United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 22-1853

TO-RICOS, LTD.,

Plaintiff, Appellee,

v.

PRODUCTOS AVÍCOLAS DEL SUR, INC.,

Defendant, Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

[Hon. Jay A. García-Gregory, U.S. District Judge]

Before

Montecalvo, Lipez, and Thompson,

Circuit Judges.

Luis A. Oliver-Fraticelli, with whom Adsuar Muñiz Goyco Seda 

& Pérez-Ochoa, P.S.C. was on brief, for appellant. 

Sheila J. Torres Delgado, with whom Puerto Rico Legal 

Advisers, LLC, Walter A. Winslow, and Coan, Payton & Payne, LLC

were on brief, for appellee. 

September 19, 2024
- 2 -

LIPEZ, Circuit Judge. This case arises from a dispute

between two companies vying for the right to use the "Pollo Picú"

trademark in the sale of fresh chicken. Appellant Productos 

Avícolas del Sur, Inc. ("PAS") sold chicken under the "Pollo Picú"

trademark ("Picú mark") until 2011, when the company stopped 

selling products because of financial difficulties. Five years 

later, in 2016, appellee To-Ricos, Ltd. ("To-Ricos") applied to 

register the Picú mark, believing that PAS had abandoned it. When 

PAS opposed To-Ricos's trademark applications, To-Ricos sued PAS 

in federal district court, seeking a declaratory judgment that it 

is the rightful owner of the Picú mark.

Concluding that PAS had abandoned the mark, the district 

court granted summary judgment for To-Ricos. On appeal, PAS argues 

that it never abandoned the Picú mark because the company's 

financial adversity excused its nonuse of the mark. PAS also 

asserts that, between 2011 and 2016, the company manifested its 

intent to resume, not abandon, use of the Picú mark. We disagree 

with PAS on both points and thus affirm the district court's grant 

of summary judgment for To-Ricos.

I.

We summarize the relevant facts, which are undisputed 

unless otherwise noted, in the light most favorable to PAS, the 

non-moving party. See González-Arroyo v. Drs.' Ctr. Hosp. Bayamón, 

Inc., 54 F.4th 7, 18 (1st Cir. 2022). 
- 3 -

A. PAS Stops Using the Trademark

PAS is a Puerto Rico corporation that sold Picú branded 

chicken from 2005 to 2011.1 The Picú trademark consists of the 

phrase "Pollo Picú" along with a cartoon chicken: 

The brand was, at one point, well-recognized among 

Puerto Ricans, with one industry executive going so far as to call 

"Pollo Picú" the "Coca-Cola" of Puerto Rico chicken. However, PAS 

faced administrative and financial challenges maintaining the Picú

tradition. For example, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office 

("USPTO") cancelled PAS's registrations of the Picú mark in 2006 

and 2009 for failure to file a declaration, as required by Section 

8 of the Lanham Act, attesting that the mark was either: (1) in 

use, or (2) not in use due to excusable circumstances.2 

1 PAS temporarily paused sales for fourteen months within this 

period because of a sudden increase in the price of corn.

2 In relevant part, Section 8 of the Lanham Act provides that, 

at specified times, a registrant must submit an affidavit stating

that "the mark is in use in commerce," 15 U.S.C. § 1058(b)(1)(A), 

or that the "mark is not in use in commerce," id.

§ 1058(b)(2)(A), "due to special circumstances which excuse such 
- 4 -

PAS ultimately stopped selling chicken bearing the Picú

mark in 2011 after its bank -- Banco Popular de Puerto Rico ("the 

Bank") -- froze PAS's financing.3 It soon became apparent that 

the Bank was auditing PAS's credit accounts. In January 2012, the 

Bank sued PAS in the Puerto Rico Commonwealth Court of First 

Instance ("Commonwealth Court") for the collection of monies and 

foreclosure of security interests under a preexisting loan and 

security agreement between the entities. Under that agreement, 

PAS had secured a loan by granting the Bank a lien over its assets, 

including the Picú mark. The Bank's lien entitled it to recover 

any income PAS garnered from its assets if PAS breached the loan 

agreement.

Confronting financial challenges and pending litigation, 

the president of PAS -- Fernando Echegaray -- considered selling 

the company to To-Ricos, PAS's main competitor.4 In March 2012, 

Echegaray discussed a sale of PAS's assets with Pedro Del Valle 

López ("Del Valle"), the president of To-Ricos, indicating that 

PAS would either sell its assets or resume production. With Del 

nonuse and is not due to any intention to abandon the mark," id.

§ 1058(b)(2)(B).

3 The financial institution at issue had different names and 

owners during the period relevant to this litigation. Those 

changes in name and ownership are not relevant to this appeal, so 

we refer to the entity as "the Bank" for simplicity. 

4 PAS and To-Ricos had also discussed the sale of the Picú 

mark in prior years.
- 5 -

Valle's encouragement, Echegaray sent an offer letter to the 

president of To-Ricos's parent company. However, no sale 

materialized.

PAS spent the next two-and-a-half years litigating with 

the Bank. Eventually, in October 2014, PAS and the Bank signed a 

settlement agreement requiring PAS to pay a stipulated sum to the 

Bank by December 2014. Under the agreement, if PAS failed to make 

that payment, the Bank would foreclose on most of PAS's assets to 

satisfy the judgment, after which PAS would be released from all 

debts and obligations to the Bank. The Picú mark was not among 

the foreclosable assets. The agreement provided, however, that

the Bank would retain its lien over the mark until the foreclosure 

proceedings concluded. 

PAS failed to make the December 2014 payment. By mid2017, the Bank had still not exercised its right to foreclose on 

PAS's assets. The Picú mark remained encumbered by the Bank's 

lien during that period. Due to the Bank's inaction, PAS moved 

for the Commonwealth Court in June 2017 to order the Bank to 

foreclose on PAS's assets or declare PAS free of its obligations 

to the Bank.5 In November 2019, the Commonwealth Court finally 

granted PAS's motion, ultimately discharging PAS from its 

5 For procedural reasons irrelevant to this appeal, the 

Commonwealth Court did not rule on PAS's motion for more than two 

years. 
- 6 -

outstanding obligations, thus removing the Bank's lien over the 

mark. 

B. To-Ricos Applies to Register the Trademark and PAS Responds

Meanwhile, To-Ricos filed an application in April 2016 

to register the Picú mark with the USPTO. No other trademarks

bearing the term "Picú" were registered with the USPTO at the time 

To-Ricos filed its application.6 However, just three months later, 

in July 2016, PAS filed its own application to register the Picú

mark.7 And, in October 2016, PAS filed an opposition to To-Ricos's

application with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ("TTAB"), an 

administrative tribunal housed within the USPTO.8

About one year later, in September 2017, PAS executed a 

trademark licensing agreement with IMEX Americas Trading, LLC 

("IMEX"), a company in the import/export industry.9 The agreement 

granted IMEX a non-exclusive right to use the Picú trademark in 

6 As noted, the USPTO cancelled PAS's earlier registration of 

the Picú mark in 2006 and 2009 for failure to file certain 

declarations required by the Lanham Act.

7 PAS applied to register the term "Picú" in addition to 

"¡Ahora Más Sabroso!" The parties treat the marks as identical to 

one another, so we do the same.

8 In June 2016, To-Ricos applied to register the same mark 

with the Puerto Rico Patent and Trademark Office ("PRTO"). PAS 

opposed that application, as it did with To-Ricos's application 

with the USPTO. Because the parties make no argument related to

the PRTO application, we focus our analysis on the dispute over 

federal registration.

9 IMEX is owned by Echegaray’s nephew, Derick Lugo-Colón.
- 7 -

the United States. IMEX started selling chicken under the Picú

mark in March 2018.10 However, IMEX stopped selling Picú branded 

chicken just a few months later, around June 2018, after To-Ricos 

sent cease and desist letters to clients of the company. 

C. This Litigation

The following summer, in June 2019, To-Ricos began 

selling Picú branded chicken. That same month, To-Ricos filed the 

present federal lawsuit against PAS. To-Ricos's complaint sought, 

among other remedies, a declaratory judgment establishing To-Ricos 

as the legal owner of the Picú mark.11 

After the parties completed discovery, To-Ricos moved 

for summary judgment, arguing that PAS had abandoned the Picú mark 

by the time To-Ricos applied to register the mark in April 2016.12

PAS, in opposing the motion, asserted that its litigation with the 

Bank excused its nonuse of the mark, and that its conduct since 

2012 demonstrated that it did not abandon the mark.

10 To be precise, IMEX sold chicken under the Picú mark through 

a separate distributor and a separate supplier. The names of those 

entities are irrelevant to this appeal. 

11 In November 2020, the TTAB stayed the administrative 

proceeding between PAS and To-Ricos pending the conclusion of this 

litigation.

12 PAS filed its own motion for summary judgment on a

counterclaim it had asserted against To-Ricos. PAS's motion, which 

the district court denied, is not relevant to this appeal. 
- 8 -

The district court entered summary judgment for ToRicos. To-Ricos, Ltd. v. Productos Avícolas del Sur, Inc., No.

19-1592, 2022 WL 19355737, at *3 (D.P.R. Sept. 22, 2022). The 

court noted that To-Ricos had established "a prima facie showing 

of abandonment" given that PAS admitted to not using the mark in 

commerce for at least three consecutive years before To-Ricos 

applied to register the mark. Id. at *2 (quoting Gen. Motors Corp.

v. Aristide & Co., Antiquaire De Marques, 87 U.S.P.Q.2d 1179, *3 

(T.T.A.B. 2008)). Finding that PAS had not met its burden of 

production with the evidence required to show its intent to resume 

use of the mark within that three-year period, the court held that 

To-Ricos was entitled to summary judgment on its abandonment claim. 

Id. at *2-3. The court therefore entered a declaratory judgment 

pronouncing To-Ricos as the lawful and rightful owner of the Picú

mark.13 This appeal followed. 

II. 

A. Standard of Review

We review a district court's summary judgment decision 

de novo. Gerald v. Univ. of P.R., 707 F.3d 7, 16 (1st Cir. 2013). 

13 The judgment, in relevant part, provided that: 

"(i) Plaintiff To-Ricos Ltd. is the legal and rightful owner of 

the 'Pollo Picu' mark in connection with the sale, marketing, and 

promotion of poultry and poultry-related products in the United 

States, including the Puerto Rico territory; (ii) Plaintiff 

To-Ricos Ltd. has superior and priority rights in the 'Pollo Picu' 

mark; and (iii) Defendant Productos Avicolas del Sur, Inc. does 

not have any rights over the 'Pollo Picu' mark."
- 9 -

Though the issue of trademark abandonment involves questions of 

fact, it can be resolved via summary judgment when there is no 

genuine dispute of material fact such that the moving party is 

entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Yellowbook Inc. v. 

Brandeberry, 708 F.3d 837, 848 (6th Cir. 2013); see also Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 56(a). A genuine dispute is one which "a reasonable jury 

could resolve . . . in the favor of the non-moving party," and a 

material issue is one with the "potential to affect the 

outcome . . . under the applicable law." Cherkaoui v. City of 

Quincy, 877 F.3d 14, 23-24 (1st Cir. 2017) (quoting Sánchez v. 

Alvarado, 101 F.3d 223, 227 (1st Cir. 1996)). When the moving 

party "bears the burden of proof at trial," as To-Ricos does here

on the issue of abandonment, the movant "must demonstrate every 

element of [its] case such that 'no reasonable trier of fact could 

find other than for [the moving party].'" Harley-Davidson Credit 

Corp. v. Galvin, 807 F.3d 407, 411 (1st Cir. 2015) (quoting Lopez

v. Corporación Azucarera de P.R., 938 F.2d 1510, 1516 (1st Cir.

1991)).

Our analysis "look[s] to all of the record materials on 

file, including the pleadings, depositions, and affidavits,"

without "evaluat[ing] the credibility of witnesses nor weigh[ing] 

the evidence." Ahmed v. Johnson, 752 F.3d 490, 495 (1st Cir. 

2014). Though we draw all reasonable inferences in PAS's favor as 

the non-moving party, Harley-Davidson Credit Corp., 807 F.3d at 
- 10 -

408, the "test for summary judgment is steeped in reality," so the 

non-moving party cannot rely on "conclusory allegations, 

improbable inferences, and unsupported speculation" to establish 

a dispute of material fact. Ellis v. Fid. Mgmt. Tr. Co., 883 F.3d 

1, 7 (1st Cir. 2018) (quoting Medina-Munoz v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco 

Co., 896 F.2d 5, 8 (1st Cir. 1990)).

B. Trademark Abandonment Framework

A trademark includes any "word, name, symbol, or device"

used to "identify and distinguish" goods. 15 U.S.C. § 1127. 

Though trademark rights may be established under the Lanham Act or 

common law, "the right is conditioned upon use [of the mark] in 

commerce" in both circumstances. Gen. Healthcare Ltd. v. Qashat, 

364 F.3d 332, 335 (1st Cir. 2004).14 Only the "bona fide" use of 

a mark will establish such a right; token uses that "merely" aim 

"to reserve a right in a mark" will not suffice. See 15 U.S.C. § 

1127 (defining "use in commerce" as "bona fide use of a mark in 

the ordinary course of trade"). 

14 Neither party has identified distinctions between the 

Lanham Act and the common law relevant to the issues raised in 

this appeal. Our analysis here focuses on the parties' rights 

under the Lanham Act. See Qashat, 364 F.3d at 336 n.6 (drawing on 

the Lanham Act despite the invocation of common law rights because 

"the general principles qualifying a mark for registration under 

the Lanham Act are for the most part applicable in determining 

whether an unregistered mark is entitled to protection" (quoting 

Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763, 768 (1992))).
- 11 -

Likewise, an owner may lose rights to a trademark once 

they stop using it in commerce. See ITC Ltd. v. Punchgini, Inc., 

482 F.3d 135, 146-47 (2d Cir. 2007). A trademark is considered

"abandoned" if "its use has been discontinued with intent not to 

resume such use." 15 U.S.C. § 1127. An abandoned mark returns to 

the public domain, where it may "be appropriated for use by other 

actors in the marketplace, in accordance with the basic rules of 

trademark priority." ITC, 482 F.3d at 147 (citation omitted). 

In some cases, as here, a successive user of a mark may 

seek a declaratory judgment deeming the mark abandoned by its 

(purportedly) former owner. See, e.g., Kellogg Co. v. Exxon Corp., 

209 F.3d 562, 575 (6th Cir. 2000).15 To prevail in that endeavor, 

"[t]he party asserting abandonment bears the burden of persuasion 

with respect to two facts: (1) non-use of the mark by the legal 

owner, and (2) lack of intent by that owner to resume use of the 

mark in the reasonably foreseeable future." ITC, 482 F.3d at 

147.16

15 Put differently, the plaintiff in an infringement suit can 

"offensively" raise the claim that the defendant has abandoned any 

right it may once have had in the mark. See Yellowbook, 708 F.3d 

at 848 ("[T]he issue of abandonment may be asserted 

offensively . . .."). An abandonment claim may also be raised 

"defensively" as an affirmative defense in infringement 

litigation. See 15 U.S.C. § 1115(b)(2) (listing abandonment as an 

affirmative defense in infringement actions); see also Yellowbook, 

708 F.3d at 847-48 (describing still other contexts in which an 

abandonment claim may be asserted). 

16 To-Ricos has also raised an analogous abandonment claim 

under Puerto Rico law. The parties agree that the statutory 
- 12 -

The Lanham Act provides that a challenger may establish

a prima facie case of abandonment by showing that the mark has not 

been used for three consecutive years. See 15 U.S.C. § 1127.17 

Such a prima facie showing creates a "rebuttable presumption" that 

the prior owner has abandoned the mark. ITC, 482 F.3d at 147 

(quoting Saratoga Vichy Spring Co. v. Lehman, 625 F.2d 1037, 1044 

(2d Cir. 1980)).18 To rebut the presumption, the prior owner must 

produce evidence that, within the statutory period, it either used 

the mark or held an intent to resume use of the mark in the 

reasonably foreseeable future. See Emergency One, Inc. v. Am. 

FireEagle, Ltd., 228 F.3d 531, 536-37 (4th Cir. 2000); see also

ITC, 482 F.3d at 149 n.9 (explaining that "a mark holder's intent 

to resume use of the mark must be formulated during the three-year 

definition of abandonment is essentially the same under the Lanham 

Act and the Puerto Rico Trademark Act. See Puerto Rico Trademark 

Act, 10 L.P.R.A. § 223(K). Thus, our analysis of To-Rico's federal 

claim applies equally to its claim under Puerto Rico law. 

17 Earlier versions of Section 1127 provided that two 

consecutive years of nonuse established prima facie evidence of 

abandonment. Effective January 1, 1996, Congress amended Section 

1127 to lengthen the required period of nonuse from two consecutive 

years to three. See Uruguay Round Agreements Act, Pub. L. No. 

103–465, § 521, 108 Stat. 4809, 4981-82 (1994); see also Cumulus 

Media, Inc. v. Clear Channel Commc'ns, Inc., 304 F.3d 1167, 1174 

n.8 (11th Cir. 2002) (noting the amendment to the statute).

18 If the alleged period of nonuse is shorter than three years, 

no presumption is triggered and the challenging party must carry

the same burden of proof as would a party for which a prima facie 

case had been rebutted: "(1) non-use of the mark by the legal 

owner, and (2) lack of intent by that owner to resume use of the 

mark in the reasonably foreseeable future." ITC, 482 F.3d at 147. 
- 13 -

period of non-use").19 What constitutes the "'reasonably 

foreseeable future' will vary depending on the industry and the 

particular circumstances of the case." Emergency One, 228 F.3d at 

537 (noting that products with "very long lives" where "the good 

will value of the mark persists long after production" may give 

mark owners "five or six years [to] consider[] the reintroduction 

of a brand, even though the same passage of time would be 

unreasonable for a maker of a more ephemeral product, say potato 

chips"). 

A prima facie case of abandonment shifts only the burden 

of production, not persuasion, to the prior owner of the mark. 

