Court Opinion

ID: 9901774
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-22 16:01:38.117077+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:38.958248
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-1744    Document: 52    Page: 1   Filed: 11/22/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

      UNIVERSAL LIFE CHURCH MONASTERY
                STOREHOUSE,
                   Appellant

                            v.

        AMERICAN MARRIAGE MINISTRIES,
                     Appellee
              ______________________

                        2022-1744
                  ______________________

     Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
 Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in No.
 91237315.
                  ______________________

                Decided: November 22, 2023
                  ______________________

    MIKE MATESKY, II, Matesky Law PLLC, Seattle, WA,
 argued for appellant.

   BENJAMIN JAMES HODGES, Foster Garvey PC, Seattle,
 WA, argued for appellee. Also represented by KELLY ANN
 MENNEMEIER, NANCY V. STEPHENS.
                 ______________________

  Before CHEN, CUNNINGHAM, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
Case: 22-1744     Document: 52      Page: 2    Filed: 11/22/2023

 2         UNIVERSAL LIFE CHURCH MONASTERY STOREHOUSE v.
                             AMERICAN MARRIAGE MINISTRIES

 CHEN, Circuit Judge.
      Universal Life Church Monastery Storehouse (ULC
 Monastery) filed a trademark application seeking registra-
 tion of the standard character mark GET ORDAINED for
 two classes of services: (1) online retail store services; and
 (2) ecclesiastical services. American Marriage Ministries
 (AMM), in response, filed a notice of opposition to ULC
 Monastery’s application at the Trademark Trial and Ap-
 peal Board (Board), asserting that, among other things, the
 application should be denied because the mark is merely
 descriptive and fails to function as a mark as to both clas-
 ses of services. The Board issued a final decision sustain-
 ing AMM’s opposition on both grounds as to both classes of
 services, even though AMM’s briefing focused solely on at-
 tacking the applied-for mark in connection with ecclesias-
 tical services and did not present any argument with
 respect to online retail store services. The Board’s decision
 did not acknowledge or address ULC Monastery’s argu-
 ment that AMM, by ignoring in its briefing its grounds for
 opposition as to ULC Monastery’s online retail store ser-
 vices, waived any challenge to these services. ULC Monas-
 tery then filed this appeal, contesting the Board’s decision
 only as to the online retail store services.
      After our court heard oral argument, ULC Monastery
 and AMM entered into a settlement agreement with re-
 spect to a collateral litigation. ECF No. 51, at 2. The par-
 ties then jointly moved for entry of an order (i) reversing
 and vacating the Board’s decision sustaining AMM’s oppo-
 sition to registration for online retail store services, or, in
 the alternative, (ii) remanding to the Board for the purpose
 of considering a stipulated motion to amend the application
 to remove ecclesiastical services and to vacate the Board’s
 decision sustaining the opposition with respect to ULC
 Monastery’s online retail store services. Id. The parties,
 however, fail to establish any “equitable entitlement to the
 extraordinary remedy of vacatur.” U.S. Bancorp Mortg.
 Co. v. Bonner Mall P’ship, 513 U.S. 18, 26 (1994). Nor have
Case: 22-1744     Document: 52      Page: 3    Filed: 11/22/2023

 UNIVERSAL LIFE CHURCH MONASTERY STOREHOUSE v.                3
 AMERICAN MARRIAGE MINISTRIES

 the parties shown why the circumstances surrounding this
 appeal necessitate an automatic remand.
      After considering the parties’ joint motion and ULC
 Monastery’s appeal, we conclude the proper course is to
 deny the parties’ joint motion and vacate the Board’s deci-
 sion for reasons identified in ULC Monastery’s appeal: the
 Board’s failure to explain why AMM’s silence on online re-
 tail store services did not constitute waiver. 1 Because the
 Board did not furnish a reasoned explanation for departing
 from its established practice of deeming unargued claims
 waived, we vacate the Board’s decision and remand for fur-
 ther proceedings consistent with this opinion.
                       BACKGROUND
         I.   ULC Monastery’s Mark GET ORDAINED
     ULC Monastery uses the mark GET ORDAINED on
 websites that provide ecclesiastical services for ordaining
 individuals as ministers and websites that provide online
 retail store services for selling clothing, anointing oils, and
 other ministerial products. ULC Monastery’s multi-class
 trademark application sought registration of the mark
 GET ORDAINED in two classes of services: (1) online

