Trade.mark.legal


Not Just Patents®

Aim Higher® Facts Matter

Not Just Patents® LLC

PO Box 18716

Minneapolis, MN 55418

1-651-500-7590

WP@NJP.legal



Grounds for Trademark Opposition

Likelihood of confusion is the most common ground for a trademark opposition but it is not by far the only reason. Out of the following 20+ different grounds for oppositions or cancellations, likelihood of confusion under Trademark Act § 2(d), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d) is only the first ground.


Examples of Grounds for [Refusal,] Opposition and Cancellation of a Trademark

(Extracted from Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Manual of Procedure (TBMP) 309.03(c) Grounds) July 2017


TBMP 309.03(c)    Grounds [For An Opposition or a Cancellation]

(1) Trademark Act § 2(d), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d): That defendant’s mark so resembles a mark registered in the Office, or a mark or trade name previously used in the United States by another and not abandoned, as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods or services of the defendant, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive.

 6.   See, e.g., Palm Bay Imports Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Shen Manufacturing Co. v. Ritz Hotel Ltd., 393 F.3d 1238, 73 USPQ2d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Majestic Distilling Co., 315 F.3d 1311, 65 USPQ2d 1201, 1203 (Fed. Cir. 2003); In re Dixie Restaurants Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Opryland USA Inc. v. The Great American Music Show Inc., 970 F.2d 847, 23 USPQ2d 1471, 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Time Warner Entertainment Co. v. Jones, 65 USPQ2d 1650 (TTAB 2002).


See also First Niagara Insurance Brokers Inc. v. First Niagara Financial Group Inc., 476 F.3d 867, 81 USPQ2d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (claim of prior intrastate use); Primrose Ret. Cmtys., LLC v. Edward Rose Senior Living, LLC, 122 USPQ2d 1030, 1040 (TTAB 2016) (dismissing opposition; third party evidence demonstrates weakness of mark); Wise F&I, LLC; et al. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 120 USPQ2d 1103, 1109 (TTAB 2016) (family of marks may have different owners if there is unity of control); Brown Shoe Co. v. Robbins, 90 USPQ2d 1752, 1756 (TTAB 2009) (doctrine of foreign equivalents inapplicable but likelihood of confusion found); Giersch v. Scripps Networks Inc., 90 USPQ2d 1020, 1023 (TTAB 2009) (earliest date respondent may rely upon is the filing date of its underlying application in absence of evidence of earlier use; petitioner must show earlier common law use in absence of registration); Boston Red Sox Baseball Club LP v. Sherman, 88 USPQ2d 1581, 1593 (TTAB 2008) (dissimilarity of marks controlling issue in likelihood of confusion analysis); Apple Computer v. TVNET.net Inc., 90 USPQ2d 1393 (TTAB 2007); Life Zone Inc. v. Middleman Group Inc., 87 USPQ2d 1953, 1959 (TTAB 2008) (although opposer failed to make its registrations of record, its burden is to demonstrate that it owns a trademark, which was used prior to applicant’s mark, and not abandoned); Black & Decker Corp. v. Emerson Electric Co., 84 USPQ2d 1482, 1490 (TTAB 2007) (family of marks); Jansen Enterprises Inc. v. Rind, 85 USPQ2d 1104, 1107 (TTAB 2007) (determination of likelihood of confusion based on an analysis of all facts in evidence); Christian Broadcasting Network Inc. v. ABS-CBN International, 84 USPQ2d 1560, 1565 (TTAB 2007) (several factors considered); Fort James Operating Co. v. Royal Paper Converting Inc., 83 USPQ2d 1624 (TTAB 2007)(design marks compared); Miss Universe L.P., v. Community Marketing, Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1562, 1566 (TTAB 2007) ("Our likelihood of confusion determination under Section 2(d) is based on an analysis of all of the facts in evidence that are relevant to the factors bearing on the likelihood of confusion issue (the du Pont factors)"); and Kohler Co. v. Baldwin Hardware Corp., 82 USPQ2d 1100, 1113 (TTAB 2007) (doubt resolved in favor of prior user).



(2) Trademark Act § 2(e), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e): For example, that defendant’s mark, when used on or in connection with the goods or services of the defendant, is merely descriptive or deceptively misdescriptive of them,  

 7.   See Trademark Act § 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. § 1052 (e)(1). See also, e.g., The Hoover Co. v. Royal Appliance Manufacturing Co., 238 F.3d 1357, 57 USPQ2d 1720, 1722-23 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (deceptive misdescriptiveness) and Callaway Vineyard & Winery v. Endsley Capital Group, Inc., 63 USPQ2d 1919, 1922-23 (TTAB 2002) (mere descriptiveness).


Regarding claims under Trademark Act § 2(f), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(f), see Cold War Museum Inc. v. Cold War Air Museum Inc., 586 F.3d 1352, 92 USPQ2d 1626, 1629 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (in cancellation proceeding, presumption of validity of registration under Trademark Act § 2(f) includes presumption of acquired distinctiveness, and party seeking cancellation must overcome this presumption by preponderance of evidence; "burden" to prove that mark has acquired distinctiveness shifts to registrant only after plaintiff establishes prima facie case that mark has not acquired distinctiveness); Yamaha International Corp. v. Hoshino Gakki Co., 840 F.2d 1572, 6 USPQ2d 1001, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (in opposing a claim under Trademark Act § 2(f), opposer has initial burden of challenging or rebutting applicant’s evidence of distinctiveness) Alcatraz Media, Inc. v. Chesapeake Marine Tours Inc., 107 USPQ2d 1750, 1764-1767 (TTAB 2013) (burden on petitioner to rebut presumption that mark registered under Section 2(f) has acquired distinctiveness), aff’d , 565 F. App’x 900 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (mem.); Target Brands Inc. v. Hughes, 85 USPQ2d 1676, 1680 (TTAB 2007) (ultimate burden of persuasion under Trademark Act § 2(f) rests with applicant); Kellogg Co. v. General Mills Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1766, 1768 (TTAB 2007) (mere descriptiveness; whether claim under Trademark Act § 2(f) is sufficient).


or that defendant's mark is primarily geographically descriptive

 8.   See Trademark Act § 2(e)(2), 15 U.S.C. § 1052 (e)(2). See also, e.g., Grand Canyon West Ranch LLC v. Hualapai Tribe, 88 USPQ2d 1501, 1504 (TTAB 2008) (whether mark is descriptive and/or primarily geographically descriptive, applicant has shown acquired distinctiveness); University Book Store v. University of Wisconsin Board of Regents, 33 USPQ2d 1385 (TTAB 1994). Cf. Caymus Vineyards v. Caymus Medical Inc., 107 USPQ2d 1519, 1524-25 (TTAB 2013) (assertion that a registration is not entitled to Section 15 incontestability because of alleged fraud in obtaining and maintaining the registration does not state a valid ground for cancellation of a registration that is more than five years old on the basis that the registered mark is primarily geographically descriptive).


or primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive of them;

