Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-01306/USCOURTS-ca13-15-01306-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David John Carnivale
Appellee
Staub Design, LLC
Appellant

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

STAUB DESIGN, LLC,

Appellant

v.

DAVID JOHN CARNIVALE,

Appellee

______________________ 

2015-1306

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, in No. 

92047553.

______________________ 

Decided: August 6, 2015

______________________ 

KURT JOHN NIEDERLUECKE, Fredrikson & Byron, PA, 

Minneapolis, MN, for appellant. Also represented by 

DEAN R. KARAU, CYNTHIA A. JOKELA MOYER. 

DAVID JOHN CARNIVALE, Staten Island, NY, pro se. 

______________________ 

Before REYNA, WALLACH, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.

Case: 15-1306 Document: 33-2 Page: 1 Filed: 08/06/2015
2 STAUB DESIGN, LLC v. CARNIVALE

HUGHES, Circuit Judge.

Staub Design, LLC argues the Trademark Trial and 

Appeal Board erred in dismissing its petition for cancellation of John Carnivale’s registered mark, because Staub 

presented new issues that were not already decided in 

prior litigation. We find that Staub has failed to identify 

any evidence that might support or even concern Staub’s 

argument regarding the allegedly new issues. Accordingly, we affirm.

I 

Mr. Carnivale owns the registered trademark “THE 

AFFORDABLE HOUSE” for “architectural plans and 

specifications” and “on-line retail store services featuring 

books and sets of blue prints.” Registration No. 

3,058,545. Mr. Carnivale published a book, “The Affordable House,” in 1994 and registered the domain name 

“www.affordablehouse.com” in 1998 to sell copies of his 

book and the blueprint sets it contains. Carnivale v. 

Staub Design, LLC, 700 F. Supp. 2d 660, 662 (D. Del. 

2010). 

Staub is a residential design company focused on the 

use of autoclaved aerated concrete, a lightweight building 

material. In 2004, after having discovered 

Mr. Carnivale’s website, Staub registered the domain 

name “www.theaffordablehouse.com.”

Mr. Carnivale sent Staub cease and desist letters in 

March 2007. On May 16, 2007, Staub petitioned for 

cancellation of Mr. Carnivale’s mark, alleging the mark 

was obtained fraudulently and is generic for the services 

for which it is registered. See 15 U.S.C. § 1064(3). On 

May 22, 2007, the Board instituted proceedings and 

issued a scheduling order setting deadlines for discovery 

and the testimony period.

On May 30, 2007, Mr. Carnivale filed a civil action 

against Staub in district court, alleging that Staub’s use 

Case: 15-1306 Document: 33-2 Page: 2 Filed: 08/06/2015
STAUB DESIGN, LLC v. CARNIVALE 3

of the domain name www.theaffordablehouse.com violated 

the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA), 

Pub. L. No. 106-113, § 3002, 113 Stat 1501, 1501A545–46

(1999) (codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)). Shortly after, 

Mr. Carnivale filed in the Trademark Office a notice of a 

pending civil action and a motion to dismiss, which the 

Board construed as a motion under 37 C.F.R. § 2.132(b). 

On October 18, 2007, the Board ordered suspension of the 

cancellation proceedings pending the outcome of the civil 

action.

In March 2010, a district court, as part of its determinations on portions of Mr. Carnivale’s ACPA claim, found 

Mr. Carnivale’s mark distinctive and not generic. Carnivale, 700 F. Supp. 2d at 666–67; 15 U.S.C. 

§ 1125(d)(1)(A)(ii)(II). And in April 2014, after a series of 

appeals and remands, the civil action concluded with a 

final judgment that Staub violated the ACPA. J.A. 9. 

Mr. Carnivale notified the Board in May 2014 of the 

final judgment in the civil action. Within the following 

three months, the parties filed supplemental memoranda 

and notices regarding Mr. Carnivale’s still-pending motion to dismiss and the concluded civil action. Staub also 

filed a motion to amend its petition to delete the fraud 

allegation and add an allegation that Mr. Carnivale’s 

mark is merely descriptive. After considering the entire 

record of the proceeding and the decisions in the civil 

action, the Board granted Staub’s motion to amend but 

nonetheless granted Mr. Carnivale’s motion to dismiss.