     1    The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Manual of
 Procedures (T.B.M.P.) provides that “[i]f a party fails to ref-
 erence a pleaded claim or affirmative defense in its brief,
 the Board will deem the claim or affirmative defense to
 have been waived.” T.B.M.P. § 801.01 (emphasis added).
 In this opinion, we adhere to the T.B.M.P.’s use of the
 terms “waive” and “waiver” but note that the terms “forfeit”
 and “forfeiture” may more accurately capture the scenarios
 the T.B.M.P. aims to cover. See In re Google Tech. Holdings
 LLC, 980 F.3d 858, 862 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“Whereas forfei-
 ture is the failure to make the timely assertion of a right,
 waiver is the intentional relinquishment or abandonment
 of a known right.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Case: 22-1744     Document: 52     Page: 4    Filed: 11/22/2023

 4         UNIVERSAL LIFE CHURCH MONASTERY STOREHOUSE v.
                             AMERICAN MARRIAGE MINISTRIES

 retail store services in International Class 35 and (2) eccle-
 siastical services in International Class 45. 2 Opposition
 Decision, 2022 WL 500926, at *1.
           II. Party Arguments Before the Board
     AMM filed a Notice of Opposition, asserting claims that
 the mark GET ORDAINED was generic, was merely de-
 scriptive, and failed to function as a mark for both sets of

     2    International Class 35 relates to services for
 “[a]dvertising; business management, organization and ad-
 ministration; office functions.” 37 C.F.R. § 6.1 (2023). In-
 ternational Class 45 relates to “[l]egal services; security
 services for the physical protection of tangible property and
 individuals; dating services, online social networking ser-
 vices; funerary services; babysitting.” Id.
     The complete listings of the services covered in ULC
 Monastery’s trademark application are:
     On-line retail store services featuring clothing in
     the nature of shirts, hats, and stoles, stationery,
     business cards, bumper stickers, license plate hold-
     ers, badges, pens, pins, musical sound recordings,
     bookmarks, bread, aromatic oil, portfolios, and
     publications in the nature of books, hand-outs,
     workbooks, manuals, brochures, and newsletters in
     the fields of religion, spirituality, marriage, law,
     and management in International Class 35; and
     Conducting religious ceremonies; ecclesiastical ser-
     vices, namely, ordaining ministers to perform reli-
     gious ceremonies; providing a website featuring
     information about religious belief systems in Inter-
     national Class 45.
 Am. Marriage Ministries v. Universal Life Church Monas-
 tery Storehouse, No. 91237315, 2022 WL 500926, at *1
 (T.T.A.B. Feb. 17, 2022) (Opposition Decision).
Case: 22-1744    Document: 52      Page: 5    Filed: 11/22/2023

