Three Recent Inter Partes "Disasters" - Don't let this Happen to You

When a decision in an inter partes proceeding is 13 pages long or less, you can expect that someone or something went off the rails real quick. Here are three recent decisions falling within that category. I think there are some very basic lessons to be extracted.

Dongguan Mibang Network Technology Co., Ltd. v. Ontek Solutions, Opposition No. 91283885 (December 9, 2024) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Thomas L. Casagrande). [Opposition to registration of the mark GEJOY in the stylized form shown on the specimen of use (below), for "Bracelets made of seagrass" on the ground of, inter alia, likelihood of confusion with the common law and registered mark GEJOY for "Carnival masks; Knee guards for athletic use; Ornament hooks for Christmas trees; Play balloons; Hand-held party poppers; Hangers for Christmas tree ornaments." Opposer neither attached its registration to the Notice of Opposition nor presented any evidence during its trial period. Furthermore, the applicant did not admit any of opposer's allegations. The Board therefore found that opposer had failed to prove its entitlement to a cause of action (f/k/a standing) and it dismissed the opposition.]

Metabev LLC v. VSWC LLC, Cancellation No. 92083154 (December 12, 2024) [not precedential] (By the Board). [Petition for cancellation of a registration for the mark META WINE for "wine" on the ground of abandonment. Registrant failed to respond to petitioner's admission requests and did not move to amend or withdraw its admissions or to reopen its time to respond. It was therefore deemed to have admitted that it "“ha[s] not used [Respondent’s] Mark in connection with any goods or services after June 30, 2020” and that it “ha[s] no current plans to use or resume the use of the mark." The Board granted petitioner's motion for summary judgment.]

Curve Therapeutics Ltd. v. Shan X. Wang, Opposition No. 91276501 (December 13, 2024) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Peter W. Cataldo). [Opposition to registration of CURVE BIOSCIENCES for cancer detection kits in view of the "applied-for" (sic) mark CURVE THERAPEUTICS for various medical goods and services. The Board refused to consider evidence attached to opposer's brief, as well as evidence submitted with a prior summary judgment motion but not submitted during opposer's testimony period. With no evidence in the record, opposer failed to prove its entitlement to a statutory cause of action, and so the Board dismissed the opposition.]

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlogger comment: Can any of the losing parties seek review by way of civil action and then add evidence to overcome these defects?

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2024.