In an order issued this morning, the Supreme Court denied Professor Rebecca Curtin's petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review of the Federal Circuit's ruling in Curtin v. United Trademark Holdings, Inc., 2025 USPQ2d 784 (Fed. Cir. 2025) [precedential]. [TTABlogged here]. The CAFC had affirmed the Board's holding that "only commercial actors affected by the mark’s registration fall within the zone of interests to oppose the registration as generic, descriptive, or [failing to function as a trademark]," and it upheld the Board's dismissal of mere consumer Curtin's opposition to registration of the mark RAPUNZEL for dolls and toy figures on the ground of lack of statutory standing. [Petition for certiorari here: Curtin v. United Trademark Holdings, Inc., No. 25-435 (October 3, 2025)].
Professor Curtin based her petition on the argument that the Lexmark test for statutory standing did not apply to administrative proceedings, and she pointed to a conflict in the circuit courts of appeal.
Read comments and post your comment here.
TTABlogger comment: Too bad. Now I think the USPTO should return the application for further examination on the issues of genericness, mere descriptiveness, and failure to function.
Text Copyright John L. Welch 2026.
I'm not sure that I want general consumer standing to file oppositions, but 100% agree "the USPTO should return the application for further examination on the issues of genericness, mere descriptiveness, and failure to function."
ReplyDelete