9.   See Trademark Act § 2(e)(3), 15 U.S.C. § 1052 (e)(3). See also In re California Innovations, Inc., 329 F.3d 1334, 66 USPQ2d 1853 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (the test for determining whether a mark is geographically deceptive under Trademark Act § 2(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a) is the same as determining whether a mark is primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive under Trademark Act § 2(e)(3), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(3)); In re Save Venice New York, Inc., 259 F.3d 1346, 59 USPQ2d 1778, 1781-82 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (describing § 2(e)(3) analysis); Corporacion Habanos SA v. Guantanamera Cigars Co., 102 USPQ2d 1085, 1090-91 (TTAB 2012) (reopened for the limited purpose of having the parties address whether a significant portion of the relevant consumers would be materially influenced to purchase the goods by the geographic meaning of the mark), on remand from, 729 F. Supp. 2d 246, 98 USPQ2d 1078 (D.D.C. 2010) (remanding on third factor of the test for determining whether a mark is primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive); Corporacion Habanos SA v. Rodriquez, 99 USPQ2d 1873, 1876 (TTAB 2011) (primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive sufficiently pled); In re Jonathan Drew, Inc., 97 USPQ2d 1640, 1642 (TTAB 2011) (mark would be perceived as a misspelling of geographic location and found primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive for the goods); Corporacion Habanos S.A. v. Anncas Inc., 88 USPQ2d 1785, 1790-91 (TTAB 2008) (primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive and deceptive claims); United States Playing Card Co., v. Harbro, LLC, 81 USPQ2d 1537, 1541 (TTAB 2006) (addressing deceptiveness of a geographic term); In re Wada, 48 USPQ2d 1689, 1690-91 (TTAB 1998), aff’d, 194 F.3d 1297, 52 USPQ2d 1539 (Fed. Cir. 1999).


and that defendant's mark is primarily merely a surname.

10.   See Trademark Act § 2(e)(4), 15 U.S.C. § 1052 (e)(4). See also, e.g., In re Integrated Embedded, 120 USPQ2d 1504, 1516 (TTAB 2016); In re Eximius Coffee, LLC, 120 USPQ2d 1276, 1283 (TTAB 2016); In re Adlon Brand Gmbh & Co. KG, 120 USPQ2d 1717, 1725 (TTAB 2016); Michael S. Sachs Inc. v. Cordon Art B.V., 56 USPQ2d 1132, 1136 (TTAB 2000); Allied Mills, Inc. v. Kal Kan Foods, Inc., 203 USPQ 390, 391-92 (TTAB 1979); Food Specialty Co. v. Carnation Co., 170 USPQ 522, 523 (TTAB 1971). Cf. In re Rath, 402 F.3d 1207, 74 USPQ2d 1174, 1174-75 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("Section 44 applications are subject to the section 2 bars to registration, of which the surname rule is one."); In re Piano Factory Group Inc., 85 USPQ2d 1522, 1526-27 (TTAB 2007) (surname plus "& SONS" refused as "primarily a surname").


or that defendant’s mark comprises any matter that, as a whole, is de jure functional; or if not de jure functional, that the product design has not acquired distinctiveness.

 11.   See Trademark Act § 2(e)(5), 15 U.S.C. § 1052 (e)(5); TrafFix Devices Inc. v. Marketing Displays Inc., 532 U.S. 23, 58 USPQ2d 1001, 1006 (2001); Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., 514 U.S. 159, 34 USPQ2d 1161, 1165(1995). See also, e.g., In re Becton, Dickinson and Co., 675 F.3d 1368, 102 USPQ2d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2012) and Valu Engineering Inc. v. Rexnord Corp., 278 F.3d 1268, 61 USPQ2d 1422, 1426 (Fed. Cir. 2002), citing In re Morton-Norwich Products Inc., 671 F.2d 1332, 213 USPQ 9, 15-16 (CCPA) for factors considered in determining functionality; AS Holdings, Inc. v. H & C Milcor, Inc., 107 USPQ2d 1829, 1833 (TTAB 2013) (overall design of product configuration dictated by utilitarian concerns and as a whole is functional); In re Florists’ Transworld Delivery Inc., 106 USPQ2d 1784 (TTAB 2013) (color black aesthetically functional for packaging for flowers); Doyle v. Al Johnson’s Swedish Restaurant & Butik Inc., 101 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84 (TTAB 2012) (petitioner failed to relate claim of functionality of goats on a roof to respondent’s restaurant and gift shop services); Kistner Concrete Products Inc. v. Contech Arch Technologies Inc., 97 USPQ2d 1912, 1918-19 (TTAB 2011) (registration on Supplemental Register for a precast concrete bridge unit); and M-5 Steel Manufacturing Inc. v. O’Hagin’s Inc., 61 USPQ2d 1086 (TTAB 2001) (product design for roof vents). Cf. ERBE Elektromedizin GmbH v. Canady Technology LLC, 629 F.3d 1278, 97 USPQ2d 1048, 1056-58 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (same legal principles apply to a determination of functionality whether on the Principal Register or Supplemental Register); Duramax Marine, LLC v. R.W. Fernstrum & Co., 80 USPQ2d 1780, 1794 (TTAB 2006) (prohibition on the registration of functional marks does not extend to registration of two-dimensional design mark for custom manufacturing services).


(3) Trademark Act § 2(a),15 U.S.C. § 1052(a): For example, that defendant’s mark is geographically deceptive,

 12.   See, e.g,., Consorzio del Prosciutto di Parma v. Parma Sausage Products, Inc., 23 USPQ2d 1894, 1898 (TTAB 1992) (mark’s geographic deceptiveness must be established as of the time the registration issues). Cf. Corporacion Habanos S.A. v. Anncas Inc., 88 USPQ2d 1785, 1790 (TTAB 2008) (Board declines to consider geographically deceptive claim under Trademark Act § 2(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a)); United States Playing Card Co., v. Harbro, LLC, 81 USPQ2d 1537, 1541 (TTAB 2006) (addressing deceptiveness of a geographic term under the ambit of Trademark Act § 2(e)(3), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(3) rather than Trademark Act § 2(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a) ("The amended Lanham Act gives geographically deceptively misdescriptive marks the same treatment as geographically deceptive marks under § 1052(a).") (citing In re California Innovations Inc., 329 F.3d 1334, 66 USPQ2d 1853, 1856 (Fed. Cir. 2003)); K-Swiss Inc. v. Swiss Army Brands Inc., 58 USPQ2d 1540, 1543 (TTAB 2001) (can be cancelled if a registrant, through its own actions, causes its mark to become geographically deceptive subsequent to the issuance of the registration).


that defendant’s mark disparages members of a particular group,

13.   See, e.g., Blackhorse v. Pro-Football, Inc., 111 USPQ2d 1080 (TTAB 2014) (disparage Native Americans), aff’d 112 F.Supp. 3d 439, 115 USPQ2d 1524 (E.D. Va. 2015), on appeal, No. 15-1874 (4th Cir.); In re Lebanese Arak Corp., 94 USPQ2d 1215 (TTAB 2010) (disparage religious affiliation); In re Heeb Media, LLC, 89 USPQ2d 1071 (TTAB 2008) (disparage religious affiliation); Boston Red Sox Baseball Club LP v. Sherman, 88 USPQ2d 1581 (TTAB 2008) (disparage professional baseball team); In re Squaw Valley Development Co., 80 USPQ2d 1264 (TTAB 2006) (disparage Native Americans); McDermott v. San Francisco Womens Motorcycle Contingent, 81 USPQ2d 1212 (TTAB 2006); aff’d unpub’d,240 Fed. Appx. 865 (Fed. Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 552 U.S.1109 (2008) (while individual male citizen sufficiently alleged a "real interest" in the proceedings, he failed to properly allege "belief of damage," as he does not inherently possess an immutable trait directly implicated by the mark or allege that others share his belief of damage); Boswell v. Mavety Media Group Ltd., 52 USPQ2d 1600 (TTAB 1999) (women in general and African American women in particular); Order Sons of Italy in America v. Memphis Mafia Inc., 52 USPQ2d 1364 (TTAB 1999) (members of plaintiff’s Order and Italian-Americans in general); and Harjo v. Pro-Football Inc., 50 USPQ2d 1705, 1740-48 (TTAB 1999), rev’d, 284 F. Supp. 2d 96, 125, 68 USPQ2d 1225, 1248 (D.D.C. 2003), remanded, 415 F.3d 44, 75 USPQ2d 1525 (D.C. Cir. 2005), and aff’d, 565 F.3d 880, 90 USPQ2d 1593 (D.C. Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 631 (2009) (cancellation action brought by Native Americans on grounds of disparagement barred by laches).


