The United States, unlike many other countries, requires proof of use before a trademark registration will be granted. Applicants can still file an application before use commences, provided that the applicant has a bona fide intent to use a mark, but the trademark registration still will not issue until acceptable use evidence is submitted. This process can be very frustrating for non-U.S. applicants.
However, many non-U.S. applicants do not realize there are two exceptions to the use requirement in the United States, and they are only available to applicants who own a foreign application or registration.
- An applicant can file a national trademark application in the United States based on a foreign application or registration without submitting evidence of use. This application will register once a copy of the foreign registration is submitted.
- Extensions of protection of an international registration to the United States do not require evidence of use.
Both of these filing bases do require a statement of a bona fide intention to use the mark in the U.S.
Note that although a foreign entity can obtain a registration in these ways without proving use in U.S. commerce, it will need to submit use evidence between the fifth and sixth anniversary of the registration to maintain the registration. If proof of use in U.S. commerce cannot be submitted during that time, the registration will be cancelled. Registrants must provide proof of use in U.S. commerce for at least one good or service specified in each class of the registration. The U.S. Trademark Office ("USPTO") has strict rules for what does and does not constitute appropriate proof of use.
Moreover, actual use in commerce is still required to defend the trademark registration against a non-use attack. In the United States, three consecutive years of non-use "shall be prima facie evidence of abandonment." The takeaway for foreign applicants or registrants is it is possible to obtain a U.S. registration without the burden of proving use in the U.S. However, proof of use is required to maintain a trademark registration and to defend against a non-use attack.
Non-use cannot be cured through subsequent use in the United States for registration purposes (unless the period of non-use can be excused under exceptional circumstances). If a mark can be proven to have been abandoned through non-use at any time, then the registration will always be susceptible to a non-use attack.
Tags: Intellectual Property- Partner
David Jackson provides a full spectrum of intellectual property services and works closely with clients to help them develop comprehensive, global brand strategies. Clients value David’s creativity, strategic judgment, and ability to understand their business needs to help them best ...
About This Blog
Lewis Roca is immersed in your industry and invested in your success. We share insights and trends that can affect your business.
Search
Topics
Archives
- September 2024
- August 2024
- May 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- September 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- November 2018
- April 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- April 2016
- January 2016
Authors
- Alfredo T. Alonso
- Amy E. Altshuler
- Edwin A. Barkel
- Trevor G. Bartel
- Nick Bauman
- G. Warren Bleeker
- Brooks Brennan
- Ogonna M. Brown
- Chad S. Caby
- John Carson
- Rob Charles
- Joshua T. Chu
- Howard E. Cole
- Katherine Costella
- Thomas J. Daly
- Pat Derdenger
- Thomas J. Dougherty
- Susan M. Freeman
- Yalda Godusi Arellano
- John C. Gray, CIPP/US
- Art Hasan
- Frances J. Haynes
- Dietrich C. Hoefner
- Jennifer K. Hostetler
- David A. Jackson
- Andrew Jacobsohn
- Kyle W. Kellar
- Kris J. Kostolansky
- Gregory S. Lampert
- Shaun P. Lee
- Glenn J. Light
- Laura A. Lo Bianco
- Karen Jurichko Lowell
- James M. Lyons
- H. William Mahaffey
- Constantine Marantidis
- A.J. Martinez
- Patrick Emerson McCormick, CIPP/US
- Michael J. McCue
- Lindsay L. McKae
- Linda M. Mitchell
- Gary J. Nelson
- Rachel A. Nicholas
- Laura Pasqualone
- Michael D. Plachy
- David A. Plumley
- Kurt S. Prange
- Katie M. (Derrig) Rios
- Robert F. Roos
- Karl F. Rutledge
- Daniel A. Salgado
- Mary Ellen Simonson
- Susan Strebel Sperber
- Jan A. Steinhour
- Ryan M. Swank
- Dustin R. Szakalski
- Chris A. Underwood
- Jennifer A. Van Kirk
- Hilary D. Wells
- Drew Wilson, CIPP/US
- Karen L. Witt
- Meng Zhong
Recent Posts
- The Importance of Retaining a Grandfathered Gaming Location in Nevada
- Welcome our 2024 Michael D. Nosler Scholarship Intern
- Going Viral: Navigating Promotional Sweepstakes Legality in the Social Media Era
- Arizona Voters Modify Creditors' Remedies with Passage of Proposition 209
- Nevada Gaming Control Board Issues Gaming Technology Approval Guidelines
- Amendments to Nevada Gaming Regulation 5
- Nevada Gaming Control Board Workshop on Public Regulation
- New Wave of Arizona Privacy Litigation Regarding Tracking Pixels
- Legal Issues, Problems, and Unanswered Questions Regarding a State’s Ability and Potential Departure from the Depository Institution Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 (“DIDMCA”)
- New Trademark Scam