110.09(b) ESTTA is Mandatory for Some Filings
Use of ESTTA is optional for most papers, but is mandatory for the filing of either (1) extensions of time to oppose Madrid Protocol applications, i.e., applications under Trademark Act § 66(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1141f, or (2) notices of opposition against Madrid Protocol applications. [ Note 1.] The requirement for use of ESTTA for such filings enables the USPTO to fulfill its obligation to timely notify the International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organization of oppositions against requests for extension of protection under the Madrid Protocol. A request for an extension of time to oppose a Madrid Protocol application which is not filed through ESTTA will be denied. [ Note 2.] Similarly, a notice of opposition not filed through ESTTA against such an application will not be instituted. [ Note 3.] Once a notice of opposition is filed, subsequent submissions may be filed either on paper, or through ESTTA, although use of ESTTA is strongly encouraged for all filings.
For a further discussion of filing notices of opposition against Madrid Protocol applications via ESTTA, see TBMP § 306.01.
NOTES:
1. See 37 CFR § 2.102(a)(2) (extensions of time to oppose Trademark Act § 66(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1141f (a) applications must be filed through ESTTA); 37 CFR § 2.101(b)(2) (notice of opposition against § 66(a) application must be filed through ESTTA). See, e.g., CSC Holdings LLC v. SAS Optimhome, 99 USPQ2d 1959, 1960 (TTAB 2011); Hunt Control Systems Inc. v. Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V., 98 USPQ2d 1558, 1561 (TTAB 2011); O.C. Seacrets Inc. v. Hotelplan Italia S.p.A., 95 USPQ2d 1327, 1328 n.2 (TTAB 2010) (opposition to § 66(a) application must be filed via ESTTA).
2. In re Börlind Gesellschaft für kosmetische Erzeugnisse mbH, 73 USPQ2d 2019, 2020-21 (TTAB 2005).
3. See In re Börlind Gesellschaft für kosmetische Erzeugnisse mbH, 73 USPQ2d 2019, 2020-21 (TTAB 2005).