Request for Comments Regarding Amending the First Filing Deadline for Affidavits or Declarations of Use or Excusable Nonuse, 49425-49426 [2012-20130]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 159 / Thursday, August 16, 2012 / Notices
Q–20 sonar testing activities, and no
more than a small number of any
affected species will be taken in the
form of short-term Level B behavioral
harassment. In addition, since these
impacts will likely not occur in areas
and times critical to reproduction,
NMFS has determined that the taking of
these species as a result of the Navy’s
Q–20 sonar test will have a negligible
impact on the marine mammal species
and stocks present in the Q–20 Study
Area.
Dated: July 26, 2012.
Helen M. Golde,
Acting Director, Office of Protected Resources,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
Subsistence Harvest of Marine
Mammals
Request for Comments Regarding
Amending the First Filing Deadline for
Affidavits or Declarations of Use or
Excusable Nonuse
NMFS has determined that the total
taking of marine mammal species or
stocks from the Navy’s Q–20 sonar
testing in the Q–20 Study Area would
not have an unmitigable adverse impact
on the availability of the affected
species or stocks for subsistence uses,
since there are no such uses in the
specified area.
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
Based on the analysis of the Navy
Marine Resources Assessment (MRA)
data on marine mammal distributions,
there is near zero probability that sperm
whale will occur in the vicinity of the
Q–20 test area. No other ESA-listed
marine mammal is expected to occur in
the vicinity of the test area. In addition,
acoustic modeling analysis indicates the
ESA-listed sperm whale would not be
exposed to levels of sound constituting
a ‘‘take’’ under the MMPA, due to the
low source level and high attenuation
rates of the Q–20 sonar signal.
Therefore, NMFS has determined that
ESA-listed species will not be affected
as the result of the Navy’s Q–20 testing
activities.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)
In 2009, the Navy prepared a Final
Environmental Impact Statement/
Overseas Environmental Impact
Statement for the NSWC PCD Mission
Activities (FEIS/OEIS), and NMFS
subsequently adopted the FEIS/OEIS for
its rule governing the Navy’s RDT&E
activities in the NSWC PCD Study Area.
The currently proposed Q–20 sonar
testing activities are similar to the sonar
testing activities described in the FEIS/
OEIS for NSWC PCD mission activities.
NMFS prepared an Environmental
Assessment analyzing the potential
impacts of the additional Q–20 sonar
test activities and reached a finding of
no significant impact.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:38 Aug 15, 2012
Jkt 226001
[FR Doc. 2012–20167 Filed 8–15–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark
Office
[Docket No. PTO–T–2012–0031]
United States Patent and
Trademark Office, Commerce.
ACTION: Request for comments.
AGENCY:
To further ensure the
accuracy of the trademark register, the
United States Patent and Trademark
Office (‘‘USPTO’’) is seeking public
comment on a potential legislative
change to amend the first filing deadline
for Affidavits or Declarations of Use or
Excusable Nonuse under Sections 8 and
71 of the Trademark Act from between
the fifth and sixth years after the
registration date, or the six-month grace
period that follows, to between the third
and fourth years after the registration
date, or the six-month grace period that
follows. The change would require
Congress to amend the Trademark Act,
and the USPTO is interested in
receiving public input on whether and
why such an amendment is or is not
favored.
SUMMARY:
Written comments must be
received on or before October 15, 2012.
ADDRESSES: The USPTO prefers that
comments be submitted via electronic
mail message to
TMFRNotices@uspto.gov. Written
comments may also be submitted by
mail to Commissioner for Trademarks,
P.O. Box 1451, Alexandria, VA 22313–
1451, attention Cynthia C. Lynch; by
hand delivery to the Trademark
Assistance Center, Concourse Level,
James Madison Building-East Wing, 600
Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia,
attention Cynthia C. Lynch; or by
electronic mail message via the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. See the Federal
eRulemaking Portal Web site (https://
www.regulations.gov) for additional
instructions on providing comments via
the Federal eRulemaking Portal. All
comments submitted directly to the
Office or provided on the Federal
eRulemaking Portal should include the
docket number (PTO–T–2012–0031).