Id. at 536; ITC, 482 F.3d at 148. Put differently, the statutory 

presumption merely alleviates the challenger's burden of 

"establish[ing] the intent element of abandonment as an initial

part of its case." Imperial Tobacco Ltd. v. Philip Morris, Inc., 

899 F.2d 1575, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1990). If a mark owner provides 

evidence that "would permit a reasonable jury to infer that [the 

owner] had not abandoned the mark," ITC, 482 F.3d at 149, the owner

has satisfied its burden of production and the presumption of 

abandonment "disappears," Saratoga, 625 F.2d at 1043.20 

19 We sometimes refer to the three-year period described in 

Section 1127 as a "statutory period" and the presumption of 

abandonment as a "statutory presumption."

20 If the (purportedly) former mark owner satisfies its burden 

of production, the party asserting abandonment must ultimately 

persuade the factfinder that the prior owner had discontinued use 
- 14 -

Here, PAS admits that it did not use the Picú mark in 

commerce between 2011 and 2016. Accordingly, the district court 

concluded that To-Ricos had established a prima facie showing of 

abandonment. To-Ricos, 2022 WL 19355737, at *2. The burden thus 

shifted to PAS to produce evidence that, during the relevant 

period, it possessed an intent to resume use of the mark. Id. 

Determining that PAS provided no such evidence, the court held 

that PAS had abandoned the Picú mark. Id. at *3. The court thus 

granted summary judgment for To-Ricos. Id.

III. 

This dispute turns on whether PAS abandoned its right to 

the Picú mark before To-Ricos appropriated the mark for its own 

use. See J. Thomas McCarthy, 2 McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair 

Competition § 17:2 (5th ed. 2024) [hereinafter "McCarthy"] ("Once 

abandoned, a mark may be seized immediately and the person so doing 

so may build up rights against the whole world. After abandonment, 

ownership of the mark goes to the first party after the abandonment 

to achieve priority of use as a mark."); see also ITC, 482 F.3d at 

147.

PAS challenges the district court's abandonment holding

on two grounds. First, PAS contends that the court should have 

of the mark with the intent not to resume such use. See Cumulus 

Media, 304 F.3d at 1176-77; see also Emergency One, 228 F.3d at

540 (discussing proper jury instructions).
- 15 -

excused PAS's nonuse of the mark because the company only stopped 

using the mark due to its financial insecurity and litigation with 

the Bank. Second, PAS asserts that it rebutted the presumption of 

abandonment by producing evidence of its intent to resume use of 

the mark. Such evidence includes PAS's attempt to sell the mark 

in 2012, its agreement with the Bank to unencumber the mark in 

2014, and its licensing of the mark to IMEX in 2017.

A. Excusable Nonuse

PAS first argues that its "nonuse should have been 

excused as justified" because it was entangled in legal proceedings 

against the Bank. More broadly, PAS asserts that a temporary 

suspension of use for reasons beyond the control of the mark owner 

cannot establish a trademark abandonment claim. To-Ricos responds 

by noting that explanations for nonuse, standing alone, cannot

rebut the presumption of abandonment.

A trademark owner may, of course, argue that some 

external event forced the owner to temporarily withdraw from the 

market. See McCarthy, supra, § 17:16 (discussing "outside 

causes"). Indeed, "a labor strike, bankruptcy, import problems, 

unprofitable sales . . . [and] other involuntary action[s]" may 

explain why an owner has temporarily stopped using a mark in 

commerce. Id. (footnotes omitted). PAS, however, interprets that 

basic proposition to mean that evidence of "excusable nonuse"
- 16 -

prevents the three-year statutory period from running.21 In other 

words, PAS contends that its evidence of "excusable nonuse"

prevents To-Ricos from establishing a prima facie case.

We disagree. The Lanham Act means what it says: "Nonuse 

for 3 consecutive years shall be prima facie evidence of 

abandonment." 15 U.S.C. § 1127. The text does not distinguish 

between inexcusable and excusable years of nonuse. Indeed, the 

statute is agnostic about the reason for a mark's hibernation. 

What matters, for the purpose of establishing a prima facie case, 

is whether the mark was in use or not.

Still, PAS makes another argument. That is, even 

assuming its nonuse of the mark established a prima facie case of 

abandonment, PAS contends that it satisfied its burden of 

production, and thus rebutted the presumption of abandonment, by 

furnishing evidence of "excusable nonuse."

This proposition is similarly unavailing. Once a prima 

facie case of abandonment has been established, the (purportedly) 

prior owner of the mark must, at minimum, produce evidence of an 

intent to resume use of the mark within the "reasonably foreseeable 

future." Silverman v. CBS Inc., 870 F.2d 40, 47 (2d Cir. 1989). 

To be sure, a justification for nonuse may help a (purportedly) 

prior owner explain when or how it intends to resume use of the 

21 We use the phrases "excusable nonuse," "justifiable 

nonuse," and "explainable nonuse" interchangeably. 
- 17 -

mark. ITC, 482 F.3d at 151 n.10 (noting that a mark owner's 

explanation for why it suspended use of a mark is relevant "only 

as circumstantial evidence shedding possible light on [its] intent 

to resume future use [of the mark] within a reasonable period of 

time"). However, the prior owner cannot satisfy its burden of 

production simply by providing a reason why it did not use the 

mark during the statutory period. Silverman, 870 F.2d at 47 ("A 

proprietor who temporarily suspends use of a mark can rebut the 

presumption of abandonment by showing reasonable grounds for the 

suspension and plans to resume use in the reasonably foreseeable 

future when the conditions requiring suspension abate." (emphasis 

added)).

If the rule were otherwise, a mark owner would be free 

to indefinitely warehouse unused trademarks so long as that 

proprietor could provide some excuse for the mark's nonuse. See

id. at 46 ("Even after prolonged non-use, and without any concrete 

plans to resume use, a company could almost always assert 

truthfully that at some point, should conditions change, it would 

resume use of its mark."). Indeed, any revenue shortfall, 

corporate reorganization, or supply chain disruption could

"justify" the nonuse of a mark. Congress presumably never 

"contemplated such an unworkable standard" in passing the Lanham 

Act. Id. Rather, a prior mark owner seeking to rebut the 

presumption of abandonment must, at minimum, produce evidence of 
- 18 -

its intent, within the statutory period, to use the mark in the 

reasonably foreseeable future. That evidentiary requirement 

"ensures that valuable trademarks are in fact used in commerce as 

the Lanham Act intends, rather than simply hoarded or warehoused." 