Staub appeals. We have jurisdiction under 15 U.S.C. 

§ 1071(a)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(B).

II

We review de novo the Board’s legal conclusions, including the dismissal of claims as legally deficient. Aycock Eng’g, Inc. v. Airflite, Inc., 560 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed.

Cir. 2009); Sunrise Jewelry Mfg. Corp. v. Fred S.A., 175 

Case: 15-1306 Document: 33-2 Page: 3 Filed: 08/06/2015
4 STAUB DESIGN, LLC v. CARNIVALE

F.3d 1322, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The Board’s factual 

findings are reviewed for substantial evidence. Aycock 

Eng’g, Inc., 560 F.3d at 1355.

Generic terms are not registrable, and a registered 

mark may be cancelled at any time on the grounds that it 

has become generic. 15 U.S.C. § 1064(3). Whether a 

mark is generic is a question of fact reviewed for substantial evidence. In re Reed Elsevier Props. Inc., 482 F.3d 

1376, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

The Board found that Staub was precluded under 

principles of collateral estoppel from re-litigating before 

the Board the same issue of distinctiveness that was 

decided in the civil action. Liability for a violation of the 

ACPA may be established by proving, among other things, 

that “in the case of a mark that is distinctive at the time 

of registration of the domain name, [the domain name] is 

identical or confusingly similar to the mark.” 15 U.S.C. 

§ 1125(d)(1)(A)(ii)(II). In the civil action, Mr. Carnivale

prevailed on the issue of whether his registered mark was 

distinctive and not generic at the time of Staub’s registration of the domain name www.theaffordablehouse.com. 

See Carnivale, 700 F. Supp. 2d at 666–67; Carnivale v. 

Staub Design, LLC, No. CIV. 1:08-cv-764-SLR, 2012 WL 

6814251, at *4 (D. Del. Jan. 7, 2012), aff’d, 547 F. App’x 

114 (3d Cir. 2013). To the extent that Staub’s petition 

concerned the same issue of whether Mr. Carnivale’s 

mark was distinctive and not generic in 2004, the Board 

correctly found that Staub was precluded from relitigating that issue. See, e.g., Int’l Order of Job’s Daughters v. Lindeburg & Co., 727 F.2d 1087, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 

1984). 

Staub argues that his petition should be allowed to 

proceed because the distinctiveness issue in the civil 

action was limited to whether Mr. Carnivale’s mark was 

distinctive at the time of registration of the domain name. 

According to Staub, the housing and foreclosure crisis 

Case: 15-1306 Document: 33-2 Page: 4 Filed: 08/06/2015
STAUB DESIGN, LLC v. CARNIVALE 5

that began in 2008 has made it “especially likely” that the 

term is no longer distinctive in light of this change, making the issues of this case different than those decided in 

the civil action. Appellant’s Br. 16–17. Staub offered no 

evidence before the Board to substantiate its argument. 

In this regard, the Board found that “[n]othing in Staub’s 

submissions to [the] Board indicates that the issues in 

this proceeding differ from those that were litigated 

before the District Court and affirmed by the Third Circuit.” J.A. 11. And our review of the record indicates that

it does not contain any evidence relevant to Staub’s 

changed-circumstances argument. Thus, on the record 

before us, we cannot say that the Board erred by dismissing Staub’s petition.1 See, e.g., Home Meridian Int’l, Inc. 

v. United States, 772 F.3d 1289, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2014) 

(holding that self-serving statements do not constitute 

substantial evidence).

III

We have considered Staub’s remaining arguments 

and conclude they are without merit. Accordingly, we 

affirm the Board’s dismissal of Staub’s petition for cancellation. 

AFFIRMED

No costs.

1 We express no opinion on the applicability of issue 

preclusion to the issue of whether a mark is still distinctive later in time when the basis for applying issue preclusion is a civil court’s finding, in relation to an ACPA 

claim, that the mark was distinctive earlier in time.

 

Case: 15-1306 Document: 33-2 Page: 5 Filed: 08/06/2015