Court Opinion

ID: 9965703
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-03 14:01:02.541689+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:37.696711
License: Public Domain

Case: 24-1041    Document: 27     Page: 1   Filed: 05/03/2024

           NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                        IFIT INC.,
                         Appellant

                             v.

  KATHERINE K. VIDAL, Under Secretary of Com-
 merce for Intellectual Property and Director of the
    United States Patent and Trademark Office,
                      Intervenor
                ______________________

                        2024-1041
                  ______________________

     Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
 Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in No.
 91264855.
                  ______________________

                      ON MOTION
                  ______________________

     Before CHEN, LINN, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.
 LINN, Circuit Judge.
                        ORDER
      iFIT Inc. has filed its opening brief challenging the
 Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s dismissal of its oppo-
 sition to registration of ERB Industries, Inc.’s (“ERB”)
Case: 24-1041     Document: 27      Page: 2    Filed: 05/03/2024

 2                                             IFIT INC. v. VIDAL

 trademark. * The Director of the United States Patent and
 Trademark Office now moves to waive Federal Circuit Rule
 27(f) and remand for further proceedings. iFIT opposes.
      An agency may properly request a remand to recon-
 sider its previous position. SKF USA Inc. v. United States,
 254 F.3d 1022, 1029 (Fed. Cir. 2001). In such cases, re-
 mand is usually appropriate if the agency expresses a “sub-
 stantial and legitimate” concern about its earlier decision
 or it wishes to reconsider its decision in light of a new legal
 decision. Id. Here, the Director raises legitimate concerns
 about the Board’s findings on the relatedness between
 ERB’s goods and iFIT’s services and also wishes to recon-
 sider the decision in light of Naterra International, Inc. v.
 Bensalem, 92 F.4th 1113, 1119 (Fed. Cir. 2024). The Direc-
 tor further notes that on remand the Board will “address
 all of Appellant’s alleged deficiencies.” Reply at 3. We
 agree with the Director that remanding now is the better
 course of action, as it will preserve judicial resources and
 may simplify the issues for any future appeal.
     Accordingly,
     IT IS ORDERED THAT:
     (1) The Director’s motion is granted. The case is re-
 manded to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board for fur-
 ther proceedings consistent with the motion and this order.

     *   In light of ERB’s non-participation in this appeal,
 the court granted the Director of the United States Patent
 and Trademark Office’s leave to intervene.
Case: 24-1041         Document: 27   Page: 3   Filed: 05/03/2024

 IFIT INC. v. VIDAL                                          3

     (2) Each side to bear its own costs.
                                               FOR THE COURT

 May 3, 2024
    Date