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
49425
The comments will be available for
public inspection on the USPTO’s Web
site at https://www.uspto.gov, and will
also be available at the Office of the
Commissioner for Trademarks, Madison
East, Tenth Floor, 600 Dulany Street,
Alexandria, Virginia. Because comments
will be made available for public
inspection, information that is not
desired to be made public, such as an
address or phone number, should not be
included.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Cynthia C. Lynch, Office of the Deputy
Commissioner for Trademark
Examination Policy, at (571) 272–8742.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A Section
8 or 71 affidavit of continued use is a
sworn statement that the mark is in use
in commerce, filed by the owner of a
registration. If the owner is claiming
excusable nonuse of the mark, a Section
8 or 71 affidavit of excusable nonuse
may be filed. The purpose of the Section
8 or 71 affidavit is to ensure the
accuracy of the trademark register by
removing ‘‘deadwood,’’ or marks no
longer in use, from the register.
In the interest of ensuring that
registered marks are actually in use in
commerce, the USPTO is exploring
whether or not there would be a benefit
in shortening the first filing deadline for
Affidavits or Declarations of Use or
Excusable Nonuse under Sections 8 and
71 of the Trademark Act (15 U.S.C.
1058, 1141k). Therefore, the USPTO is
providing the public, including user
groups, with an opportunity to comment
on the idea of a statutory change to
shorten the first filing deadline from
between the fifth and sixth years after
the registration date, or the six-month
grace period that follows, to between the
third and fourth years after the
registration date, or the six-month grace
period that follows. Such a change
would necessitate a legislative
amendment of the Trademark Act, and
thus is beyond the authority of the
USPTO, but the USPTO wishes to
collect public comment that might assist
in the consideration of such an
amendment, or another alternative.
The accuracy of the trademark register
as a reflection of marks that are actually
in use in the United States for the
goods/services identified in the
registration serves an important purpose
for the public. Members of the public
rely on the register to clear trademarks
that they may wish to adopt or are
already using. When a party searching
the register uncovers a similar mark,
registered for goods or services that may
be related to the searching party’s goods
or services, that party may incur a
variety of resulting costs and burdens in
E:\FR\FM\16AUN1.SGM
16AUN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
49426
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 159 / Thursday, August 16, 2012 / Notices
assessing and addressing potential
consumer confusion. Such costs and
burdens may include changing its mark,
investigative costs to determine the
nature and extent of use of the similar
mark and to assess whether any conflict
exists, or cancellation proceedings or
other litigation to resolve a dispute over
the mark. If a registered mark is not
actually in use in the United States, or
is not in use on all the goods/services
recited in the registration, these costs
and burdens may be incurred
unnecessarily. Thus, improving the
accuracy and reliability of the trademark
register helps reduce such costs and
burdens, and thereby benefits the
public.
The current requirement to file an
affidavit of use or excusable nonuse
during the fifth year after registration
developed in 1939. Reasons for adding
the requirement included removing
deadwood from the register, showing
that a mark was still in use at the time
it became incontestable, and to
correspond to English law. See TradeMarks: Hearings on H.R. 4744 Before the
Subcomm. on Trademarks of the H.
Comm. on Patents, 76th Cong. 72–74
(1939).
For marks registered under Section
44(e) (15 U.S.C. 1126(e)) or Section 66(a)
(15 U.S.C. 1141f(a)) of the Trademark
Act, no specimen of use in commerce in
the United States is required prior to
registration. In addition, recent research
indicates that a significantly higher
percentage of businesses fail during the
first two years after their establishment
than during the three years that follow.
