Also known as: tacking doctrine · tacking
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
2 senses
A rule permitting successive periods of adverse possession or prescriptive use to be combined when privity exists between the users. The combination satisfies the statutory period for acquiring title or an easement. Privity arises from a transfer of interest or continued operation under the same claim of right.
A rule permitting successive periods of adverse possession or prescriptive use to be combined when privity exists between the users. The combination satisfies the statutory period for acquiring title or an easement. Privity arises from a transfer of interest or continued operation under the same claim of right.
Diana Delgado's predecessors began planting crops and maintaining a shed on a disputed strip of Beth's orchard land in the 1960s under a mistaken boundary stake. Diana continued the identical farming activities after acquiring the farm through inheritance. The combined periods of open and continuous use exceeded the statutory requirement before Beth objected following a new survey.
A doctrine allowing a trademark user to retain the priority date of an earlier similar mark after making limited modifications. The later mark must create the same commercial impression as the original. Retention of priority applies only when the changes are not material.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A doctrine allowing a trademark user to retain the priority date of an earlier similar mark after making limited modifications. The later mark must create the same commercial impression as the original. Retention of priority applies only when the changes are not material.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
Privity exists when a later user succeeds to the interest of the prior user through a transfer of the business or property claim. The later user must continue the identical use without interruption. A stock acquisition that transfers all business assets and operations satisfies this requirement.
Supporting sources
Yes. Successive possessors may tack periods when each acted under a good-faith belief that the land was their own due to the mistaken boundary. The use must remain open, notorious, and continuous. The combined periods then satisfy the statutory requirement.
No. Filing suit without pursuing it to judgment does not break the required continuity. A temporary agreement that expires without renewal also fails to reset the period when use resumes identically. The essential attitude of adverse use must remain unbroken.
Supporting sources
Hana Bank used an initial logo for financial services starting in 1994. It later adopted a simplified version of the same logo while serving the same customers. The jury found the marks created the same commercial impression, allowing Hana Bank to claim the 1994 priority date against Hana Financial's later mark.
Tacking applies only when the modified mark creates the same commercial impression as the original. Material changes that alter the mark's identity prevent retention of the earlier priority date. The inquiry focuses on consumer perception of the marks as a whole.
Supporting sources
…926 F.2d 1156, 1159 (Fed.Cir.1991)); accord Van Dyne-Crotty , 926 F.2d at 1159. This constructive use theory is known as "tacking," as the trademark holder essentially seeks to "tack" his first use date in the earlier mark onto the subsequent mark. See generally 2 J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks & Unfair…