15 U.S.C. § 1119
Power of court over registration
In any action involving a registered mark the court may determine the right to registration, order the cancelation of registrations, in whole or in part, restore canceled registrations, and otherwise rectify the register with respect to the registrations of any party to the action. Decrees and orders shall be certified by the court to the Director, who shall make appropriate entry upon the records of the Patent and Trademark Office, and shall be controlled thereby.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 541
cases (139 in the last 5 years), 1948–2026 · 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). “[7] Similarly, the power of the courts to cancel registrations and "to otherwise rectify the register," § 37, 15 U. S. C. § 1119 , must be subject to the specific provisions concerning incontestability.”
Nike, Inc. v. Already, LLC, 663 F.3d 89 (2d Cir. 2011). “§ 1127 or New York law, and for cancellation of the '905 Registration pursuant to the cancellation provisions of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1119 . Yums also alleged that an “actual controversy” existed regarding whether Yums had infringed any rights Nike had in the purported…”
New World Solutions, Inc. v. NameMedia Inc., 150 F. Supp. 3d 287 (S.D.N.Y. 2015). “3,919,493 (the “Mark Registration”) of the Mark “New World Solutions” (the “Mark”) is invalid and unenforceable pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1119 , a declaratory judgment under 15 U.”
Shakespeare Co. v. Silstar Corp. of Am., Inc., 9 F.3d 1091 (4th Cir. 1993). “OPINION CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge: This appeal presents an issue of first impression for this court: whether a district court considering cancellation, pursuant to § 37 of the Lanham Act ( 15 U.S.C. § 1119 (1988)), of a trademark that has been registered more than five…”
Christian Louboutin S.A. v. Yves Saint Laurent Am. Holding, Inc., 696 F.3d 206 (2d Cir. 2012). “We conclude that the trademark, as thus modified, is entitled to trademark protection.”
Patsy's Italian Restaurant, Inc. v. Banas, 508 F. Supp. 2d 194 (E.D.N.Y 2007). “Legal Standards Under Section 37 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1119 , the federal courts have concurrent power with the PTO to restore a cancelled registration and to cancel a trademark registration.”
San Diego Cnty. Credit Union v. Cefcu, 65 F.4th 1012 (9th Cir. 2023). “Having resolved counts one, two, and five, the district court sua sponte dismissed without prejudice CEFCU’s counterclaim seeking cancellation of SDCCU’s registration because the district court action no longer “involve[ed] a registered mark” under the meaning of 15 U.S.C. §…”
Amazing Spaces, Inc. v. Metro Mini Storage, 608 F.3d 225 (5th Cir. 2010). “3d at 232 (noting that, registration notwithstanding, “if the mark is found to be either generic or descriptive and lacking secondary meaning, a court may cancel it” (citing 15 U.S.C. § 1119 ; Soweco, Inc. v. Shell Oil Co.”
Aktieselskabet Af 21. November 2001 v. Fame Jeans Inc., 525 F.3d 8 (D.C. Cir. 2008). “They may order the PTO to cancel a registration “in whole or in part” or to restore a canceled registration, Lanham Act § 19, 15 U.S.C. § 1119 , and during a civil action for infringement, a registration is only prima facie evidence that the registrant owns a valid mark, Lanham…”
Pinnacle Advert. & Mktg. Grp. Inc. v. Pinnacle Advert. & Mktg. Grp., LLC, 7 F.4th 989 (11th Cir. 2021). “After Pinnacle Illinois filed suit, Pinnacle Florida filed a counterclaim seeking to cancel Pinnacle Illinois’s trademark registrations under 15 U.S.C. § 1119 . 2 Pinnacle Florida also alleged that Pinnacle Illinois’s claims were barred by the doctrine of laches.”
E.T. Browne Drug Co. v. Cococare Prods., Inc., 538 F.3d 185 (3rd Cir. 2008). “We remand, however, to allow the District Court to enter an appropriate order under 15 U.S.C. § 1119 . I. Background and Procedural History Browne, a New Jersey corporation, markets personal care and beauty products containing cocoa butter under the brand name “Palmer’s.”
Nola Spice Designs, L.L.C. v. Haydel Enter., Inc., 783 F.3d 527 (5th Cir. 2015). “, or any other trademark law; (2) the cancellation of Haydel’s trademarks under 15 U.S.C. § 1119 ; and (3) damages for unfair trade practices under the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act (“LUTPA”), La.”
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.