See SBA Office of Advocacy, Frequently
Asked Questions (Jan. 2011), https://
www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/
sbfaq.pdf. Thus, use of marks registered
by such failed businesses may have
ceased long before the first Section 8 or
71 affidavit is currently required to be
filed. Therefore, the proposed
amendment would help ensure the
accuracy of the trademark register by
more promptly cancelling marks that are
not in use.
The USPTO notes that shortening the
first filing deadline for Affidavits or
Declarations of Use or Excusable
Nonuse under Sections 8 and 71 would
foreclose the ability that currently exists
to combine the filing of an Affidavit or
Declaration of Incontestability under
Section 15 of the Trademark Act with
the first-filed Section 8 or 71 affidavit
(see 15 U.S.C. 1065). However, the
Section 15 affidavit is optional, and it is
often filed independently of the Section
8 or 71 affidavit. Moreover, any impact
on the ability to file it in combination
with a Section 8 or 71 affidavit should
be considered within the context of a
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:38 Aug 15, 2012
Jkt 226001
more accurate register, where deadwood
is removed several years sooner.
Please consider responding to the
following questions in your comments:
(1) Is ‘‘deadwood’’ on the trademark
register a concern of yours, and what
impact do you believe it has?
(2) Do you favor or oppose an
amendment to shorten the first filing
deadline for Affidavits or Declarations
of Use or Excusable Nonuse under
Sections 8 and 71 as a means of
ensuring the accuracy of the trademark
register? (Please explain why.)
(3) If you favor shortening the
deadline, what time period do you
believe would be most appropriate for
the first filing deadline?
(4) Are you concerned that an
amendment to the first Section 8 and 71
affidavit deadline would foreclose the
ability to combine the filing with the
filing of an Affidavit or Declaration of
Incontestability under Section 15? What
impact do you believe separating these
filings would have?
While the USPTO welcomes and
values all comments from the public in
response to this request, these
comments do not bind the USPTO to
any further actions related to the
comments. Persons submitting written
comments should note that the USPTO
will not provide ‘‘comment and
response’’ analysis, since notice and
opportunity for public comment are not
required for this notice under 5 U.S.C.
553(b) or any other law.
Dated: August 10, 2012.
David J. Kappos,
Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual
Property and Director of the United States
Patent and Trademark Office.
[FR Doc. 2012–20130 Filed 8–15–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–16–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Patent and Trademark Office
[Docket No. PTO–T–2012–0029]
Notice of Inquiry Regarding
Adjustment of Fees for Trademark
Applications
United States Patent and
Trademark Office, Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of inquiry.
AGENCY:
The United States Patent and
Trademark Office (‘‘USPTO’’ or
‘‘Office’’) is considering adjusting
trademark application filing fees so as to
promote efficiency for the USPTO and
customers by incentivizing complete
electronic communication. The USPTO
invites the public to submit comments
regarding such possible adjustments.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Written comments must be
received on or before October 15, 2012.
ADDRESSES: The USPTO prefers that
comments be submitted via electronic
mail message to
TMFRNotices@uspto.gov. Written
comments may also be submitted by
mail to Commissioner for Trademarks,
P.O. Box 1451, Alexandria, VA 22313–
1451, attention Cynthia C. Lynch; by
hand delivery to the Trademark
Assistance Center, Concourse Level,
James Madison Building-East Wing, 600
Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia,
attention Cynthia C. Lynch; or by
electronic mail message via the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. See the Federal
eRulemaking Portal Web site (https://
www.regulations.gov) for additional
instructions on providing comments via
the Federal eRulemaking Portal. All
comments submitted directly to the
Office or provided on the Federal
eRulemaking Portal should include the
docket number (PTO–T–2012–0029).
