Insights
Publications

Trademark Office Deadlines and Coronavirus-Related Delays (Updated)

May 14, 2020 Blog

With all of the business interruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, many worldwide trademark offices have taken steps to recognize the issues caused by the crisis. The offices in which applicants from the U.S. most commonly file – the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), and the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) – have provided some relief.

Under United States law, the USPTO does not have the congressional authority necessary to waive any dates or any requirements set by statute. As an initial step, the USPTO began waiving fees (which are set by regulation, not statute) to revive abandoned applications or reinstate cancelled or expired registrations, if the revival potion (a) is filed within two months after the date of the notice of abandonment (or cancellation due to failure to file a declaration of use or a renewal) and (b) is accompanied by an explanation of how the failure to respond was caused by the current COVID-19 outbreak. While other excusable delays could enable revival of the given file, revivals on this basis will save the applicant/registrant the revival fees ($100 or $200 per filing depending on filing method). The details are set forth in this document provided on the USPTO website

On Friday, March 27, 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) was signed into law (the full 880-page text of the CARES Act passed by the Senate is available here). Under the act, Congress granted to the USPTO Director the power to extend deadlines. This power will last for sixty days beyond the end of the period of the President's Declaration of a National Emergency, which period began on March 13, 2020 and has a yet-undetermined end date. PTO Director Andrei Iancu issued guidelines on March 31, 2020 providing, among other things, for 30-day extensions of deadlines for office action responses, statements of use, and notices of opposition that would have been due between March 27 and May 31 if accompanied by a statement that the delay in filing or payment was due to the COVID-19 outbreak. We will continue to monitor whether existing deadlines are extended any further.

The USPTO has also issued a set of FAQs explaining some of the potential ambiguities in the order. For example, the Office has provided that the accompanying explanation will satisfy the “material interference" standard required for relief if the COVID-19 outbreak caused the delay in timely filing or payment through (by way of non-limiting example) "office closures, cash flow interruptions, lack of access to files or other materials, travel delays, personal or family illness, or similar circumstances.” Additionally, it makes clear that the statement as to the basis for the relief need not be verified or accompanied by an affidavit or declaration, though it cautions that such statements due amount to a certification under the controlling trademark practice regulations, and false statements would subject the filer to sanctions.

For EU filings, without limitations on its power to change statutory deadlines, the EUIPO has effectively extended all deadlines – whether statutory or set by the Office – until May 18, 2020. The EUIPO had originally extended all deadlines to May 1, but issued an order of a further deadline extension on April 29. Now, all EUIPO deadlines that would otherwise have expired by May 17, 2020 have been extended to Monday, May 18, 2020.

At CIPO, the Registrar has “designated” the days falling between March 16 and 31, 2020, which means all deadlines falling in that period are automatically extended to April 1, 2020. The Office further provided it considers the situation a sufficient circumstance to obtain certain other extensions upon request.

Other trademark offices around the world are taking similar steps to remediate the effects of the global crisis on trademark filings, and you should check the pronouncements of each office where you have affected filings.

Firm Highlights

Publication

How Antitrust and Unfair Competition Laws Affect Platform Providers’ Relationships With ISVs, API Developers, and Scrapers

A wide variety of business and consumer platforms host mutually beneficial ecosystems. But these ecosystems are also fraught with antitrust risk that arises when platforms try to terminate or modify the terms of third-party...

Read More
Publication

A Roadmap to Litigating Privacy Claims? A Look at a Recent Order From the Google Assistant Privacy Litigation

As privacy-related litigation continues to heat up, Judge Beth Freeman (ND Cal.) recently laid out in In re Google Assistant Privacy Litigation (Case No. 19-cv-04286) [1] a potential roadmap for surviving or winning a...

Read More
Publication

Three Steps Licensees Can Take to Protect Their IP Rights in Bankruptcy

During periods of widespread economic disruption such as the present, operating businesses must be able to identify and respond to threats to the financial health of their contracting counterparts in order to protect key...

Read More
News

Prop. 24 Passes: What Companies Need To Know About the New Privacy Law

Nate Garhart spoke to the San Francisco Business Times on the steps companies can take to prepare for the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA). He noted that if the CPRA applies to your business, then...

Read More
Publication

Zoom Successfully Addresses New York’s Privacy and Security Concerns

A few weeks ago on this blog, we addressed some of the legal issues that have arisen for Zoom , as it becomes a significant part of American daily life during the COVID-19 pandemic. ...

Read More
Publication

Electric Fence: Protecting Proprietary Rights in Collected Energy Data

Like companies in other industries, a growing number of modern energy-related companies are focusing their efforts on data collection and analysis. For example, Enphase – an energy technology company – regularly tracks data about how...

Read More
Publication

Reopening Businesses Must Consider Employee and Consumer Privacy

While we’re far from returning to the “normal” that predated the COVID-19 pandemic, states have begun to relax lockdown requirements and some previously “nonessential” businesses are returning to operations. Along with these openings, governmental...

Read More
Publication

Twists in the Plot: California AG Releases Final CCPA Regulations

With a little time to consider the  finalized California Consumer Privacy Act regulations  released by the California Attorney General on August 14, 2020, it is clear that some last-minute negotiations (or perhaps just some...

Read More
Publication

Privacy During Bankruptcy Proceedings: Why It Matters

During these particularly trying times resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, businesses of all sizes have been concerned about the future. As a result, considering potential liquidation or restructuring through bankruptcy is inevitably starting to...

Read More
Publication

Proposition 24: California’s Ever-Evolving Privacy Landscape

Next Tuesday is election day, and this year, California voters are deciding whether to support another statewide privacy initiative – the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA) (Proposition 24).  This measure would expand on the...

Read More