Please Note: In December 2015, the Federal Circuit, in an en banc decision in In re Tam, 808 F.3d 1321, 117 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc), held that the disparagement provision in § 2(a) is facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari to review the Federal Circuit’s Tam decision and consider the constitutionality of the disparagement provision. Therefore, the TTAB has suspended action on all ex parte appeals and inter partes proceedings that present issues under the disparagement provision in § 2(a) with the following exception: complaining parties in inter partes proceedings are given the option to dismiss claims based on § 2(a) disparagement without prejudice and to obtain a decision on the merits of their remaining claims. Any suspension of a TTAB matter based on the disparagement provision of § 2(a) will remain in place until the U.S. Supreme Court issues a decision in Tam, after which the USPTO will re-evaluate the need for further suspension.


 that defendant’s mark consists of or comprises immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter,

 14.   See, e.g., In re Fox, 702 F.3d 633, 639-40, 105 USPQ2d 1247, 1251-52 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (word mark that created a double entendre was unregistrable where a substantial composite of the general public would recognize that one meaning was vulgar); In re Luxuria s.r.o., 100 USPQ2d 1146 (TTAB 2011) (design configuration of a bottle in the shape of a hand with the middle finger extended upwards found to be vulgar and thus unregistrable as scandalous or immoral); Corporacion Habanos S.A. v. Anncas Inc., 88 USPQ2d 1785 (TTAB 2008) (deceptiveness); Boston Red Sox Baseball Club L.P. v. Sherman, 88 USPQ2d 1581, 1588 (TTAB 2008) (scandalous or immoral); In re Boulevard Entertainment, Inc., 334 F.3d 1336, 67 USPQ2d 1475 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (use of dictionary evidence to determine whether mark is scandalous); In re Mavety Media Group, Ltd., 33 F.3d 1367, 31 USPQ2d 1923 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (analyzing scandalous in terms of "vulgarity"). See also Ritchie v. Simpson, 170 F.3d 1092, 50 USPQ2d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (standing to oppose on Trademark Act § 2(a),15 U.S.C. § 1052(a) scandalousness grounds); In re South Park Cigar, Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1507 (TTAB 2007) (deception involving geographical mark); In re Red Bull GmbH, 78 USPQ2d 1375 (TTAB 2006) (scandalous mark); In re Wilcher Corp., 40 USPQ2d 1929 (TTAB 1996) (design mark scandalous); In re Old Glory Condom Corp., 26 USPQ2d 1216, 1220 (TTAB 1993) (design mark not scandalous). Cf. McDermott v. San Francisco Womens Motorcycle Contingent, 81 USPQ2d 1212, 1214 (TTAB 2006), aff’d unpub’d, 240 Fed. Appx. 865 (Fed. Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 1109 (2008) (authority of Trademark Act §2(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a) does not extend to goods or services that may be viewed as scandalous or immoral in nature).


In December 2015, the Federal Circuit, in an en banc decision in In re Tam, 808 F.3d 1321, 117 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc), held that the disparagement provision in § 2(a) is facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari to review the Federal Circuit’s Tam decision and consider the constitutionality of the disparagement provision. Related cases which may be affected by the Court’s decision include In re Brunetti, 2014 LEXIS 328 (TTAB Aug. 1, 2014) (non-precedential), on appeal to the Federal Circuit from the TTAB’s affirmance of a § 2(a) refusal under the scandalousness provision. Therefore, the TTAB has suspended action on all ex parte appeals and inter partes proceedings that present issues under the scandalousness provision in § 2(a) with the following exception: complaining parties in inter partes proceedings are given the option to dismiss claims based on the § 2(a) scandalous provision without prejudice and to obtain a decision on the merits of their remaining claims. Any suspension of a TTAB matter based on the scandalousness provision of § 2(a) will remain in place until the Federal Circuit issues a decision in Brunetti, after which the USPTO will re-evaluate the need for further suspension.


that defendant’s mark falsely suggests a connection with plaintiff’s name or identity

 15.   See, e.g., University of Notre Dame du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imports Co. Inc., 703 F.2d 1372, 217 USPQ 505 (Fed. Cir.1983); Boston Red Sox Baseball Club L.P. v. Sherman, 88 USPQ2d 1581, 1593 (TTAB 2008); Internet Inc. v. Corporation for National Research Initiatives, 38 USPQ2d 1435 (TTAB 1996); Greyhound Corp. v. Both Worlds Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1635 (TTAB 1988); Buffett v. Chi Chi’s, Inc., 226 USPQ 428 (TTAB 1985). See also Nike, Inc. v. Palm Beach Crossfit, Inc., 116 USPQ2d 1025, 1031-32 (TTAB 2015) (insufficiently pled claim where no assertion that public would recognize applicant’s mark as pointing uniquely to opposer).


or that defendant’s mark is a geographical indication which, when used on or in connection with wines or spirits, identifies a place other than the origin of the goods and was first used on or in connection with wines or spirits by the applicant on or after January 1, 1996.

 16.   See Tea Board of India v. Republic of Tea Inc., 80 USPQ2d 1881, 1899 (TTAB 2006) (certification mark recognized as a geographical indication). Cf. In re Spirits International N.V., 86 USPQ2d 1078, 1080 n.2 (TTAB 2008) (refusal based on "deceptiveness" provision of Trademark Act § 2(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a) and not that the mark is a geographical indication); In re Wada, 48 USPQ2d 1689, 1692 n.7 (TTAB 1998) (disclaimer of geographical indication cannot obviate a Trademark Act § 2(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a) refusal).


(4) That there was no bona fide use of defendant's mark in commerce prior to the filing of the use-based application for its registration under Section 1(a) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. §1051(a)

 17.   See, e.g., Lens.com Inc. v. 1-800 Contacts Inc., 686 F.3d 1376, 103 USPQ2d 1672, 1676-77 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (software that is merely a conduit through which online retail services are rendered is not "in use in commerce" in association with software); International Mobile Machines Corp. v. International Telephone and Telegraph Corp., 800 F.2d 1118, 231 USPQ 142 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Avakoff v. Southern Pacific Co., 765 F.2d 1097, 226 USPQ 435 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Paramount Pictures Corp. v. White, 31 USPQ2d 1768, 1769 (TTAB 1994) ("use in commerce" involves the bona fide use of a mark in the ordinary course of trade, and not made merely to reserve a right in a mark),aff’d unpub’d, 108 F.3d 1392 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Dragon Bleu (SARL) v. VENM, LLC, 112 USPQ2d 1925, 1929-30 (TTAB 2014) (claim of nonuse at time of filing for § 66(a) application legally insufficient for registration based on § 66(a) because time of nonuse begins from the date of registration); Clorox Co. v. Salazar, 108 USPQ2d 1083, 1086-87 (TTAB 2013) (applicant’s mark not in use in commerce as of the filing date of the use-based application); ShutEmDown Sports Inc. v. Lacy, 102 USPQ2d 1036 (TTAB 2012) (respondent’s mark not in use in commerce at time of filing of his use-based application); Nutrasweet Co. v. K & S Foods Inc., 4 USPQ2d 1964 (TTAB 1987); Pennwalt Corp. v. Sentry Chemical Co., 219 USPQ 542, 558 (TTAB 1983); Bonaventure Associates v. Westin Hotel Co., 218 USPQ 537, 543 (TTAB 1983).


