Plan reduces the likelihood of future suits by creating clarity and accuracy within the trademark register
Anna B. Folgers (IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law) “The Seventh Cir enth Circuit’s Approach to Deterring the To Deterring the Trademark Troll: Say Goodbye to Your Register our Registration and P ation and Pay the Costs of Litigation” September 01, 2007 3 Seventh Circuit Rev. 452 https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1173&context=seventhcircuitreview
The court first noted that a positive effect of the invocation of the power to cancel serves to “put the public on notice of its trademark related judgments.”179 Once there has been a final judgment either ordering or affirming an order to cancel and the proper procedures are followed, that mark is still present on the register, but its status is “cancelled.” Hence, when the court orders cancellation of a mark that has been abandoned due to non-use or has been invalided on the basis of priority, the court fulfills the goal of “rectifying the register” as set forth in Section 1119. This rectification is similar to hitting the refresh button on an internet webpage: once pressed the old data is discarded and only new data remains. Thus, the invocation of Section 1119 cancellation serves an important gap-filling function: the USPTO has neither the resources nor the ability to police every mark on the register to assure that they are being used in commerce. The liberal use of Section 1119 serves as a judicial cleansing mechanism to produce a more updated and coherent register of marks that are actually used, thereby producing a more accurate picture for those searching for conflicts in their quest to adopt their own mark. Thus, judicial refreshment via Section 1119 puts the public on notice of trademark related judgments. The court also posited that this refreshment mechanism also “reduces the potential for future uncertainly over the rights in a particular mark.”180 Cancellation results in the release of marks back into the marketplace for others to adopt and invest in. This also encourages healthy competition. Where the public is on notice of what marks or terms are monopolized for the purposes of adoption for specific goods or services, that public is on notice of what marks it can or cannot appropriate in the course of their own trademark development and adoption. The more often the register is refreshed, the more accurate picture trademark-seekers may have to assess trademark conflicts. Thus, new producers and hopeful mark owners may adopt words with ease and with confidence