309.03(a)(1)    Scope of Opposition and Petition to Cancel

In an opposition, the registration sought by an applicant may be opposed in whole, or in part. Similarly, a petitioner may seek to cancel a registration in whole, or in part. [ Note 1.] See TBMP § 309.03(d). However, geographic limitations will be considered and determined by the Board only within the context of a concurrent use registration proceeding. [ Note 2.] See TBMP Chapter 1100.

An opposition against a Trademark Act § 66(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1141f(a), application must be filed through ESTTA. Because ESTTA requires the opposer of a § 66(a) application to provide information essential to the opposition in order to allow the USPTO to meet promptly its notification obligation to the World Intellectual Property Organization ("WIPO"), the scope of the goods and services being opposed are limited to those identified in the ESTTA-generated cover sheet. [ Note 3.] For the same reason, and because only the information on the ESTTA-generated cover sheet is forwarded to WIPO automatically without review, the grounds for a notice of opposition are limited to those selected and reflected on the ESTTA-generated cover sheet regardless of what any accompanying notice of opposition asserts. [ Note 4.]

The Board is an administrative tribunal that is empowered to determine only the right to register; it may not determine the right to use, or broader questions of infringement or unfair competition. See TBMP § 102.01.

NOTES:

 1.   See Trademark Act § 18, 15 U.S.C. § 1068.

 2.   See 37 C.F.R. § 2.99(h)  and 37 C.F.R. § 2.133(c).

 3.   37 C.F.R. § 2.104(c). See Hunt Control Systems Inc. v. Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V., 98 USPQ2d 1558, 1561-62 (TTAB 2011) ("… with respect to Section 66(a) applications, all oppositions must be confined to the opposed goods identified … on the ESTTA-generated opposition forms."); MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES OF PRACTICE, 81 Fed. Reg. 69950, 69957 (October 7, 2016).

 4.   37 C.F.R. § 2.104(c); CSC Holdings LLC v. SAS Optimhome, 99 USPQ2d 1959, 1962-63 (TTAB 2011). See also Prosper Business Development Corp. v. International Business Machines Corp., 113 USPQ2d 1148, 1152 (TTAB 2014) (ESTTA form controls scope of permissible amendments to claims against § 66(a) application, because opposer did not limit grounds to any particular class on ESTTA form, opposer may seek leave to amend the attached pleading to assert those grounds against all three classes even though original attached pleading did not); MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES OF PRACTICE, 81 Fed. Reg. 69950, 69957 (October 7, 2016).