Court Opinion

ID: 5132289
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-12-07 00:02:51.343567+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:02:10.403196
License: Public Domain

Case: 20-2120   Document: 51     Page: 1    Filed: 10/13/2021

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                 ______________________

                 IBKUL UBHOT LTD.,
                      Appellant

                            v.

                   ALFWEAR, INC.,
                        Appellee
                 ______________________

                       2020-2120
                 ______________________

     Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
 Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in No.
 91233985.
                  ______________________

                Decided: October 13, 2021
                 ______________________

    DARREN J. QUINN, Law Offices of Darren J. Quinn, Del
 Mar, CA, argued for appellant.

     S. BRANDON OWEN, Ray Quinney & Nebeker P.C., Salt
 Lake City, UT, argued for appellee. Also represented by
 ADAM RICHARDS; TRENT BAKER, Baker IP PLLC, Salt Lake
 City, UT.
                 ______________________
Case: 20-2120     Document: 51      Page: 2    Filed: 10/13/2021

 2                          IBKUL UBHOT LTD.   v. ALFWEAR, INC.

  Before MOORE, Chief Judge, PROST and TARANTO, Circuit
                        Judges.
 PER CURIAM.
      IBKUL UBHOT LTD. appeals a Trademark Trial and
 Appeal Board decision sustaining Alfwear, Inc.’s opposition
 to registration of a mark, “IBKÜL.” Alfwear, Inc. v. IBKUL
 UBHOT LTD., Opposition No. 91233985, 2020 WL
 3429163, at *1 (T.T.A.B. June 2, 2020). Although Alfwear
 alleged consumers would likely confuse IBKÜL with four
 of Alfwear’s registered marks, the Board considered confu-
 sion with respect to only one of those marks, “KÜHL.” Id.
 at *8. After the Board’s decision and while this appeal was
 pending, the KÜHL mark was cancelled because Alfwear
 failed to file a declaration of use under 15 U.S.C. § 1058.
 The parties agree that cancellation necessarily impacts the
 Board’s findings. Accordingly, we vacate and remand for
 the Board to reconsider its findings in light of the cancella-
 tion.
                VACATED AND REMANDED
                            COSTS
 No costs.