The PTO’s Not Just Another Pretty Federal Face, Rules the TTAB. It Tosses Out Opposition for Procedural Failures.

If we didn’t learn the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board was prickly when it comes to procedure from the Blue Man case, we just got another lesson. The Board is handing out some more tough love on counsel. In the precedential decision, Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. v. Bio-Chek, LLC (Opposition No. 91175091, March 12, 2009), the Board tossed out Opposer’s 2(d) claim on the ground that it had improperly submitted its registration. Without considering its registration for AGROMETER, Opposer was unable to produce sufficient evidence at common law to show priority over applicant’s AGMETER mark, and thus was unable to sustain the 2(d) opposition.

Opposer submitted a photocopy of its licensor’s original registration certificate, dated 2004. A photocopy of a registration certificate may not be adequate proof of the current status of a registered mark. Under Trademark Rule 2.122(d)(2), a trademark registration document submitted should be “issued by the Patent and Trademark Office and show both the current status of and current title to the registration.” The 2004 copy did not confirm the status of the mark in 2007 or 2008.

In addition, Opposer, did not properly introduce the registration, as specified in the Trademark Rules. It did not attach the copy to the opposition; neither did it did not introduce it during testimony; and because applicant never admitted or stipulated to the current ownership and validity of the registration, the registration was not authenticated by waiver.

Because the Board did not consider the registration as prima facie evidence of ownership and first use, the Opposer was forced to rely solely on proof of its prior common law rights, which, the Board established, it had not done sufficient to establish priority.

To make matters worse, the Opposer improperly submitted notices of reliance for some of its documents, such as press releases, internet articles, and sales and marketing materials it wanted to produce. The Board noted that notices of reliance are strictly limited and may be used to introduce only discovery deposition, interrogatory responses, admission or written disclosures of an adverse party, and printed publications or official records. Other evidence must be authenticated by testimony. Accordingly, much of Opposer’s evidence common law evidence was not considered.

As a result of the limited evidence Opposer was allowed to submit, the Board found that it has not established priority and dismissed the case.

Practice Note: This case presents a veritable cavalcade of interesting issues and can serve as a laundry list for what not to do. That said, it’s important to note that even good and careful attorneys can get tripped up on the rules regarding submission of documents and evidence in a TTAB proceeding. There but for the grace of a good associate go any of us.

Non-trademark attorneys, more accustomed to fighting in federal court assume (and tell their clients), that the process at the TTAB mirrors that of federal court proceedings. While the basis of that statement is true, there are myriad distinctions that must be taken into account, as this case illustrates. Counsel should learn those distinctions and advise clients that availing itself of TTAB proceedings is no “walk in the park,” and federal court methods cannot simply be cloned. The good news is, failures by parties work both ways. If your opponent has been sloppy in its submission of evidence, the TTAB has shown that it will not consider it. Careful reading of pleadings, discovery, and motions can be a gold mine for a summary judgment motion.

Procedurally, the Opposer in this case can do what Blue Man Group did in its own matter and appeal the decision in district court. In all likelihood, like Blue Man, it will be able to properly introduce its evidence and – at the very least – establish priority in its mark. Then the question will hinge on confusion.

Finally, this case underscores the importance of a valid federal registration for clients’ important marks. When push comes to shove, a registration, properly introduced, saves time and money, because it is prima facie evidence of a first use date. Moreover, after 5 years of continuous use of the mark after a registration is issued, the mark’s registration becomes incontestable, except under limited circumstances (fraud, abandonment, genericness).



Permanent link to this article: