直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

INCONTESTABLE® Blog

Court Cites § 2(b) of Lanham Act in Cancelling Re/Max’s Mark, Tri-Colored Design Embodied Netherlands’ Flag

January 13, 2015

Authored and Edited by Eleanor B. Atkins

Citing Section 2(b) of the Lanham Act, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina recently cancelled one of real estate brokerage firm Re/Max’s trademarks, finding it to be nearly identical to the Netherlands’ flag. This seldom-cited section of the Lanham Act prevents federal registration of a mark that “[c]onsists of or comprises the flag or coat of arms or other insignia of the United States or of any State or municipality of any foreign nation or any simulation thereof.”

The suit began when Re/Max sued M.L. Jones & Associates d/b/a FavoriteAgent.com for trademark infringement. In response, FavoriteAgent.com filed multiple counterclaims, including cancellation of two of Re/Max’s marks for improper registration under Section 2(b). The two registrations are shown below:


’048 Registration

Netherlands Flag

’854 Registration

The court rejected the defendant’s argument as to the ‘854 registration, finding it bore no resemblance to the Netherlands flag “other than its use of three horizontal bands.” The ‘048 registration, however, not only resembled the Netherlands flag, it included the flag in its entirety. Although Re/Max submitted survey evidence to try and establish that no consumer association existed between the ‘048 trademark and the Netherlands’ flag, the court found it irrelevant to the consideration of federal registration since Section 2(b) is “a clear statutory bar.”

Tags

Section 2(b)

Copyright © 2015 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. 


DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.

Related Insights

Lecture

IPIC/McGill Summer IP Course 2026: Understanding Trademarks

July 14, 2026

Montreal

Conference

7th International Conference on Biofuels and Bioenergy

June 25-26, 2026

Edinburgh

Charitable

Bridges From School to Work Gala 2026

June 22, 2026

Washington, DC

Charitable

Banding Together 2026

June 18, 2026

Washington, DC

Lecture

Munich Licensing Summer Course 2026

June 18-19, 2026

Munich

Conference

IPBC Global 2026

June 15-17, 2026

San Diego

Conference

2026 Copyright Society Annual Meeting

June 14-16, 2026

Louisville

Conference

17th Summit on Biosimilars & Innovator Biologics

June 2-3, 2026

New York

At the PTAB Blog

Consistency Is Key – USPTO Issues Three New Informative Decisions

May 29, 2026

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP