In a trademark opposition proceeding, a party alleging a likelihood of confusion pursuant to Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act is required to establish specific elements of proof. If you are a potential opposer, you will have the burden of proving the following evidentiary factors by a preponderance of the evidence:
Standing. Standing is a
The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board recently released its TTAB filing statistics for fiscal year 2018. These updated figures include year-to-year changes in the filing of appeals, notices of oppositions, and petitions for cancellations. It also provides useful information on the disposition of cases.
Highlights include the following: (percentage in parentheses signifies change over 2017)
A trademark opposition may be commenced based on a likelihood of confusion with a prior registered mark. The statutory basis for a likelihood confusion cause of action may be found in Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.
To prevail on a Section 2(d) claim, the Opposer must prove by a preponderance of the evidence
A motion for summary judgment in a trademark opposition or trademark cancellation proceeding before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) can be an effective strategy. Summary judgment motions are often are filed near or at the end of discovery, prior to the trial phase of the case. Sometimes, summary judgment motions are brought even
Over 5,000 U.S. trademark oppositions are filed against trademark applications every year. Often, the opposer is a competitor of the applicant or a company that believes that it would be damaged if the U.S. trademark application were to proceed to registration.
Here are considerations to take into account when determining whether to file a U.S.
Prevailing in a TTAB opposition proceeding against a food and beverage company proves to be sweet for the makers of Nutella.
In Ferrero S.p.A. v. Ruchi Soya Industries Limited, Ferrero, who is the owner of the NUTELLA spread brand, opposed Applicant’s mark NUTRELA for a wide variety of food and beverage products in International
No likelihood of confusion this time as the TTAB finds beer and wine to be unrelated goods.
In Justin Vineyards & Winery LLC v. Crooked Stave, LLC, Applicant Crooked Stave, LLC sought registration of the word mark HOP SAVANT, with “HOP” disclaimed, for “beer” in International Class 32. Opposer Justin Vineyards and Winery
A recent trademark opposition is a lesson in what happens when there is a crowded field of similar trademarks.
In Inter-Industry Conference on Auto Collision Repair v. LM Industries Group, Inc., Applicant sought registration of the mark ICAR or land vehicles in International Class 12. Opposer filed a notice of opposition against the ICAR application
Trademark opposition proceedings are civil litigations before the U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB).
Revised December 2, 2024
The following trademark opposition checklist will help you determine whether your company should bring a trademark opposition proceeding against a trademark applicant.
Companies that wish to enforce their trademark rights through TTAB
More than 5,000 trademark oppositions are filed every year.
One of the grounds for bringing a trademark opposition is that the application is likely to cause confusion with the Opposer’s preexisting trademark.
Yet many trademark opposers are unsuccessful and have their cases dismissed.
So prior to filing a notice of opposition, it is advisable