The comments will be available for
public inspection on the USPTO’s Web
site at https://www.uspto.gov, and will
also be available at the Office of the
Commissioner for Trademarks, Madison
East, Tenth Floor, 600 Dulany Street,
Alexandria, Virginia. Because comments
will be made available for public
inspection, information that is not
desired to be made public, such as an
address or phone number, should not be
included.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Cynthia C. Lynch, Office of the Deputy
Commissioner for Trademark
Examination Policy, at (571) 272–8742.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
USPTO is providing the public,
including user groups, with an
opportunity to comment on possible
adjustments to trademark application
fees. In particular, the USPTO is
considering adjusting filing fees to
incentivize complete electronic
communications by reducing the TEAS
Plus filing fee and by providing a
discount on applications filed using the
regular TEAS application form, if the
applicant authorizes email
communication and agrees to file all
responses and other documents
electronically during the prosecution of
the application. The USPTO is also
contemplating increasing the fee for
paper applications to more accurately
reflect the higher cost of processing
such filings.
Please consider responding to the
following questions in your comments:
1. Fees for filing an application for
registration of a trademark are currently
set at:
DATES:
E:\FR\FM\16AUN1.SGM
16AUN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 159 (Thursday, August 16, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49425-49426]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-20130]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
[Docket No. PTO-T-2012-0031]
Request for Comments Regarding Amending the First Filing Deadline
for Affidavits or Declarations of Use or Excusable Nonuse
AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.
ACTION: Request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: To further ensure the accuracy of the trademark register, the
United States Patent and Trademark Office (``USPTO'') is seeking public
comment on a potential legislative change to amend the first filing
deadline for Affidavits or Declarations of Use or Excusable Nonuse
under Sections 8 and 71 of the Trademark Act from between the fifth and
sixth years after the registration date, or the six-month grace period
that follows, to between the third and fourth years after the
registration date, or the six-month grace period that follows. The
change would require Congress to amend the Trademark Act, and the USPTO
is interested in receiving public input on whether and why such an
amendment is or is not favored.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before October 15, 2012.
ADDRESSES: The USPTO prefers that comments be submitted via electronic
mail message to TMFRNotices@uspto.gov. Written comments may also be
submitted by mail to Commissioner for Trademarks, P.O. Box 1451,
Alexandria, VA 22313-1451, attention Cynthia C. Lynch; by hand delivery
to the Trademark Assistance Center, Concourse Level, James Madison
Building-East Wing, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia, attention
Cynthia C. Lynch; or by electronic mail message via the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. See the Federal eRulemaking Portal Web site (https://www.regulations.gov) for additional instructions on providing comments
via the Federal eRulemaking Portal. All comments submitted directly to
the Office or provided on the Federal eRulemaking Portal should include
the docket number (PTO-T-2012-0031). The comments will be available for
public inspection on the USPTO's Web site at https://www.uspto.gov, and
will also be available at the Office of the Commissioner for
Trademarks, Madison East, Tenth Floor, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria,
Virginia. Because comments will be made available for public
inspection, information that is not desired to be made public, such as
an address or phone number, should not be included.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cynthia C. Lynch, Office of the Deputy
Commissioner for Trademark Examination Policy, at (571) 272-8742.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A Section 8 or 71 affidavit of continued use
is a sworn statement that the mark is in use in commerce, filed by the
owner of a registration. If the owner is claiming excusable nonuse of
the mark, a Section 8 or 71 affidavit of excusable nonuse may be filed.
The purpose of the Section 8 or 71 affidavit is to ensure the accuracy
of the trademark register by removing ``deadwood,'' or marks no longer
in use, from the register.
In the interest of ensuring that registered marks are actually in
use in commerce, the USPTO is exploring whether or not there would be a
benefit in shortening the first filing deadline for Affidavits or
Declarations of Use or Excusable Nonuse under Sections 8 and 71 of the
Trademark Act (15 U.S.C. 1058, 1141k). Therefore, the USPTO is
providing the public, including user groups, with an opportunity to
comment on the idea of a statutory change to shorten the first filing
deadline from between the fifth and sixth years after the registration
date, or the six-month grace period that follows, to between the third
and fourth years after the registration date, or the six-month grace
period that follows. Such a change would necessitate a legislative
amendment of the Trademark Act, and thus is beyond the authority of the
USPTO, but the USPTO wishes to collect public comment that might assist
in the consideration of such an amendment, or another alternative.
