Holland American Wafer Co., In re

• Decision Date: 12 June 1984
• Docket Number: No. 84-660,84-660
• Citation: 222 USPQ 273,737 F.2d 1015
• Parties: IN re HOLLAND AMERICAN WAFER COMPANY. Appeal
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit

Page 1015

737 F.2d 1015

222 U.S.P.Q. 273

IN re HOLLAND AMERICAN WAFER COMPANY.

Appeal No. 84-660.

United States Court of Appeals Federal Circuit.

June 12, 1984.

John E. McGarry, Grand Rapids, Mich., for appellant.

Joseph F. Nakamura, Sol., and Jere W. Sears, Deputy Sol., Arlington, Va.; for appellee; Fred W. Sherling, Associate Sol., Arlington, Va., of counsel.

Before FRIEDMAN, BENNETT and NIES, Circuit Judges.

NIES, Circuit Judge.

The decision of the Assistant Commissioner for Trademarks rejecting an application for renewal of Registration No. 152,825 as untimely is affirmed.

Background

Holland American Wafer Company seeks to renew Registration No. 152,825, issued March 7, 1922, (renewed 1942 and 1962) for the following mark for bakery products--namely, wafers:

NOTE: OPINION CONTAINS TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE

On July 29, 1981, the president of Holland executed a document entitled "Application for Renewal and Amendment" containing an affidavit declaring the registered mark was still in use in interstate commerce on the goods as evidenced by its current label showing the following mark:

NOTE: OPINION CONTAINS TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE

Holland requested that the registration be amended to conform the drawing of the mark to its current usage. This dual purpose application was filed in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) on August 10, 1981, approximately a month before the period provided for renewal in Section 9 of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. Sec. 1059(a) ) ¹. The papers, though premature for renewal, were transmitted to the office which handles amendments, presumably because an amendment may be filed at any time. ²

By decisions on June 4, 1982, and August 3, 1982, the PTO rejected the amendment for the reason that the new form of the mark created a different commercial impression from that of the original mark and was, therefore, deemed to be a material alteration of the character of the mark. By a Petition to the Commissioner filed August 23, 1982, Holland sought review of this holding. The Assistant Commissioner for Trademarks, to whom the matter was delegated, held that the entire matter was mooted by the expiration of the registration in the interim due to the failure of Holland to file a timely renewal application. In connection with a request made November 24, 1982, for reconsideration, also denied, Holland submitted a substitute renewal application averring use during the renewal period of the new form of its mark and seeking to correct matters nunc pro tunc.

Our jurisdiction to review the Commissioner's decision with respect to a renewal application is specifically granted by 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1295(a)(4)(B) and 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1071(a)(1). ³

Discussion

To secure renewal of a trademark registration under Section 9(a), application must be "made" to the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) by the owner of the registration. The contents of a renewal application must include, inter alia, a statement of the goods and/or services for which the mark is being used, a statement that the mark is in use in interstate or other commerce under the control of Congress, a specimen label showing the mark as currently used, and an affidavit by the owner of the mark attesting to the above representations. A complete application must be submitted within a specific statutory time period. Timeliness set by statute is not a minor techinical defect which can be waived by the Commissioner. In re Precious Diamonds, Inc., 635 F.2d 845, 208 USPQ 410 (CCPA 1980).

While Holland admits that it filed no application within the statutory period, Holland asserts that its application was, nevertheless, timely because the application was made within the period. In Holland's view, a premature application validates itself by its pendency before the PTO during the statutory period. Thus, to Holland, "made" means merely "pending".

Contrary to Holland's position, the PTO interprets "made" in Section 9(a) to mean not only filing but also execution of the application within the time period. As specifically set forth in the regulations under "Requirements of Application for Renewal":

This statement [of continued use on particular goods, etc.] must be executed not more than six months before the expiration of the registration. (emphasis added) 37 C.F.R. Sec. 2.183(a).

This long standing regulation reflecting the statutory interpretation by the office is entitled to great weight. ⁴ In Re Marriott-Hot Shoppes, Inc., 411 F.2d 1025, 1028, 162 USPQ 106, 110 (CCPA 1969). See also, Melamine Chemicals, Inc. v. United States, 732 F.2d 924, 928 (Fed.Cir.1984). It is, in any event, in accord with our reading of the statute. Substantively, Section 9(a) is concerned with use during the renewal period. Thus, the oath and evidence of use (i.e., the current label) must pertain to the statutory renewal period. Appellant's "pendency" theory wholly fails to take into account the substance of the application and totally ignores the regulations. A premature application simply does not contain the necessary averments and evidence of use during the critical period.

Holland next seeks to validate its defective renewal application on a theory of estoppel. Holland asserts that it was misled by the PTO's failure to notify Holland of the refusal to renew in sufficient time to permit timely refiling. No statute or regulation imposes such an obligation on the office. ⁵ On the contrary, it is the obligation of the registrant to follow the regulations which in this instance are clear and unambiguous. Nevertheless, assuming the existence of such obligation on the PTO and its breach by the inordinate delay in raising the issue of timeliness, we conclude that no theory of estoppel is supportable in view of appellant's failure to show prejudice arising from the PTO's default. In particular, Holland does not claim to be using the mark in the form as registered. Moreover, Holland's current label accompanying the application shows a distinctly different mark which does not support renewal.

Holland's submission of a proposed amendment of its mark with its renewal application indicates it was proceeding under the misconception that, even though its current label would not support renewal, the problem could be solved by an amendment of the form in which the mark was registered to the new design. As stated in its petition to the Commissioner: "It appears that acceptance of the renewal application will hinge on the decision regarding amendment of the registration." This premise is basically flawed.

Amendment of a registration is allowed under the Lanham Act but not to extend the scope of protected rights or to change the nature of the mark. ⁶ No reexamination is made by the PTO to determine registrability over other marks. No opposition by third parties is sanctioned. Thus, to prevent prejudice to others, Section 7(d) provides, inter alia, that an amendment may not "alter materially the character of the mark."

Conversely, if the revised mark is not materially different from the mark as registered, there is no substantive reason to deny renewal without an amendment. Accordingly, it is the practice of the office to allow renewal on the basis of a label which...