In order to initiate an Opposition or Cancellation proceeding before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (referred to as the "Board"), the party commencing the action must establish standing. This means that the party acting as the plaintiff must have a personal interest in the outcome of the Opposition or Cancellation proceeding. The legal basis for standing in an Opposition or Cancellation can be found in Sections 13 and 14 of the Lanham Act, respectively. The party in the plaintiff's position must have a personal stake in the proceeding and a reasonable belief that they will suffer harm.
If the party initiating the action asserts likelihood of confusion as a ground to oppose or cancel the mark, there is no requirement to plead and prove actual damages to satisfy the standing requirement. It is sufficient if the Opposer's belief in likelihood of confusion is not entirely baseless. The statute is interpreted liberally, particularly in cases where the Opposer alleges non-use abandonment of the mark. Bringing proceedings based on non-use serves the public interest by removing inactive marks from the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") Register, thereby enhancing the reliability of trademark searches.
If the ground asserted in a Board proceeding is that the mark is merely descriptive or generic of the applicant's goods or services, it is enough for the Opposer to show that they are either a competitor of the Applicant or that they may use the term to describe their similar goods or services. The Opposer does not need to have a proprietary right or ownership interest in the mark to have standing in an Opposition based on false suggestion of a connection (Section 2(a)) or likelihood of confusion (Section 2(d)), as long as the Opposer has a genuine interest in the outcome of the proceeding. This genuine interest may include efforts to prevent public deception or harm to a specific trade association and its members. In different circumstances, if the party asserts fraud or abandonment as grounds to oppose or cancel a mark, it is sufficient if the Opposer or Petitioner is in a position to use the subject mark for similar goods or services as the Applicant or Registrant.
According to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 8(e)(2), an Opposer has the option to present alternative legal theories to prevent the mark from registering. A party can assert as many separate claims or defenses as they have, regardless of consistency. See Taffy's of Cleveland, Inc. v. Taffy's, Inc., 189 USPQ 154 (TTAB 1975). For instance, if the Examining Attorney rejects an application based on likelihood of confusion with a prior registered mark, the Applicant is allowed to argue against the refusal by claiming that confusion is unlikely. If the Applicant fails to convince the Examiner, they may then initiate a Cancellation proceeding (assuming they have prior use of the mark) and assert likelihood of confusion as the ground, even though the two positions are contradictory.
The rationale behind permitting inconsistent pleadings is that any statement made by an applicant in an ex parte proceeding to overcome an objection cannot prevent the party from taking a different position in a matter before the Board. However, it is worth noting that under certain circumstances, an applicant's statement in an ex parte proceeding may be considered an admission against interest in a subsequent proceeding.
Once standing is established, any ground for opposition is permissible if it would invalidate the Applicant's right to register the mark. The Opposer bears the burden of proving their case by a preponderance of the evidence, unless the application involves a claim of acquired distinctiveness. In such cases, the Applicant acknowledges that the mark is descriptive and therefore cannot be registered unless secondary meaning is demonstrated.
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.
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)