15 U.S.C. § 1066
Section 1066 · Interference; declaration by Director
This is § 16 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)
Amended 5 times on record
Applied in 11 court decisions — leading case San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. United States Olympic Committee (1987)
Most recently applied in Rosenruist-Gestao E Servicos LDA v. Virgin Enterprises Ltd. (December 2007)
How often courts cite this section
Court decisions citing this, by year.Markers show enactment, consequential amendments, and circuit splits over this section — watch for a citation surge after a change or a disagreement. The dip in the last several years is a data-coverage gap, not a real trend — our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so recent citations are undercounted.
Upon petition showing extraordinary circumstances, the Director may declare that an interference exists when application is made for the registration of a mark which so resembles a mark previously registered by another, or for the registration of which another has previously made application, as to be likely when used on or in connection with the goods or services of the applicant to cause confusion or mistake or to deceive. No interference shall be declared between an application and the registration of a mark the right to the use of which has become incontestable.
Editorial notes U.S. Code · Office of the Law Revision Counsel
Prior Provisions
Act Feb. 20, 1905, ch. 592, §7, 33 Stat. 726.
Amendments
1999—Pub. L. 106–113 substituted “Director” for “Commissioner”.
1988—Pub. L. 100–667 substituted “used on or in connection with the goods or services” for “applied to the goods or when used in connection with the services”.
1982—Pub. L. 97–247 substituted “Upon petition showing extraordinary circumstances, the Commissioner may declare that an interference exists when application is made for the registration of a mark which so resembles a mark previously registered by another, or for the registration of which another has previously made application, as to be likely when applied to the goods or when used in connection with the services of the applicant to cause confusion or mistake or to deceive” for “Whenever application is made for the registration of a mark which so resembles a mark previously registered by another, or for the registration of which another has previously made application, as to be likely when applied to the goods or when used in connection with the services of the applicant to cause confusion or mistake or to deceive, the Commissioner may declare that an interference exists”.
1962—Pub. L. 87–772 struck out “purchasers” after “or to deceive”.
Effective Date of 1999 Amendment
Amendment by Pub. L. 106–113 effective 4 months after Nov. 29, 1999, see section 1000(a)(9) [title IV, §4731] of Pub. L. 106–113, set out as a note under section 1 of Title 35, Patents.
Effective Date of 1988 Amendment
Amendment by Pub. L. 100–667 effective one year after Nov. 16, 1988, see section 136 of Pub. L. 100–667, set out as a note under section 1051 of this title.
Effective Date of 1982 Amendment
Amendment by Pub. L. 97–247 effective six months after Aug. 27, 1982, see section 17(c) of Pub. L. 97–247, set out as a note under section 294 of Title 35, Patents.
Repeal and Effect on Existing Rights
Repeal of inconsistent provisions, effect of this chapter on pending proceedings and existing registrations and rights under prior acts, see notes set out under section 1051 of this title.
Transfer of Functions
For transfer of functions of other officers, employees, and agencies of Department of Commerce, with certain exceptions, to Secretary of Commerce, with power to delegate, see Reorg. Plan No. 5 of 1950, §§1, 2, eff. May 24, 1950, 15 F.R. 3174, 64 Stat. 1263, set out in the Appendix to Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.
Cross References
Cancellation of registration, see section 1064 of this title.
Supplemental register, section inapplicable to trademarks on, see section 1094 of this title.