Opinion ID: 200968
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Intent to Resume Use

Text: 15 To rebut a prima facie showing of abandonment, a purported trademark owner must demonstrate that it intends to resume use in the reasonably foreseeable future. Silverman v. CBS, Inc., 870 F.2d 40, 45 (2d Cir.1989). Conclusory testimony will not suffice; we look for evidence of activities ... engaged in during the nonuse period that manifest such intent. Imperial Tobacco Ltd. v. Philip Morris, Inc., 899 F.2d 1575, 1581 (Fed.Cir.1990). See also McCarthy at § 17:13 (the vague and nebulous statements of a party can be outweighed by his actions, which may speak louder than words). There is no such evidence here. 16 At his deposition, Kseib testified that he had never sold goods in the United States and had taken no steps to introduce his version of Kent Creme Bleach to the domestic market. Nothing in GHL's method of operation suggests any interest in developing the United States market. In fact, in the years since its alleged purchase of the Kent mark, GHL actually decreased the minimal contacts it had with the United States by shifting final assembly of the product to the United Kingdom. Although Kseib said that the prospect of litigation kept him from increasing his United States presence, GHL failed to assert its alleged ownership for nearly a decade after learning that KIP was also manufacturing Kent Creme Bleach. GHL's professed interest in the United States market would have been strengthened had GHL taken more timely action. 17 The district court thus properly concluded that GHL's noncommittal, indefinite assertion of intent to resume use was insufficient as a matter of law to rebut the presumption of abandonment.