15 U.S.C. § 1112
Classification of goods and services; registration in plurality of classes
The Director may establish a classification of goods and services, for convenience of Patent and Trademark Office administration, but not to limit or extend the applicant’s or registrant’s rights. The applicant may apply to register a mark for any or all of the goods or services on or in connection with which he or she is using or has a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce: Provided, That if the Director by regulation permits the filing of an application for the registration of a mark for goods or services which fall within a plurality of classes, a fee equaling the sum of the fees for filing an application in each class shall be paid, and the Director may issue a single certificate of registration for such mark.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1952–2025 · leading case: Metro Publ'g, Ltd., a California P'ship v. San Jose Mercury News, a California Corp., 987 F.2d 637 (9th Cir. 1993).
Metro Publ'g, Ltd., a California P'ship v. San Jose Mercury News, a California Corp., 987 F.2d 637 (9th Cir. 1993). “See also 15 U.S.C. § 1112 (authorizing classification scheme).”
Soc. Tech. LLC v. Apple Inc., 4 F.4th 811 (9th Cir. 2021). “§ 1051 (b) and revising 15 U.S.C. § 1112 to permit an application on an intent-to-use basis, without use at the time of application).”
Patsy's Italian Restaurant, Inc. v. Banas, 658 F.3d 254 (2d Cir. 2011). “See 15 U.S.C. § 1112 (“The Director may establish a classification of goods and services, for convenience of Patent and Trademark Office administration, but not to limit or extend the applicant’s or registrant’s rights.”
In Re: Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2018). “Classification is solely for the "convenience of Patent and Trademark Office administration," 15 U.S.C. § 1112 , and "is wholly irrelevant to the issue of registrability under section 1052(d), which makes no reference to classification," Jean Patou, Inc.”
Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Kenneth G. Wheeler, 814 F.2d 812 (1st Cir. 1987). “15 U.S.C.A. § 1112 (West Supp.1986). Also, as previously stated, an applicant may withdraw or abandon its application without “affect[ing] any rights that the applicant may have in the mark which is the subject of the abandoned application.”
Jean Patou, Inc. v. Theon, Inc., 9 F.3d 971 (Fed. Cir. 1993). “The statute authorizing the establishment of a classification is 15 U.S.C. § 1112 which provides: The Commissioner may establish a classification of goods and services, for the convenience of the Patent and Trademark Office administration, but not to limit or extend the…”
United States v. Washington Mint, LLC., 115 F. Supp. 2d 1089 (D. Minnesota 2000). “In asserting this argument, defendants point to the classification system used by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) pursuant to federal statute, 15 U.S.C. § 1112 . Defendants observe that the United States Mint registered its trademark under classification…”
Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co., 544 F.2d 1098 (C.C.P.A. 1976). “The instant opposition is to the registration of a mark in a combined application ; that is, a single application to register the mark for goods falling within a plurality of classes, as provided by § 30 of the Trademark Act of 1946 ( 15 U.S.C. § 1112 ) 6 and 37 CFR 2.86 and 2.”
Application of Knapp-Monarch Co., 296 F.2d 230 (C.C.P.A. 1961). “Appendix; section 30 of the Trade-Mark Act of 1946 ( 15 U.S.C. § 1112 , 15 U.S.C.A. § 1112 ). It is a matter of common knowledge that electric drink blenders and the reference registration goods are used as “bar accessories,” and are sold in similar trade channels to the same…”
Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. v. Hibernia Bank, 665 F. Supp. 800 (N.D. Cal. 1987). “1961); see also 15 U.S.C. § 1112 . 3 . As the Levi Strauss court stressed, the plaintiff cannot simply rely on federal registration alone to establish its cause of action; it must also claim under 15 U.”
March Madness Athletic Ass'n, LLC v. Netfire, Inc., 310 F. Supp. 2d 786 (N.D. Tex. 2003). “Although the classification of goods and services made by the PTO does “not limit or extend the applicant’s or registrant’s rights,” 15 U.S.C. § 1112 , MMAA, in this action, is not relying solely on rights arising from this registered trademark.”
Glenn v. Advert. Publications, Inc., 251 F. Supp. 889 (S.D.N.Y. 1966). “The Commissioner of Patents, acting under his authority ( 15 U.S.C. § 1112 ) to “establish a classification of goods and services,” has by regulation classified “prints and publications” as goods.”
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.