The accuracy of the trademark register as a reflection of marks
that are actually in use in the United States for the goods/services
identified in the registration serves an important purpose for the
public. Members of the public rely on the register to clear trademarks
that they may wish to adopt or are already using. When a party
searching the register uncovers a similar mark, registered for goods or
services that may be related to the searching party's goods or
services, that party may incur a variety of resulting costs and burdens
in
[[Page 49426]]
assessing and addressing potential consumer confusion. Such costs and
burdens may include changing its mark, investigative costs to determine
the nature and extent of use of the similar mark and to assess whether
any conflict exists, or cancellation proceedings or other litigation to
resolve a dispute over the mark. If a registered mark is not actually
in use in the United States, or is not in use on all the goods/services
recited in the registration, these costs and burdens may be incurred
unnecessarily. Thus, improving the accuracy and reliability of the
trademark register helps reduce such costs and burdens, and thereby
benefits the public.
The current requirement to file an affidavit of use or excusable
nonuse during the fifth year after registration developed in 1939.
Reasons for adding the requirement included removing deadwood from the
register, showing that a mark was still in use at the time it became
incontestable, and to correspond to English law. See Trade-Marks:
Hearings on H.R. 4744 Before the Subcomm. on Trademarks of the H. Comm.
on Patents, 76th Cong. 72-74 (1939).
For marks registered under Section 44(e) (15 U.S.C. 1126(e)) or
Section 66(a) (15 U.S.C. 1141f(a)) of the Trademark Act, no specimen of
use in commerce in the United States is required prior to registration.
In addition, recent research indicates that a significantly higher
percentage of businesses fail during the first two years after their
establishment than during the three years that follow. See SBA Office
of Advocacy, Frequently Asked Questions (Jan. 2011), https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/sbfaq.pdf. Thus, use of marks
registered by such failed businesses may have ceased long before the
first Section 8 or 71 affidavit is currently required to be filed.
Therefore, the proposed amendment would help ensure the accuracy of the
trademark register by more promptly cancelling marks that are not in
use.
The USPTO notes that shortening the first filing deadline for
Affidavits or Declarations of Use or Excusable Nonuse under Sections 8
and 71 would foreclose the ability that currently exists to combine the
filing of an Affidavit or Declaration of Incontestability under Section
15 of the Trademark Act with the first-filed Section 8 or 71 affidavit
(see 15 U.S.C. 1065). However, the Section 15 affidavit is optional,
and it is often filed independently of the Section 8 or 71 affidavit.
Moreover, any impact on the ability to file it in combination with a
Section 8 or 71 affidavit should be considered within the context of a
more accurate register, where deadwood is removed several years sooner.
Please consider responding to the following questions in your
comments:
(1) Is ``deadwood'' on the trademark register a concern of yours,
and what impact do you believe it has?
(2) Do you favor or oppose an amendment to shorten the first filing
deadline for Affidavits or Declarations of Use or Excusable Nonuse
under Sections 8 and 71 as a means of ensuring the accuracy of the
trademark register? (Please explain why.)
(3) If you favor shortening the deadline, what time period do you
believe would be most appropriate for the first filing deadline?
(4) Are you concerned that an amendment to the first Section 8 and
71 affidavit deadline would foreclose the ability to combine the filing
with the filing of an Affidavit or Declaration of Incontestability
under Section 15? What impact do you believe separating these filings
would have?
While the USPTO welcomes and values all comments from the public in
response to this request, these comments do not bind the USPTO to any
further actions related to the comments. Persons submitting written
comments should note that the USPTO will not provide ``comment and
response'' analysis, since notice and opportunity for public comment
are not required for this notice under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) or any other
law.
Dated: August 10, 2012.
David J. Kappos,
Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of
the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
[FR Doc. 2012-20130 Filed 8-15-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-16-P