But see Christian Faith Fellowship Church v. Adidas AG, 841 F.3d 986, 120 USPQ2d 1640 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (reversing Board decision that respondent failed to use its mark in commerce prior to obtaining registration). In re JobDiva, Inc., 843 F.3d 936, 121 USPQ2d 1122, 1126 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (vacating Board decision to the extent it applied a per se rule that use of mark for computer software services for personal placement services could not demonstrate use of mark for the service of personal placement and recruitment; and remanding case for further consideration in light of opinion).


Cf. Sinclair Oil Corp. v. Kendrick, 85 USPQ2d 1032, 1033 (TTAB 2007) (opposer’s nonuse claim dismissed as moot upon Board’s acceptance of applicant’s amendment of the filing basis of its application from Trademark Act § 1(a) to 1(b), 15 U.S.C. § 1051(a) to (b)); CarX Service Systems, Inc. v. Exxon Corp., 215 USPQ 345, 351 (TTAB 1982) (plaintiff must plead and prove that there was no use prior to filing date; mere claim that dates of use are incorrect does not state a claim of action).


(5) That defendant did not have a bona fide intent to use the mark in connection with the identified goods/services as of the filing date of the application;

 18.   See, e.g., M.Z. Berger & Co. v Swatch AG, 787 F.3d 1368, 114 USPQ2d 1892, 1897 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (lack of bona fide intent is a proper statutory grounds on which to challenge a trademark application), affirming 108 USPQ2d 1463, 1471-77 (TTAB 2013) (documentary evidence, testimony and other record evidence do not support applicant’s claimed bona fide intent to use); Kelly Servs., Inc. v. Creative Harbor, LLC, 846 F.3d 857, 121 USPQ2d 1357, 1369-70 (6th Cir. 2017) (applying Board precedential decisions and affirming district court determination that applicant lacked a bona fide intent to use its mark as to some, but not all the goods listed in its applications, but vacating the judgment to the extent that applicant’s applications were voided in their entirety); Swiss Grill Ltd. v. Wolf Steel Ltd., 115 USPQ2d 2001, 2008-09 (TTAB 2015) (lack of bona fide intent to use found where no documentary evidence predated application filing date); L’Oreal S.A. v. Marcon, 102 USPQ2d 1434, 1443 (TTAB 2012) (lack of a bona fide intent to use found where there was no documentary evidence, affirmative statement that no documents exist, no industry experience, no development or business plan, vague allusions to using the mark through licensing or outsourcing, and applicant’s demonstrated pattern of filing intent-to-use applications for disparate goods under the well-know and famous marks of others); Spirits International B.V. v. S. S. Taris Zeytin Ve Zeytinyagi Tarim Satis Kooperatifleri Birligi, 99 USPQ2d 1545, 1548-49 (TTAB 2011) (lack of a bona fide intent to use found where there was no documentary evidence, an affirmative statement that no such documents exist, and no other evidence to explain lack of documentary evidence); SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Omnisource DDS LLS, 97 USPQ2d 1300, 1304-05 (TTAB 2010) (lack of a bona fide intent to use; no documentary evidence; record devoid of any other evidence of intended use); Honda Motor Co. v. Friedrich Winkelmann, 90 USPQ2d 1660 (TTAB 2009) (lack of bona fide intent to use); Boston Red Sox Baseball Club LP v. Sherman, 88 USPQ2d 1581, 1587 (TTAB 2008) (lack of bona fide intent to use); Lane Ltd. v. Jackson International Trading Co., 33 USPQ2d 1351, 1352 (TTAB 1994); Commodore Electronics Ltd. v. CBM Kabushiki Kaisha, 26 USPQ2d 1503, 1504 (TTAB 1993).


Cf. Rolex Watch U.S.A. Inc. v. AFP Imaging Corp., 101 USPQ2d 1188, 1190 (TTAB 2011) (capacity to market and manufacture the goods, and identified goods consistent with a nature extension of current product line, rebut the lack of documentary evidence), judgment vacated based on action of defendant on appeal, 107 USPQ2d 1626 (TTAB 2013); Wet Seal Inc. v. FD Management Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1629, 1643 (TTAB 2007) (capacity to market and /or manufacture goods, having produced them in the past under different marks, rebuts claim that applicant lacked bona fide intent to use).

A plaintiff need not allege and prove that the defendant acted in bad faith and intended to deceive the USPTO. The requirements for pleading and proving a lack of a bona fide intent to use a mark do not equate to the requirements for pleading and proving fraud.

 20.   See, e.g., In re Grande Cheese Co., 2 USPQ2d 1447, 1449 (TTAB 1986); General Foods Corp. v. Ito


(6) That defendant’s mark is a mere background design that does not function as a mark separate and apart from the words displayed thereon.

 20.   See, e.g., In re Grande Cheese Co., 2 USPQ2d 1447, 1449 (TTAB 1986); General Foods Corp. v. Ito Yokado Co., 219 USPQ 822, 825 (TTAB 1983), aff’d unpub’d, slip. op. 84-517 (Fed. Cir. 1984).


(7) That defendant is not (and was not, at the time of the filing of its application for or that registration) the rightful owner of the registered mark.

 21.   See, e.g., Wonderbread 5 v. Gilles, 115 USPQ2d 1296, 1304-07 (TTAB 2015) (facts inconsistent with individual former band member’s claim that he was the owner the mark); UVeritech, Inc. v. Amax Lighting, Inc., 115 USPQ2d 1242, 1249 (TTAB 2015) (presumption that a manufacturer is the owner of a disputed mark may be rebutted); Conolty v. Conolty O’Connor NYC LLC, 111 USPQ2d 1302 (TTAB 2014) (ownership claim determined under accelerated case resolution); Nahshin v. Product Source International LLC, 107 USPQ2d 1257 (TTAB 2013); Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. The Florists Association of Greater Cleveland Inc., 29 USPQ2d 1146 (TTAB 1993); Treadwell’s Drifters Inc. v. Marshak, 18 USPQ2d 1318, 1320 (TTAB 1990); Kemin Industries, Inc. v. Watkins Products, Inc., 192 USPQ 327, 328 (TTAB 1976). Cf., e.g., Levi Strauss & Co. v. R. Josephs Sportswear Inc., 28 USPQ2d 1464 (TTAB 1993) (where opposer was asserting that applicant’s mark is a descriptive term which cannot be owned exclusively by anyone, rather than alleging that someone other than applicant is the owner of the term as a mark) recon. den., 36 USPQ2d 1328 (TTAB 1994).


(8) That defendant’s mark, consisting of a particular color combination applied to its goods, is ornamental and has not become distinctive as an indication of the source of defendant’s goods,

 22.   See, e.g., Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., 514 U.S. 159, 34 USPQ2d 1161 (1995); Nasalok Coating Corp. v. Nylok Corp., 522 F.3d 1320, 86 USPQ2d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Brunswick Corp. v. British Seagull Ltd., 35 F.3d 1527, 32 USPQ2d 1120 (Fed. Cir.1994), In re Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 774 F.2d 1116, 227 USPQ 417, (Fed.Cir.1985); Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Vogue Tyre & Rubber Co., 47 USPQ2d 1748 (TTAB 1998); Kassnar Imports v. Plastilite Corp., 180 USPQ 156, 157 (TTAB 1973), aff’d, 508 F.2d 824, 184 USPQ 348, 350 (CCPA 1975).


or that defendant’s mark, consisting of a particular sound applied to its goods, is not inherently distinctive and has not acquired distinctiveness.


