Opinion ID: 675861
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Abandonment Issue

Text: As discussed previously, the TTAB concluded in the alternative that, even if the evidence submitted established prior use, West failed to prove that it made continuous use of the mark FAST EDDIE'S during the two years prior to the filing of its petition on December 15, 1988, because none of the evidence bears a date later than November 26, 1985. The TTAB consequently held that West had failed to prove that it had not abandoned use of its mark. The TTAB's abandonment conclusion is flawed in several respects. The governing statute does not speak of continuous use, but rather of whether the mark or trade name has been previously used in the United States by another and not abandoned. 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1052(d) (emphasis added). A mark is deemed to be abandoned when its use has been discontinued with intent not to resume such use. Intent not to resume may be inferred from circumstances. Nonuse for two consecutive years shall be prima facie evidence of abandonment. Use of a mark means the bona fide use of that mark made in the ordinary course of trade, and not made merely to reserve a right in a mark. [Emphasis added.] 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1127. Typically, the party claiming abandonment is one seeking cancellation of another's mark. This court has held that, in such a case, the petitioner seeking cancellation bears the burden of proving abandonment by a preponderance of the evidence. Cerveceria Centroamericana, 892 F.2d at 1023, 13 USPQ2d at 1309. This is not because there is any special burden of proof attached to abandonment allegations per se. Rather, this follows from the fact that a petitioner always bears the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence in a cancellation proceeding, whether the argument for cancellation is based on abandonment, likelihood of confusion, or any other ground. This case differs from the typical case in that it is the petitioner in this case against whom the abandonment allegation has been lodged. The abandonment allegation is, in effect, in the stance of a defense to a prior use assertion. Under the facts of this case, the party asserting abandonment bears at a minimum a burden of coming forth with some evidence of abandonment. Consequently, we hold the TTAB's abandonment holding to be in error on the basis that Jet failed to come forth with any evidence to support an abandonment holding. Notwithstanding the above, we also find troubling that the issue of West's possible abandonment of the mark FAST EDDIE'S was raised for the first time, and decided, in the TTAB's decision. At the time West filed its registration application, the evidence submitted therewith foreclosed any abandonment allegation. West's application was not denied until over a year and four months later, and West filed its cancellation petition within five months of this denial. The record is devoid of any evidence that, as of the filing date of West's petition, the TTAB or Jet had raised any abandonment allegations against West. Moreover, during the course of the cancellation proceeding, Jet only alleged in its answer to West's cancellation petition that West had abandoned use of the entire mark Fast Eddie's Place-Warm Beer-Lousy Food, not that West had abandoned its use of the mark FAST EDDIE'S. 11 Given the foregoing, West was never put on notice that it was faced with an abandonment allegation, and thus West was not provided an adequate opportunity to address this issue. This case is thus like P.A.B. Produits v. Satinine Societa, 570 F.2d 328, 196 USPQ 801 (CCPA 1978), in which this court's predecessor stated: Not until the board opinion was registrant given notice that the record would suggest nonuse for over two years; that such nonuse constitutes prima facie abandonment; that registrant had not rebutted the prima facie case; that, therefore, its registered mark was abandoned. In one fell swoop, registrant was informed that there was a prima facie case of abandonment, and that the prima facie case had become conclusive. We believe that such procedure was unfair, to the prejudice of registrant. P.A.B. Produits, 570 F.2d at 332, 196 USPQ at 804. The same reasoning applies in this case, even though it is the petitioner against whom the abandonment allegation has been asserted. Thus, the TTAB's abandonment holding is also in error for this additional reason.