15 U.S.C. § 1094
Provisions of chapter applicable to registrations on supplemental register
The provisions of this chapter shall govern so far as applicable applications for registration and registrations on the supplemental register as well as those on the principal register, but applications for and registrations on the supplemental register shall not be subject to or receive the advantages of sections 1051(b), 1052(e), 1052(f), 1057(b), 1057(c), 1062(a), 1063 to 1068, inclusive, 1072, 1115 and 1124 of this title. Registrations on the supplemental register shall be subject to ex parte expungement and ex parte reexamination under sections 1066a and 1066b of this title, respectively.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1951–2026 · leading case: Erbe Elektromedizin GmbH & ERBE USA v. Canady Tech. LLC, 629 F.3d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
Erbe Elektromedizin GmbH & ERBE USA v. Canady Tech. LLC, 629 F.3d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2010). “15 U.S.C. § 1094 . As § 1094 explains, marks registered on the Supplemental Register do not receive the advantages of §§ 1057(b) and 1115(a).”
George & Co. LLC v. Imagination Ent. Ltd., 575 F.3d 383 (4th Cir. 2009). “15 U.S.C. § 1094 . In particular, unlike principal registration, supplemental registration is not prima facie evidence of the validity of the registered mark, of ownership of the mark, or of the registrant's exclusive right to use the registered mark in commerce.”
Sulzer Mixpac AG v. A&N Trading Co., 988 F.3d 174 (2d Cir. 2021). “Thus, registration on the supplemental register does not confer the same benefits as does registration on the principal register, see 15 U.S.C. § 1094 ; in fact, it “does nothing to enlarge the substantive rights of the registrant.”
California Cooler, Inc. v. Loretto Winery, Ltd. & Apam, Inc., 774 F.2d 1451 (9th Cir. 1985). “15 U.S.C. § 1094 (1982). Loret-to’s main legal argument is that registration on the supplemental register estops plaintiff from asserting any claim against a defendant who used the same or similar mark before the date of such registration.”
KJ Korea, Inc. v. Health Korea, Inc., 66 F. Supp. 3d 1005 (N.D. Ill. 2014). “Registration of a mark in the Principal Register is “prima facie evidence of the validity of the registered mark[s] * * *, of the owner’s ownership of the mark[s], and of the owner’s exclusive right to use the registered mark[s] in commerce on or in connection with the goods * *…”
In Re Chippendales Usa, Inc., 622 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2010). “See 15 U.S.C. § 1094 . Supplemental registration is not prima facie evidence of the validity of the registered mark, of ownership of the mark, or of the registrant’s exclusive right to use the registered mark in commerce.”
Nat'l Nonwovens, Inc. v. Consum. Prods. Enter., Inc., 397 F. Supp. 2d 245 (D. Mass. 2005). “See 15 U.S.C. § 1094 . 2 . The registration originally described the product as "felt consisting of wood.”
Clairol Inc. v. The Gillette Co., 389 F.2d 264 (2d Cir. 1968). “Under 15 U.S.C. § 1094 , registrations on the Supplemental Register are explicitly excluded from numerous advantages which may be gained by registration on the Principal Register.”
Lyons v. Am. Coll. of Veterinary Sports Med. & Rehab., Inc., 997 F. Supp. 2d 92 (D. Mass. 2014). “See 15 U.S.C. § 1094 . Rather, those marks are considered “inherently non-distinctive,” but are “capable of achieving trademark status through the acquisition of secondary meaning and distinctiveness.”
Eldon Indus., Inc. v. Rubbermaid, Inc., 735 F. Supp. 786 (N.D. Ill. 1990). “See Lanham Act § 26, 15 U.S.C. § 1094 (list of Lanham Act provisions which do not apply to marks placed on the Supplemental Register).”
Hair Assocs., Inc. v. Nat'l Hair Replacement Servs., Inc., 987 F. Supp. 569 (W.D. Mich. 1997). “15 U.S.C. § 1094 . Ownership of this mark must be proven under the common law.”
In Re Lyndale Farm, 186 F.2d 723 (C.C.P.A. 1951). “Such marks by Section 26, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1094 , are not eligible for many of the procedural and substantive benefits conferred by the Act upon marks registered on the principal register.”
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.