 UNIVERSAL LIFE CHURCH MONASTERY STOREHOUSE v.              5
 AMERICAN MARRIAGE MINISTRIES

 applied-for services. Id. ULC Monastery’s answer denied
 these assertions. Id. AMM and ULC Monastery then fully
 briefed the case. Opposition No. 91/237,315, 88 TTABVUE
 (AMM’s Main Br.); Opposition No. 91/237,315, 95
 TTABVUE (ULC Monastery’s Main Br.); Opposition
 No. 91/237,315, 97 TTABVUE (AMM’s Rebuttal Br.).
     In its main brief, AMM raised genericness, mere de-
 scriptiveness, and failure-to-function arguments that did
 not explicitly refer to ULC Monastery’s online retail store
 services. For its mere descriptiveness claims, AMM posited
 that the phrase “get ordained” “immediately conveys the
 availability of the service of ordination” and that “competi-
 tors routinely and extensively use ‘get ordained’ in conjunc-
 tion with their own ordination services.” AMM’s Main Br.,
 88 TTABVUE 34–35. Turning to failure-to-function, AMM
 asserted that ULC Monastery’s use of GET ORDAINED
 cannot be separated from other source-identifying ele-
 ments in ULC Monastery’s logo. Id. at 40–41.
     In response, ULC Monastery explained that AMM’s
 brief failed to raise any argument against the mark in con-
 nection with ULC Monastery’s online retail store services.
 ULC Monastery’s Main Br., 95 TTABVUE 13, 21 (“AMM
 makes no claim that the GET ORDAINED mark is merely
 descriptive of ULC Monastery’s online store services in
 Class 35, and has therefore not met its burden with regard
 to Class 35.”).
     AMM’s rebuttal brief did not address ULC Monastery’s
 argument that AMM had failed to carry its burden with
 respect to its Class 35-specific claims. Instead, AMM re-
 peated its earlier arguments tethered to ordination ser-
 vices. See AMM’s Rebuttal Br., 97 TTABVUE 7–13 (“‘GET
 ORDAINED,’ even if arbitrary in some contexts, is not ar-
 bitrary in the context of ‘ordaining ministers.’”). AMM
 then relied on its previous failure-to-function arguments
 that GET ORDAINED cannot be a standalone indicator
 and presented a failure-to-function theory that GET
Case: 22-1744      Document: 52     Page: 6    Filed: 11/22/2023

 6         UNIVERSAL LIFE CHURCH MONASTERY STOREHOUSE v.
                             AMERICAN MARRIAGE MINISTRIES

 ORDAINED merely “convey[s] an informational message
 about services that allow a person to ‘get ordained.’” Id. at
 14–16.
                III. Board’s Opposition Decision
     The Board sustained AMM’s opposition to registration
 of ULC Monastery’s mark with respect to both ULC Mon-
 astery’s online retail store services in Class 35 and ecclesi-
 astical services in Class 45. Opposition Decision, 2022 WL
 500926, at *1. The Board found GET ORDAINED unreg-
 istrable for being merely descriptive and for failing to func-
 tion as a mark. Id. The Board did not reach AMM’s
 genericness claims. Id.
      As to mere descriptiveness, the Board found that the
 mark GET ORDAINED is highly descriptive of both ULC
 Monastery’s ecclesiastical services and online retail store
 services and therefore ULC Monastery had a “commensu-
 rately high” burden for showing acquired distinctiveness.
 Id. at *13 (internal quotation marks omitted). Finding that
 ULC Monastery failed to meet this burden for showing ac-
 quired distinctiveness, the Board sustained AMM’s claims
 that ULC Monastery’s mark is merely descriptive. Id. at
 *16.
     As to failure-to-function, the Board found that GET
 ORDAINED failed to function as a mark for ULC Monas-
 tery’s online retail store services and ecclesiastical services
 because, “consumers will perceive the words ‘get ordained’
 as conveying their ordinary meaning”—namely, “to obtain
 ministerial or priestly authority, to become invested with
 ministerial or priestly authority, or more simply, to become
 a minister.” Id. at *8, 10.
     In this appeal, ULC Monastery does not contest the
 Board’s findings with respect to its Class 45 services. Ra-
 ther, ULC Monastery’s appeal is limited to challenging the
 Board’s determination that ULC Monastery’s mark is
 merely descriptive and fails to function as a mark for its
Case: 22-1744    Document: 52      Page: 7   Filed: 11/22/2023