 23.   See Trademark Act § 1, Trademark Act § 2 and Trademark Act § 45, 15 U.S.C. § 1051, 15 U.S.C. § 1052  and 15 U.S.C. § 1127; Nextel Communications Inc. v. Motorola Inc., 91 USPQ2d 1393 (TTAB 2009)("chirp" sound). Cf. In re Vertex Group LLC, 89 USPQ2d 1694, 1700 (TTAB 2009) (registration on the Principal Register of the sound emitted by applicant’s product in its normal course of operation only available on a showing of acquired distinctiveness).


For product design see Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Brothers, 529 U.S. 205, 54 USPQ2d 1065, 1069 (2000) (product design can never be inherently distinctive and requires showing of acquired distinctiveness); AS Holdings, Inc. v. H & C Milcor, Inc., 107 USPQ2d at 1839 (product configuration of pipe boot design has not acquired distinctiveness); Stuart Spector Designs, Ltd. v. Fender Musical Instruments Corp., 94 USPQ2d 1549 (TTAB 2009) (product configuration).


For product packaging see also Two Pesos Inc. v. Taco Cabana Inc., 505 US 763, 23 USPQ2d 1081 (1992) (trade dress packaging may be inherently distinctive); In re Chippendales USA, Inc., 622 F.3d 1346, 96 USPQ2d 1681, 1684 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (court applies four-part test from Seabrook Foods, Inc. v. Bar-Well Foods, Ltd., 568 F.2d 1342, 196 USPQ 289, 291 (CCPA 1977) to determine if trade dress packaging is inherently distinctive, or requires showing of acquired distinctiveness).


(9) That the term for which registration is sought or for which registration has been obtained has not been used as a trademark or service mark.

 24.   See, e.g.,D.C. One Wholesaler, Inc. v. Chien, 120 USPQ2d 1710, 1716 (TTAB 2016) (I ♥ DC fails to function as a mark); Couture v. Playdom, Inc., 778 F.3d 1379, 113 USPQ2d 2012 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (service must be offered and actually provided to constitute use in commerce); Aycock Engineering, Inc. v. Airflite, Inc., 560 F.3d 1350, 90 USPQ2d 1301, 1309 n.12 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (registration on Supplemental Register never becomes immune from threat of invalidation on grounds that mark was not used prior to filing date); Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. The Florists Association of Greater Cleveland, Inc., 29 USPQ2d 1146, 1160 (TTAB 1993) (allegation that slogan was used as mere advertising and not as a trademark); Marshall Field & Co. v. Mrs. Fields Cookies, 11 USPQ2d 1355 (TTAB 1989).


(10) That defendant's mark represents multiple marks in a single application (or registration) ("phantom mark").

 25.   See, e.g., Cineplex Odeon Corp. v. Fred Wehrenberg Circuit of Theatres, 56 USPQ2d 1538 (TTAB 2000). See also In re Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp., 240 F.3d 1341, 57 USPQ2d 1807, 1812-1813 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re International Flavors & Fragrances Inc., 47 USPQ2d 1314 (TTAB 1998), aff’d, 183 F.3d 1361, 51 USPQ2d 1513 (Fed. Cir. 1999).


(11) That defendant’s mark has been abandoned due to nonuse with intent not to resume use, and nonuse for three consecutive years shall be prima facie evidence of abandonment,

 26.   Trademark Act § 45, 15 U.S.C. § 1127. See, e.g., Linville v. Rivard, 41 USPQ2d 1731 (TTAB 1996), aff’d, 133 F.3d 1446, 45 USPQ2d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Imperial Tobacco Ltd. v. Philip Morris Inc., 899 F.2d 1575, 14 USPQ2d 1390 (Fed. Cir. 1990); City National Bank v. OPGI Management GP Inc./Gestion OPGI Inc., 106 USPQ2d 1676-79 (TTAB 2013) (abandonment of a registration under Trademark Act § 44(e), 15 U.S.C. § 1126(e), based on over three years of nonuse where respondent did not use mark with recited services since at least the issuance date of the involved registration and where the nature of the use shown by respondent did not constitute use in commerce); ShutEmDown Sports Inc. v. Lacy, 102 USPQ2d 1036 (TTAB 2012) (more than three years of nonuse, commencing with filing date for majority of the identified goods, and no evidence rebutting prima facie showing); Auburn Farms, Inc. v. McKee Foods Corp., 51 USPQ2d 1439 (TTAB 1998). Cf. General Motors Corp. v. Aristide & Co., Antiquaire de Marques, 87 USPQ2d 1179 (TTAB 2008) (plaintiff could not prove priority because it abandoned mark with no intent to resume use prior to use by defendant); Otto International Inc. v. Otto Kern GmbH, 83 USPQ2d 1861, 1863 (TTAB 2007) (plaintiff must allege ultimate facts pertaining to the alleged abandonment).


See also Saddlesprings Inc. v Mad Croc Brands Inc., 104 USPQ2d 1948, 1550-52 (TTAB 2012) (claim of abandonment is available with respect to a claim against a § 66(a) registration, which is a registered extension of protection under 15 U.S.C. § 1141f(a)).


or due to a course of conduct that has caused the mark to lose significance as an indication of source

 27.   Trademark Act § 45, 15 U.S.C. § 1127. See, e.g., Noble House Home Furnishings, LLC v. Floorco Enters., LLC, 118 USPQ2d 1413, 1422 (TTAB 2016) (abandonment found where parent company’s use of the mark cannot inure to the benefit of the subsidiary that owned the mark); Jack Wolfskin Ausrustung Fur Draussen GmbH v. New Millennium Sports, S.L.U., 797 F.3d 1363, 116 USPQ2d 1129, 1133-34 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (no abandonment found where it was found that consumers would not view stylistic modifications as a different mark, resulting in the same continuing commercial impression), cert. denied, No. 15-660 (Jan. 25, 2016); Stuart Spector Designs, Ltd. v. Fender Musical Instruments Corp., 94 USPQ2d 1549, (TTAB 2009) (failure to police third party use of marks); Tea Board of India v. The Republic of Tea, Inc., 80 USPQ2d 1881 (TTAB 2006); Woodstock’s Enterprises Inc. v. Woodstock’s Enterprises Inc., 43 USPQ2d 1440 (TTAB 1997), aff’d mem., 152 F.3d 942 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 5, 1998).


(12) That defendant's mark consists of or comprises the name of a particular living individual without the individual's consent.

 28.   See Trademark Act § 2(c), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(c). See also Chester L. Krause v. Krause Publications, Inc., 76 USPQ2d 1904, 1909 (TTAB 2005), aff’d, slip. op. 2007-1364 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 7, 2007); Nike, Inc. v. Palm Beach Crossfit, Inc., 116 USPQ2d 1025, 1032-33 (TTAB 2015) (claim insufficiently pled where no assertion that licensing relationship gave opposer a proprietary right to assert the claim on behalf of third party); Ross v. Analytical Technology, Inc., 51 USPQ2d 1269 (TTAB 1999) (plaintiff must establish that the "name," as used on the goods or services, points uniquely to plaintiff as a "particular living individual"); Ceccato v. Manifattura Lane Gaetano Marzotto & Figli S.p.A., 32 USPQ2d 1192, 1195 (TTAB 1994) (party asserting Trademark Act § 2(c), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(c) ground must have cognizable or proprietary right in the name). Cf. Societe Civile Des Domaines Dourthe Freres v. S.A. Consortium Vinicole De Bordeaux Et De La Gironde, 6 USPQ2d 1205, 1209 (TTAB 1988) (Trademark Act § 2(c), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(c) does not apply to family surnames).


