Source: http://petitiontocancel.com/affirmativedefenses.html
Timestamp: 2017-03-29 13:07:55
Document Index: 503266069

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 313', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2']

TBMP 311.02(b) Affirmative Defenses (January 2017) TBMP 311.02(b) Affirmative Defenses
Although 37 CFR § 2.106(b)(3)(ii) and 37 CFR § 2.114(b)(3)(ii) specifically permit a defense attacking the validity of a plaintiff’s pleaded registration to be raised either as a counterclaim or as a separate petition to cancel, the better practice is to raise the defense as a counterclaim. [ Note 24.] If the defense is raised as a separate petition to cancel, however, the petition itself and any cover letter filed therewith should include a reference to the original proceeding. [ Note 25.] See also TBMP § 313.
1. See 37 CFR § 2.106(b)(2) and 37 CFR § 2.114(b)(2); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b).
2. See 37 CFR § 2.106(b)(2) and 37 CFR § 2.114(b)(2). See also Harry Winston, Inc. v. Bruce Winston Gem Corp., 111 USPQ2d 1419, 1422-23 n.7 (TTAB 2014) (affirmative defenses deemed waived); Giersch v. Scripps Networks Inc., 90 USPQ2d 1020, 1021 n.4 (TTAB 2009) (affirmative defenses waived if not maintained in party’s trial brief); Green Spot (Thailand) Ltd. v. Vitasoy International Holdings Ltd., 86 USPQ2d 1283, 1287 (TTAB 2008) (comparison of marks for purposes of determining whether marks are essentially the same under the Morehouse doctrine); Order of Sons of Italy in America v. Profumi Fratelli Nostra AG, 36 USPQ2d 1221, 1222 (TTAB 1995) (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) permits a defendant to assert in the answer the "defense" of failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted).
See, for example, with respect to prior judgment, Nasalok Coating Corp. v. Nylok Corp., 522 F.3d 1320, 86 USPQ2d 1369, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (claim of trademark invalidity, made before Board in cancellation proceeding, amounted to collateral attack on court’s judgment rendered in first action); International Nutrition Co. v. Horphag Research Ltd., 220 F.3d 1325, 55 USPQ2d 1492, 1493 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (res judicata); Jet Inc. v. Sewage Aeration Systems, 223 F.3d 1360, 55 USPQ2d 1854, 1856 (Fed. Cir. 2000), (res judicata, claim preclusion); NH Beach Pizza LLC v. Cristy's Pizza Inc., 119 USPQ2d 1861, 1863 (TTAB 2016) (issue preclusion may bar re-litigation of a standing determination made in a prior Board proceeding, summary judgment granted); Urock Network, LLC v. Sulpasso, 115 USPQ2d 1409, 1412 (TTAB 2015) (analyzing the defense doctrine of bar in claim preclusion); Stephen Slesinger Inc., v. Disney Enterprises Inc., 98 USPQ2d 1890 (TTAB 2011) (ownership of the marks at issue established in court proceeding; defendant entitled to summary judgment based on issue preclusion), aff’d, 702 F.3d 640, 105 USPQ2d 1472 (Fed. Cir. 2012), cert den., 134 S. Ct. 125 (2013); Zoba International Corp. v. DVD Format/LOGO Licensing Corp., 98 USQP2d 1106 (TTAB 2011) (claim preclusion barred petitions to cancel against two registrations but not a third registration; "defendant preclusion" does not apply to facts of case and further discussed in contrast to "plaintiff preclusion"); Boston Chicken Inc. v. Boston Pizza International, Inc., 53 USPQ2d 1053, 1055 (TTAB 1999) (judicial estoppel); Treadwell’s Drifters Inc. v. Marshak, 18 USPQ2d 1318, 1321 (TTAB 1990) (claim preclusion, issue preclusion). Cf. Mayer/Berkshire Corp. v. Berkshire Fashions Inc., 424 F.3d 1229, 76 USPQ2d 1310, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (Board erred in dismissing opposition on res judicata and collateral estoppel grounds where issues and transactional facts arising from prior district court infringement litigation differed from those in opposition proceeding); Bausch & Lomb Inc. v. Karl Storz GmbH & Co. KG, 87 USPQ2d 1526, 1530 (TTAB 2008) (res judicata argument fails because marks at issue in prior proceedings were different); B.V.D. Licensing Corp. v. Rodriguez, 83 USPQ2d 1500, 1504 (TTAB 2007) (neither claim nor issue preclusion apply where parties are not the same).