 UNIVERSAL LIFE CHURCH MONASTERY STOREHOUSE v.             7
 AMERICAN MARRIAGE MINISTRIES

 Class 35 services. Appellant’s Br. 2–3. We have jurisdic-
 tion over ULC Monastery’s appeal under 15 U.S.C.
 § 1071(a)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(B).
                 STANDARD OF REVIEW
      ULC Monastery argues that under the Board’s proce-
 dures, the Board should have deemed waived AMM’s
 claims that GET ORDAINED is merely descriptive of or
 fails to function as a mark for ULC Monastery’s online re-
 tail store services. Appellant’s Br. 14–18. We review the
 Board’s failure to consider waiver under the Administra-
 tive Procedure Act (APA). The APA requires us to set aside
 Board actions that are “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of
 discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law.” 5
 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A); see Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150,
 152 (1999); On-Line Careline, Inc. v. Am. Online, Inc., 229
 F.3d 1080, 1084–85 (Fed. Cir. 2000). When the Board “de-
 parts from [its] established precedent without a reasoned
 explanation, its decision will be vacated as arbitrary and
 capricious.” Fred Beverages, Inc. v. Fred’s Cap. Mgmt. Co.,
 605 F.3d 963, 967 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The “reasoned explana-
 tion” requirement “ordinarily demand[s] that [the Board]
 display awareness that it is changing position.” F.C.C. v.
 Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 515 (2009). The
 Board may not depart from its prior procedures “sub silen-
 tio.” Id.; see also Dillmon v. Nat’l Transp. Safety Bd., 588
 F.3d 1085, 1089 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (“This permits us to en-
 sure the agency’s prior policies and standards are being de-
 liberately changed, not casually ignored.” (internal
 quotation marks omitted)). We “look[] only to the reasons
 given by the [Board].” Fred Beverages, 605 F.3d at 967.
                       DISCUSSION
                              I.
     We start with the Board’s practices regarding waiver.
 Our review confirms—and the parties do not dispute—that
 the Board has an established waiver practice for inter
Case: 22-1744      Document: 52      Page: 8     Filed: 11/22/2023

 8          UNIVERSAL LIFE CHURCH MONASTERY STOREHOUSE v.
                              AMERICAN MARRIAGE MINISTRIES

 partes proceedings. The T.B.M.P., which describes “cur-
 rent practice and procedure” for Board proceedings, pro-
 vides that “[i]f a party fails to reference a pleaded claim or
 affirmative defense in its brief, the Board will deem the
 claim or affirmative defense to have been waived.”
 T.B.M.P. intro., § 801.01. This waiver practice has further
 developed through several of the Board’s binding, prece-
 dential decisions. 3
     The Board’s precedential decision in General Mills, Inc.
 v. Fage Dairy Processing Industry S.A. is instructive. 100
 USPQ2d 1584 (T.T.A.B. 2011) (precedential). There, the
 Board deemed opposition claims directed to one class in a
 multi-class application as waived when there was an “ab-
 sence of arguments in opposers’ brief as to anything other
 than [goods in the non-waived class].” Id. at 1588 n.1. In
 finding waiver, the Board indicated that in an opposition
 proceeding for a multi-class application, “[e]ach interna-
 tional class stands on its own, for all practical purposes like
 a separate application, and [the Board] must make deter-
 minations for each separate class.” Id.; accord Federated
 Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co., 544 F.2d 1098, 1102
 (CCPA 1976). The Board thus has an established practice

     3   See, e.g., Coca-Cola Co. v. Meenaxi Enterprise., Inc.,
 2021 WL 2681898, at *2–3 (T.T.A.B. 2021) (precedential)
 (determining that pleaded claims other than misrepresen-
 tation of source were waived because they were not pur-
 sued in the trial brief); Alcatraz Media, Inc. v. Chesapeake
 Marine Tours, Inc., 107 USPQ2d 1750, 1753 (T.T.A.B.
 2013) (precedential) (determining that petitioner’s pleaded
 descriptiveness and geographical descriptiveness claims
 not argued in brief were waived); T.B.M.P § 801.01 n.6 (col-
 lecting precedential T.T.A.B. decisions on waiver); see also
 T.B.M.P. § 101.03 (“Proceedings before the Board are also
 governed, to a large extent, by precedential decisions in
 prior cases . . . includ[ing] those of the Board itself . . . .”).
Case: 22-1744    Document: 52      Page: 9    Filed: 11/22/2023

