15 U.S.C. § 1121

Jurisdiction of Federal courts; State and local requirements that registered trademarks be altered or displayed differently; prohibition

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 15 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) The district and territorial courts of the United States shall have original jurisdiction and the courts of appeal of the United States (other than the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) shall have appellate jurisdiction, of all actions arising under this chapter, without regard to the amount in controversy or to diversity or lack of diversity of the citizenship of the parties.(b) No State or other jurisdiction of the United States or any political subdivision or any agency thereof may require alteration of a registered mark, or require that additional trademarks, service marks, trade names, or corporate names that may be associated with or incorporated into the registered mark be displayed in the mark in a manner differing from the display of such additional trademarks, service marks, trade names, or corporate names contemplated by the registered mark as exhibited in the certificate of registration issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office.(July 5, 1946, ch. 540, title VI, § 39, formerly §§ 39 and 39a, 60 Stat. 440; Pub. L. 97–164, title I, § 148, Apr. 2, 1982, 96 Stat. 46; Pub. L. 97–296, Oct. 12, 1982, 96 Stat. 1316; Pub. L. 100–667, title I, § 131, Nov. 16, 1988, 102 Stat. 3946; Pub. L. 105–330, title II, § 201(a)(10), Oct. 30, 1998, 112 Stat. 3070.)Editorial NotesCodification

Pub. L. 100–667, § 131(b)(1), transferred section 39a of act July 5, 1946, which was classified to section 1121a of this title, to subsec. (b) of this section.

In subsec. (a), the words “and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia” following “the Courts of Appeal of the United States” have been deleted as superfluous in view of section 41 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure, which includes the District of Columbia within the eleven judicial circuits of the United States. The word “and” has been inserted preceding “the courts of appeal of the United States” to preserve the conjunctive sense of the sentence.

Prior Provisions

Acts Feb. 20, 1905, ch. 592, § 17, 33 Stat. 728; Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, § 291, 36 Stat. 1167; June 7, 1934, ch. 426, 48 Stat. 926; June 25, 1936, ch. 804, 49 Stat. 1921.

Amendments

1998—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 105–330 substituted “courts” for “circuit courts” before “of appeal of the United States”.

1988—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 100–667, § 131(a), designated existing provisions as subsec. (a).

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 100–667, § 131(b), redesignated section 1121a of this title as subsec. (b) of this section and substituted “service marks” for “servicemarks” in two places.

1982—Pub. L. 97–164 inserted “(other than the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit)”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1998 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 105–330 effective Oct. 30, 1998, and applicable only to any civil action filed or proceeding before the United States Patent and Trademark Office commenced on or after such date relating to the registration of a mark, see section 201(b) of Pub. L. 105–330, set out as a note under section 1051 of this title.

Effective Date of 1988 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 100–667 effective one year after Nov. 16, 1988, see section 136 of Pub. L. 100–667, set out as a note under section 1051 of this title.

Effective Date of 1982 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 97–164 effective Oct. 1, 1982, see section 402 of Pub. L. 97–164, set out as a note under section 171 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.

Repeal and Effect on Existing Rights

Repeal of inconsistent provisions, effect of this chapter on pending proceedings and existing registrations and rights under prior acts, see notes set out under section 1051 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 907 cases (121 in the last 5 years), 1948–2026 · leading case: Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763 (1992).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763 (1992). · cites it 3× “3946 , 15 U. S. C. § 1121 . [3] The instructions were that, to be found inherently distinctive, the trade dress must not be descriptive.”

Get in Shape Franchise, Inc. v. TFL Fishers, LLC, 167 F. Supp. 3d 173 (D. Mass. 2016). · cites it 4× “The Lan-ham Act also provides for federal jurisdiction over trademark actions arising under the statute: “The district and territorial courts of the United States shall have original jurisdiction .”

La Quinta Worldwide LLC v. Q.R.T.M., S.A. De C.V., 762 F.3d 867 (9th Cir. 2014). · cites it 4× “The “use in commerce” requirement that Quinta Real relies on is found in sections 32 and 43(a) of the Lanham Act, which both lay out claims for infringement.”

Kos Pharm., Inc. v. Andrx Corp. Andrx Labs., Inc, 369 F.3d 700 (3rd Cir. 2004). · cites it 2× “The district court had original jurisdiction pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1121 (a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1338 , and we have jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal pursuant to 15 U.”

Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 466 U.S. 485 (1984). · cites it 2× “In addition to the product disparagement claim, petitioner alleged claims for unfair competition and a violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U. S. C. § 1121 . The District Court held that neither of those claims had been proved.”

Lawrence Storey, — v. Cello Holdings, L.l.c., Cello Music & Film Sys., Inc., — Herrick, Feinstein LLP & Odin, Feldman & Pittleman, P.C., 347 F.3d 370 (2d Cir. 2003). · cites it 2× “See 15 U.S.C. § 1121 (a). We also reject Cello’s argument that the Southern District of New York was an inappropriate venue for Storey’s claim.”

S. California Darts Assn v. Dino M. Zaffina, 762 F.3d 921 (9th Cir. 2014). · cites it 2× “See 15 U.S.C. § 1121 (a). Another statute grants the district courts jurisdiction over “any civil action arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents, plant variety protection, copyrights and trademarks.”

Jellibeans, Inc., a Georgia Corp., Cross-Appellant v. Skating Clubs of Georgia, Inc., a Georgia Corp., Cross-Appellee, 716 F.2d 833 (11th Cir. 1983). · cites it 3× “’s Lanham Act claim is conferred by the Lanham Act itself, 15 U.S.C. § 1121 . 13 This statutory grant of jurisdiction, however, may not exceed the constitutional limitations on the power of Congress to regulate service marks; rather, it reaches and is coincident with the…”

Stuhlbarg Int'l Sales Co., Inc., a California Corp., D/B/A Sisco v. John D. Brush & Co., Inc., a New York Corp., 240 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2001). “15 U.S.C. § 1121 , 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 , 1338; see K mart Corp.”

Trader Joe's Co. v. Michael Hallatt, 835 F.3d 960 (9th Cir. 2016). · cites it 2× “Because “the ‘use in commerce’ element of Lanham Act claims under sections 32 and 43(a) is not connected to the Lanham Act’s jurisdictional grant in 15 U.S.C. § 1121 (a),” the element “is not a jurisdictional requirement, and we have subject-matter jurisdiction under 15 U.”

Autozone, Inc. & Speedbar, Inc. v. Tandy Corp., 373 F.3d 786 (6th Cir. 2004). · cites it 2× “The district court properly asserted jurisdiction over claims one through four pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1121 (a) and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 , 1338(a) (trademark claim), 1338(b) (unfair competition).”

Flexible Steel Lacing Co. v. Conveyor Accessories, Inc., 955 F.3d 632 (7th Cir. 2020). · cites it 2× “1 The district court had federal question jurisdiction over Flexco’s Lan‐ ham Act claims pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1121 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).”

Show all 907 citing cases →

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.