15 U.S.C. § 1072
Registration as constructive notice of claim of ownership
Registration of a mark on the principal register provided by this chapter or under the Act of
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 155
cases (16 in the last 5 years), 1951–2024 · leading case: Park 'N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park & Fly, Inc., 469 U.S. 189 (1985).
Park 'N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park & Fly, Inc., 469 U.S. 189 (1985). “For example, § 22, *200 15 U. S. C. § 1072 , provides for constructive notice of registration and modifies the common-law rule that allowed acquisition of concurrent rights by users in distinct geographic areas if the subsequent user adopted the mark without knowledge of prior…”
Iancu v. Brunetti, 139 S. Ct. 2294 (2019). “533, 536 , 543– 544 (2001) (government program distributing funds to legal-services organizations); National Endowment for —————— 9 See 15 U. S. C. §1072 ; U. S. Patent & Trademark Office, Search Trademark Database, https://www.”
B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Indus., Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1293 (2015). “15 U. S. C. §1072 . It also is “prima facie evidence of the validity of the registered mark and of the registration of the mark, of the owner’s ownership of the mark, and of the owner’s exclusive right to use the registered mark in commerce on or in connection with the goods or…”
In RE:TAM en Banc, 808 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “See 15 U.S.C. §§ 1072 , 1115. Because the common law grants a 6 IN RE TAM markholder the right to exclusive use only in the geo- graphic areas where he has actually used his mark, see 5 J.”
Mobile Anesthesiologists Chicago, LLC v. Anesthesia Assocs. of Houston Metroplex, P.A., 623 F.3d 440 (7th Cir. 2010). “The statute provides that registration serves as “constructive notice of the registrant’s claim of ownership,” 15 U.S.C. § 1072 , but that provision is intended to protect against users of the registrant’s trademark who might otherwise raise a defense of innocent…”
Davidoff Extension S.A. v. Davidoff Comercio E Industria Ltda., 747 F. Supp. 122 (D.P.R. 1990). “15 U.S.C. § 1072 . Therefore, once registration is achieved, “no subsequent adoption and use of the same or a similar mark for the similar goods can be justified on a claim of good faith.”
Tana v. Dantanna's, 611 F.3d 767 (11th Cir. 2010). “And because registration constitutes constructive nationwide notice of the registrant’s priority of use of a mark, 15 U.S.C. § 1072 , only actual use occurring prior to such registration gives rise to enforceable common-law trademark rights, 15 U.”
Pinkette Clothing, Inc. v. Cosmetic Warriors Ltd., 894 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 2018). “See 15 U.S.C. § 1072 (“Registration of a mark on the principal register .”
Lodestar Anstalt v. Bacardi & Co. Ltd., 31 F.4th 1228 (9th Cir. 2022). “at 2297–98 (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 1072 ); it “can make a mark ‘incontestable’ once a mark has been registered for five years,” Matal, 137 S.”
Dep't of Parks & Re-Creation for the State of California v. Bazaar Del Mundo Inc., a California Corp., 448 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2006). “Because under 15 U.S.C. § 1072 registration serves as constructive notice of the registrant’s claim to ownership, the State’s delay in contesting the 1985 registration of the marks may in fact estop it from bringing an infringement claim.”
Vidal v. Elster, 602 U.S. 286 (2024). “Ante, at 291 (citing 15 U. S. C. §§ 1072 , 1115(a)). To be sure, nothing in the Con- stitution requires these predominantly commercial benefts.”
Mindys Cosmetics, Inc. v. Dakar, 611 F.3d 590 (9th Cir. 2010). “1992); 15 U.S.C. § 1072 (registering a trademark provides “constructive notice of the registrant’s claim of ownership thereof’).”
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.