 UNIVERSAL LIFE CHURCH MONASTERY STOREHOUSE v.              9
 AMERICAN MARRIAGE MINISTRIES

 of considering certain unargued claims to be waived and
 has applied this practice to consider claims directed to one
 class in a multi-class application to be waived.
     ULC Monastery’s application covered both online retail
 store services in Class 35 and ecclesiastical services in
 Class 45. Neither the mere descriptiveness nor failure-to-
 function arguments in AMM’s trial briefs referred to ULC
 Monastery’s online retail store services in Class 35. AMM’s
 Main Br., 88 TTABVUE 33–34; AMM’s Rebuttal Br., 97
 TTABVUE 14–16. And despite ULC Monastery’s clear ad-
 monitions that AMM’s opening trial brief failed to address
 ULC Monastery’s Class 35 services, AMM in rebuttal did
 not once mention these services in its mere descriptiveness
 discussion. See ULC Monastery’s Main Br., 95 TTABVUE
 21; AMM’s Rebuttal Br., 97 TTABVUE 10–13. Further-
 more, AMM’s main brief and rebuttal brief were dotted
 with other indicia of AMM’s intent not to address its
 Class 35-specific claims. 4 We thus agree with ULC Monas-
 tery’s reading of AMM’s trial briefing as having failed to
 argue or refer to AMM’s Class 35-specific claims.
    Finally, we turn to the Board’s action on appeal: the
 Board’s decision to consider whether ULC Monastery’s

     4    See AMM’s Main Br., 88 TTABVUE 29 (“[S]o long
 as AMM proves by a preponderance of the evidence that
 GET ORDAINED is generic, is merely descriptive, or fails
 to function as a trademark for at least one of the services
 in Class 45—e.g., the claimed service of ‘ordaining minis-
 ters to perform religious ceremonies’—registration must be
 refused for Class 45 in its entirety.”); AMM’s Main Br., 88
 TTABVUE 1, 43 (only referring to Class 45 ordination ser-
 vices); AMM’s Main Br., 88 TTABVUE 30–33 (presenting
 genericness arguments centered on the ordinary meaning
 of the phrase “get ordained” in the context of Class 45 ordi-
 nation services); AMM’s Rebuttal Br., 97 TTABVUE 7–10
 (same).
Case: 22-1744    Document: 52       Page: 10   Filed: 11/22/2023

 10        UNIVERSAL LIFE CHURCH MONASTERY STOREHOUSE v.
                             AMERICAN MARRIAGE MINISTRIES

 mark in connection with Class 35 services failed to function
 as a mark and was merely descriptive. We cannot reconcile
 the Board’s established waiver practice with that decision.
 Despite the Board’s practice of deeming unargued claims
 waived and despite the failure of AMM’s briefs to refer to
 its Class 35-specific claims, the Board adjudicated these
 claims without explaining why it did not consider them
 waived.
      In sum, we determine that (1) the Board has an estab-
 lished practice of considering unargued claims to be
 waived, (2) AMM did not refer to or argue any Class 35-
 specific claims in its trial briefs, and (3) the Board consid-
 ered the Class 35-specific services but did not explain why
 it did not consider these claims to be waived in view of its
 established waiver practice. We accordingly hold that the
 Board acted arbitrarily and capriciously by departing from
 its established practice without providing a reasoned ex-
 planation for the departure. 5 For that reason, we vacate
 the Board’s decision as to ULC Monastery’s Class 35-spe-
 cific services.
                              II.
      On remand, the Board should explain its decision re-
 garding waiver of AMM’s Class 35 claims and, in particu-
 lar, square its decision with the practices and procedures
 articulated in the T.B.M.P. and in its prior precedential de-
 cisions. 6 For example, the T.B.M.P. explicitly states, “If a

      5  Because AMM withdrew its appellate briefing,
 ECF No. 51, at 1, this opinion does not address the merits
 of AMM’s arguments in that briefing.
     6   The parties represented that, on remand, they in-
 tend to file a joint motion to vacate the opposition as to
 ULC Monastery’s application with respect to online retail
 store services. ECF No. 51, at 2. We understand our
Case: 22-1744    Document: 52      Page: 11     Filed: 11/22/2023