Emergency One, 228 F.3d at 537. 

PAS cites several non-binding cases for the proposition 

that a mark owner may defeat an abandonment claim simply by showing 

"a temporary suspension of use for reasons beyond the control of 

the mark owner." However, each of those cases involved a mark 

owner that also produced evidence of its intent to resume use of 

the mark. For example, in Burgess v. Gilman, 475 F. Supp. 2d 1051 

(D. Nev. 2007), the mark owner "had discussions about various 

proposed plans for the [brand]" during the nonuse period. Id. at 

1062. Similarly, the mark owner in Kardex Sys., Inc. v. Sistemco 

N.V., 583 F. Supp. 803 (D. Me. 1984), maintained an "intent to 

return to [the] market" during a period of nonuse by servicing and 

advertising the relevant product. Id. at 817; see also Miller 

Brewing Co. v. Oland's Breweries (1971) Ltd., 548 F.2d 349, 352 

(C.C.P.A. 1976) (noting that a mark owner sufficiently "rebut[ted] 

[a] prima facie case of abandonment" because it continued 

advertising the mark during the period of nonuse, among other 

activities expressing an intent to resume use). And, in Star-Kist 

Foods, Inc. v. P.J. Rhodes & Co., 769 F.2d 1393 (9th Cir. 1985),

the Ninth Circuit noted that the entity alleged to have abandoned 
- 19 -

marks during a time of financial hardship ultimately "intended to

and did resume use of the trademarks when profits could again be 

made." Id. at 1396.

In sum, we reject PAS's arguments that it need only show 

a "temporary suspension of use for reasons beyond [its] control"

to toll the statutory period of nonuse or rebut the presumption of 

abandonment. Indeed, PAS's evidence of "excusable nonuse" is 

neither sufficient nor necessary to satisfy its burden of 

production. Though PAS's litigation with the Bank may help explain 

why it stopped using the Picú mark, PAS must still produce evidence 

of an intent to resume use of the mark to rebut the presumption of 

abandonment. Of course, PAS asserts that it did in fact produce 

such evidence of its intent. We thus evaluate below whether PAS's 

purported evidence of its intent to resume use, combined with its

justification for not using the mark, satisfied its burden of 

production. 

B. Intent to Resume Use

We pause to further explain the procedural lens through 

which we evaluate PAS's proffered evidence of its intent to resume 

use of the mark. As noted above, to rebut the presumption of 

abandonment, PAS must produce evidence that, during the statutory 

period, it held an intent to resume use of the mark in the 

reasonably foreseeable future. We emphasize again that PAS's 

burden in this regard is one of production, not persuasion. 
- 20 -

Emergency One, 228 F.3d at 536. That means PAS need not prove

anything at this procedural stage. It must only produce evidence 

that would "permit a reasonable jury to conclude that, in the 

three-year period of non-use," PAS "nevertheless maintained an 

intent to resume use of its registered mark in the reasonably 

foreseeable future." ITC, 482 F.3d at 149. 

In determining whether PAS satisfied its burden of 

production, we must view its proffered evidence not in isolation 

but in its totality -- including, as noted, PAS's reason for 

suspending its use of the mark. See id. (viewing the record in 

its totality to evaluate intent). Moreover, we must evaluate such

evidence in the light most favorable to PAS, the nonmoving party 

on summary judgment. See González-Arroyo, 54 F.4th at 18. The 

burden of production is thus no "heavy burden." Empresa Cubana 

del Tabaco v. Culbro Corp., 399 F.3d 462, 467 n.2 (2d Cir. 2005).

That said, summary judgment must be entered against a party who 

fails to adduce enough evidence to satisfy this burden. See, e.g., 

ITC, 482 F.3d at 149 (granting summary judgment for the party 

asserting an abandonment claim because the nonmoving party failed 

to furnish evidence of its intent to resume use of a mark); 

Yellowbook, 708 F.3d at 848 (same).22 

22 We reject PAS's argument that the district court improperly 

shifted the burden of proof, rather than the burden of production, 

to PAS. To be sure, the district court at times referred to PAS's 

inability to "disprove" certain facts. To-Ricos, 2022 WL 19355737, 
- 21 -

With these procedural requirements in mind, we now turn 

to the three circumstances that, according to PAS, reflect the 

company's intent to resume use of the mark. 

1. Attempted Sale (2012)

PAS first points to its attempt to sell the Picú mark as 

evidence of its intent to resume use of the mark. As noted, PAS

sought to sell its assets, including the Picú mark, to To-Ricos in 

2012. During those negotiations, Echegaray, PAS's president,

expressed his intention to either "reopen" production or "do 

something with th[e] assets." 

The circuits are divided on whether an attempt to sell 

a mark expresses an intent to use that mark in commerce. See

Specht v. Google Inc., 747 F.3d 929, 934 (7th Cir. 2014) ("[A]n 

effort to sell the assets of a business is different from trading 

on the goodwill of a trademark to sell a business's goods or 

services and therefore does not constitute a use of the mark in 

commerce."); but see Defiance Button Mach. Co. v. C & C Metal 

Prods. Corp., 759 F.2d 1053, 1060-61 (2d Cir. 1985) (rejecting 

at *2. However, the context surrounding those references makes 

clear that the district court was referring to PAS's failure to 

produce evidence showing an intent to resume use. See id. at *3 

("[PAS] has not provided competent evidence of an intent to resume 

use during the relevant time period." (emphasis added)); id.

("There is no evidence of business plans, marketing strategies, 

licensing efforts, or other actions undertaken between 2011 and 

2016 to establish an intent to resume use of the mark in commerce."

