# TMEP § 1708: Waiver of Rules

> Federal · Agency guidance · In force

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/TMEP_S1708

## Section

- **Citation:** TMEP § 1708
- **Heading:** Waiver of Rules
- **Jurisdiction:** Federal
- **Kind:** Agency guidance
- **Status:** In force
- **Text as of:** August 14, 2026
- **Source:** Compiled text
- **Location:** USPTO TMEP / Chapter 1700 - Petitions, Requests for Reinstatement, and Other Matters Submitted to Director / TMEP § 1708

## Text

Under
37 C.F.R.
§2.146(a)(5)
and
§2.148
,
the Director may waive any provision of the rules that is not a provision of the statute,
when:  (1) an extraordinary situation exists; (2) justice requires; and (3) no other party is
injured.
All three of the above conditions must be satisfied before a
waiver will be granted, and the burden is on the petitioner to show that the situation is
extraordinary.  Disasters like fires, hurricanes, and snowstorms are considered to be
extraordinary situations.
On the other hand, oversights and inadvertent errors that could
have been avoided with the exercise of reasonable care are not considered to be extraordinary
situations.
In re Universal Card Grp., Inc.
, 25 USPQ2d 1157, 1158 (Comm’r
Pats. 1992) (finding that a docketing error not extraordinary situation);
In re Merck
& Co.
, 24 USPQ2d 1317, 1318 (Comm’r Pats. 1992) (holding that inadvertent
misidentification of serial number in request for extension of time to oppose not
extraordinary situation);
In re Tetrafluor Inc.
, 17 USPQ2d 1160, 1162
(Comm’r Pats. 1990) (finding that a typographical error not extraordinary situation).
A change of attorneys is not considered to be an extraordinary
situation,
In re Unistar Radio Networks, Inc.
, 30 USPQ2d 1390, 1392 (Comm’r
Pats. 1993), nor is a misunderstanding or lack of awareness of the requirements of the
Trademark Rules of Practice considered extraordinary.
In re Buckhead Mktg. &
Distribution, Inc.
, 71 USPQ2d 1620, 1622–23 (Dir USPTO 2004) (holding that an
applicant’s lack of knowledge of application filing fee increase not extraordinary situation);
B & E Sales Co. v. Andrew Jergens Co.
, 7 USPQ2d 1906, 1907–08 (Comm’r
Pats. 1988);
Gustafson v. Strange
, 227 USPQ 174 (Comm’r Pats. 1985).
Errors by attorneys are imputed to the client and the client is bound by the consequences.
In re Sotheby’s Inc.
, 18 USPQ2d 1969, 1970 (Comm’r Pats. 1989).
A party will not be excused from compliance with the rules
because the results in a particular case may be harsh
s Co. v. Andrew Jergens Co.
, 7 USPQ2d 1906, 1907–08 (Comm’r
Pats. 1988);
Gustafson v. Strange
, 227 USPQ 174 (Comm’r Pats. 1985).
Errors by attorneys are imputed to the client and the client is bound by the consequences.
In re Sotheby’s Inc.
, 18 USPQ2d 1969, 1970 (Comm’r Pats. 1989).
A party will not be excused from compliance with the rules
because the results in a particular case may be harsh.
See Buckhead
, 71
USPQ2d at 1623 (rejecting petitioner’s argument that “justice requires” waiver of the filing
date requirements of
37 C.F.R. §2.21
to prevent the loss of priority relative
to a conflicting application).
The Director has no authority to waive or suspend the
requirement of a rule that is also a requirement of the statute, such as the deadline for
filing an affidavit or declaration under §8 or §71 (
15 U.S.C.
§§1058
,
1141k
), or a renewal application under §9 (15 U.S.C.
§1059).
See Checkers Drive-In Rest., Inc. v. Comm’r of Patents &
Trademarks,
51 F.3d 1078, 1085, 34 USPQ2d 1574, 1581 (D.C. Cir. 1995),
cert. denied
, 516 U.S. 866 (1995) ("[I]n establishing cancellation as the
penalty for failure to file the required affidavit, Congress made no exception for the
innocent or the negligent. Thus, the Commissioner had no discretion to do other than cancel
Checkers's service mark registration in this case.”);
In re Holland Am. Wafer
Co.
, 737 F.2d 1015, 1018, 222 USPQ 273, 275 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (“Timeliness set by
statute is not a minor technical defect which can be waived by the Commissioner.”). Therefore,
a petition that requests a waiver of a statutory requirement will be denied, as the Director
lacks authority to grant such a petition.
See
,
e.g.
,
In re Precious Diamonds, Inc.
, 635 F.2d 845, 847 (C.C.P.A. 1980).

## Nearby sections

- [TMEP § 1701 Statutory Authority of Director](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/TMEP_S1701.md)
- [TMEP § 1702 Petitions to the Director Under 37 C.F.R. §2.146 - In General](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/TMEP_S1702.md)
- [TMEP § 1703 Specific Types of Petitions](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/TMEP_S1703.md)
- [TMEP § 1704 Petitionable Subject Matter](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/TMEP_S1704.md)
- [TMEP § 1705 Petition Procedure](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/TMEP_S1705.md)
- [TMEP § 1705.01 Standing](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/TMEP_S1705.01.md)
- [TMEP § 1705.02 Petition Fee](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/TMEP_S1705.02.md)
- [TMEP § 1705.03 Evidence and Proof of Facts](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/TMEP_S1705.03.md)
- [TMEP § 1705.04 Timeliness](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/TMEP_S1705.04.md)
- [TMEP § 1705.05 Due Diligence](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/TMEP_S1705.05.md)
- [TMEP § 1705.06 Stay or Suspension of Pending Matters](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/TMEP_S1705.06.md)
- [TMEP § 1705.07(a) Requirement for Representation of Non-U.S.-domiciled Petitioner](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/TMEP_S1705.07(a).md)
- [TMEP § 1705.07(b) Signature of Petition](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/TMEP_S1705.07(b).md)
- [TMEP § 1705.08 Request for Reconsideration of Denial of Petition](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/TMEP_S1705.08.md)

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/TMEP_S1708. Check the current official text before relying on it. Not legal advice.