(13) That defendant's product design is generic.

 29.   See Stuart Spector Designs, Ltd. v. Fender Musical Instruments Corp., 94 USPQ2d 1549, (TTAB 2009); Sunrise Jewelry Manufacturing Corp. v. Fred, S.A., 175 F.3d 1322, 50 USPQ2d 1532, 1534 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (the term "generic name" as used in Trademark Act § 14(3), 15 U.S.C. § 1064(3) includes trade dress such as product design or configuration).


(14) That defendant's mark would dilute the distinctive quality of plaintiff's famous mark.

 30.   See Trademark Act § 13(a) and Trademark Act § 14, 15 U.S.C. § 1063(a)  and 15 U.S.C. § 1064; Toro Co. v. ToroHead Inc., 61 USPQ2d 1164 (TTAB 2001). See also Trademark Act § 43(c), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c); Omega SA (Omega AG) (Omega Ltd.) v. Alpha Phi Omega, 118 USPQ2d 1289, 1297 (TTAB 2016) (party alleging dilution by blurring must prove that mark(s) became famous prior to any established, continuous use of Applicant’s involved marks, whether as a trademark or trade name, and not just prior to Applicant’s use in commerce of its challenged marks in connection with the goods identified in involved applications); N.Y Yankees Partnership v. IET Products & Services, Inc., 114 USPQ2d 1497, 1509-10 (TTAB 2015) (parody defense will not be considered as part of the assessment of a dilution claim; whether an applicant’s mark is registrable because it is being used in commerce to indicate source is counter to whether such use is noncommercial or fair use); McDonald’s Corp. v. McSweet LLC, 112 USPQ2d 1268, 1286 (TTAB 2014) (dilution also applies to family of marks); Chanel, Inc. v. Makarczyk, 110 USPQ2d 2013, 2023-24 (TTAB 2014) (dilution by blurring, opposer may rely on applicant’s filing (constructive use) date to satisfy second prong of test); Research in Motion Limited v. Defining Presence Marketing Group Inc., 102 USPQ2d 1187 (TTAB 2012) (full analysis of factors finding dilution by blurring); Rolex Watch U.S.A. Inc. v. AFP Imaging Corp., 101 USPQ2d 1188, 1191-97 (TTAB 2011) (same), judgment vacated based on action of defendant on appeal, 107 USPQ2d 1626 (TTAB 2013); UMG Recordings Inc. v. Mattel Inc., 100 USPQ2d 1868, 1886-90 (TTAB 2011) (same); Nike Inc. v. Maher, 100 USPQ2d 1018 (TTAB 2011) (same); National Pork Board and National Pork Producers Council v. Supreme Lobster and Seafood Co., 96 USPQ2d 1479 (TTAB 2010) (commodity promotion slogan dilution by blurring); Coach Services, Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC; 96 USPQ2d 1600 (TTAB 2010) (dilution by blurring and tarnishment), aff’d-in-part, rev’d-in-part and remanded on other grounds, 668 F.3d 1356, 101 USPQ2d 1713 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Group Inc., 94 USPQ2d 1645, 1649 (TTAB 2010) (party alleging fame must show that mark became famous before applicant’s use of challenged mark), aff’d, 637 F.3d 1344, 98 USPQ2d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Demon International LC v. Lynch, 86 USPQ2d 1058, 1059-60 (TTAB 2008) (dilution claim in pleading must include an allegation that opposer’s mark at issue is famous); Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue Inc., 537 US 418, 65 USPQ2d 1801 (2003); Trek Bicycle Corp. v. StyleTrek Ltd., 64 USPQ2d 1540, 1542 (TTAB 2001) (dilution pleading legally insufficient where opposer failed to allege that its mark became famous before constructive use date of involved intent-to-use application); Toro Co. v. ToroHead, Inc., 61 USPQ2d 1164, 1174 n.9 (TTAB 2001); Polaris Industries Inc. v. DC Comics, 59 USPQ2d 1798 (TTAB 2000); Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co. v. Advantage Rent-A-Car, Inc., 62 USPQ2d 1857 (TTAB 2002), aff’d, 300 F.3d 1333, 66 USPQ2d 1811 (Fed. Cir. 2003). But see Fiat Group Automobiles, S.p.A. v. ISM, Inc., 94 USPQ2d 1111, 1113 (TTAB 2010) (the "well known mark" doctrine does not constitute a basis for pleading dilution in the United States, absent a specific pleading of intent to use, the filing of an application for registration, and some basis for concluding that recognition of the mark in the United States is sufficiently widespread as to create an association of the mark with particular products or services, even if the source thereof is anonymous and even if the products or services are not available in the United States).


(15) That defendant has used its mark so as to misrepresent the source of its goods or services.

 31.   See Bayer Consumer Care AG v. Belmora LLC, 90 USPQ2d 1587 (TTAB 2009) (motion to dismiss misrepresentation of source claim denied), on final decision, 110 USPQ2d 1623 (TTAB 2014) (petition granted on claim of misrepresentation), rev’d on other grounds, 84 F. Supp. 3d 490 (E.D. Va. 2015), vacated and remanded 819 F.3d 697 (4th Cir. 2016) (affirming TTAB); Otto International Inc. v. Otto Kern GmbH, 83 USPQ2d 1861, 1863 (TTAB 2007) (pleading of misrepresentation of source must be supported by allegations of blatant misuse of the mark by respondent in a manner calculated to trade on the goodwill and reputation of petitioner); The E.E. Dickinson Co. v. The T.N. Dickinson Co., 221 USPQ 713 (TTAB 1984) (petitioner allowed to go forward on claim of misrepresentation of source).


(16) That defendant has misused the federal registration symbol with intent to deceive the purchasing public or others in the trade into believing that the mark is registered.

 32.   See Copelands’ Enterprises Inc. v. CNV Inc., 945 F.2d 1563, 20 USPQ2d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 1991); Brown Shoe Co. v. Robbins, 90 USPQ2d 1752, 1758 (TTAB 2009) (mistaken belief that registration of mark in foreign country permits use of symbol); Barbara’s Bakery Inc. v. Landesman, 82 USPQ2d 1283, 1290 (TTAB 2007) (allegation that opposer has misused federal registration symbol construed "as a species of the equitable affirmative defense of unclean hands"); Johnson Controls, Inc. v. Concorde Battery Corp., 228 USPQ 39, 44 (TTAB 1985); Bass Pro Trademarks LLC v. Sportsman’s Warehouse Inc., 89 USPQ2d 1844, 1846 n.3 (TTAB 2008). Cf. Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co., 544 F.2d 1098, 192 USPQ 24, 27 (CCPA 1976) (raised as affirmative defense).


(17) That defendant committed fraud in the procurement of its registration or during the prosecution of its application for registration.

