702.03(a) Companion Applications
The term "companion applications" refers to pending applications filed by the same applicant. An application is pending until it registers or abandons. Pending applications include applications that have been approved for publication or for registration on the Supplemental Register, applications in the Intent-to-Use ("ITU")/Divisional Unit, and revived or reinstated applications.
702.03(a)(i) Companion Applications Not Previously Assigned for the Same or Similar Marks
If an applicant has multiple pending applications, the issues in the applications are likely to be similar. When assigned a new application, an examining attorney will be assigned the companion applications filed within three months of the filing date of the first assigned application. If an applicant files more than ten applications within a three‑month period, only the first ten will be assigned to one examining attorney. Examining attorneys are encouraged to assign all unassigned companion applications for the same or similar marks to themselves, even if the applications were filed outside the three-month period.
The assignment of companion applications is done electronically, based upon the owner’s name as set forth in the application. Therefore, the owner’s name should be set forth consistently in all applications.
See TMEP §702.03(a)(iv) regarding classification and identification in companion applications that have been published for opposition.
702.03(a)(ii) Companion Applications Previously Assigned
If the Trademark database indicates that a companion application has been assigned to a different examining attorney, the examining attorney should not transfer his or her application to the other examining attorney. However, the examining attorney must review the electronic record of the earlier companion application before taking action in a later companion case, and should act consistently, unless it would be clear error ( see TMEP §706.01) to do so. If the examining attorney believes that acting consistently with the prior action(s) would be erroneous, he or she should bring the issue to the attention of the managing attorney or senior attorney.
See TMEP §702.03(a)(iv) regarding classification and identification in companion applications that have been published for opposition.
702.03(a)(iii) Companion Registrations
If the applicant previously filed a companion application that has matured into a registration, the examining attorney should not transfer his or her application to the prior examining attorney. Generally, in the later application, the examining attorney should act consistently with the registration, unless it would be clear error ( see TMEP §706.01) to act consistently. However, the USPTO is not bound by the decisions of the examining attorneys who examined the applications for the applicant’s previously registered marks, based on different records. Eligibility for registration must be determined on the basis of the facts that exist at the time registration is sought. See TMEP §1216.01 and cases cited therein.
See TMEP §702.03(a)(iv) regarding classification and identification in companion registrations.
702.03(a)(iv) Classification and Identification in Companion Applications that Have Registered or Been Published for Opposition
If a companion application has been published for opposition or has registered, the examining attorney may presume that the classification and identification of goods or services in the companion application or registration are acceptable, unless the identification or classification is clearly wrong. If the examining attorney accepts the classification and identification of goods or services because they were accepted in a companion application or registration, the examining attorney must note the companion application serial number or registration number in a Note to the File.
Sometimes, the classification and identification of goods and/or services in the prior companion application or registration is clearly wrong. For example, identifications and class assignments that were acceptable in the past may no longer be in accord with the current Nice Agreement classification system ( see TMEP §§1401.02–1401.02(c) ) or with USPTO policy on acceptable identifications, which change periodically. In these cases, the examining attorney cannot adopt the classification and identification listed in the companion application or registration. See TMEP §§1402.14, 1904.02(c)(v).