(emphasis added)).
- 22 -

abandonment claim, in part, where owner, after a period of nonuse, 

tried to sell a mark). We need not reach that issue here, however,

because PAS tried to sell the Picú mark in 2012, before the 

relevant three-year statutory window. As discussed, To-Ricos 

applied to register the Picú mark in 2016. Thus, to rebut the 

statutory presumption of abandonment PAS needed to produce 

evidence that, between 2013 and 2016, it either used the mark in 

commerce or held an intent to resume use of the mark. See ITC, 

482 F.3d at 149 n.9.23 PAS's attempt to sell the mark in 2012 thus

cannot rebut To-Ricos's prima facie case of abandonment absent 

evidence that PAS carried that intent into the statutory period. 

To that end, PAS argues that the comment made by its

president during the 2012 negotiations provides forward-looking 

evidence of the company's intent to resume use of the mark. Of 

course, courts may consider evidence "regarding [a mark owner's]

practices that occurred before or after the three-year statutory 

period to infer [an owner's] intent to resume use during the 

three-year period." Crash Dummy Movie, LLC v. Mattel, Inc., 601 

F.3d 1387, 1392 (Fed. Cir. 2010). However, the relevant comment 

only indicates that PAS held a vague intention, as of 2012, to 

23 While it is undisputed that PAS did not use the mark from 

2011 to 2016, To-Ricos identifies April 2013 to April 2016 as the 

relevant three-year period of nonuse. PAS does not challenge this 

framing by To-Ricos, so we similarly treat April 2013 to April 

2016 as the relevant statutory period for our analysis.
- 23 -

potentially restart chicken production at some unspecified date. 

That "bare assertion of possible future use is not enough." 

Silverman, 870 F.2d at 47 (holding that a mark owner failed to 

rebut the presumption of abandonment). Indeed, "courts have 

generally held that a trademark owner cannot rebut a presumption 

of abandonment merely by asserting a subjective intent to resume 

use of the mark at some later date." ITC, 482 F.3d at 150; see

also Emergency One, 228 F.3d at 537 ("[T]he owner of a trademark 

cannot defeat an abandonment claim . . . by simply asserting a 

vague, subjective intent to resume use of a mark at some 

unspecified future date."). 

Thus, neither PAS's attempt to sell the mark in 2012,

nor the comment PAS's president made during that negotiation,

support the requisite intent, within the statutory period, to 

resume use of the mark in the reasonably foreseeable future.

2. Unencumbering the Mark (2014)

PAS next argues that it manifested its intent to resume 

use of the Picú mark by settling its litigation with the Bank in

2014. Recall that PAS, as part of the initial loan agreement, had 

granted the Bank a lien over its assets, including the Picú mark. 

When PAS allegedly breached the loan agreement, the Bank sued to 

collect on outstanding payments and exercise its right to foreclose 

on PAS's assets. Under the 2014 settlement agreement between the 

two parties, the Bank had a right to foreclose on most of PAS's 
- 24 -

assets, but not the Picú mark. The agreement provided that once 

the Bank foreclosed on PAS's other assets, the lien on the Picú 

mark would be discharged. PAS argues that its exclusion of the 

Picú mark from the list of foreclosable assets in the settlement 

agreement reflected its intent to resume use of the mark.

However, PAS cannot rely on evidence of its settlement 

agreement to help satisfy its burden of production. That is 

because PAS's effort to own an unencumbered right to the Picú mark 

does not imply its intent to resume use of the mark in commerce in 

the reasonably foreseeable future. See 15 U.S.C. § 1127 ("'[U]se

in commerce' means the bona fide use of a mark made in the ordinary 

course of trade, and not made merely to reserve a right in a 

mark."). The Bank's lien never precluded PAS from using the mark; 

it only gave the Bank the right to apply PAS's profits to PAS's

unsatisfied debts. By attempting to remove the Bank's lien, PAS 

simply sought to regain the unencumbered right to profit from the 

mark, not its ability to use the mark. See AmBrit, Inc. v. Kraft, 

Inc., 812 F.2d 1531, 1550 (11th Cir. 1986) ("Trademark rights flow 

from use, not from intent to protect rights."). 

More importantly, the record contains no evidence 

indicating that PAS in fact intended to resume use of the mark

before or after it became free of the Bank's encumbrance. See 

Vais Arms, Inc. v. Vais, 383 F.3d 287, 294 (5th Cir. 2004) (burden 

of production not satisfied by evidence of a mark owner's 
- 25 -

"subjective, uncommunicated desire not to abandon the mark, 

without any indication of when or how he intended to resume its 

commercial use"). PAS could have licensed the then-encumbered 

mark to another entity to maintain the brand's goodwill, yet PAS 

took no such action during the relevant statutory period -- i.e., 

between 2013 and 2016. Moreover, under the settlement agreement, 

PAS agreed to allow the Bank to foreclose on "almost everything"

owned by the company, including its machinery and facilities, so 

it is unclear how PAS would (or could) resume using the mark in 

the reasonably foreseeable future once freed from the lien. By 

protecting its trademark from foreclosure proceedings, PAS may 

have thought the mark held some value independent of the 

infrastructure used to make the company's products. Yet

"traditional principles of trademark law" provide that "[t]here is 

no such thing as property in a trademark except as a right 

appurtenant to an established business or trade in connection with 

which the mark is employed." Yellowbook, 708 F.3d at 844 

(alteration in original) (quoting Rock & Roll Hall of Fame & 

Museum, Inc. v. Gentile Prods., 134 F.3d 749, 753 (6th Cir. 1998)).

Even if the settlement agreement reflected PAS's intent 

to use the mark at some vague point in the future, that would still 

not be enough. See Qashat, 364 F.3d at 338 (explaining that a 

"noncommittal, indefinite assertion of intent to resume use [is]

insufficient as a matter of law to rebut the presumption of 
- 26 -

abandonment"). As noted, to satisfy its burden of production, and 

thus rebut the presumption of abandonment, PAS must furnish 

evidence of its intent to resume use in the "reasonably foreseeable

future." Silverman, 870 F.2d at 47 (emphasis added). The goodwill 

associated with ephemeral products like chicken is often 

short-lived, so what constitutes a "reasonably foreseeable future"

in this context may be a narrow window. See Emergency One, 228 

F.3d at 537.24 Far from expressing an intent to use the mark in 

the near future, the settlement agreement established that the

Bank would retain a lien over the mark until it completed 

foreclosure proceedings on PAS's other assets. So, by failing to 

specify a deadline for the completion of those foreclosure 

proceedings, PAS deferred its right to an unencumbered Picú mark.25

At no point did PAS ever express when or how it would use the mark 

once the lien was discharged. See Qashat, 364 F.3d at 337-38 

24 While there appears to be some evidence that the Picú mark 

was well-recognized by consumers even after PAS stopped using the 

mark, PAS does not argue that there was any goodwill still 

associated with the mark at the end of the statutory period that 

would impact our analysis of PAS's intent to resume use or 

abandonment of the mark.