 33.   See Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b); In re Bose Corp., 580 F.3d 1240, 91 USPQ2d 1938 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Daniel J. Quirk, Inc. v. Village Car Co., 120 USPQ2d 1146 (TTAB 2016) (fraud claim based on statements made in application oath dismissed); Nationstar Mortgage LLC v. Ahmad, 112 USPQ2d 1361 (TTAB 2014) (claim of fraud sustained); Dragon Bleu (SARL) v. VENM, LLC, 112 USPQ2d 1925, 1928 (TTAB 2014) (failure to state a claim of fraud because statements were not false, not material and no allegation regarding intent, no leave to replead as would be futile); Caymus Vineyards v. Caymus Medical Inc., 107 USPQ2d 1519, 1522-24 (TTAB 2013) (motion to dismiss denied where fraud claim sufficiently alleged); DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. American Motors Corp., 94 USPQ2d 1086 (TTAB 2010) (summary judgment on fraud claim denied); Enbridge, Inc. v. Excelerate Energy L.P., 92 USPQ2d 1537 (TTAB 2009). See also Exergen Corp. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 575 F.3d 1312, 91 USPQ2d 1656, 1670 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ("[P]leadings on information and belief require an allegation that the necessary information lies within the defendant’s control, and … such allegations must also be accompanied by a statement of the facts upon which the allegations are based") (citing Kowal v. MCI Communications Corp., 16 F.3d 1271, 1279 n.3 (D.C. Cir. 1994)); Torres v. Cantine Torresella S.r.l., 808 F.2d 46, 1 USPQ2d 1483 (Fed. Cir. 1986); King Auto., Inc. v. Speedy Muffler King, Inc., 667 F.2d 1008, 212 USPQ 801, 803 (CCPA 1981) (fraud must be pleaded with particularity); Smith International, Inc. v. Olin Corp., 209 USPQ 1033, 1044 (TTAB 1981) (fraud requires a willful intent to deceive); G&W Laboratories Inc. v. GW Pharma Ltd., 89 USPQ2d 1571, 1574 (TTAB 2009) (a finding of fraud as to one class in a multiple-class registration does not require cancellation of all classes in a registration); Grand Canyon West Ranch LLC v. Hualapai Tribe, 88 USPQ2d 1501, 1509 (TTAB 2008) (false claim of use of mark); Standard Knitting Ltd. v. Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha, 77 USPQ2d 1917 (TTAB 2006) (same).


Cf. Asian and Western Classics B.V. v. Selkow, 92 USPQ2d 1478 (TTAB 2009) (improperly pleaded fraud claim cannot be basis for summary judgment); Zanella Ltd. v. Nordstrom Inc., 90 USPQ2d 1758, 1762 (TTAB 2008) (timely proactive corrective action taken with respect to pleaded registrations raises rebuttable presumption that opposer did not intend to commit fraud); University Games Corp. v. 20Q.net Inc., 87 USPQ2d 1465, 1468 (TTAB 2008) (rebuttable presumption that opposer lacked willful intent to deceive Office arises when registrant amended identification of goods during ex parte prosecution); Tri-Star Marketing LLC v. Nino Franco Spumanti S.R.L., 84 USPQ2d 1912, 1916 (TTAB 2007) (fraud not found where statement identifying goods in application, although inartfully worded, was not false).


Please Note: The Federal Circuit’s decision in In re Bose, 580 F.3d 1240, 91 USPQ2d 1938 (Fed. Cir. 2009), clarified that fraud in a Board proceeding may not be based merely on a finding that a party "knew or should have known" that it was not using its mark on all of the goods or services recited in an application. Accordingly, consideration of the holdings in cases involving fraud in a goods/services use statement pre-Bose should be reviewed under the standard for fraud as set forth in Bose and cases following Bose, and not as set forth in the line of Board cases following the "knew or should have known" standard set forth in Medinol Ltd. v. Neuro Vasx, Inc., 67 USPQ2d 1205 (TTAB 2003).


(18) That defendant’s registered mark interferes with the registration of a foreign owner’s mark under Article 8 of the General Inter-American Convention for Trademark and Commercial

Protection of Washington, 1929 (“Pan American Convention”), 46 Stat. 2907.

 34.   See British-American Tobacco Co. v. Phillip Morris Inc., 55 USPQ2d 1585 (TTAB 2000). Cf. Diaz v. Servicios De Franquicia Pardo’s S.A.C., 83 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (TTAB 2007) (Board has subject matter jurisdiction to entertain affirmative defense of priority pursuant to Article 7 of the Pan American Convention).


(19) That defendant’s application is barred from registration by claim or issue preclusion.


 35.   See Mayer/Berkshire Corp. v. Berkshire Fashions Inc., 424 F.3d 1229, 76 USPQ2d 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (opposition not barred by claim or issue preclusion); Jet Inc. v. Sewage Aeration Systems, 223 F.3d 1360, 55 USPQ2d 1854 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (claim preclusion doctrine did not bar petition to cancel); Chutter, Inc. v. Great Concepts, LLC, 119 USPQ2d 1865, 1870 (TTAB 2016) (claim preclusion inapplicable because fraud claim based on different transactional facts, defendant’s motion for summary judgment denied); Zoba International Corp. v. DVD Format/LOGO Licensing Corp., 98 USQP2d 1106 (TTAB 2011) (claim preclusion barred petitions to cancel against two registrations but not a third registration; "defendant preclusion" does not apply to facts of case and further discussed in contrast to "plaintiff preclusion"); Nextel Communications Inc. v. Motorola Inc., 91 USPQ2d 1393, 1398 (TTAB 2009) (finding in prior Board proceeding that mark failed to function with respect to "two-way radios" entitled opposer to judgment with respect to those goods under principles of issue preclusion). Cf. Nasalok Coating Corp. v. Nylok Corp., 522 F.3d 1320, 86 USPQ2d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (cancellation petition barred by doctrine of "defendant preclusion"); NH Beach Pizza LLC v. Cristy's Pizza Inc., 119 USPQ2d 1861, 1863 (TTAB 2016) (issue preclusion may bar re-litigation of a standing determination made in a prior Board proceeding); Urock Network, LLC v. Sulpasso, 115 USPQ2d 1409, 1411-1413 (TTAB 2015) (claim preclusion bars cancellation proceeding in view of earlier opposition proceeding which was dismissed for failure of plaintiff to submit any evidence in support of its case; and where plaintiff in cancellation concedes it is same as plaintiff in opposition); Stephen Slesinger Inc. v. Disney Enterprises Inc., 98 USPQ2d 1890 (TTAB 2011) (ownership of the marks at issue established in court proceeding; defendant entitled to summary judgment based on issue preclusion), aff’d, 702 F.3d 640, 105 USPQ2d 1472 (Fed. Cir. 2012), cert denied, 134 S. Ct. 125 (2013). See also Zachry Infrastructure LLC v. American Infrastructure Inc., 101 USPQ2d 1249 (TTAB 2011) (no claim preclusion based on district court’s determination because civil action focused on respective uses and rights to use while Board proceeding focused on right to registration; issue preclusion based on district court determination found; no claim preclusion based on abandonments in related opposition because trademark owner allowed to make decision on which oppositions to defend).

(20) That defendant’s mark is the title of a single creative work and not considered a trademark.

 36.   See Mattel Inc. v. Brainy Baby Co., 101 USPQ2d 1140, 1142-44 (TTAB 2011).

(21) Trademark Act § 2(b), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(b): Registration of a mark which is "the flag or coat of arms or other insignia of the United States, or of any State or municipality" is prohibited.

