Skip to content
call today
949.216.3070
  • Home
  • About
    • Brian P. Kinder
    • Michael S. Doll – Of Counsel
  • Protection
    • Trademark Protection
    • Trademark Infringement
    • Comprehensive Trademark Search
    • Trademark Application – Intent-to-Use Based
    • Response to Trademark Office Action
    • Oppositions / Cancellations
    • Irvine Trademark Lawyer
    • Riverside Trademark Lawyer
    • San Diego Trademark Lawyer
    • San Bernardino Trademark Lawyer
  • Litigation
    • Copyright Infringement
    • Domain Name Disputes
    • False Advertising
    • Franchise Disputes
    • Trade Secret Misappropriation
    • Trademark Cancellations
    • Trademark Infringement
    • Trademark Oppositions
  • Flat Fee Filings
    • Assignments
    • Cease and Desist Letter
    • Comprehensive Trademark Search
    • In-House Trademark Clearance Search
    • International Trademark Protection
    • Oppositions / Cancellations
    • Registration Renewal – Section 8&15
    • Registration Renewal – Section 8&9
    • Request for Extension of Time to File Statement of Use
    • Response to Trademark Office Action
    • Statement of Use
    • Trademark Application – Already in Use
    • Trademark Application – Intent-to-Use Based
    • U.S. Copyright Application
  • Attorney Referrals
  • Experience
    • Client Testimonials
    • Industry Groups
    • Case Victories
  • Careers
  • Contact Us
Menu
  • Home
  • About
    • Brian P. Kinder
    • Michael S. Doll – Of Counsel
  • Protection
    • Trademark Protection
    • Trademark Infringement
    • Comprehensive Trademark Search
    • Trademark Application – Intent-to-Use Based
    • Response to Trademark Office Action
    • Oppositions / Cancellations
    • Irvine Trademark Lawyer
    • Riverside Trademark Lawyer
    • San Diego Trademark Lawyer
    • San Bernardino Trademark Lawyer
  • Litigation
    • Copyright Infringement
    • Domain Name Disputes
    • False Advertising
    • Franchise Disputes
    • Trade Secret Misappropriation
    • Trademark Cancellations
    • Trademark Infringement
    • Trademark Oppositions
  • Flat Fee Filings
    • Assignments
    • Cease and Desist Letter
    • Comprehensive Trademark Search
    • In-House Trademark Clearance Search
    • International Trademark Protection
    • Oppositions / Cancellations
    • Registration Renewal – Section 8&15
    • Registration Renewal – Section 8&9
    • Request for Extension of Time to File Statement of Use
    • Response to Trademark Office Action
    • Statement of Use
    • Trademark Application – Already in Use
    • Trademark Application – Intent-to-Use Based
    • U.S. Copyright Application
  • Attorney Referrals
  • Experience
    • Client Testimonials
    • Industry Groups
    • Case Victories
  • Careers
  • Contact Us
call today
949.216.3070
  • About
    • Brian P. Kinder
    • Michael S. Doll – Of Counsel
    • Locations We Serve
  • Our Services

    Protection

    Main Menu
    • Trademark Protection
    • Copyright Protection
    • Patent Protection
    • Trade Secret Protection
    • Advertising and Internet Law
    • Domain Name Disputes
    • Franchise and Licensing
    • International Trademarks
    • Intellectual Property

    Litigation

    Main Menu
    • Trademark Infringement
    • Trademark Oppositions
    • Trademark Cancellations
    • Copyright Infringement
    • Trade Secret Misappropriation
    • False Advertising
    • Domain Name Disputes
    • Franchise Disputes

    Flat Fee Services

    Main Menu
    • Trademark Search
    • Trademark Application
    • Office Action Response
    • Statement of Use
    • Renewal of Registration
    • Assignment of Trademark
    • Cease and Desist Letter
    • Oppositions / Cancellations
    • U.S. Copyright Application
    • International Trademark Protection
  • Attorney Referrals
  • Experience
    • Testimonials
    • Industry Groups
    • Case Victories
  • Careers
  • Contact Us
  • Published on April 24, 2020
  • at 9:47 pm

When is an Alteration a “Material” Alteration

  • Brian Kinder Posted by Brian Kinder

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  
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Pinterest
PrevPreviousCan you convert an ‘actual use’ trademark application to an ‘intent to use’ trademark application?
NextBrian Kinder Continues to Be Ranked No. 1 Trademark Registration Lawyer And Trademark Infringement Lawyer in California!Next
Brian Kinder
Brian Kinder
Latest Legal Updates
  • Can Intellectual Property Be Stolen?

    Can Intellectual Property Be Stolen?

    January 19, 2023
  • How Important Is Intellectual Property?

    How Important Is Intellectual Property?

    November 25, 2021
  • What Are The 6 Types Of Intellectual Property?

    What Are The 6 Types Of Intellectual Property?

    October 26, 2021
  • Top 20% Of Most Active Trademark Litigation Firms in the United States!

    Top 20% Of Most Active Trademark Litigation Firms in the United States!

    January 22, 2021
  • Q & A: Can a name and a logo be filed under one trademark application?

    Q & A: Can a name and a logo be filed under one trademark application?

    August 21, 2020
  • Brian Kinder Continues to Be Ranked No. 1 Trademark Registration Lawyer And Trademark Infringement Lawyer in California!

    Brian Kinder Continues to Be Ranked No. 1 Trademark Registration Lawyer And Trademark Infringement Lawyer in California!

    June 23, 2020
  • When is an Alteration a “Material” Alteration

    When is an Alteration a “Material” Alteration

    April 24, 2020
  • Can you convert an ‘actual use’ trademark application to an ‘intent to use’ trademark application?

    Can you convert an ‘actual use’ trademark application to an ‘intent to use’ trademark application?

    January 2, 2020
  • Brian Kinder Ranked No. 1 Trademark Registration Lawyer And Trademark Infringement Lawyer in California!

    Brian Kinder Ranked No. 1 Trademark Registration Lawyer And Trademark Infringement Lawyer in California!

    May 5, 2014
  • The Kinder Law Group gets trademark infringement client $22k…..for being sued!

    The Kinder Law Group gets trademark infringement client $22k…..for being sued!

    March 4, 2014
view all

Related Post

See all blog posts

How Important Is Intellectual Property?

November 25, 2021 No Comments

The digital landscape has transformed the way we interact with other people’s intellectual property.

Read More

What Are The 6 Types Of Intellectual Property?

October 26, 2021 No Comments

Whether you are starting a business, developing a new product, creating art, or writing

Read More

Top 20% Of Most Active Trademark Litigation Firms in the United States!

January 22, 2021 No Comments

You are trying to find a law firm that handles trademark infringement and other

Read More

Q & A: Can a name and a logo be filed under one trademark application?

August 21, 2020 No Comments

No, separate applications are required. One application would be directed to the words and

Read More

We are ready to help. Call Now.

949.216.3070
CONTACT US
navigation
  • Home
  • About
  • Protection
  • Litigation
  • Flat Fee Filings
  • Attorney Referrals
  • Experience
  • Testimonials
  • Our Work
  • Our Cases
  • Careers
  • Contact
contact us
  • The Kinder Law Group
  • 19200 Von Karman, 4th Fl. Irvine, California 92612
  • Tel. : 949.216.3070
  • Fax : 949.216.3074
  • Email : firm@tklglaw.com

Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Sitemap

Digital Marketing By:

© 2022 The Kinder Law Group. All Rights Reserved.