 UNIVERSAL LIFE CHURCH MONASTERY STOREHOUSE v.               11
 AMERICAN MARRIAGE MINISTRIES

 party fails to reference a pleaded claim or affirmative de-
 fense in its brief, the Board will deem the claim or affirm-
 ative defense to have been waived.” T.B.M.P. § 801.01.
 And the Board in numerous inter partes proceedings has
 mentioned a party’s failure to identify, pursue, argue, or
 discuss a claim as a sufficient basis for finding that this
 party waived the claim. 7 In this opinion, we are not decid-
 ing if the Board may have a basis for deeming AMM’s

 decision to vacate the Board’s decision as it relates to online
 retail store services moots the need for such a motion. We
 express no views as to the merits of any other motions that
 the parties intend to file with the Board to facilitate termi-
 nation of this opposition.
      7   See, e.g., Illyrian Imp., Inc. v. ADOL Sh.p.k., 2022
 USPQ2d 292, *3 n.3 (T.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2022) (precedential)
 (“Inasmuch as Opposer, in its brief, identifies only likeli-
 hood of confusion and fraud as the issues before us, we
 deem the other purported claims waived.”); Coca-Cola Co.,
 2021 WL 2681898, at *1 (“The other pleaded claims that
 Petitioner did not address in its briefing are waived.”);
 WeaponX Performance Prods. v. Weapon X Motorsports,
 Inc., 126 USPQ2d 1034, 1036 (T.T.A.B. 2018) (preceden-
 tial) (“Opposer did not pursue this claim at trial or argue it
 in its trial brief, and it is accordingly waived.”); Alcatraz
 Media, 107 USPQ2d at 1753 (“Insofar as petitioner has not
 argued the descriptive or geographically descriptive claims
 in its brief, we find, in accordance with the Board’s usual
 practice, that those claims have been waived.”); Corpo-
 racion Habanos, S.A. v. Guantanamera Cigars Co., 86
 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (T.T.A.B. 2008) (precedential) (“Be-
 cause opposer has not discussed its Section 2(e)(1) claim in
 its brief, we consider opposer to have waived any such
 claim.”); Knight Textile, 75 USPQ2d at 1314 n.4 (“[O]pposer
 has not presented any argument in its briefs in support of
 this pleaded ground, and therefore is deemed to have
 waived it.”).
Case: 22-1744     Document: 52     Page: 12    Filed: 11/22/2023

 12          UNIVERSAL LIFE CHURCH MONASTERY STOREHOUSE v.
                               AMERICAN MARRIAGE MINISTRIES

 opposition to ULC Monastery’s Class 35 application not to
 be waived, or for excusing any waiver. Nor are we deciding
 the merits of whether ULC Monastery’s application should
 be granted with respect to Class 35.
      If the Board on remand reconsiders ULC Monastery’s
 Class 35-specific services, the Board should ensure that its
 analysis has a basis in the record. The Board’s decision
 laid out a summary of the relied-on evidence of record. Op-
 position Decision, 2022 WL 500926, at *4–7. While this ev-
 idence relates to ULC Monastery’s ecclesiastical services,
 the Board did not explain its pertinence to ULC Monas-
 tery’s online retail store services. Moreover, the Board’s
 findings specific to online retail store services lack any ci-
 tations to the record. Id. at *7, 11, 13. On remand, for its
 mere descriptiveness and failure-to-function analyses with
 respect to ULC Monastery’s online retail store services, the
 Board should “assure that the requisite findings are made,
 based on evidence of record” and “explain the reasoning by
 which the findings are deemed to support” the Board’s de-
 cision. Outdry Techs. Corp. v. Geox S.p.A., 859 F.3d 1364,
 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
                       CONCLUSION
      For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the Board’s deci-
 sion with respect to ULC Monastery’s Class 35 services and
 remand for further proceedings consistent with this opin-
 ion.
                VACATED AND REMANDED
                            COSTS
 No costs.