25 Similarly, PAS cannot maintain that its excuse for not 

using the mark was due to an "external cause." See McCarthy, 

supra, § 17:16. PAS agreed from the start to secure its financing 

by granting the Bank a lien over its assets. Moreover, in settling 

the resulting litigation, PAS failed to bargain for a specific 

deadline on which the Bank's lien would be discharged. PAS, not

some "external cause," is therefore largely responsible for the

mark's prolonged encumbrance, cutting against the company's excuse 

for nonuse.
- 27 -

(holding that a mark owner could not rebut the presumption of 

abandonment because it took "no steps" to introduce its product to 

the market during the statutory period). 

Thus, no reasonable jury could therefore view the 

settlement agreement as probative, alone or combined with other 

evidence, of PAS's intent to resume use of the mark in the 

foreseeable future. 

3. The Licensing Agreement (2017)

Finally, PAS contends that its licensing agreement with 

IMEX in September 2017 provides evidence of an intent to resume 

use of the mark. This argument is alluring at first glance. 

Generally, a mark owner's intent to resume use can be shown by 

valid efforts to license a mark. See Sands, Taylor & Wood Co. v. 

Quaker Oats Co., 978 F.2d 947, 956 (7th Cir. 1992); see also

McCarthy, supra, § 17:11 ("An intent to resume use can be evidenced 

by continuing efforts to license the mark, which can be sufficient 

to rebut a prima facie case of abandonment.").

That said, there are two problems with PAS's position. 

First, PAS entered the licensing agreement in September 2017, more 

than a year after the statutory period of nonuse elapsed in April 

2016. "Once a period of nonuse results in abandonment, a 

resumption of use thereafter cannot cure the preceding 

abandonment." McCarthy, supra, § 17:3; see also ITC, 482 F.3d at 

149 n.9 ("An intent to resume use of the mark formulated after 
- 28 -

more than three years of non-use cannot be invoked to dislodge the 

rights of another party who has commenced use of a mark -- thereby 

acquiring priority rights in that mark -- after three years of 

non-use."). To be sure, "evidence arising after the relevant 

three-year period" could, in some cases, "demonstrate an intent 

within that period to resume use." ITC, 482 F.3d at 149 n.9.26 

However, no such backward-looking evidence suggests PAS 

contemplated signing the 2017 licensing agreement within the 

statutory period. See McCarthy, supra, § 16:9 ("Initial use of 

the mark, followed by a long period of nonuse, may result in 

abandonment of whatever rights accrued to the initial usage."). 

Accordingly, evidence of this agreement does not rebut the

statutory presumption of abandonment, and the district court 

correctly concluded that PAS had abandoned the mark as of 2016. 

See AmBrit, 812 F.2d at 1550-51. The Picú mark thus returned to 

the public domain by the time To-Ricos applied to register the 

mark in April 2016. See ITC, 482 F.3d at 147 (explaining that an 

26 For example, consider a scenario in which, one year after 

the statutory period has elapsed, a mark owner sends the following 

email to a distributor: "As you know, my product has not been 

sold for some time. I am excited to announce that, after spending 

the past five years working to decrease production costs, I am 

ready to sell my product to the public again." That type of 

evidence, though arising after the statutory period, is 

nonetheless probative of the mark owner's intent during the 

relevant period.
- 29 -

abandoned mark "returns to the public domain and may, in principle, 

be appropriated for use by other actors in the marketplace").27

Second, and more importantly, licensing agreements

without adequate quality control cannot show an intent to resume 

use of the mark. Trademark law does not protect these sorts of 

arrangements -- referred to as "naked licensing" agreements -- for 

good reason. See McCarthy, supra, § 18:48 ("Licensing of a mark 

27 The district court concluded that "To-Ricos acquired 

superior legal rights over the mark by filing trademark 

applications with the USPTO and PRTO in 2016 -- when there were no 

other live registrations or pending applications containing the 

term 'Picu' for poultry or related products and services -- and 

began selling 'Pollo Picu' branded products on or around June 14, 

2019." To-Ricos, 2022 WL 19355737, at *3. To the extent the 

district court implied that To-Ricos established priority rights

to the mark as of 2016 by merely applying to register the mark, 

that conclusion is likely incorrect. Generally, trademark rights 

vest based on the use of a mark, not mere registration. See

Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Wheeler, 814 F.2d 812, 815 

(1st Cir. 1987); but see ITC, 482 F.3d at 146 n.8 (describing an 

exception under 15 U.S.C. § 1051(b) not applicable here). However, 

this error does not change our conclusion. For one, PAS never 

raised the issue, thus waiving our consideration of it. See United 

States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1, 17 (1st Cir. 1990). More 

importantly, it is immaterial whether To-Ricos first established

its priority to use the mark in 2016 (when it applied to register 

the mark) or 2019 (when it started selling Picú-branded chicken).

Under either date, To-Ricos would still have priority rights over 

PAS because PAS never resumed using the mark after it was abandoned

in 2016. See Cal. Cedar Prods. Co. v. Pine Mountain Corp., 724 

F.2d 827, 828 (9th Cir. 1984) (noting that "the first party to use 

an abandoned trademark in a commercially meaningful way, after its 

abandonment, is entitled to exclusive use and ownership of the 

trademark"); see also, infra, n.28 (noting that PAS's licensing of 

the mark to IMEX did not confer priority rights to PAS because, 

under 15 U.S.C. § 1055, the benefit of a licensee's "first use" 

inures to a licensor only when the licensor "control[s] . . . the 

nature and quality of the goods" sold by the licensee).
- 30 -

without adequate quality control is known as 'naked licensing.'"). 

