Wednesday, November 27, 2013

Current List of TTAB Decisions on "Appeal" to District Courts

I have collected six (6) pending federal district court actions (one is going up on appeal) involving Section 1071(b) review of TTAB decisions. The cases are summarized below, with links to the TTABvue pages where the decisions may be found, as well as to the pertinent TTABlog postings, if any. [The complaints are usually attached to the Notice of Appeal filed at the TTAB; other court papers may, of course, be found via PACER].

Pandol v. Pandol Bros., Inc., Case No. 1:13-cv-01488-LJO-MJS (E.D. Cal.) (Cancellation No. 92048691) [The Board granted a petition for cancellation filed by Pandol Bros., ordering cancellation of registrations for the marks PANDOL and PANDOL FAMILY FARMS for fresh fruit in view of the previously-used mark PANDOL for fresh fruit].

Glen Raven, Inc. v. Amerinova Properties, LLC, Civil Action No. 3:13-cv-02278-H-NLS (S. D. Cal). (Opposition No. 91192496) [The Board dismissed this opposition to registration of the mark SUN BRELLA'S for "living plants," finding the mark not likely to cause confusion with the registered mark SUNBRELLA for fabrics for indoor and outdoor furniture]. [TTABlogged here].

Product Source International, LLC v. Nahshin, Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-04997-NLH-KMW (D. NJ). (Cancellation No. 92051140) [In a cancellation proceeding involving a registration for the mark NIC OUT for "mechanical cigarette filters for removing nicotine," the Board ruled that Petitioner Leonid Nahshin, as the manufacturer of the goods and first user, owned the mark, and not the U.S. distributor]. [TTABlogged here].

Board of Trustees of The University of Alabama et al. v. Houndstooth Mafia Enterprisess LLC et al., Civil Action No. 7:13-cv-01736-SLB (N.D. Alabama). (Opposition No. 91187103) [The Board dismissed this opposition to registration of the mark depicted below for "shirts, caps" [HOUNDSTOOTH disclaimed], denying opposers' claims of likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d), and false suggestion of a connection and disparagement, both under Section 2(a)]. [TTABlogged here].

Zao Odessky Konjatschnyi Zawod v. Sia "Baltmark Invest" et al., Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-00515-JCC-IDD (E.D. Va.) (Opposition No. 91161570 and Cancellation No. 92047126) [The Board sustained an opposition to registration of the mark SHUSTOFF for various alcoholic beverages, finding it likely to cause confusion with the mark SHUSTOV & Design (shown below) for alcoholic beverages. The Board dismissed counterclaims asserting fraud and abandonment regarding the latter registration. On Nov. 6, 2013, the district court dismissed Odessky's fraud and abandoment claims (here)].

Vosk International Co. v. Zao Gruppa Predpriyatij Ost et al., 2:11-cv-01488-RSL (W.D. Wa.) (Oppositions Nos. 91168423, 91169098, and 91169446) [The district court granted defendants' summary judgment motion (here), affirming the TTAB's decision that sustained oppositions to registration of three marks for sparkling water. A notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was filed on November 4, 2013].

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlog note:  If you are aware of any other pending district court cases (or any appellate court cases), please let me know.

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2013.


At 11:07 AM, Blogger Griff Thomas said...

Nice job John. Griff

At 4:52 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Zao Odessky Konjatschnyi Zawod v. Sia "Baltmark Invest" et al., Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-00515-JCC-IDD (E.D. Va.) - the EDVA decided in favor of Defendant Baltmark on all remaining counts in February, 2014.


Post a Comment

<< Home