PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 111-146.
Congressional Research Service
Version 49 · Public Law · Mar 17, 2010
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Trademark Technical and Conforming Amendment Act of 2010 - Amends the Act commonly known as the Lanham Act to replace references to "registrant" with references to "owner" in provisions: (1) making a certificate of registration prima facie evidence of the validity, registration, ownership, and exclusive rights to use a mark; and (2) relating to a registrant's surrender, cancellation, or amendment of registration. Requires, in the event of a surrender, cancellation, or amendment, that an appropriate entry be made on the records of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and on the certificate of registration. (Current law allows, when the certificate is lost or destroyed, such an entry to be made on a certified copy of the certificate.)
Requires, when the USPTO makes a material mistake in a registration, that a certificate stating the fact and nature of the mistake be attached to each printed copy of the registration. (Current law requires that the certificate stating the mistake be attached to each printed copy of the registration certificate.)
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Replaces references to "registrant" with references to "owner" in provisions relating to the incontestability of the right to use a mark under certain conditions.
Allows the holder of an international registration to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit if the holder is dissatisfied with the decision of the Director or Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.
Modifies requirements regarding the duration of registrations and related affidavits and fees.
Requires a study and report to Congress on: (1) the extent to which small businesses may be harmed by litigation tactics by corporations attempting to enforce trademark rights beyond a reasonable interpretation of the scope of the rights granted to the trademark owner; and (2) the best use of federal government services to protect trademarks and prevent counterfeiting.
People & committees
Sen. Leahy, Patrick J. [D-VT] · D–VT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 111-146.
Became Public Law No: 111-146.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Cleared for White House.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H1079-1080)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H1079-1080)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on S. 2968.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H1079-1081)
Mr. Johnson (GA) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Received in the House.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Introduced in the Senate, read twice, considered, read the third time, and passed without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S349-351; text as passed Senate: CR S350-351)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Introduced in the Senate, read twice, considered, read the third time, and passed without amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S349-351; text as passed Senate: CR S350-351)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Dec 5, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.2968 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.2968 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.2968 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.2968 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.