"The purpose of a trademark, after all, is to identify a good or 

service to the consumer, and identity implies consistency and a 

correlative duty to make sure that the good or service really is 

of consistent quality, i.e., really is the same good or service." 

Gorenstein Enters., Inc. v. Quality Care-USA, Inc., 874 F.2d 431, 

435 (7th Cir. 1989). With "[a]ll courts . . . in agreement" that 

naked licensing may independently result in the abandonment of a

trademark, McCarthy, supra, § 18:48, it follows that such 

agreements cannot show an owner's intent to resume use of a mark. 

See FreecycleSunnyvale v. Freecycle Network, 626 F.3d 509, 516 

(9th Cir. 2010) ("[N]aked licensing is 'inherently deceptive and 

constitutes abandonment of any rights to the trademark by the 

licensor.'" (emphasis omitted) (quoting Barcamerica Int'l USA Tr.

v. Tyfield Imps., Inc., 289 F.3d 589, 598 (9th Cir. 2002))); 

Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Marvel Enters., Inc., 277 F.3d 

253, 259 (2d Cir. 2002) ("Marvel, as the licensor of the 'X–Men' 

property, is obliged to maintain some control over the quality of 

the licensed property as an incident of valid licensing or risk 

abandonment of its mark.").28

28 We need not discuss whether the licensing agreement here

could independently establish that PAS abandoned the Picú mark. 

That is because, as we have explained, PAS had already abandoned 

the mark before it entered the agreement. We refer to the naked 

licensing doctrine only to explain why the PAS-IMEX agreement is 

not probative of PAS's intent to resume use of the trademark. 
- 31 -

Here, it is undisputed that PAS never inspected the 

chicken sold by IMEX under the Picú mark. Nor did PAS receive 

reports of the product's quality from IMEX. To be sure, some 

provisions in the 2017 licensing agreement aim to regulate the 

quality of Picú-branded chicken. For instance, PAS retained the 

contractual right to inspect IMEX's Picú-branded products.

However, "[u]nder the modern rule, the question is whether there 

has been sufficient actual control by the trademark owner-licensor 

over the nature and quality of the goods or services sold by the 

licensee." McCarthy, supra, § 18:48. PAS's "contractual right to 

control" is thus "secondary" to the fact that PAS exercised no 

actual control over IMEX's products. See id.

Though federal health regulations impose some inspection 

and quality requirements on IMEX's poultry supplier, see generally

21 U.S.C. § 451, PAS admits that all poultry processing plants in 

the United States are subject to those regulations. Those 

generally applicable regulations do not assure consumers that they 

can expect a specific quality from Picú-branded chicken on a 

consistent basis. See Gorenstein Enters., 874 F.2d at 435; see

also McCarthy, supra, § 18:55 ("The fact that all food service 

establishments are subject to the regulations of the state 

Department of Health does not mean that the trademark owner is 

actually controlling the nature and quality of food products served 

at a licensed restaurant.").
- 32 -

Finally, PAS notes that the owner of IMEX, Derrick Lugo 

Colón, is the nephew of Fernando Echegaray, the president of PAS. 

Though somewhat unclear, PAS seems to argue that, because of this 

familial connection, PAS was entitled to rely on IMEX's own quality 

control assurances. Indeed, some courts have looked beyond a 

licensor's lack of quality control where the licensee was a family 

member. See, e.g., FreecycleSunnyvale, 626 F.3d at 518 (noting 

that one such example involved "siblings who were former business 

partners" for seventeen years). Here, however, no evidence 

suggests Lugo and Echegaray shared this type of "close working 

relationship." Id.; Barcamerica, 289 F.3d at 597; see, e.g., Taco 

Cabana Int'l, Inc. v. Two Pesos, Inc., 932 F.2d 1113, 1117, 1122

(5th Cir. 1991), aff'd, 505 U.S. 763 (1992) (licensor and licensee, 

who were brothers, enjoyed close working relationship for eight 

years). PAS, exercising no actual control over the nature and 

quality of IMEX's Picú-branded products, thus cannot rely on 

evidence of such a naked licensing agreement to show an intent to 

resume use of the mark.29

29 Though unclear, PAS appears to argue that, even if it 

abandoned the mark as of 2016, the company's attempt to license

the mark in 2017 established a new date of first use of the mark. 

See McCarthy, supra, § 17:3 ("[A] resumption [of use] represents 

a new and separate use with a new date of first use."). However,

naked licensing agreements cannot confer priority rights to the 

licensor. See 15 U.S.C. § 1055 (noting that the benefit of 

licensee's "first use" of a mark inures to a licensor only if the 

licensor "control[s] . . . the nature and quality of the goods"). 

Because we conclude that PAS failed to exercise the requisite 
- 33 -

The bottom-line is that the 2017 licensing agreement, 

alone or in concert with other evidence, does not show PAS's intent 

to resume use of the mark within the relevant statutory period. 

Accordingly, the district court correctly held that evidence of 

the IMEX licensing agreement could not satisfy PAS's burden of 

production to rebut the presumption of abandonment. 

***

In sum, To-Ricos established a prima facie case of 

abandonment by showing that PAS had not used the Picú mark for at 

least three years before April 2016. After To-Ricos established

this presumption of abandonment, the burden of production shifted 

to PAS to rebut the presumption by producing evidence in which a 

reasonable jury could infer that, between 2013 and 2016, PAS held 

an intent to resume use of the mark in the reasonably foreseeable 

future. We agree with the district court's conclusion that PAS 

failed to carry its burden of production. That is, no reasonable 

jury could conclude that PAS held the requisite intent to resume 

use of the mark. The mark was thus abandoned by PAS as of April 

2016. To-Ricos established its priority to use the mark, at the 

latest, by June 2019 when it began selling products under the Picú

control over IMEX's Picú-branded goods, the 2017 agreement between 

PAS and IMEX did not provide PAS with a new "first use" date prior 

to To-Ricos's use of the mark in 2019.
- 34 -

mark. We therefore affirm the entry of summary judgment in favor 

of To-Ricos.

So ordered.