Blog December 2, 2020
What Does The "In" in "Incontestable" Mean?
- Person title
After the fifth year of issuance of a U.S. trademark registration, the registration is eligible for "incontestable" status if the owner files a declaration with the U.S. Trademark Office confirming that (1) the mark has been in continuous use in U.S. commerce for the preceding five years and (2) there have been no adverse decisions regarding the ownership of the mark or the owner's right to register it and no such proceedings are pending in a U.S. court or at the U.S. Trademark Office.
While "incontestable" status is of course desirable, there are many exceptions that allow challenges to be made against such a registration, such as fraud on the Trademark Office, abandonment/genericide of the mark, and functionality of the mark. However, one of the open questions is whether an "incontestable" registration can be challenged by a prior user of the mark. While many trademark owners would prefer certainty of ownership of "incontestable" registrations, some courts continue to leave open the possibility of challenge by a prior user.
One such case is the recent decision by the Southern District of California in Profil Institut fur Stoffwechselforschung GmbH v. ProSciento, Inc., 122 USPQ2d 1407 (S.D. Cal. 2017). The court denied a motion to dismiss a claim to cancel an "incontestable" registration based on alleged prior use of the mark, acknowledging that "there is some inconsistency in decisional law" but ruling that 9th Circuit precedent allowed such a claim to proceed. This case stands as a stark reminder to trademark owners that the "in" in "incontestable" can be misleading and that no one can guarantee that even an "incontestable" trademark registration is forever immune from attack.
The opinions expressed are those of the authors on the date noted above and do not necessarily reflect the views of Fish & Richardson P.C., any other of its lawyers, its clients, or any of its or their respective affiliates. This post is for general information purposes only and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is formed.
Blog December 9, 2019
Blog July 26, 2019
Heightened Scrutiny of Specimens of Use at U.S. Trademark Office
Blog July 3, 2019
New Rule Requires Foreign-Domiciled Trademark Applicants, Registrants, and Parties at TTAB to Be Represented by U.S. Attorney
Blog April 2, 2018
USPTO Pilot Program Regarding Specimen Authenticity
Blog July 5, 2017
U.S. Trademark Office Clarifies Filing Deadlines for Resurrecting Dead Applications and Registrations
Blog June 8, 2017
Even GOOGLE Can Google After All
Blog February 7, 2017
U.S. Trademark Office Sharpens Machete for Pruning Deadwood
Blog February 3, 2017
FDA Final Guidance on Nonproprietary Names of Biological Products
Blog August 1, 2016
Final FDA Guidance on "Low Risk Wellness" Products Adopts Novel Approach for Exempting Devices From Regulation
Blog March 28, 2023
U.S. Copyright Office Cancels Registration for AI-Generated Art, Issues AI-Related Registration Guidance
Article March 16, 2023
Attorneys Kristen McCallion and Darra Loganzo Co-Author World Trademark Review Article "Could AI Require Platforms to Do More to Prevent Infringement?"
Blog February 10, 2023
Need-to-Knows of the New Copyright Claims Board for Small-Value Copyright Claims
Blog December 12, 2022
Legal Alert: USPTO Updates Deadline to Respond to Trademark Office Actions
Article August 22, 2022
Principal Vivian Cheng Featured in Law.com Q&A Series "How I Made Partner"
Article June 16, 2022
Principal Cynthia Walden and Associate Sarah Kelleher Author World Intellectual Property Review Article "Selling the Intangible in Fashion: What Does It...
Blog March 8, 2022
The Basics of TTAB Cancellations
Blog November 9, 2021
The Basics of TTAB Oppositions
Blog October 5, 2021
ITC Monthly Wrap-Up: September 2021
Article July 23, 2021