Source: http://petitiontocancel.com/AffirmativeDefenses.html
Timestamp: 2017-09-21 06:38:39
Document Index: 66672585

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 313', '§ 309', '§ 18', '§ 1068', '§ 313', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 18', '§ 1068', '§ 8', '§ 1058', '§ 2', '§ 19', '§ 1069', '§ 19', '§ 1069']

﻿ Affirmative Defenses
The Board will not entertain a defense that attacks the validity of a registration pleaded by a plaintiff unless the defendant timely files a counterclaim or a separate petition to cancel the registration. [Note 21.] See TBMP § 313. Moreover, a defense which seeks to restrict a plaintiff’s pleaded registration as, for example, by limiting the goods or services therein, or by deleting some of the goods or services, will not be entertained in the absence of a timely counterclaim, or separate petition, to cancel the registration in whole or in part. [Note 22.] See also TBMP § 309.03(d) (regarding claims for partial cancellation under Trademark Act § 18, 15 U.S.C. § 1068) and TBMP § 313 (regarding counterclaims). Geographic restrictions will be considered and determined by the Board only within the context of a concurrent use proceeding. [Note 23.] For further information on concurrent use proceedings, see TBMP Chapter 1100.
2. See 37 CFR § 2.106(b)(1) and 37 CFR § 2.114(b)(1) . See, e.g., 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).
3.See 37 CFR § 2.133(a). Cf. 37 CFR § 2.133(b) and 37 CFR § 2.133(c) .See also Embarcadero Technologies Inc. v. RStudio Inc., 105 USPQ2d 1825, 1828 (TTAB 2013) (a defendant may assert an affirmative defense by moving to restrict its own goods and/or services in order to avoid any likelihood of confusion alleged by plaintiff).
4.See 37 CFR § 2.99(h) and 37 CFR § 2.133(c). See also Snuffer & Watkins Management Inc. v. Snuffy’s Inc., 17 USPQ2d 1815, 1816 (TTAB 1990).
5.See 37 CFR § 2.133(a) and 37 CFR § 2.133(b). See also Embarcadero Technologies Inc. v. RStudio Inc., 105 USPQ2d 1825, 1828-29 (TTAB 2013) (applicant moved to amend its descriptions of goods and services, requested at trial that the amendment be considered in the alternative, and the Board deemed the answer amended to include the affirmative defense under Section 18); British Seagull Ltd. v Brunswick Corp., 28 USPQ2d 1197 (TTAB 1993), aff’d, 35 F.3d 1527, 32 USPQ2d 1120, 1125 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (Board had no duty to address defendant’s offer to amend in final brief where defendant failed to file a motion or include as affirmative defense in pleading); Montecash LLC v. Anzar Enterprises, Inc.,95 USPQ2d 1060, 1062 (TTAB2010) (partial cancellation on the ground that portion of the mark is a generic term unavailable where the registration sought to be cancelled is more than five years old.); Finanz St. Honore B.V. v. Johnson & Johnson, 85 USPQ2d 1478, 1480 (TTAB 2007) (same; motion to strike claim granted); IdeasOne Inc. v. Nationwide Better Health Inc., 89 USPQ2d 1952, 1954 (TTAB 2009) (Board encourages parties to seek Trademark Act § 18, 15 U.S.C. § 1068restriction of cited registrations); ProQuest Information and Learning Co. v. Island, 83 USPQ2d 1351, 1353 (TTAB 2007)(proposed restriction must be stated with precision); Tea Board of India v. Republic of Tea Inc., 80 USPQ2d 1881, 1898 (TTAB 2006) (applicant’s offer to amend its identification of goods given no further consideration because it would not overcome the likelihood of confusion); Personnel Data Systems Inc. v. Parameter Driven Software Inc., 20 USPQ2d 1863, 1865 (TTAB 1991) (mere request by respondent in its trial brief to have its identification of goods amended rejected where petitioner was not put on notice before petitioner presented its case); Flow Technology Inc. v. Picciano, 18 USPQ2d 1970, 1972 (TTAB 1991) (applicant’s argument on summary judgment that parties’ channels of trade were different not persuasive where applicant’s claim of entitlement to narrower range of goods was not put in issue by motion or amendment to its pleading).Cf. Bass Pro Trademarks LLC v. Sportsman’s Warehouse Inc., 89 USPQ2d 1844, 1846 (TTAB 2008) (amendment in Trademark Act § 8, 15 U.S.C. § 1058affidavit filed during pendency of cancellation proceeding granted as unconsented motion to amend).
22. See 37 CFR § 2.133(d); Penguin Books Ltd. v. Eberhard, 48 USPQ2d 1280, 1287 (TTAB 1998) (applicant’s request raised in reply brief for a restriction of opposer’s registration [beyond applicant’s initial counterclaim to restrict] was untimely as it should have been raised by promptly moving to amend).
TBMP 311.02(c) Unpleaded Affirmative Defenses
Except as provided in Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) and 12(h)(2) (which allow a defendant to raise certain specified defenses by motion), an unpleaded defense cannot be relied upon by the defendant unless the defendant’s pleading is amended (or deemed amended), pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) or 15(b), to assert the matter. [Note 1.]
1. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b), 8(c), and 12(b); Trademark Act § 19, 15 U.S.C. § 1069. See also Productos Lacteos Tocumbo S.A. de C.V. v. Paleteria La Michoacana, Inc., 98 USPQ2d 1921, 1926 (TTAB 2011) (unpleaded affirmative defenses of prior registration defense and tacking not considered); H.D. Lee Co. v. Maidenform Inc., 87 USPQ2d 1715, 1720 (TTAB 2008) (the reason for requiring an affirmative defense to be pleaded is to give the plaintiff notice of the defense and an opportunity to respond; defense of tacking must be pleaded to put opposer on notice of new matter that applicant is placing at issue); Diaz v. Servicios De Franquicia Pardo’s S.A.C., 83 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (TTAB 2007) (answer deemed amended to assert applicant’s priority over opposer pursuant to Article 7 of the Pan American Convention);Barbara’s Bakery Inc. v. Landesman, 82 USPQ2d 1283, 1290 (TTAB 2007) (applicant’s affirmative defense deemed to have been tried by the implied consent of the parties); Chicago Corp. v. North American Chicago Corp., 20 USPQ2d 1715, 1717 n.5 (TTAB 1991) (defense that opposer lacks proprietary rights in its common law mark raised for first time in final brief was neither pleaded nor tried); United States Olympic Committee v. Bata Shoe Co., 225 USPQ 340, 341 (TTAB 1984) (laches is an affirmative defense which must be specifically pleaded); Trans Union Corp. v. Trans Leasing International, Inc., 200 USPQ 748, 754 (TTAB 1978) (defense of laches, which was raised by applicant in its final brief, was not pleaded in answer but was tried by implied consent of opposer); United States Mineral Products Co. v. GAF Corp., 197 USPQ 301, 304 n.5 (TTAB 1977) (the equitable defenses set forth in Trademark Act § 19, 15 U.S.C. § 1069 are affirmative defenses which must be affirmatively pleaded and in this case were neither pleaded nor tried); Copperweld Corp. v. Astralloy-Vulcan Corp., 196 USPQ 585, 590 (TTAB 1977) (laches, while not affirmatively pleaded, was nevertheless tried and briefed by both parties without objection); Hershey Foods Corp. v. Cerreta, 195 USPQ 246, 251 (TTAB 1977) (laches and acquiescence were neither pleaded nor tried); Taffy’s of Cleveland, Inc. v. Taffy’s, Inc., 189 USPQ 154, 156 (TTAB 1975) (laches is affirmative defense that must be pleaded in order to be considered).
311.02(d) Other Affirmative Pleadings - Amplifying Denials
An answer may include affirmative assertions that, although they may not rise to the level of an affirmative defense, nevertheless state the reasons for, and thus amplify, the defendant’s denial of one or more of the allegations in the complaint. These amplifications of denials, whether referred to as “affirmative defenses,” “avoidances,” “affirmative pleadings,” or “arguments,” are permitted by the Board because they serve to give the plaintiff fuller notice of the position which the defendant plans to take in defense of its right to registration. [Note 1.]
1. See Blackhorse v. Pro-Football Inc., 98 USPQ2d 1633, 1637-38 (TTAB 2011) (affirmative defense of secondary meaning interpreted to be an elaboration of respondent’s denial of petitioner’s allegation that the term is disparaging); Morgan Creek Productions Inc. v. Foria International Inc., 91 USPQ2d 1134, 1136 (TTAB 2009) (applicant’s “affirmative defenses” for the most part amplified its denials of opposer’s allegations regarding likelihood of confusion); Order of Sons of Italy in America v. Profumi Fratelli Nostra AG, 36 USPQ2d 1221, 1223 (TTAB 1995) (motion to strike third affirmative defense denied because it was an amplification of a denial, giving fuller notice of the claim); Humana Inc. v. Humanomics Inc., 3 USPQ2d 1696, 1697 n.5 (TTAB 1987) (allegations under heading “affirmative defenses” were in the nature of arguments in support of denial of claim rather than true affirmative defenses and were treated as such); Maytag Co. v. Luskin’s, Inc., 228 USPQ 747, 747 n.3 (TTAB 1986) (same); Textron, Inc. v. Gillette Co., 180 USPQ 152, 153 (TTAB 1973) (denying motion to strike paragraph in answer which amplified applicant’s denial and provided opposer with fuller notice of applicant’s defense); McCormick & Co. v. Hygrade Food Products Corp., 124 USPQ 16, 17 (TTAB 1959) (allegation that registered mark is weak does not constitute a collateral attack on validity of opposer’s registrations). Cf. Harsco Corp. v. Electrical Sciences Inc., 9 USPQ2d 1570, 1572 (TTAB 1988).
Trademark Disclaimers Trademark Dilution
Oppositions-The Underdog
©2008-2016 All Rights Reserved. Not Just Patents LLC, PO Box 18716, Minneapolis, MN 55418.