Source: http://petitiontocancel.com/m.counterclaims.html
Timestamp: 2017-09-21 06:39:32
Document Index: 344763873

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 18', '§ 1068', '§ 309', '§ 309', '§ 309', '§ 18', '§ 1068', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 401', '§ 509', '§ 2', '§ 308', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 20', '§ 2', '§ 308', '§ 313', '§ 308']

﻿ m.Counterclaims
As provided in Trademark Act § 18, 15 U.S.C. § 1068, a counterclaim may seek to cancel a registration in whole or in part, or to restrict or rectify with respect to the register the registration in some manner. For example, the counterclaimant may seek to cancel the registration only as to some of the listed goods or services, or only to the extent of restricting the goods or services in a particular manner (described in sufficient detail to give the respondent fair notice thereof). [Note 5.] See TBMP § 309.03(d). In order to restrict or rectify the register, a counterclaimant may seek to have a description or a disclaimer entered. [Note 6.] See TBMP § 309.03(d).However, geographic limitations will be considered and determined by the Board only within the context of a concurrent use registration proceeding. [Note 7.] See TBMP Chapter 1100. A counterclaim to partially cancel a registration by deleting some of the goods or services therein or by restricting the manner of use of the goods or services therein, or to restrict or rectify the register as to the registration, in order to avoid a likelihood of confusion is in the nature of an equitable remedy and does not constitute an attack on the validity of a registration or have to be tied to a properly pleaded ground for opposition or cancellation. [Note 8.]See TBMP § 309.03(b). The counterclaimant must allege that the partial cancellation will avoid a likelihood of confusion and that the registrant does not use the mark on the goods or services for which deletion is being sought. [Note 9.] On the other hand, a counterclaim to delete goods or services from the registration on the ground that registrant does not use the mark on those goods or services and has no intent to resume use, without regard to likelihood of confusion, is a straightforward abandonment claim and not a claim under Trademark Act § 18, 15 U.S.C. § 1068 and in such case, counterclaimant need not allege that a likelihood of confusion will be avoided through the restriction. [Note 10.]
A counterclaim is the legal equivalent of a petition to cancel. Thus, the provisions of 37 CFR § 2.111-37 CFR § 2.115 , governing petitions to cancel, are applicable to counterclaims. [Note 11.]
In instances where a counterclaim has been filed, the Board will set the time for answer thereto, as well as reset the deadline for the discovery conference, for making initial disclosures, and all subsequent dates. [Note 12.] See TBMP § 401.03. When necessary to enable a party fully to present or meet a counterclaim or separate petition to cancel a registration, the times for pleading, discovery (including conferencing and initial and expert disclosure dates), pretrial disclosures, testimony, briefs and/or oral argument will be reset or extended. A party that believes that such a resetting or extension is necessary should file a motion therefor with the Board. [Note 13.] See also TBMP § 509, regarding motions to extend.
2. See Vitaline Corp. v. General Mills Inc., 891 F.2d 273, 13 USPQ2d 1172 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
9. See Eurostar Inc. v. “Euro-Star” Reitmoden Gmbh & Co. 34 USPQ2d 1266, 1271 n.3(TTAB 1995).
A counterclaim for cancellation of a plaintiff’s registration is the legal equivalent of a separate petition to cancel. The required filing fee must be paid when a petition to cancel takes the form of a counterclaim, just as it must be paid when a petition to cancel takes the form of a separate proceeding. [Note 1.] That is, the required fee (see 37 CFR § 2.6) must be paid for each party joined as counterclaimant for each class sought to be cancelled in each registration against which the counterclaim is filed. [Note 2.] Cf. TBMP§ 308.02.
If no fee is submitted with the counterclaim, or the fee is insufficient to pay for one person to counterclaim to cancel the registration in at least one class, the counterclaim will be rejected. If the counterclaim is accompanied by fees sufficient to pay for one person to counterclaim to cancel the registration in at least one class, but less than the required amount because multiple party counterclaimants and/or multiple classes in the registration are involved, the fee(s) submitted will be applied in the manner set forth in 37 CFR § 2.111(c)(3)(ii)-37 CFR § 2.111(c)(3)(iii). The Board, in its notice acknowledging the counterclaim, will identify the parties and classes for which the required fees were submitted.
4. See, e.g., Williamson-Dickie Manufacturing Co. v. Mann Overall Co., 359 F.2d 450, 149 USPQ 518, 522 (CCPA 1966); UMC Industries, Inc. v. UMC Electronics Co., 207 USPQ 861, 862 n.3 (TTAB 1980) (grounds not limited where petition to cancel registration pleaded in opposition was not filed until after fifth anniversary date of registration, because opposition wherein opposer relied on registration was filed before anniversary date); Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Sekisui Chemical Co. Ltd. of Japan, 165 USPQ 597, 598 n.4 (TTAB 1970) (grounds were not limited where, although counterclaim to cancel pleaded registration was not properly filed until after fifth anniversary date of registration, opposition wherein opposer relied on said registration was filed before anniversary date); Sunbeam Corp. v. Duro Metal Products Co., 106 USPQ 385, 386 (Comm’r 1955). See also J. THOMAS MCCARTHY, 3 MCCARTHYON TRADEMARKS AND UNFAIR COMPETITION§ 20:67 (4th ed. 2012). Cf. regarding concurrent use proceedings, Arman’s Systems, Inc. v. Armand’s Subway, Inc., 215 USPQ 1048, 1050 (TTAB 1982) (5-year period tolled where applicant, prior to expiration of 5-year period files a proper concurrent application or an amendment converting an unrestricted application to one seeking concurrent use naming registrant as exception to applicant’s right to exclusive use).
4. See Vitaline Corp. v. General Mills Inc., 891 F.2d 273, 13 USPQ2d 1172, 1174 (Fed. Cir. 1989); Consolidated Foods Corp.v. Big Red, Inc., 231 USPQ 744, 746 (TTAB 1986).
A party may counterclaim to cancel a registration that is owned, but not pleaded, by an adverse party. A counterclaim to cancel a registration owned, but not pleaded, by an adverse party is a permissive counterclaim. [Note 1.] The filing date of the counterclaim is the date of receipt in the Office of the counterclaim, with proof of service on the owner of record, or on the owner’s domestic representative, if one has been appointed, at the correspondence address of record in the Office, and with the required fee, unless the counterclaim is filed by “Express Mail” in accordance with 37 CFR § 2.198. [Note 2.]
For information on fees for counterclaims, see TBMP § 308.02 and TBMP § 313.02. See also TBMP § 308.02(b).