See, for example, with respect to laches, Bridgestone/Firestone Research Inc. v. Automobile Club de l’Ouest de la France, 245 F.3d 1359, 58 USPQ2d 1460 (Fed. Cir. 2001). See also National Cable Television Association, Inc. v. American Cinema Editors, Inc., 937 F.2d 1572, 19 USPQ2d 1424, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (laches runs from the time action could be taken against the acquisition of trademark rights which flow from registration of mark); Land O’ Lakes Inc. v. Hugunin, 88 USPQ2d 1957, 1959 (TTAB 2008) (where laches defense based on failure to object to an expired registration, asserted period of delay begins on issue date of prior registration and ends with its expiration); Bausch & Lomb Inc. v. Karl Storz GmbH & Co. KG, 87 USPQ2d 1526, 1530 (TTAB 2008) (no evidence that opposer knew of applicant’s use of its mark in the U.S.); Herbaceuticals Inc. v. Xel Herbaceuticals Inc., 86 USPQ2d 1572, 1575 n.3 (TTAB 2008) (laches is unavailable as an affirmative defense against a claim of fraud); Hornby v. TJX Companies Inc., 87 USPQ2d 1411, 1419 (TTAB 2008) (defense of laches is available when the rights asserted by a petitioner are personal in nature; laches available against claims of false suggestion of a connection, likelihood of confusion, and dilution); Jansen Enterprises Inc. v. Rind, 85 USPQ2d 1104, 1116 (TTAB 2007) (respondent’s expansion into new product lines excused petitioner’s delay in filing cancellation; laches defense unavailable); Christian Broadcasting Network Inc. v. ABS-CBN International, 84 USPQ2d 1560, 1572 (TTAB 2007) (laches requires showing of undue delay and prejudice, and will not lie if confusion is inevitable); Barbara’s Bakery Inc. v. Landesman, 82 USPQ2d 1283, 1292 n.14 (TTAB 2007) (defenses of laches, acquiescence or estoppel generally not available in opposition proceeding); Teledyne Technologies Inc. v. Western Skyways Inc., 78 USPQ2d 1203, 1210 n.10 (TTAB 2006) (publication of mark does not provide constructive notice of resultant registration; "in the absence of actual knowledge prior to the close of the opposition period, the date of registration is the operative date for calculating laches;" economic damage may be a direct function of the delay involved; confusion is not inevitable), aff’d unpub’d, 208 Fed. Appx. 886, 887 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 6, 2006); Chester L. Krause v. Krause Publications, Inc., 76 USPQ2d 1904, 1914 (TTAB 2005) (same); Alfacell Corp. v. Anticancer Inc., 71 USPQ2d 1301, 1306 (TTAB 2004).
16. See 37 CFR § 2.106(b)(2) and 37 CFR § 2.114(b)(2); In re Bose Corp., 580 F.3d 1240, 91 USPQ2d 1938, 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Enbridge, Inc. v. Excelerate Energy L.P., 92 USPQ2d 1537, 1540 (TTAB 2009); Asian and Western Classics B.V. v. Selkow, 92 USPQ2d 1478, 1478 (TTAB2009).
21. See 37 CFR § 2.106(b)(3)(i), 37 CFR § 2.106(b)(3)(ii), 37 CFR § 2.114(b)(3)(i) and 37 CFR § 2.114(b)(3)(ii); Nasalok Coating Corp. v. Nylok Corp., 522 F.3d 1320, 86 USPQ2d 1369, 1373 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Food Specialty Co. v. Standard Products Co., 406 F.2d 1397, 161 USPQ 46, 46 (CCPA 1969); Gillette Co. v. "42" Products Ltd., Inc., 396 F.2d 1001, 158 USPQ 101, 104 (CCPA 1968) (allegedly admitted periods of nonuse by opposer disregarded in absence of counterclaim to cancel registration); Contour Chair-Lounge Co. v. The Englander Co., 324 F.2d 186, 139 USPQ 285, 287 (CCPA 1963) (improper for Board to allow applicant to collaterally attack registration in opposition where, although registration had been directly attacked by applicant in separate petition to cancel, said petition had been dismissed); Giant Food, Inc. v. Standard Terry Mills, Inc., 229 USPQ 955, 961 (TTAB 1986); Textron, Inc. v. The Gillette Co., 180 USPQ 152, 153 (TTAB 1973) (defense attacking validity of pleaded registration must be raised by way of cancellation of registration). Cf. Tea Board of India v. Republic of Tea Inc., 80 USPQ2d 1881, 1884 nn.5 and 12 (TTAB 2006) (a showing of descriptiveness or genericness of part of a mark does not constitute a collateral attack on the registration; however arguments directed to show opposer failed to exercise control over logo mark, where only word mark registration was challenged, constitutes impermissible attack on logo mark). See also Clorox Co. v. State Chemical Manufacturing Co., 197 USPQ 840, 844 (TTAB 1977); Sealed Air Corp. v. Scott Paper Co., 190 USPQ 106, 108 (TTAB 1975).