If a party has reason to believe that a trademark application should not be approved or that a registered trademark should be invalidated, they can initiate a proceeding before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB). The party can file a Notice of Opposition or a Petition to Cancel, which are similar to a Complaint in a civil litigation. In response, the defendant can file an Answer.
The Lanham Act allows the defendant to raise equitable defenses in all inter partes proceedings. In addition to equitable defenses, various other defenses can be raised in the Answer. Some affirmative defenses include: (1) unclean hands; (2) laches; (3) estoppel; (4) acquiescence; (5) fraud; (6) mistake; (7) prior judgment; (8) third parties using similar marks for similar goods, thus weakening the mark's protection; or (9) any other matter that serves as an avoidance. These affirmative defenses should be asserted in the Answer. The Board may disregard a defense that was not raised in a timely manner. An Answer can include any defense.
No response is required for an affirmative defense, but a response is necessary for a counterclaim.
Certain defenses have specific rules to consider. In cases involving fraud, the circumstances of the fraud must be stated with specificity and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure must be followed. Regarding laches, the defense in TTAB proceedings must be connected to the party's registration of a trademark, not the use of a mark. The elements of laches include (1) an unreasonable delay in asserting a party's rights against another and (2) material prejudice to another resulting from that delay. Prejudice can be shown through loss of evidence or witnesses' memories due to the delay, as well as economic prejudice. Laches does not apply in certain circumstances, such as cases where confusion is inevitable, or when the grounds alleged involve genericness, mere descriptiveness, fraud, abandonment, or deceptive or deceptively misdescriptive marks.
The defense of acquiescence is similar to laches, with laches being passive assent and acquiescence being active assent. To prove acquiescence, one must demonstrate behavior that indicates apparent consent to the registration of the mark. Like laches, acquiescence is also tied to the registration of the mark, not its use, and does not apply under certain circumstances outlined earlier. The prior registration defense, also known as the Morehouse defense, is a relatively new defense. If an applicant has registered a substantially identical or identical mark for the same or substantially similar goods, the opposition or cancellation will be dismissed because no further harm can be caused to the plaintiff. However, there are exceptions when the prior registration defense does not apply, similar to laches and acquiescence defenses mentioned earlier.
If you need legal advice regarding your trademark rights, assistance with trademark prosecution, or representation in a domain name dispute, contact Wilson Whitaker Rynell. Our team of trademark lawyers has extensive experience in all aspects of trademark and copyright law, including the filing of trademark applications and representing clients in defense or prosecution before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.
Getting in touch is easy. Use the form below and request a free consultation today.
Additional defenses include, but are not limited to: (1) prior registration (known as the Morehouse Defense); (2) abandonment; (3) genericness; (4) functionality; (5) absence of likelihood of confusion; (6) priority; (7) lack of secondary meaning; (8) development of secondary meaning; (9) claim preclusion; (10) issue preclusion; (11) contractual estoppel; (12) license estoppel; or (13) challenging the validity of the plaintiff's registration, which requires additional action. If a party wishes to challenge the plaintiff's registration, they should assert a counterclaim or file a separate Petition to Cancel with the TTAB.
Recognized in the legal industry as dedicated board-certified lawyers and Rising Stars.
Your project will be handled by legal experts every time. You will have the most experienced attorneys working for you.
Let's talk about your legal issue
Wilson Legal Group P.C.
d/b/a Wilson Whitaker Rynell
(972) 248-8080 (Dallas) MAIN OFFICE
(713) 830-2207 (Houston) Appointment Only
(512) 691-4100 (Austin) Appointment Only
For more information on how we can assist in your intellectual property, commercial litigation, divorce, or other personal needs, let us know how we can help you:
WILSON WHITAKER RYNELL
Thank You for Contacting Us!
Your information has been sent, and we will contact you shorlty...issues.
WILSON WHITAKER RYNELL
Oops, there was an error sending your message.
Please try again later.
Disclaimer:
This form does not establish an attorney-client relationship, and should only be used to contact the firm about scheduling a call or meeting. No confidential or sensitive information should be sent using this form.
We represent clients nationwide, including Dallas, Austin, Houston, and other Texas areas such as Fort Worth, Arlington, Carrollton, Plano, Allen, Lewisville, Flower Mound, Irving, Denton, McKinney, North Richland Hills, and all cities within Dallas County, Tarrant County, Collin County, and Denton County.
Wilson Whitaker Rynell
16610 Dallas Parkway, Suite 1000
Dallas, Texas 75248
972-248-8080 (MAIN)
972-248-8088 (FAX)
info@wrrlegal.com (E-MAIL)