Opinion ID: 3039101
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The “QUIKSILVER ROXY” and “ROXY” Marks

Text: Are Presumed Valid. [1] Federal registration of a trademark “constitutes prima facie evidence of the validity of the registered mark and of [the registrant’s] exclusive right to use the mark” in commerce. Brookfield Commc’ns, Inc. v. West Coast Entm’t “knock-offs” prohibition in the injunction goes beyond the claims asserted in the complaint and the evidence presented at trial, in contravention of well-settled Ninth Circuit authority holding that “a court may not, without the consent of all persons affected, enter a judgment which goes beyond the claim asserted in the pleadings.” Crawford v. Gould, 56 F.3d 1162, 1168 (9th Cir. 1995) (citations and alteration omitted). We also note that the parties on appeal do not contest the court’s rulings on false designation of origin, statutory and common law unfair competition, federal and state trademark dilution, federal and common law trademark infringement, or laches. We express no opinion on these rulings. QUIKSILVER, INC. v. KYMSTA CORP. 17377 Corp., 174 F.3d 1036, 1047 (9th Cir. 1999) (citations omitted); Dep’t of Parks & Recreation v. Bazaar del Mundo Inc., 448 F.3d 1118, 1124 (9th Cir. 2006). Quiksilver federally registered its “QUIKSILVER ROXY” and “ROXY” marks; therefore, the marks enjoy the presumption of validity. Kymsta contends that the “ROXY” mark should not be presumed valid because Quiksilver committed fraud on the PTO during the “ROXY” registration process by failing to disclose its knowledge of the “ROXYWEAR” mark.5 [2] “Fraud in procuring a mark occurs when an applicant knowingly makes false, material representations of fact in connection with an application.” L.D. Kichler Co. v. Davoil, Inc., 192 F.3d 1349, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citations and alteration omitted). [3] In the application process, Robert McKnight, Quiksilver’s Chief Executive Officer, signed an oath on behalf of Quiksilver attesting that he believed Quiksilver to be the owner of the “ROXY” mark and that, “to the best of his knowledge and belief, no other person, firm, corporation or association has the right to use [the “ROXY”] mark in commerce . . .” In the face of McKnight’s attestation, mere knowledge of the existence of the “ROXYWEAR” mark does not constitute fraud. See Yocum v. Covington, 216 U.S.P.Q. 210, 216-17 (T.T.A.B. 1982) (“[T]he statement of an applicant that no other person ‘to the best of his knowledge’ has the right to use the mark does not require the applicant to disclose those persons whom he may have heard are using the mark if he feels that the rights of such others are not superior to his.”) (emphasis added). [4] Because reasonable minds could not differ regarding the presumed validity of Quiksilver’s marks, the district court 5 There is no dispute regarding the validity of the “QUIKSILVER ROXY” mark. 17378 QUIKSILVER, INC. v. KYMSTA CORP. correctly granted judgment as a matter of law in favor of Quiksilver on Kymsta’s fraud defense. Accordingly, both “QUIKSILVER ROXY” and “ROXY” enjoy the presumption of validity.