Procedure for Examining Applications - Corrections of USPTO Errors



As stated in section 503.06 Correction of Errors in Cover Sheet or Recorded Document of the Trademark Manual of Examination Procedure:

Typographical errors made by the USPTO will be corrected promptly and without charge upon written request directed to the Assignment Services Branch. For any other error, the party recording the document is responsible for filing the documents and paying the recordation fees necessary to correct the error, using the procedures set forth in TMEP §§503.06(a) through 503.06(d).

Click the topic headings to navigate through the cases and quotes concerning that topic.
Expand All | Contract All

  • The USPTO is able to correct its own error of incorrectly classifying the identification of goods and services.
    • In re Paper Doll Promotions, Inc., Serial No. 76451078, (TTAB 2007).
      • In this case, the examining attorney acknowledged that the Office incorrectly classified applicant's goods in a service class. Throughout prosecution, the examining attorney consistently indicated that Class 25 was the proper class for applicant's "costumes," irrespective of whether such an identification is definite enough. If the Office will correct an applicant's error when applicant incorrectly classifies goods in a service class, then surely the Office is able to correct its own such error. Moreover, in its request for reconsideration, applicant amended the classification of its goods to Class 25. While the examining attorney rejected the proposed amended identification, because of asserted indefiniteness of a portion thereof, there was no basis for the examining attorney to reject applicant's amendment of the classification.
  • A registration will be deemed to have been issued inadvertently if it issues despite a notice of opposition or a request for extension of time to oppose being timely and properly filed.
    • Schering-Plough Animal Health Corporation v. Aqua Gen AS, Opposition No. 91176641 (TTAB 2009).
      • A registration will be deemed to have been issued inadvertently if it issues despite a notice of opposition or a request for extension of time to oppose being timely and properly filed. See Quality S. Manufacturing Inc. v. Tork Lift Central Welding of Kent, Inc., 60 USPQ2d 1703 (Comm'r 2000).
  • A party is to inform the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board promptly of the inadvertent issuance of a registration.
    • Schering-Plough Animal Health Corporation v. Aqua Gen AS, Opposition No. 91176641 (TTAB 2009).
      • In such situations, the proper action by a party is to inform the Board promptly, by phone or in writing, of the inadvertent issuance of the registration so that the Board may request the appropriate action by the Director without requesting dismissal of the case.
Schering-Plough Animal Health Corporation v. Aqua Gen AS, Opposition No. 91176641 (TTAB 2009) Grand Total
Quality S. Manufacturing Inc. v. Tork Lift Central Welding of Kent, Inc., 60 USPQ2d 1703 (Comm'r 2000) 1
Grand Total 1 1
No Statutes Listed.