 37.   See, e.g., In re City of Houston, 101 USPQ2d 1534 (TTAB 2012), aff’d 731 F.3d 1326, 108 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2013); In re District of Columbia, 101 USPQ2d 1588 (TTAB 2012), aff’d sub nom. In re City of Houston, 731 F.3d 1326, 108 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

(22) That defendant has not established a commercial presence in the country from which its underlying foreign registration issued where such foreign registration forms the basis of the U.S. registration or application for registration. Trademark Act § 44(e); 15 U.S.C. § 1126(e).

 38.   Kallamni. v. Khan, 101 USPQ2d 1864 (TTAB 2012).


(23) That the intent-to-use application was assigned or transferred in contravention of Trademark Act § 10; 15 U.S.C. § 1060.

 39.   See Central Garden & Pet Co. v. Doskocil Manufacturing Co., 108 USPQ2d 1134, 1146-50 (TTAB 2013); The Clorox Co. v. Chemical Bank, 40 USPQ2d 1098 (TTAB 1996).

(24) That the mark is generic.

[ Note 40.]

A mark registered on the Supplemental Register is subject to cancellation on the basis that it is generic.

[ Note 41.]

 40.   See H. Marvin Ginn Corp. v. International Association of Fire Chiefs, Inc., 782 F.2d 987, 228 USPQ 528, 531-32 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (two-step determination of whether a term is generic involves 1) what is the genus of the goods or services at issue and 2) is the term understood by the relevant public primarily to refer to that genus). Accord Princeton Vanguard, LLC v. Frito-Lay North America, Inc., 786 F.3d 960, 114 USPQ2d 1827, 1830-31 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (there is only one legal standard for genericness). But see Luxco, Inc. v. Consejo Reglador del Tequila, A.C., 121 USPQ2d 1477, 1497 (TTAB 2017) (opposition dismissed for failure to prove that TEQUILA is generic for spirits distilled from agave plant).


 41.   Turtle Wax, Inc. v. Blue Coral, Inc., 2 USPQ2d 1534, 1536 (TTAB 1987).


(25) That the mark is not in lawful use in commerce where the provision of the identified goods and/or services is unlawful under federal law.

 42.   In re JJ206, LLC, 120 USPQ2d 1568, 1570 (TTAB 2016) (finding applicant’s use and intended use of the applied for marks on marijuana vaporizers unlawful because the goods constitute illegal drug paraphernalia under the Controlled Substances Act).


NEED HELP to APPLY for a TM?  

Contact Not Just Patents for these and other issues when APPLYING for a TM:

  • Answers to case-specific questions about an application or registration;
  • Representation or Advice on proper responses to USPTO Office actions, oppositions, cancellations;
  • Conducting pre-filing searches for potentially conflicting trademarks;
  • Conducting pre-filing searches for trademark applications to oppose;
  • Analyzing classification of goods and services and documents before applying;
  • Advising on trademark examination issues, such as the acceptability of specimens and classification of goods and services.


Call us at 1-651-500-7590 or email WP@NJP.legal.



Call 1-651-500-7590 or email WP@NJP.legal for Responses to Office Actions; File or Defend an Opposition or Cancellation; Trademark Searches and Applications; Send or Respond to Cease and Desist Letters.

For more information from Not Just Patents, see our other sites:      

Steps to a Patent    How to Patent An Invention

Should I Get A Trademark or Patent?

Trademark e Search    Strong Trademark     Enforcing Trade Names

Common Law Trademarks  Trademark Goodwill   Abandoned Trademarks

Chart of Patent vs. Trade Secret

Patent or Trademark Assignments

Trademark Disclaimers   Trademark Dilution     TSDR Status Descriptors

Oppose or Cancel? Examples of Disclaimers  Business Cease and Desist

Patent, Trademark & Copyright Inventory Forms

Verify a Trademark  Be First To File    How to Trademark Search

Are You a Content Provider-How to Pick an ID  Specimens: webpages

How to Keep A Trade Secret

State & Federal Trade Secret Laws

Using Slogans (Taglines), Model Numbers as Trademarks

Which format? When Should I  Use Standard Characters?

Opposition Pleadings    UDRP Elements    


Oppositions-The Underdog    Misc Changes to TTAB Rules 2017

How To Answer A Trademark Cease and Desist Letter

Converting Provisional to Nonprovisional Patent Application (or claiming benefit of)

Trademark Refusals    Does not Function as a Mark Refusals

Insurance Extension  Advantages of ®  ApplyTM.com

How to Respond to Office Actions  Final Refusal

What is a Compact Patent Prosecution?

Acceptable Specimen       Supplemental Register   $224 Statement of Use

How To Show Acquired Distinctiveness Under 2(f)

Trademark-Request for Reconsideration

Why Not Just Patents? Functional Trademarks   How to Trademark     

What Does ‘Use in Commerce’ Mean?    

Grounds for Opposition & Cancellation     Cease and Desist Letter

Trademark Incontestability  TTAB Manual (TBMP)

Valid/Invalid Use of Trademarks     Trademark Searching

TTAB/TBMP Discovery Conferences & Stipulations

TBMP 113 Service of TTAB Documents  TBMP 309 Standing

Examples and General Rules for Likelihood of Confusion

USPTO Search Method for Likelihood of Confusion

Examples of Refusals for Likelihood of Confusion   DuPont Factors

What are Dead or Abandoned Trademarks?

 Can I Use An Abandoned Trademark?

Color as Trade Dress  3D Marks as Trade Dress  

Can I Abandon a Trademark During An Opposition?

Differences between TEAS and TEAS plus  

How do I Know If Someone Has Filed for An Extension of Time to Oppose?

Ornamental Refusal  Standard TTAB Protective Order

SCAM Letters Surname Refusal


What Does Published for Opposition Mean?

What to Discuss in the Discovery Conference

Descriptive Trademarks Trademark2e.com  

Likelihood of Confusion 2d  TMOG Trademark Tuesday

Acquired Distinctiveness  2(f) or 2(f) in part

Merely Descriptive Trademarks  

Merely Descriptive Refusals

ID of Goods and Services see also Headings (list) of International Trademark Classes

Register a Trademark-Step by Step  

Protect Business Goodwill Extension of Time to Oppose

Geographically Descriptive or Deceptive

Change of Address with the TTAB using ESTTA

Likelihood of confusion-Circuit Court tests

Pseudo Marks    How to Reply to Cease and Desist Letter

Not Just Patents Often Represents the Underdog

 Overcome Merely Descriptive Refusal   Overcome Likelihood Confusion

Protecting Trademark Rights (Common Law)

Steps in a Trademark Opposition Process   

Section 2(d) Refusals   FilingforTrademark.com

Zombie Trademark  

What is the Difference between Principal & Supplemental Register?

Typical Brand Name Refusals  What is a Family of Marks? What If Someone Files An Opposition Against My Trademark?

How to Respond Office Actions  

DIY Overcoming Descriptive Refusals

Trademark Steps Trademark Registration Answers TESS  

Trademark Searching Using TESS  Trademark Search Tips

Trademark Clearance Search   DIY Trademark Strategies

Published for Opposition     What is Discoverable in a TTAB Proceeding?

Counterclaims and Affirmative Defenses


©2008-2017 All Rights Reserved. Not Just Patents LLC, PO Box 18716, Minneapolis, MN 55418.

Call: 1-651-500-7590 or email: WP@NJP.legal. This site is for informational purposes only and is provided without warranties, express or implied, regarding the information's accuracy, timeliness, or completeness and does not constitute legal advice. No attorney/client relationship exists without a written contract between Not Just Patents LLC and its client. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Privacy Policy Contact Us