The Kinder Law Group was handling an issue today for a client who had filed a trademark application, but had made changes to the underlying trademark and wanted to “update” the application. The Trademark Office issued a preliminary refusal to the request to amend on the ground that the change allegedly constituted a “material alteration.” The Kinder Law Group has handled many of these types of changes and responded to many such refusals in the past, however, it had been about a year since the last one. Therefore, we decided to update our research records to prepare the argument. In doing the research, we noticed a profound lack of visual samples on the Internet. Therefore, we decided to consolidate as many cases (both precedent and non-precedent) that we could find and stick them into a chart. We believe it helps to visually perceive the alterations that have been allowed versus those that have been denied. We hope you enjoy and/or that it helps.
First, the law:
Trademark Rule 2.72, 37 C.F.R. § 2.72, prohibits any amendment of the mark that materially alters the mark on the drawing filed with the original application. Section 807.14 of the Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP) discusses the “Material Alteration” test and states: “The modified mark must contain what is the essence of the original mark, and the new form must create the impression of being essentially the same mark. The general test of whether an alteration is material is whether the mark would have to be republished after the alteration in order to fairly present the mark for purposes of opposition. If one mark is sufficiently different from another mark as to require republication, it would be tantamount to a new mark appropriate for a new application.”
As a general rule, the addition of any element that would require a further search will constitute a material alteration. In re Pierce Foods Corp., 230 USPQ 307 (TTAB 1986). However, while the question of whether a new search would be required is a factor to be considered in deciding whether an amendment would materially alter a mark, it is not necessarily the determining factor. In re Who? Vision Systems, Inc., 57 USPQ2d 1211 (TTAB 2000); In re Vienna Sausage Mfg. Co., 16 USPQ2d 2044 (TTAB 1990).
Each case must be decided on its own facts, and these general rules are subject to exceptions. The controlling question is always whether the old and new forms of the mark create essentially the same commercial impression.
Now, the visual samples:
| ORIGINAL MARK | AMENDED MARK | DECISION | REFERENCE |
| NY JEWELRY OUTLET | NEW YORK JEWELRY OUTLET | Allowed | In re Finlay Fine Jewelry Corp., 41 USPQ2d 1152 (T.T.A.B. 1996) (Binding Precedent) |
 |  | Allowed | Visa Int’l Service Assoc. v. Life‑Code Systems, Inc., 220 USPQ 740 (TTAB 1983) |
 |  (changing GRAN VINO to VINO DE) | Allowed | In re Larios, 35 USPQ2d 1214 (TTAB 1995) |
 |  | Allowed | Richards-Wilcox Mfg. Co., 181 USPQ 735 (Comm’r Pats. 1974) (Approving deletion of “[p]icture of a 1905 garbed man walking across the corner of a rug in a comparatively barren room” and alteration to “block letters in a straight line”) (Citing Ex parte The Hanna Paint Mfg. Co., 103 USPQ 217 (Commr., 1954). |
 |  | Allowed | |
| FREEDOMSTONE | FREEDOM STONE | Allowed | In re Innovative Cos., LLC, 88 USPQ2d 1095 (TTAB 2008) |
 |  | Allowed | Paris Glove of Can., Ltd. v. SBC/Sporto Corp., 84 USPQ2d 1856 (TTAB 2007) |
| TURBO BLOWERS | TURBO (removing BLOWERS) | Allowed | In re CTB, Inc., App. No. 74136476 (Not Binding Precedent) |
 | Allowed | ||
 |  | Allowed | Jack Wolfskin Ausrustung Fur Draussen GmbH & Co. KGAA v. New Millennium Sports, S.L.U., 116 USPQ2d 1129 (Fed. Cir. 2015) |
| GOT STRAPS | GOT STRAPS?(adding question mark) | Denied | |
| LA PAULINA |  | Denied | |
 | TURBO(standard characters) | Denied | |
| DISKBOOK | CODA DISKBOOK | Denied | In re William Carroll, App. No. 74643905, T.T.A.B. June 8, 1999 (Not Binding Precedent) |
| KETTLE CLUB | THE RED KETTLE CLUB | Denied | In re Reese Brothers, Inc., App. No. 74668052 T.T.A.B. Mar. 8, 1999 |
 |  (adding MR. SEYMOUR to hat) | Denied | In re Vienna Sausage Mfg. Co., 16 USPQ2d 2044 (TTAB 1990) |
| Researching image but described as: Addition of crown design and banner design bearing the words “IN VINO VERITAS” is a material alteration of typewritten word mark “THE WINE SOCIETY OF AMERICA” | Denied | In re Wine Society of America Inc., 12 USPQ2d 1139(TTAB 1989) | |
| Researching image but described as: “addition of house mark, “PIERCE,” to product mark “Chik’n-Bake and design” | Denied | In re Pierce Foods Corp., 230 USPQ 307, 308-309(TTAB 1986) | |
 |  | Denied | In re Dillard Department Stores Inc., 33 USPQ2d 1052 (Comr.Pats. 1993) |
| FYER-WALL | Denied | In re Richards-Wilcox Mfg. Co., 181 USPQ 735(Comr.Pats. 1974) | |
 |  | Denied | In re Jen USA, Inc., App. No. 76652688, T.T.A.B. Oct. 7, 2008 (Non-Biding Precedent) |
| MT RAINIER(standard characters) | RAINIER(standard characters) | Denied | In re Thor Tech, App. No. 78717682, T.T.A.B. Aug. 12, 2010 (Non-Binding Precedent) |
| SILENT FIREMAN(standard characters) | YOUR SILENT FIREMAN(standard characters) | Denied | In re No-Burn Investments, L.L.C., App. No. 76629397, T.T.A.B. Nov.29, 2007 (Non-Binding Precedent) |
 (black and white) |  (color claimed and removal of “De Chene POLSKA”) | Denied | In re Debowa Polska De Chêne Polska, App. No. 76612005, T.T.A.B. Feb. 6, 2007 (Non-Binding Precedent) |
 |  (background border and moon removed) | Denied | In re Space Adventures, Ltd., App. No. 76391912, T.T.A.B. May 26, 2005 (Non-Binding Precedent) |
 |  (Removal of “Amera” and “Rizk”) | Denied | In re Amera Wildflower Rizk, App. No. 75537891, T.T.A.B. Mar. 25, 2004 (Non-Binding Precedent) |
 |  (adding elephant and tiger elements) | Denied |
