( 15 U.”
Master, Wardens, Searchers, Assistants & Commonalty of the Co. Of Cutlers in Hallamshire in Cnty. of York v. Sheffield Steel Corp, 215 F.2d 285 (C.C.P.A. 1954). “” 15 U.S.C.A. § 1070 . 21. “Any applicant for registration of a mark, party to an interference proceeding, party to an opposition proceeding, party to an application to register as a lawful concurrent user, party to a cancelation proceeding * * * who is dissatisfied with the…”
Charles R. Estes, et al. v. P ECMC Grp., Inc., 2020 DNH 159 (D.N.H. 2020). “(“FDCPA”), and regulations enacted under the Higher Education Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1070 et seq. (“HEA”); (III) violation of New Hampshire’s Criminal Fraud statute, RSA 638:1-29; and (IV) an additional violation of FDCPA, 15 U.”
Bunny Bear, Inc. v. Dennis Mitchell Indus., 139 F. Supp. 542 (E.D. Pa. 1956). “15 U.S.C.A. § 1070 authorizes an. appeal to the Commissioner from any final decision of the examiner in an interference proceeding.”
Stallard v. United States Pat. & Trademark Off. (E.D. Va. 2023). “See 15 U.S.C. § 1070 (providing that “[a]n appeal may be taken to the [TTAB] from any final decision of the examiner in charge of the registration of marks”).”
Redken Labs., Inc. v. Clairol Inc., 350 F. Supp. 1301 (C.D. Cal. 1972). “Plaintiff appealed the cancellation decision to the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals under 15 U.S.C. § 1070 . Defendant then served notice of its election available un *1303 der 15 U.”
Estes v. ECMC Grp., Inc. (D.N.H. 2020). “(“FDCPA”), and regulations enacted under the Higher Education Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1070 et seq. (“HEA”); (III) violation of New Hampshire’s Criminal Fraud statute, RSA 638:1-29; and (IV) an additional violation of FDCPA, 15 U.”
Groq, Inc. v. Groq Health, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 2025). “” 15 U.S.C. § 1070 . The statute provides that, thereafter, a party can seek review by a federal 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.